Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for February 05, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglass. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: From bad to worse to safe. Today, a Canadian woman and her friend were released after a terrible ordeal: they went to Lebanon to get her children from her ex-husband, and wound up being detained by an al Qaeda group.

JD: Stealing the shows. A coalition of media companies want to stop Canadians from illegally downloading movies and programs. Tonight, one CEO tells us what kind of anti-theft devices he's calling for.

CO: Bust out or bust. A disabled Nova Scotia woman has been locked in a psychiatric facility for nearly 18 years, despite doctors objections. And now, she's fighting for the right to live in her own home.

JD: Tusk force. Geographer Esmond Bradley Martin took on the dangerous work of investigating the global ivory trade. Now, he has been found killed in his Nairobi home.

CO: Mason jar-ed. Reno politics makes strange bedfellows, but there are new reports that in British parliament, some even stranger fellows are operating in secret under the bed Freemasons.

JD: And… waste of effort. After a lot of work, the Museum of London will be feted for an exhibit that will be feted. A piece of Whitechapel Fatberg, the mountain of grease and unmentionable gross stuff that blocked up the pipes.

JD: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that presents a sight for sewer eyes.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Released Canadians, psychiatric institutions, Freemason mystery

Released Canadians

Guest: Jeff Bultje

JD: Jolly Bimbachi hadn't seen her sons in two years. In 2015, her then-husband took both her boys to Lebanon, ostensibly for a family visit. He never returned. And so in November, Ms. Bimbachi flew to Lebanon to fight for custody of her children. This morning, it was revealed that she had been detained by the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, along with another Canadian, Sean Moore. Both were released today. Ms. Bimbachi spoke to media in Idlib, Syria, after their release.

SOUNDCLIP

JOLLY BIMBACHI: I tried a lot of ways to bring my kids back through lawyers, through the media, through legal matters, and I was not successful. And it was taking too much time. My boys were four and six when they were taken by their father, and now they’re seven and eight. I wanted to push for co-parenting, but their dad doesn't want to talk to me or didn't want to work anything out. So I planned to take my kids out of Lebanon illegally because I thought my options were very, very slim to get custody of them or to bring them back home legally. So we planned with smugglers, and other people have helped us with translating and to organize everything so I can take my kids out of Lebanon and bring them back home to Canada. Unfortunately, my kids are not with me; they had to go back.

JD: Ms. Bimbachi and Mr. Moore are both from Chatham, Ontario; they were travelling together. Jeff Bultje is a friend of Sean Moore. He has travelled with him in the past. We reached Mr. Bultje in Chatham.

CO: Jeff, what was it like to hear today that your friend is now free?

JEFF BULTJE: I was good news, but the most astonishing thing was that I heard this morning that he was kidnapped, so that was really surprising.

CO: You hadn't even known he was he was gone — he had been taken by this branch of al Qaeda in Syria?

JB: Yeah, I was really shocked to hear that because I talked to him last before Christmas, saying everything was going well, and I should be able to see him sometime in January.

CO: Can you tell us about that conversation you had with Sean Moore in December?

JB: Yeah, he phoned me up to wish me a happy Christmas. And he said he was doing work in Lebanon trying to free these two boys with this mother in Chatham who had troubles with her marriage. And her estranged husband took the kids to Lebanon, and she wanted joint custody. So he was helping out her. And he says everything was going good. It was a lot of planning a lot of work on his part. Pretty well a whole year he said. And then it all came to fruition and looks like he was going to have success. And I was hoping to see him at early January, and it didn't happen.

CO: It seems as though your news is about the same as what we've heard from the mother, Jolly Bimbachi, who had gone in November to try and recover her children. Her husband had taken them a few years earlier to Lebanon for a visit and never returned with them, and she was trying to recover them. So how did your friend, Sean Moore, get involved with that?

JB: Well Sean read the article in Chatham paper through all the media attention that she received because her kids were taken away. And I know Sean is a really stand-up guy; he really wants to help people. And it was kind of in his realm of doing something. He probably thought he could do it because he helped free two girls from Daesch when he was in Iraq. Sean’s a really good guy that he always wants to help people; he's a really generous person.

CO: And when you say Daesch, this is the Arabic name for ISIS.

JB: Yes. Daesch, ISIS — same thing.

CO: And so did he tell you that it might get a bit dicey? That he might end up having to do, well, what we've learned from Jolly Bimbachi herself, the mother, is that they attempted to smuggle the children out of Lebanon, and they ended up in Syria. Did he tell you that was a possibility?

JB: No, he didn't want to give me too many details or say anything because it was all very secretive. And he said he was going to tell me the whole story when he got back, but he didn't want to tell me anything just in case. And I know Sean if there's danger or risk granting that doesn't deter him. Like he’ll go anywhere, any place for anybody.

CO: Do we have any idea how long they were held by al-Qaida while in Syria?

JB: Well, I know I got a phone call from him in December — middle of December — and everything was fine then. So I don't know how long they were held?

CO: Right. So and this is now into February. And you haven't heard anything since then. Did you know anyone else who heard anything from your friend, Sean Moore?

JB: No, no. He's pretty well a lone wolf. He just kind of comes out of the woodwork. Because last time we were in Iraq, he was held too in a village. And all of a sudden, he was home. It just kind of happened by surprise.

CO: So he's the sort of person who stays pretty calm in these situations? Do you know how he would have responded?

JB: Oh yeah, he would stay calm. He wouldn't get fired up. He wouldn't get himself into worse trouble.

CO: Of course, the large part of this story is the revelation that they have been rescued out of Syria — they're freed — that she's not with her boys — that the children are not with them. Do you know anything about that?

JB: I understand they're back in Lebanon.

CO: Now, you yourself have worked with Sean Moore in the past doing this kind of work. Why does he do it? What’s his purpose?

JB: I think he does this to help people. Like when he was in Iraq the other time too, he paid his own airfare, he pays for all his own bills, he raises some money, and he just wants to help people that are marginalized or are traumatized by war and political problems. And he wants to help.

CO: Were you with him when he was trying to get people out of Iraq?

JB: No, he was trying to get to discover some discrepancy with funding from NGOs where money went missing. And one organization they liberated 70 girls from Daesch, and he could only find two. And there was all kinds of funny things that he was looking into.

CO: Well, he sounds like an extraordinary guy?

JB: He is! He is! I was really surprised that the people that surrounded him that helped him in all different to different organizations that were very supportive of him.

CO: Have you heard any news in Chatham? People who know Jolly Bimbachi or Sean Moore? What they know, what they're saying, what the expectations they have?

JB: Well no, this is all hitting everybody today, so nobody's really knowing anything. It just all quite shocking news because there was I know a group people thought that those boys were coming home with their mother. And they were all pretty surprised that the kids aren't coming home.

CO: Jeff, we're all going to try and get some answers to this, as you are. And I really appreciate you telling us what you can tonight. Thank you.

JB: Oh hey, thanks for calling, Carol.

CO: Bye.

JB: Bye bye.

JD: Jeff Bultje is a friend of Sean Moore. We reached Mr. Bultje in Chatham, Ontario.

[Music: Piano solo]

Psychiatric institutions

Guest: Vince Calderhead

JD: Beth MacLean wants what most of us want: she wants a home, and a job, and she wants to be part of a community. But she can't do any of that because, for years, she's been living in a locked psychiatric facility. Ms. MacLean has an intellectual disability. And in 2000, she was admitted to Emerald Hall in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. And she's remained in a locked unit ever since, even though she and others feel she doesn't need to be there. Today, she is part of a human rights complaint in the province aimed at changing that. Vince Calderhead is the lawyer representing Beth MacLean. We reached him in Halifax.

CO: Mr. Calderhead, first of all, just describe for us what life is like for Beth MacLean in Emerald Hall?

VINCE CALDERHEAAD: Yeah well, Beth has lived for many years in Emerald Hall, and more recently in another nearby institution. And it is the antithesis of what you expect a normal life would be. So things like choice and the freedom to do what you want to do, when you're going to wake up, when you're going to bed, what meal you're going to have, whether you're even going to have a meal. All of that gets undermined when you're living in an institution. Your needs — your priorities — are pretty much diminished.

CO: This is a psychiatric facility, so how do you how did Ms. McLean end up there?

VC: She has a disability that, at that point, had flared up. We're going back now to October 2000. And required treatment in the hospital for a temporary period, and then within a few months, had been found ready to be discharged. And she needed supportive housing in the community that's to say needed to live you know in an apartment, in a home with staff and support to help her get by in activities of daily living. And the government department that's responsible for that it fell to them to come up with a placement proposal for her. And 17 years later, we're still waiting.

CO: And so she was told what? That some kind of assisted-living facility would be available to her back in 2000? And yet, nearly 18 years later, it's still not there?

VC: It's still not there. In fact, when she entered the hospital, it had been from another institution. And the agreement with that older institution was that the psychiatric hospital would house her for a period of one year. And everyone kept reminding the government of that one year period. Not to mention, Beth MacLean, who would repeatedly say I was told I would be one year. And then the years kept ticking by and ticking by and ticking by.

CO: Now, what does the hospital itself say about the suitability of Beth living there?

VC: As you might imagine, the hospital kind of throws up its arms, saying this person is ready for a medical discharge, and has been for years. And not only is it not suitable for her to be there, but it's not great for your health to be in a locked acute care psychiatric unit. And in that setting, the hospital would be very keen to — and was very keen — to say Department of Community Service, what's happening? We need you to come up with a suitable place for Beth.

CO: What harm is it doing to Beth MacLean to live there?

VC: Well, it's a kind of brutalization that happens. You lose your skills to interact socially and to operate in the community. You start losing hope. You start thinking that there's no point in trying to achieve any goals of progress. Institutionalization results in a kind of helplessness and demoralization, which is the harm on the one end. And on the other hand, you lose out on the benefits of being able to live a normal life in a community.

CO: But if nobody disputes that she is in the wrong place. If this is not suitable, she shouldn't be there, she's taking up a bed, everything about this is wrong. What's the problem? Is it just money?

VC: I think you've pretty well hit the nail on the head. What we're looking for is a supportive home in the community for Beth. And it's not as though there aren't empty homes in Nova Scotia; there's no shortage of those. What we need is for a government to recognize that equality for people with disabilities means having the choice and having the options to live in the community. And so that in a sense they need to open the check book.

CO: You have two people part of this complaint: Beth MacLean and Joseph Delaney. Are there others who are in the same situation? Who are living in locked facilities, even though they don't need to be there?

VC: Yeah, absolutely. Beth and Joey are on a decades-long waiting list, but they are not the only ones. In fact, the wait list currently is something like 1,500 people who are waiting to receive community-based placement. And that would be a combination of people who are currently institutionalized, as well as people living either with family or in some kind of temporary situation. But nonetheless, are qualified for supportive-housing. But simply haven't been offered it.

CO: And the Nova Scotia government says it's working on this. It agrees it has a problem. It's going to spend 4 million dollars in the next two years to create more spaces. Will that solve the problem?

VC: No, you won't be too surprised to hear me say that. That's a really very small drop in the bucket. There needs to be a dramatic transformation, as the province has described it itself. And that amount of money won't do it. What there needs to be is a commitment to closing institutions. And with the resulting savings, allocate those to community-based housing. We wouldn't for a moment put up with a government program that said people of colour, racialized people, people of certain ethnic status, will be institutionalized. So the day is long over when we permit that people with disabilities.

CO: We will leave it there, and we'll be following this case. Mr. Calderhead, thank you.

VC: Thanks very much, Carol.

JD: Vince Calderhead is the lawyer representing two people living in locked psychiatric facilities in Nova Scotia. We reached Mr. Calderhead in Halifax. And for more on this story, tune into “The Current” tomorrow morning on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Ambient]

Freemasons mystery

Guest: Dawn Foster

JD: When you hear the word "Freemason" what do you think? Maybe you think of secret handshakes, or clandestine gatherings? Maybe you think of the Shriners? Many people don’t know what to think. Well, the Guardian newspaper has reported that two Freemasons' lodges are secretly operating in Westminster, i.e. British parliament. And our guest doesn't think of much at all of that. Columnist Dawn Foster believes the group's legendary secrecy is cause for serious concern. We reached Dawn Foster in London.

CO: Dawn, how did you learn of the existence of these Freemasons’ lodges operating in your parliament?

DAWN FOSTER: So two of my colleagues had previously written about these in the ‘80s and ‘90s. So it was a really big issue back then in Britain, especially around the police force, and especially around certain councils. And they all seem to have died down for a little while, until one of my colleagues got a tip-off and decided to look into it. And found out that there were three lodges operating in Parliament. One with MPs, some staffers; and then there's a separate one that was just political journalists, so I realized that was going to be quite a few people that I probably saw quite regularly. And third one with various other people who had links to Westminster. So my two colleagues went out, did some research, managed to get some people off the record, and very rarely confidentially speak to them and reveal the existence of these secret societies that were operating within Parliament.

CO: Why are they there? What’s the purpose of having the Freemasons inside Parliament?

DF: So Freemasons operate in lots and lots of different parts of British society. And for them, a lot of it is about making networks and making strangers work for each other. So it's all about kind of passing on privilege, personal power, etc. So one former politician who used to be a police officer said that he was introduced to the Freemasons when he was 21-years-old, he was dealing with a particularly difficult officer, and happened to say a kind of coded phrase on the square, which Freemasons use to identify each other, and said that all of a sudden, this officer started helping him get promotions, and really went out of his way to help them in every aspect of his life. So a lot of it is about helping to deal with promotions. It's about kind of making that kind of covert, old boys’ network, and a kind of power network behind the scenes that other people don't know about.

CO: Don't a lot of people do that anyways? I mean things are going on in the background, the fact that they actually form into lodges, does it make a difference?

DF: I think the big difference is when it comes to Freemason's, it's entirely secret. Obviously, there’ve been lots and lots in British society to try and stop nepotism, to try and stop favoritism. So we've looked at gender pay audits, we’ve looked at legislation that can stop discrimination against race and gender and sexuality. And it's a lot easier to tell when somebody is hiring somebody purely because they've been to a university or purely because they know them, whereas with the Freemasons, because it's so secretive, you have no way of knowing exactly who is helping whom. So one thing I've heard a lot of is a lot of councils — a lot of municipal authorities in Britain — have a lot of Freemasons at the very senior end. A lot of people then can't get promotions because they aren’t in the Freemason's, no matter how hard they work. And all these organizations are extremely secretive. They're very, very exclusive. So for instance, I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm a woman, I can't join these. So I'm never going to be part of that. A lot of people have found a very similar situation. It's very, very common to be a Mason in Northern Ireland. And that means a lot Catholics are completely excluded from the benefits that these people have kind of codified very secretly. So for me, it's mainly the secretive nature of it. Britain has tried to stamp out kind of favours to other people. But when it's this secretive, it's much, much, much harder.

CO: They have been around for years. And used to be at one time probably far more influential they are today. As you say, we don't know the extent of it. But is there really evidence that this has affected promotion? That this is actually still functioning and operating these Masonic lodges as they did that say hundreds of years ago?

DF: I think that the membership has definitely fallen. So the Masonic lodges have tried to be a little bit more open because they’re aware of how bad the reputation can be.

CO: But at the same time, there are still huge issues. So the head of the police federation in Britain resigned at the beginning of the year, and said the one thing that he found utterly frustrating was every single move he made to make the police force more diverse, to try to stop corruption, to bring more women, in to bring more black and Asian people in, he was stopped to every turn by Freemasons. And the police force particular and politics in particular, still have a huge number of Freemasons in them. They still have a huge number of Freemasons operating within those organizations. And it’s really, really hampering progress. And we can't know the full extent of it, but we hear certain things from politics. And in the police force in particular, we have a huge problem. And a lot of people are speaking out about the fact that this is massively hindering promotion. But it’s also massively hindering the operating of the police force, which impacts on people throughout Britain.

CO: The Freemasons themselves say simply that they are a fraternal organization. And this is a quote, “helping good men become better.” So is there a good side to it? Is there any benefit that would be to society if there were Masonic lodges within U.K. Parliament?

DF: I don't have an issue with people fraternizing together. I don’t have an issue with people socializing together. The issue I have is purely with the secretive nature of it. I think if the Freemasons are correct that there is no real benefit to them other than the fact that they can socialise together and help each other become better people, then there's also no reason to be so secretive about their membership. I think the only reason that you would have to be secretive about a membership is if there is some actual benefit to people that other people are excluded from. And that's a big issue. And I think it's really, really strange in 2018, in very, very modern Britain, we still have these secretive groups of men who point-blank won't admit who they are, and what that membership is.

CO: We'll leave it there. Dawn, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DF: Thank you.

JD: Dawn Foster is a columnist with the Guardian newspaper. We reached her in London, England.

[Music: Folk]

Fatberg display

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER Ew, is not a nice smell. The way I would describe it is probably mixture of rotten eggs combined with a nasty-smelling public toilet was how I best describe it for anyone listening.

JD: That is the thing about humans, isn’t it? We smell not great. So if a museum tells the rich, frequently awful story of humanity, it's going to deal with artifacts that are… well, they smell rich and frequently smell awful. But a recent acquisition by the Museum of London is a whole other level of putrid. It is part of the so-called "Whitechapel fatberg" — a giant waste blob that was clogging up the London sewers. And, as you heard in that clip, one that reeks. When the fatberg bunged up the sewers last fall, curators immediately smelled an opportunity to add to its museum collection. But it posed problems. Besides the smell, there was the question of how, exactly, to get a physical sample of such disgusting material. In the end, the Museum of London got two big nuggets of the fatberg. And their smell wasn't the only problem. Experts had to figure out how to preserve this toxic, unstalbe stuff, stuff that is full of surprises. As curator Vyki Sparkes told the Guardian, quote, "One of the problems is you get all sorts of things that live inside it. One of our samples unexpectedly hatched loads of flies in store." Unquote. So, the museum opted to dry the chunks. And on Friday, one will become the star attraction in an exhibition called "Fatberg!" And even after all that careful treatment, it's still sure to be breathtaking.

Part two: FairPlay: Industry, vigil pastor, Esmond Bradley Martin obit

FairPlay: Industry

Guest: Shan Chandrasekar

JD: Since the days of Napster, Internet piracy has been a problem for media companies. And while the methods and companies change, people will always find ways to illegally download music, movies, and, well, any content online. Now, a coalition of Canadian media companies and creative organizations — including Bell, Rogers, and the CBC — is trying to put an end to piracy once and for all. The group is called FairPlay Canada, and its members want the CRTC to block websites that they say promote piracy. On this program, on Friday, we spoke to digital law professor Michael Geist about his objections to FairPlay's proposal. Now, we hear the other side. Shan Chandrasekar is the President and CEO of the Asian Television Network, one of the media companies behind FairPlay Canada. We reached Mr. Chandrasekar in Markham, Ontario.

CO: Mr. Chandrasekar, why have you and all these other major Canadian companies why have you joined this coalition?

SHAN CHANDRASEKAR: You know there was an incredible problem that was being developed. It started a few years ago. In the early stages, it was very small. It went unnoticed. It was like Mama-Papa operations that were just sort of operating the piracy platforms. But the problem since then has become extremely acute, and it's become like wildfire: it’s spreading. And exponentially, it’s having an impact. And so it's become such a serious matter that we all got together to see whether you know anything can be done with respect to implementing or making use of the existing copyright laws, or suggesting some you know concrete solutions to the CRTC to provide them with the right tools.

CO: So what is FairPlay? What's FairPlay Canada, which is what you're calling this? What is is doing? What’s it purposing?

SC: FairPlay is a coalition of a number of broadcasters — including you know leading broadcasters, cable companies, satellite companies, trade unions — basically proposing an independent piracy agency, which would be formed as a non-profit organisation that would report to the CRTC about blatant piracy sites. You know we're not talking about small little guys who are doing something and you know on and off here. But anything that's very blatantly done, those piracy sites who are gaining from illicit, illegal income or stolen property, and they would report them to the CRTC. The CRTC then evaluates that, does its own due diligence, so they make the decision. And there is still a recourse if somebody feels by mistake a site would not be a piracy site, they can still have a federal court appeal process. So it's a fairly democratic process under the existing circumstances is what we are recommending.

CO: Now we spoke with Michael Geist, as I'm sure you know, he a digital law professor, well-known, he comments on these issues. And he said on Friday, on our show, that he's very concerned about this. He disagrees that this is something CRTC should be involved in. I just want to play a little bit of what he had to say on Friday and get your response. Here's Michael Geist.

SOUNDCLIP

Michael Geist: What we've seen in the last number of years is massive growth in the willingness of people to pay, whether through music services like Spotify or video, of course, through services like Netflix. I think what we've learned is that, fundamentally, it's about business models that will solve these issues. Not the kinds of proposals here — website blocking — that simply think are anathema to kind of the many of the sorts of values that Canadians have when it comes to freedom of expression.

CO: OK, so what he's saying is why don't you solve this as a business issue since people are willing to pay? It took a bit of time, but lots of us are paying for things we didn't used to pay for. This is not something a legal issue or a rights issue. This is something you should solve within your business models.

SC: Yeah, I think you know, philosophically, what he says part of it could be right. And you know Michael Geist is certainly an authority in this field. The business case model has already been implemented. The commission has already brought down the Canadian basic price 43 dollars at one time to 25 dollars to create a mini basic. And going forward, there may be further revisions on that. And certainly, those would be the kind of business decisions. But I think you know oversimplifying this frankly you know may not be really appropriate. This is a real serious issue across this country, and that has to be looked at.

CO: He warns that what you're attempting to do is something that's a slippery slope. It's going to possibly be used in other models. He agrees that piracy is a problem. But he says you’re bringing in a big machine to deal with something that maybe you should be able to deal with other ways — that this is not a job for laws and the CRTC. That's his argument.

SC: I am sorry to say that it's a bit of an oversimplification of a much more serious problem with more greater consequences. You know the Mousseau report has categorically stated that Canada is within the top 15 per cent of countries globally according to the Mousseau piracy demand rank. And then secondly, you know comparing you know other services like music or Netflix or anything. You know Netflix is a video service. We are talking here about linear channels being pirated when Canadian companies have invested. So basically, in other words, you know Canadian talent, and Canadian content are alone not being pirated. The overseas content for which Canadian licensees are paying a substantial amount of licence fees are being eroded by unscrupulous pirates, who are probably operating from overseas in a very large scale coming into this country with pre-loaded set top boxes, and that are completely, illegally distributing in the marketplace. So you know our proposal in any way would not affect a company like Netflix, nor does it touch net neutrality.

CO: Is it possible though that instead of trying to stop the people who are the pirates themselves, the people putting the material online, because you know you get rid of one, another one pops up? Maybe the issue is with consumers who are finding that your cable package options are too expensive, and that encourages people to go toward piracy?

SC: You know technically I cannot argue with you and disagree with you on that because frankly there are many methods. There are many sides to this problem. All that will be looked after as well by the appropriate people who are involved in the business decision process. But the commission has got the overview. There is a Canadian broadcasting system that has been created. Canadian content, and Canadian talent are not cheap; it's very expensive for production. So mega-companies especially you know when they buy sports properties you know it's costing them billions of dollars. You know in a smaller company like ours, we spend millions of dollars buying cricket rights exclusively for Canada. But they buy you know National Hockey League or National Football League; you're talking in the billions. So when even that gets pirated because foreign content with Canadian content, and with Canadian creativity because the foreign content is used to subsidize the Canadian content model. So it's a combination. So it's a double-edged sword. So I think you know we cannot really oversimplify this problem.

CO: We will leave it there. And I appreciate speaking with you, Mr. Chandrasekar. Thank you.

SC: And it's a pleasure talking to you.

CO: Bye bye.

SC: All the best.

JD: Shan Chandrasekar is the President and CEO of the Asian Television Network. We reached him in Markham, Ontario.

[Music: Xylophone and violin]

Vigil pastor

JD: Five candles for the five victims of alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur: Selim Esen, Majeed Kayhan, Andrew Kinsman, Dean Lisowick and Soroush Mahmudi. The sixth candle for those who are still missing — a stark reminder that, in the words of Reverend Sandra Morris, quote, "there may be more victims before this nightmare ends." Reverend Jeff Rock is a senior pastor at the church. He spoke to "Metro Morning" host Matt Galloway about his message at the vigil last night.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF ROCK: And what I really needed to share with people that now isn't a time to be more sexually conservative, or to buy into a culture of shame and stigma. Now is the time to be more inclusive, to be more open. So you know for myself, as an openly gay man, it was really important for me to say some of the gay dating apps that were mentioned in some of the cases by police reports. Hey, I as a senior pastor have been on them. Some of the nightclubs where some of the victims went missing from hey, I've been there as well.

MATT GALLOWAY: Why was that important for you to say yeah, I've used those?

JR: You know I think there's some stigma and some shame around sexuality that's remaining in our world. We've done so much hard work over the last decades, especially in the LGBTQ community, to build inclusion, to be open and honest. But I think you know right now part of my job is I get to marry people, which is a real privilege. And the number one way that Canadians who are getting married, whether they're gay or straight, meet is through online dating. And then so to use stigma and shame, or to have this sometimes a little bit natural feeling of stigma shame I think is counterproductive. I think now more than ever, we need to be able to call up a friend and say hey, I’m going on a blind date. Maybe I'll see you later tonight, but I might not see it till morning, and be OK sharing that information, because my worry is that if we're not cautious, we could easily slip backwards and have it become more stigmatized and more shameful.

JD: That was Reverend Jeff Rock on the CBC Toronto’s "Metro Morning". Last night, the Metropolitan Community Church held a vigil for the victims of alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur.

[Music: Folk rock]

Esmond Bradley Martin obit

Guest: Dan Stiles

JD: One of the world's top ivory trade investigators was found dead — stabbed to death in his Nairobi home, yesterday. Kenyan police say that Esmond Bradley Martin's death appears to be the result of a burglary gone wrong. But Mr. Martin made his name documenting a very dangerous business. He was a geographer by training. And decades ago, he set out to understand how the international trade in elephant tusks and rhino horns really worked. Dan Stiles was a friend and a colleague of Esmond Bradley Martin. We reached Mr. Stiles in Diani Beach, Kenya.

CO: Mr. Stiles, I'm so sorry for your loss.

DAN STILES: Yes, thank you.

CO: How did you know Esmond Bradley Martin?

DS: I met him in about 1978, when I was lecturing archaeology at the University of Nairobi. But I became very intimately knowledgeable about it after 1999, when he asked me to join him in carrying out these investigations. So we worked together on several quite large reports on ivory trade in Africa, in South and Southeast Asia, and East Asia, Europe, and even North America.

CO: Can you tell us what those investigations yielded?

DS: They were ground-breaking actually. Because for the first time, the world saw quantitative data on the actual numbers of ivory pieces being sold. You know you could count the number of outlets that were selling ivory, the prices of the ivory, we found the people who were making the ivory. So we interviewed the workshops and carvers. So this is the first time that really detailed quantitative data was presented to the world. And this is when people discovered that this was really a big problem. There was a lot of ivory being sold. So it really started this whole movement of anti-ivory trade.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about your friend? About Esmond Bradley Martin, what was he like? What kind of a man was he?

DS: I respected Esmond tremendously. He was a very good person, a very kind person, and he only wanted to present the facts. You know he was very objective. We didn't get involved in all of these controversies that go on about the best way of stopping poaching, whether ivory trade should be legal or whether it should be illegal, he just presented the facts.

CO: The people who deal in the ivory trade can be ruthless, very dangerous; there’s is big money to be made. How dangerous was it for Mr. Bradley Martin and yourself to be out there trying to get this data?

DS: No, we knew it was quite risky, which is why we normally didn't tell anyone what we were doing. We didn't even tell the government. We went in completely undercover. We'd go in on tourist visas, and then carry out our investigations pretending to be potential buyers of the ivory. So we obtained cooperation that way from the sellers because you know they thought there was money to be made. So they would give us a fair amount of information. Not realising that you know we were investigators.

CO: Now, there’s pictures of Esmond Bradley Martin, he is a very tall, very striking man, with a big mop of hair on top of his head, and he must have been quite recognisable. Do you think that those dealing in the trade — those who were smuggling the ivory — knew him, knew what he looked like, and could identify him?

DS: No, they definitely in later years knew who he was. Yeah, there's no doubt about that. Because, as you say, he was a very unusual-looking person, but he actually cultivated contacts and he got to know some of the major dealers. And these people would still give him information you know hoping to get a favourable treatment I suppose. Because they knew Esmond never named names, you know? He never turned anyone in. He just presented the numbers.

CO: And why was he so dedicated to this dangerous work?

DS: Well, that's a good question. I think he just found it interesting. He definitely got pride out of producing data that no one else was producing, except the people like myself that collaborated with him. And so he was very proud of his work, and I think that was enough for him.

CO: I presume he also cared about saving these animals?

DS: No, of course, he did. You know he chose Kenya to live; he moved to Kenya in 1967 and lived here ever since. And he would enjoy going out into nature and seeing the wild animals. And his wife, Chrissy, worked very closely with the animal orphanage you know rescuing orphaned animals, looking after them. No, they care about animals a lot.

CO: It's a horrible story of what's happened to your friend. He's stabbed to death in his own home. And you just mentioned his wife, Chrissy Martin, who found his body. The police are saying that they believe it's a burglary gone wrong. What do you make of that?

DS: Well, it's always possible. I mean unless they catch the perpetrators and give them a grilling severe enough that they tell the truth, I don't think we'll ever know.

CO: What kind of friend was he to you?

DS: He was very good, he was very generous, and I'm really going to miss him. We spoke often on the phone for very long phone calls. I spent quite a bit of time in their home. And even housesat for them when they went on a long trip. So I know the home very well. It's haunting me right now thinking about you know where it happened, and his last moments. I absolutely dread thinking about it because he did not deserve that. You know he was a very decent person. And he wouldn't have put up any fight — I'm sure he wouldn’t have. He was not aggressive or physical at all. So whoever did this, they did it out of spite, or they did it out of passion, or they did it out of anger, I can't imagine why someone would do that to Esmond?

CO: Mr. Stiles, once again, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. I really appreciate you speaking with us tonight. Thank you.

DS: Yes, OK.

CO: Bye bye.

DS: Bye bye.

JD: Dan Stiles was a friend and a colleague of Esmond Bradley Martin. The elephant trade researcher was found murdered in his Nairobi home on Sunday. We reached Mr. Styles in Diani Beach, Kenya.

[Music: Ambient]

Berlin Wall anniversary

JD: For 28 years, 2 months and 27 days, the mass of concrete, brick and barbed-wire split the city in two. But on November 9th, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell. And that means that, as of today, it has now been down for as long as it stood. Here's how CBC's "World Report" sounded the morning after the wall began coming down. From our archives, this is host Rex Loring throwing to reporter Patrick Brown, who was in Berlin watching the wall come down.

SOUNDCLIP

REX LORING: Good morning. It's Friday, November the 10^th. In the morning’s news, mass jubilation in Berlin. A country comes in from the cold.

[Sound: A bunch of voices]

RL: The Berlin Wall is crumbling.

[Sound: Tear down that wall!]

RL: During the night, young East Germans started hacking away at the symbol of repressive communism and the Cold War. Only a few hours earlier, a spokesman for the East German Communist Party announced the travel restrictions on East German citizens were being lifted at midnight. They are now free to go to West Germany, and stay, or return. Many East Germans didn't have the patience to wait. They went to the wall that cuts right across Berlin. Patrick Brown went with them.

PATRICK BROWN: This is the Berlin Wall. Dozens of East Germans have lost their lives trying to climb over it since 1961. At three o'clock this morning, they were chipping away at it with hammers and chisels. Not long after the border was opened and thousands began pouring across the checkpoint, thousands more from East and West scaled this monument to the Cold War, which it seems is on its way to becoming a museum piece.

JD: From November 10th, 1989, that was CBC reporter Patrick Brown, speaking from the Berlin Wall the morning after it fell. And as of today, the Berlin Wall has been down for as long as it stood — 10,316 days. This weekend, Berlin's local newspaper ran the headline "10,316 Days, One City" on its front page. The German Foreign Office tweeted, quote, "Let's work together to preserve the things that unite rather than separate us!" Unquote. And that tweet reminded us of another tweet the German Foreign Office made in 2016 to mark the passing of David Bowie. They tweeted, quote, "Good-bye, David Bowie. You are now among Heroes. Thank you for helping to bring down the wall." Bowie recorded "Heroes" while he was living in Berlin in the late '70s. His studio looked out at the soldiers guarding the Berlin Wall. The title song tells the story of two lovers, one from East and one from West Berlin. And many people say Bowie's 1987 performance of "Heroes" at a concert in West Berlin helped bridge the divided city, and foreshadow the fall of the Wall.

Part three: Encore: Ottawa harassment

Encore Ottawa Harassment

Guest: Kathryn Young, Judy Morrison

JD: It took a while, but the #MeToo movement has arrived in Ottawa. The major parties have all been hit with allegations of inappropriate, bad, in some cases, criminal behaviour within their ranks; the party leaders have all stepped out into the spotlight, and promised to give those allegations the hearing their due. That isn't how complaints of sexual misconduct were dealt with in the 1980s. That's when our Carol Off arrived on Parliament Hill. She describes what that was like in an opinion piece in this weekend's Globe, which has provoked a lot of response. Carol's piece was based, in part, on an interview that we aired in 2014 — an interview with two women. One of whom you might remember from CBC Radio.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNOUNCER: From the Parliamentary Bureau of CBC Radio News, this is “The House”, the week in national politics.

JUDY MORRISON: Good morning. I'm Judy Morrison. The Mulroney government is facing a squeeze on two fronts.

JD: That was Judy Morrison hosting "The House" in the 1980s. In 2014, she and former CP journalist Kathryn Young decided to tell Carol their stories of sexual harassment and assault on the Parliament Hill, three decades ago. This is an encore presentation of that interview.

CO: Kathryn and Judy, first of all, welcome to As It Happens.

KATHRYN YOUNG: Thank you very much.

JM: Thank you.

CO: Before we get to the stories that I want to hear from both of you, just if you both can say what were you thinking when you heard stories of sexual misconduct in Ottawa and at the CBC, Judy?

JM: Well, I have to confess I wasn't surprised. This was a fact of life during my career on the Hill. And I don't think it's any surprise that it happens in the CBC — it happens everywhere for that matter. It's just been really too dramatic, almost too painful to take in in terms of what's happened here at the CBC. The difficulty is that so many people focus on the hot issue of sexual assault. And that's being dealt with the police. That's where it should be. That's the jurisdiction that's responsible for that. But the other issues of workplace harassment, personal harassment, that kind of abuse are not being looked at. An investigation has been set up, and I understand that the person responsible for doing that work will be looking at sexual issues, sexual harassment. That really offers nothing more than a keyhole view of what's actually happening in the workplace.

CO: Kathryn, for you, when you start hearing the stories that Justin Trudeau brought out about sexual misconduct on the Hill, how did you respond?

KY: Well, I wasn't surprised either. I mean you have to be burying your head in the sand to think it doesn't happen. It happens everywhere. And my mind immediately went right back to the incident — incidents — that happened in the mid-80s because my mind always travels back there when any of these issues arise. And even 30 years later, I still think about it.

CO: Kathryn, you started in Ottawa in the mid-1980s at Canadian Press. How old were you when you started?

KY: I was in my mid-20s; I guess I started there in 1983. So what was I 24?

CO: it was your first job?

KY: It was my first real job out of journalism school. I had done a summer job at the London Free Press, and then came back to Ottawa and got hired on at CP.

CO: What was it like for a woman — young woman — like you in Ottawa at that time?

KY: Well, I was I was young and naive and pretty idealistic. It was a fantastic place to work because you learn so much so fast. You were right in the middle of things, learning to turn stories around quickly. It was an exciting place to work. And starting on the Hill was like you were starting at the top. So it was a great job for a young reporter. But at the same time, sexual harassment was rampant. and it's sad to say, but you had to learn to deal with it.

CO: Judy, can you describe this is Brian Mulroney's Ottawa we're talking about here. This is the Mulroney-era. What was Ottawa like? You were a more seasoned journalist at that time when Kathryn was starting.

JM: Yeah, I have a few years on Kathryn. But I did start on the Hill around the same age she did. And sexual issues, sexual harassment, sexism was a very in your face business in those days. People thought nothing of carrying on. I mean I had Members of Parliament grab my tape recorder and insist on setting a date before they give me an interview. I had a Member of Parliament follow me into a ladies’ room and I cowered behind the stall door until he finally gave up and walked out. Ten years later, I was in my 30s; Kathryn was in her 20s. It was really like a big frat house, and I was stalked at one point by a press secretary. At that time, I really didn't know how to handle the situation. I did have a friend, and he said well, I think what I'll do is I'll call a friend who's a lawyer and have a lawyer’s letter written. And it was sent to this man's boss, and it nipped in the bud; it stopped.

CO: Because this is the most important is to know what happened because the story of what happened to both of you at the hands of the person was covered at the time, but very incompletely. And this is the story that I want to finally after all these years get out. This revolves around what was considered a crusty, colourful character: the press secretary to Brian Mulroney at the time, Michel Gratton. Kathryn, how important was Michel Gratton to you in your work?

KY: Well, he was he was very important. I was a junior reporter, and I worked nights, which meant I came in at 5pm and work till 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. And my job involved writing stories when news releases came late, or writing follow ups to stories that had happened during the day. And so I very often had to contact the PMO and get comments or information from the press secretary, Michel Gratton. So even though I was a junior reporter, it required that I had a positive working relationship with him so that he would return my calls so that I could do my work.

CO: And did you see him socially?

KY: Yeah, everybody hung out at the Press Club. That was part of the cultural milieu back then. You went over there afterwards, and so I saw him frequently there, and elsewhere around the Hill. I mean it's actually of a small world. You see each other all the time.

CO: How did you end up in a taxicab with him one night in Ottawa?

KY: Well, I'd been at the Press Club, he had been there, a lot of people had been there. I was outside waiting for a taxi to go home. He came out and asked if he could share a cab with me? And I thought sure, I was as I said young and naive. And I thought oh, this means he's really accepting me as a colleague, so I said yes. But it quickly became apparent that that wasn't his intent at all. He started kissing me in the cab. And tried to tell him to stop, but he kept on. And I wanted to explain that I wasn't interested, but I still knew I had to preserve this working relationship with him. And by that point, we'd arrived in front of my apartment building. And the cab driver is looking the mirror, waiting for his money. And without really thinking things through I just said I invited them to come up to my apartment for a drink so that I could explain things without an audience.

CO: And what did you explain to him when you got there?

KY: Well, we sat down and I was trying to tell him that I was engaged at the time; I had a ring on my finger. I was in love with my fiance. I was getting married, but he wasn't listening. And all of a sudden, he just leapt on top of me and pushed me back in the chair. He was on top of me, pinning me down, and kissing me. He ripped my shirt open, and had his hands down my shirt. And I was stunned. And I thought this is it; I'm going to be raped. That's all it flashed through my mind was that this is my time; I'm going to be raped. And I fought back. I was turning my head from side to side so he'd stop kissing me, trying to push him off me, and I was yelling no, no. And I really don't remember how long that part lasted, but he finally did stop and he stood up and kind of let me go. And I told him that he'd better leave, and he did.

CO: What did you do after he left?

KY: Well, I was extremely upset, as you can imagine. My fiance was in Waterloo at the time at university, and was in the middle of final exams, and it was also 3:00 a.m. So I called a friend of mine at CP, who had just been at the Press Club with us, and he was just a good friend; he came over and comforted me. and that was one thing that I did do right because that became important later on. And then the next day, my friend called Gratton and told him he owed me an apology. And I forget if it was that that day or the next day, Gratton called and mumbled a sort of half-hearted apology. And I said thanks, and that was that. We continued to see each other all the time and had to work together, and it was awkward. But he never tried anything again, so I thought OK, it's all in the past. Until the day that Judy's story became public.

CO: Judy, your interactions with Gratton and leading up to what happened to you got published in the papers?

JM: Strangely enough, Gratton and I had worked together on the gallery executive. He was the president; I was the vice president. I took over from him when he left to join Mulroney’s staff and became president. I knew him; he had worked with my husband in the Hull bureau when they were both younger journalists. And I was not you know taken aback by him; he was a crusty fellow. I think Val Sears, Toronto Star journalist, described him once as though to say that he looked like he had been raised by wolves. And that really is an understatement, he was a crusty character. But I had to deal with him just as just as Catherine did: making regular calls, trying to get an interview with Brian Mulroney. And on one occasion, I called him and he said well, Judy, you know how it works. As soon as I get my date, you'll get your interview. And I was stunned, I was shocked, even coming from someone I knew. I said Michel I mean I hope you don't talk like that to other women because this could get you into a lot of trouble. This is bad news. You should stop this right now. And he said well you know I'm you know I'm just making a joke, but seriously, seriously, if anything ever happened between you and Phil…

CO: Your husband?

JM: Yeah, my husband. You know I'm really interested. And I said close the door on this right now; it's over. You know we don't talk like this to each other. And the conversation ended. I immediately told my producer of the day, and you know we just sort of moved on. And the next time it came to the surface was when a group of journalists were at a going away luncheon, and they were all complaining about the lack of access to Brian Mulroney. And I laughingly said and you know how I might have got an interview was by accepting a date. And we all had a good laugh. And strangely enough, it ends up in the newspaper. But the reporter who wrote it, Derek Hodgson of the Toronto Sun, did come to me the day he decided he was going to publish the story. And he said I'm going to write that story that you told about. And I said I'd rather you didn't, I don't want my name used, I'm not complaining, I didn't file any complaint. And he said it's not about you anymore — someone else had a far worse experience. And he said you're tough, I'm going to write this story, I'm going to tell her story, and I'm going to name you. And that's the way it's going to be.

CO: Kathryn, when you read that story, how did you respond?

KY: What I remember is when it was raised in the House of Commons during Question Period. I was sitting in the press gallery right above the Speaker's chair in the front row, and it was raised in Question Period, and MPs from all sides of the house just broke out laughing. They laughed. They thought it was the funniest thing and there were men in the press gallery laughing too. And that's what made me realize that Gratton hadn't stopped. He just moved on to other victims. And I was furious.

CO: Just to clarify, this was Margaret Mitchell of the NDP had raised it in the House of Commons. What did she say? Do you recall how she raised it?

KY: Honestly, I don't recall the details. What I remember is the laughter because that's what just hit me in the face — that all of these men were laughing — that they thought it was so funny. And I turned to a reporter sitting right next to me laughing away, and I said this is the tip of an iceberg. And I walked out. And I went home and I told my husband about it all because I'd never told him. And I told my parents. And my mother actually shared with me an incident in her childhood, and said that was important to stand up to people like this. And that's what gave me the courage to go public with my story.

CO: Where did you take your story at that point?

KY: I went to Derek Hodgson, and I said you want more details? Come with me! And I told him the whole story at that point. A few days after that, Judy and I were both called into the PMO to talk with the Prime Minister's chief of staff about it.

CO: You're listening to As It Happens. And this is an encore presentation of a 2014 interview we had with Judy Morrison and Kathryn Young. The two former reporters had decided it was time to describe their experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault while working on Parliament Hill during the 1980s.

CO: So who initiated that meeting at the Prime Minister's Office? Judy, do you remember?

JM: Yeah, I do. The president of the press gallery during that time was a woman by the name of Leslie Shepherd, she asked for the meeting. And they sent with us I think he was the vice president. and he was supposed to be our protector or the witness.

CO: He was your advocate.

JM: He was going to you know hold this up through this ordeal.

CO: Judy, you describe that scene in the Prime Minister's Office?

JM: It was very intimidating. Bernard Roy, the principal secretary of the day, sat behind his desk off in a corner. Kathryn and I were on little chairs like witnesses. I do remember, and I'll never forget, Fred Doucet — Dr. Death as he was known — sitting at a little round table behind us, kind of you know going through his cigarettes. And questions coming at us from different quarters, maybe it's more vivid in Kathryn’s mind? I don't know, but I do recall at one point Bernard Roy saying and Judy, your husband works for the government, doesn't he? And I thought oh my God, this is going to hurt his job. It was very intimidating; I know I was shaken. And I know Kathryn was when we left.

CO: Kathryn, can you recall from your memory what happened at that meeting?

KY: Well, it was indeed very intimidating, starting from when we arrived at the front. There was this whole phalanx of reporters with the TV cameras going in. And it was the first time I had been on the other side of that. So it's very intimidating to be scrummed and to walk through all that. And then the scene in the office was also very intimidating. I remember focusing on Judy's face and taking some courage from that actually. I mean I just told my whole story of what had happened. And I remember Bernard Roy kept coming back to this fact that I had told my CP friend who had come over. And I think that it helped corroborate my story I think. And I think that it had a bit of an influence over their attitudes since it became more than just my word against Gratton’s — that someone else had been involved at the time.

CO: Was Michel Gratton in the room with you at that meeting?

KY: No.

JM: No, he tried to have a confrontation later in the days following. He wanted to come to the press gallery executive meeting to air it out and kind of clean up the mess and that sort of thing. And the executive decided no, they didn't want any part of it. And I don't know whether he hired the lawyer or whether the PMO hired the lawyer, but a very senior trial lawyer in Ottawa by the name of John Elgin showed up with him at the at the “hot room” as it's called, where people gathered and had desks on Parliament Hill in the Centre Block. And he wasn't heard by the executive either. But he did take a seat opposite my desk, and sat there, and stared at me almost all day.

CO: Good heavens!

KY: I was also working in the hot room at the time. CP had a little two rooms off the hot room, and someone came and warned me that Gratton and his lawyer were there. And I was not prepared to face them. I didn't want to face them. I felt like I was being bullied. And some friends kind of helped me out a back door, and I hustled down to our main CP office across the street. But I felt like I was you know running around in back staircases to avoid it. It was very intimidating.

CO: Kathryn, did CP offer you any legal assistance, any support of that nature?

KY: Yes, they said that they would pay the bill for their corporate lawyer to give me some advice. So I went and saw this man a couple of times. But then, later on, CP sent me a check for just half the amount — they were backtracking on their promise to pay the bill. So I sent the check back to head office, which didn't go over well. It was a career-limiting move. And after a while, they finally sent me a check for the full amount, but I don't think upper management thought very well of me after that.

CO: Back to Michel Gratton, what came of this? Judy, did you get any kind of apology from him?

JM: Yes, he did issue an apology. And the issue just sort of fizzled — it just went away. The only thing that lingered was the attitude of colleagues, and other journalists, and politicians for that matter towards me, and probably towards Kathryn. You have to accept or acknowledge the fact that in those days, and I doubt it's true today, I just can't believe that it's still true, but women on the Hill were seen as you know nothing more than hood ornaments. You know we were there for our show. We were there for you know like tokens almost, political handmaidens, journalistic handmaidens. Very few ever rose above that horrible existence. And the issue of racism was played out thoroughly.

CO: This is a very interesting aspect of it, isn’t it? Because you were accused of racism and having complained about Michel Gratton’s behavior, why was that?

JM: he was a Francophone and I was an Anglophone. And this was a standard defense when any criticism was leveled at a francophone.

CO: Just a couple of things from the old from the archives of the response. Here's Don MacGillivary, a columnist at the time, saying well that the Gratton apologized Monday for treating three women — don't forget there's another woman that was raised; we've never known her name — three women members of the parliamentary press gallery in a way they found objectionable. But the reaction was that the apology had been issued and MacGillivary says Michelle Gratton has doubtless suffered, perhaps horribly the incident, which is now closed by his apologies. The Globe and Mail reporter or columnist George Bain said that Michel Gratton had not done anything more reprehensible than to be his somewhat macho self.

KY: Exactly.

CO: Kathryn, was that typical of the kinds of reporting and the reaction you got in the parliamentary press gallery?

KY: Absolutely. We were portrayed in negative ways. I do want to say though that I had many colleagues within CP and within the press gallery who were incredibly supportive. It's not like everybody was like that. There were some many decent people, but then there were just as many, if not more, who just openly mocked us, who ridiculed us. It's the old boys’ network on the Hill, including my own bureau chief at the time. They just closed ranks and I was out. People you know sat around with at the Press Club didn't include you anymore. We were ostracized.

JM: You know I thought I'd got past it. But once you're branded like that, that brand doesn't wear off; it's a tattoo, it's a lifelong brand. And it affected me throughout my career I think.

CO: Tell me about that. How lasting were the effects of this and at the CBC career that you had?

JM: Well, I was. in a very, very comfortable job that I loved. I mean I was the host of “The House” — the weekly program. And I don't want to get into details because it's not something that I can really handle. But I was not supported in situations where I was bullied, I was harassed, I was tortured almost, and eventually, shunted off to a small office that amounted to solitary confinement. And I eventually left.

CO: When did you leave? What year?

JM: It was in ‘94.

CO: So this continued for another eight-nine years?

JM: Well, it wasn't constant, and it took different turns, and it emerged in different ways. But it surprised me in the early ‘90s when one of my colleagues complained that his career was being sidetracked by the advancement of women. It was a most unpleasant experience. And I look at what's happened today, and I say well geez, the roots of abuse, the roots of bullying are deep in this workplace. And it's almost passed down as a legacy.

CO: Kathryn, what were the lasting effects of your complaint?

KY: Well, I think I was branded as a troublemaker within CP. And that certainly continued on. My career advanced at CP within Ottawa. But every time I applied for a job elsewhere in Canada within C, I was always turned down. And the excuse was always you don't have any experience outside of Ottawa. Well, how was I supposed to get experience if I couldn't get a job elsewhere? It just didn't make sense, and these excuses didn't hold water. And I think that was the lingering effects of this whole Gratton incident that I was branded a troublemaker, head office didn't like me, and I wasn't going anywhere.

CO: And when did you finally leave CP?

KY: I left in ’93, but I continued to work in journalism untill five years ago.

CO: Kathryn, people will say well this is decades ago. You say it continued into the ‘90s as far as the reaction is. But is has there been a lasting legacy? Do you think that this attitude — this culture — has deep roots, as Judy said?

KY: Oh, it definitely has deep roots. It goes back so far, and you still see that attitude today. There's a little window of hope I think in that Justin Trudeau actually did something. Whether or not it was the right thing is open for debate. But it indicates at least some improvement in attitude. But you know Parliament in one sense is an employer, and every employer should have processes in place to deal with sexual harassment because these issues happen everywhere. Clearly, they knew that about this going on 30 years ago, and they did nothing. It's 30 years later, there's still no process in place to deal with any of them. And what happened with Judy and me wasn't strictly a parliamentary issue since we're not employed by parliament. But it's like you know if your neighbour's house burns down, do you sit there and think that'll never happen to me? Of course not, you go out and you buy smoke detectors, and a fire extinguisher, and you come up with an evacuation plan to keep your family safe. So it seems to me like Parliament is still contemplating the usefulness of smoke detectors. They're so far behind the times that they haven't even moved that far ahead. And that's just so sad.

CO: We have two women — NDP Members of Parliament — who have issued the complaint that's created this discussion. Neither of them will have their names named. They want to be anonymous. This is 2014, and they don't want anyone to know who they are. They feel that something will happen; some shame will be brought on them. The two of you the two of you came forward with names 30 years ago. Neither of you is working as a journalist anymore, neither of you is on the Hill. Do you regret that you came forward and gave your names, Judy?

JM: Well, in my quiet times, you know you wish you could have been more demure, more ladylike, more passive, go along, get along, and succeed. It's not in my nature. I learned in childhood due to other circumstances that you have to stand up for yourself and take the consequences. And I think Kathryns mother's advice was very wise in that respect. But standing up is painful; it really hurts.

CO: Kathryn, do you have regrets?

KY: Well Judy is right, it does hurt, and it has lasting consequences. But at the same time, it's not in my nature to not stand up for myself. And I talked with both my daughters last night about coming on the show today, and I said I still believe in my heart of hearts you got to stand up for what's right. And they both said they were proud of me. And that makes it all worthwhile for me.

CO: Kathryn and Judy, thank you both.

KY: Thank you.

JM: Thank you Carol for letting us know that it matters.

KY: Yeah, it's nice to know after all these years that it hasn't been forgotten.

CO: Thank you.

KY: Thanks.

JD: Former CP journalist Kathryn Young, and former CBC host Judy Morrison, speaking to Carol in 2014.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

February 5, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode