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 2019

The AIH Transcript for May 30, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: The ball is in their court. Toronto Raptors fans prepare for their team's first-ever NBA Finals -- including one man who made a fast break from Alberta for tonight's opening game.

JD: Sins of omission. According to our guest, the Trump administration's attack on climate science are censorship and that is not just disturbing, it is dangerous.

CO: Testing their campaign threshold. Israelis will head back to the polls again because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't form a coalition after his victory just last month.

JD: Mission implausible. Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May wants to ban foreign oil and promote the Canadian stuff -- but the leader of Quebec's Green Party says that is a betrayal to environmentalists.

CO: Redbone herrings. He preferred amusing stories to the truth like saying his father was Paganini -- but on stage and on the record the late Leon Redbone was honestly a true original.

JD: And taking liberties with the idea of liberty. The U.S. Department of Energy says it is not just exporting more liquefied natural gas, it is sending out molecules of U.S. freedom. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that thinks they are making a mountain out of a molecule.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: How debate over ultra-Orthodox Jews in the military triggered a 2nd election in Israel

Raptors Jurassic Park Fan

Guest: RJ Rubio

JD: Sounds from the spot known as "Jurassic Park" -- where Raptors fans gather in Toronto at game time. But today it is no ordinary game. Today it is no ordinary crowd. Fans began lining up early this morning in the public square to watch the Toronto team take on the Golden State Warriors in the Raptors first-ever NBA Finals tonight. Among the fans and early risers is RJ Rubio. He and his wife travelled from Red Deer, Alberta to be there. We reached Mr. Rubio in Jurassic Park earlier today.

CO: RJ what time did you get to Jurassic Park this morning?

RJ RUBIO: Well we made sure to get in by about 7:50 in the morning.

CO: And why did you have to get there that early?

RJ RUBIO: Well we are from out of town so I wanted to make sure there were spots. And I've been hearing stuff on the radio where people have been lining up since 6:00 in the morning so I was scared I wouldn't get in. So I came in extra early just in case.

CO: That's not too bad. But what's the scene now? You have got a lot of voices around you -- what's it like?

RJ RUBIO: [Chuckles] Well the energy here goes on ebbs and flows -- and right now they're kind of getting antsy and people are loud and high activity and cheering and it's really fun.

CO: But you've been there for about eight or nine hours at this point -- many more hours to go. How are you holding up?

RJ RUBIO: Well you know I work in construction so to me I had the mindset [chuckles] I set myself up to be like 'yeah I'm going to be in a lineup. I'm going to be standing. Sometimes sitting on the ground.' And I don't mind it at all -- like this is a once in a lifetime experience and I can't wait to experience it in this square.

CO: But can you leave the line and go and get something to eat or go to the bathroom?

RJ RUBIO: Yes. So they did allow that earlier. Now it's harder to get out. But people call in pizza [laughter] and people share it -- and it's very nice.

CO: People are ordering pizza to be delivered to the line?

RJ RUBIO: Yes.

CO: So are you making new friends down there?

RJ RUBIO: Oh yeah. Most of the guys near the front here have been going to Jurassic Park since round one. So it's kind of like a small little family and we're glad to be integrated with them right now.

CO: Are you there with a friend?

RJ RUBIO: I'm with my wife.

CO: And you've both come out from Red Deer?

RJ RUBIO: Yes that's right. Yeah.

CO: Now why was it so important for you to fly from Red Deer to Toronto to stand outside during this game?

RJ RUBIO: Well I don't know if you've watched some of the games but when it cuts to the crowd or just when something exciting happens in the game it's just...it was a crazy atmosphere. A party atmosphere and people cheering. And you know you could get that in the bars down in Alberta as well but it's just a different energy and I wanted to be a part of it. We also bought game two tickets anyways so we were just thinking maybe we could make game one just Jurassic Park and then enjoy the atmosphere inside as well.

CO: So you were watching it on TV -- watching that Jurassic Park scene which really was quite amazing. And you thought I want to be in there.

RJ RUBIO: Yes. And who wouldn't be? It's amazing. And it looks very like fun. You know we got two two-year-old boys at home being taken care by the grandpa so we're like you know let's just go and enjoy this.

CO: But you know it's interesting that people from Alberta often and people all over Canada are kind of you know dumping on Toronto. They think Toronto's snobby. They don't feel anything for it. [People cheering in background] [Laughter] I can hear the background -- you got lots of fans around you.

RJ RUBIO: Actually you know we're all Canadians. I feel like we're all nice. But it's really for the team. The Raptors they came through so much -- from when they first started and all the ups and downs and now that they're in the finals it just boosts Canada's morale and we're happy. We feel it all the way in Alberta and we wanted to experience it here in Toronto.

CO: Then is this Toronto's team or is it Canada's team?

RJ RUBIO: Oh I believe it's Canada's team. We're just as passionate in Alberta. I've talked to people from B.C. -- it's all the same. And I'm surprised that's been really asked. But I feel the Raptors are Canada's team.

CO: Their motto is "We The North."

RJ RUBIO: That's right. And we're all for them. [Background sounds]

CO: What's going on there now?

RJ RUBIO: There's people outside the fence trying to get the crowd to cheer. And this crowd is really excited. It's fun.

CO: You said you got tickets for Game 2 -- can I ask how much you paid for them?

RJ RUBIO: Well like we got them earlier. So the demand wasn't as much. And I think it was 886 U.S.

CO: 886 dollars each?

RJ RUBIO: U.S. each. Yeah.

CO: So you and your wife have those tickets and then you had to get the flights.

RJ RUBIO: The flights are non-refundable so we definitely had to wait till we were sure that the Raptors were going to the finals. But as soon as they won we were on our phone and we got them.

CO: Now I can hear that cheering in the background. Have you got a Raptors cheer you can give us?

RJ RUBIO: All right. Hey -- I'm being interviewed right now. Let's give them a Raptors cheer. No --everybody is kind of doing their own thing right now. [Laughs]

CO: Oh come on. This is for the nation -- for Canada.

RJ RUBIO: Let's go you guys. [Crowd chanting - "Let's Go Raptors!"] There you go. You got them going.

CO: Okay. Well that's good. Might keep warm that way. What's your prediction for the game tonight?

RJ RUBIO: I believe with our momentum and KD (Kevin Durant) not being in the lineup right now we could pull ahead here in Game 1. But as for the series I'm taking Raptors at seven.

CO: Is that your heart or your mind speaking?

RJ RUBIO: To be honest that's my heart. If I were betting, I don't want to say. But in my heart it's Raptors in seven.

CO: All right. Don't jinx it. RJ it's great talking to you. Have a good time out there.

RJ RUBIO: Yeah. Thank you very much.

JD: RJ Rubio is a Toronto Raptors fan from Red Deer, Alberta. We reached him earlier today in Jurassic Park.

[Music]

Israel Military Service

Guest: Shmuel Rosner

JD: Less than two months ago Israelis trudged to the polls to cast their ballots and return Benjamin Netanyahu to power for an 11th straight year. Now it seems they will have to do that trudging all over again. Another election will take place within the next few months --after Mr. Netanyahu failed to bring together right-wing and ultra-orthodox parties to form a government. The main sticking point was not the Palestinian peace process or the corruption allegations swirling around the PM. The main sticking point came down to military service -- namely the disagreement between parties as to whether ultra-orthodox Israelis should continue to be exempt from serving in the military. Shmuel Rosner is the political editor and a columnist at the Jewish Journal. We reached him in Tel Aviv.

CO: Shmuel how are Israelis feeling right now about the prospect of yet another election campaign?

SHMUEL ROSNER: They feel fatigue, frustration, a little irritation. It is never a happy thing to see one's political system collapse or behave in such a childish way but you know we've got what we've got.

CO: This issue that actually broke things down because this was the right versus the right. And this was the issue of military service and the Israeli Defense Forces' mandatory conscription in Israel for both men and women to be part of this service. Why are ultra-orthodox Jews exempt from service in the first place?

SR: We need to go back to almost ancient Israeli history. When Israel was initiated -- was established -- it was just a few years after the end of the Holocaust. And the world of ultra-orthodox Jews was in ruin, and they argued not without reason that if they will join the military the whole culture of ultra-orthodox study of Torah is going to go away. And the first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion thought that letting 400 -- that was the number at the time -- 400 yeshiva students -- young men who studied Torah all day long -- to give them exempt from military service is not the end of the world. And it was not. But since the ultra-orthodox community grows very fast thanks to high birth rates. Today it's not 400 -- it's more like 50,000. Many Israelis are frustrated and angry at the fact that there is no equal share of the burden and that the ultra-orthodox are exempt from military service. So this time this issue became so much controversial that it basically destroyed the chance of forming a new coalition.

CO: And so the person who opposed it most strenuously Avigdor Lieberman -- the strong Israeli nationalist also on the right within the party. He is the one that actually said no we're not going to support this anymore. He's pulled the plug on this idea that ultra-orthodox Jews should have this exemption. So how popular a move is that for Mr. Lieberman to make?

SR: Mr. Lieberman seems to be gaining in the polls. Obviously his move was somewhat popular but one has to remember that by doing this he also destroyed the chance for forming a right-wing coalition. So for right-wing voters who dislike the idea of exemption for ultra-orthodox there is still a dilemma here between two things that they want. On the one hand they want ultra-orthodox youngsters to serve in the military. On the other hand they want to see a right-wing government. And the voters will have to consider the issue and see where the chips fall.

CO: Just want to get a better sense of how people in Israel feel about this exemption. I know the IDF is obliged to protect settlers in the occupied territories and a growing number of those settlers are ultra-orthodox. How much resentment is there among those soldiers that they're protecting violent situations where the settlers themselves don't have to be part of the IDF?

SR: First of all it needs to be understood that the IDF in Israel is almost a sacred institution. Certainly in service that we run from time to time in which we test the likability and dislikability of different groups in -- Israel soldiers always come first. And the ultra-orthodox come last or very close to last -- are highly unpopular amongst all mainstream Israelis.

CO: As the election approaches, does the fact that there is this rift in the right within Mr. Netanyahu's coalition does this give any advantage to the left in Israeli politics which we've hardly heard from in many years?

SR: Not really. The left in Israel is not in a position to be in power. There are not enough voters who agree with left leaning ideas. So the battle is truly within the centre-right of Israel's political map. But things got complicated because there is a fairly reasonable chance that three months from now or three and a half months from now we will be in the exact same situation. And it's not clear how they're going to resolve the situation if we get to the exact same position next time around.

CO: We will be following this. Shmuel I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

SR: No problem. Good night from Tel Aviv.

JD: Shmuel Rosner is the political editor and a columnist for the Jewish Journal. We reached him in Tel Aviv. And you can find more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Quebec Green Party

Guest: Alex Tyrrell

JD: Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says Canada needs to be on a war footing to fight climate change. But one of her political allies says there are warring divisions within the Green movement that she should try to mend first. In a Facebook post this week, Quebec's Green Party leader Alex Tyrrell wrote that he, quote, "could not, in good conscience" defend a proposal Ms. May has promoted. That proposal was one she explained on this program earlier this week. That being to ban foreign oil imports and to promote Canadian oil instead, until Canada weans itself off fossil fuels entirely by the year 2050. We reached Alex Tyrrell in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec.

CO: Mr. Tyrrell, Elizabeth May says there's nothing new about her proposal to ban foreign oil imports and support Canadian fossil fuels instead. So what's pushed you to speak out about this now?

ALEX TYRRELL: I think that it is very important for Greens all across Canada to take a clear position against the Alberta tar sands. It's an oil that comes out of there that is much more greenhouse gas emission intensive than conventional oil. And so I think it's very important for Greens to take a clear position against the tar sands.

CO: Why do you think Elizabeth May is not then?

AT: I think that she's got some considerations about Alberta and that she's taking a somewhat moderate approach -- an approach that is far too moderate for a lot of the people within her party.

CO: Including you?

AT: Including myself. Yes.

CO: We spoke with her as you know. And what she explains is that this is her plan -- absolutely her idea is that Canada has to go to 0 CO2 emissions by 2050. That's an absolute line she's putting in the sand. But she says in the meantime if we have to use fossil fuels as we wean ourselves off of them then Canada should use its own fossil fuels until that time. So isn't that a proposal that makes some sense given where the other oil would come from?

AT: Well I think that Canada should really be looking to use the oil with the lowest possible greenhouse gas emissions. And to use the tar sands since it's more polluting source of oil really runs counter to the idea that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. It's a somewhat nationalist argument. It's trying to talk about having jobs in the tar sands when really we should be talking about how to shut down the tar sands as quickly as possible. That oil needs to stay in the ground -- it's a scientific consensus. And especially here in Quebec there's no social acceptability for new pipeline projects or for even consuming the tar sands oil here in Quebec.

CO: You would rather take oil from Saudi Arabia than from Alberta?

AT: Well I think that it's really important to look at the emissions associated with the oil and the reality is that Quebec imports very little oil from Saudi Arabia -- it is actually mostly coming from the United States and Algeria. So of course like we want to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible but I think that it's counterproductive for a Green Party to give legitimacy to the Alberta tar sands at a time when the international environmental movement and really environmentalist across the country have been speaking out for many years now that we need to shut this project down as quickly as possible and we need to keep that oil in the ground.

CO: So you think Elizabeth May -- the position the national Green Party should have right now is that every effort should be made to shut down fossil fuel production from Alberta?

AT: I think that we should shut down the tar sands as quickly as possible. I think that the Green Party of Canada is missing a huge opportunity because there's a wide base of support across the environmental movement and many Canadians are fed up with the fact that Canada has allowed the tar sands to go forward. It's a black eye for Canada. It shows that we care very little about the environment. And you know this oil we're talking about -- taking this oil that's mixed with sand, mixing it with water and then heating it up so we burn a lot of natural gas just to extract the oil from the tar sands. And it's a very dirty process. There's huge impacts -- impacts on the Aboriginal communities downstream from the tar sands. And it's really important for us as the Green Party to say that we oppose this project.

CO: The way you've described it as what we have heard from the Green Party and from Elizabeth May in the past. But she argues that there is another source of oil in this country and that comes from the east. And so she said -- in our interview -- she's not proposing there be any new fossil fuel infrastructure, to bring that oil to places like Quebec and Ontario, that the oil from the east -- from Hibernia -- that product is what she anticipates will be brought into eastern Canada. Do you have a problem with that?

AT: Well I think that it's really great to see that Elizabeth is sensitive to these criticisms -- that she has slightly modified her position because just last week when she announced environmental platform she was saying that we will subsidize bitumen upgraders in New Brunswick so that they can use the tar sands oil New Brunswick. Now this week she's saying that it won't be the tar sands oil that will be using Quebec in New Brunswick -- that it will be from Newfoundland. So I think the pressure is building. And although this is a position that the Green Party of Canada and Elizabeth May have held for quite some time now, it hasn't really been examined in depth by the media or the membership.

CO: But the broad headline in Mission Possible -- in this statement -- is that she describes how she thinks Canada should be on a war footing in order to fight climate change. She compares this as an effort like Winston Churchill fighting the fascists. I mean she has gone to quite a length to support the idea of what you're saying. So doesn't that send the message that she shares the same values as you do?

AT: Well I share a lot of values with Elizabeth May. And I'm definitely in agreement with 90 percent of the environmental program that she's published. So we do share a lot of common ground here. I mean we're both Green Party leaders. But what I was trying to do by writing on Facebook that I can't in good conscious defend this policy that supports the continued extraction of the tar sands oil up until the year 2050 in which I'll be 62 years old. You know I really am trying to criticize this specific policy and not the entire Green Party platform.

CO: Because there is now this interest to say at least in Green Party activities -- what we saw in Europe, what we saw in some of the provinces, we saw in that by-election. Green Party -- people are taking a close look here. And is she not trying to create a big tent? Trying to say okay we have this idealistic background, we have these people like yourself who have this fierce concern for the environment, we may have to modify things a bit -- moderate ourselves just a bit in order to create a bigger tent. Do you think that's what she's trying to do?

AT: We're really at a crossroads where, how are we going to progress? Are we going to moderate our policies in the hopes that we can win more power? Or are we going to stay true to our ideology and the founding principles of our movement? And I think that if people choose to vote for a Green Party government which I truly believe could happen in the near future they're going to want to see substantial change. It's not just about putting the Green Party -- they're the change, the name, of the party. It's really about a societal transformation that would come with the election of a Green Party government. So I don't think that the electorate wants us to moderate our message. I think that people on the country are looking for very bold action on climate right now. And the Green Party should be at the forefront of this movement.

CO: Is it not possible that what Elizabeth May is playing to is a belief that there is an even larger group that likes the message but want it to be softer?

AT: Well perhaps. I mean look there's always a difference of opinion within the Canadian green movement. I mean it's not like it's only one person that's involved in this party and there's different points of view. And that's why we have a culture of strong internal debates within the organization.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Tyrrell thank you.

AT: Thank you. Have a good day.

JD: Alex Tyrrell is the leader of the Green Party of Quebec. We reached him in Trois-Rivieres. For her part, Green Party Canada Leader Elizabeth May has responded to Mr Tyrrell's concerns in a statement today. You can read that on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Freedom gas

JD: According to Kris Kristofferson, it's just another word for nothing left to lose. Elton John sang that he lived and breathed the Philadelphia kind. And George Michael summed it up as giving for what you take. All very powerful, very confusing, statements about freedom. And on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy added another. The D.O.E issued a statement announcing it would be expanding a liquefied natural gas facility on Quintana Island in Texas, which means more exports. Pretty clear. But according to Mark Menezes U.S. Under Secretary for Energy, it's not just about economics or resources. Mr. Menezes said, quote, "Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America's allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy." Now I won't focus on his claim that liquefied natural gas is clean energy which is not strictly speaking true. Instead let's focus on the part about "freedom gas." Freedom gas means...I don't know what that means. And it gets even less clear later on in that statement when U.S. Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy says, quote, "I am pleased that the Department of Energy is doing what it can to promote an efficient regulatory system that allows for molecules of U.S. freedom to be exported to the world." So freedom gas is such a gas of U.S. freedom that every single molecule of it consists of freedom. I understand what they're saying, but I don't understand what it means. It sounds like free association.

[Music]

Part 2: U.S. Climate Science

U.S. Climate Science

Guest: Katharine Hayhoe

JD: Katharine Hayhoe co-authored the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment. And she watched its release with a bit of awe. Because the Canadian climate scientist was shocked that the Trump administration let it see the light of day. Its grim news about the impact of climate change was made public -- albeit on U.S. Thanksgiving weekend. Now however the Trump administration is taking measures to ensure that some of the most damning climate data is not collected at all. So when future reports are released the worst impacts will not be included. That has climate scientists very worried -- including Professor Hayhoe. We reached her on Possum Kingdom Lake, Texas.

CO: Professor Hayhoe as I think you know the New York Times called these latest moves by President Trump's appointees -- they called it a new assault on climate science. A leading scientists compare the tactics to the Soviet Union. How would you characterize it?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Well what they're doing is they're trying to limit the information that is available to make decisions for the federal government. And I would call that frankly lacking in common sense because we know that in order to make the best possible decisions regarding infrastructure, economics, national security resources and more we need all available information.

CO: You would call it censorship?

KH: Yes I would say it's definitely censorship if they are trying to limit the information use. Especially when the Global Change Research Act which specifically calls for a national climate assessment for the United States every four years -- actually in that piece of legislation (it) says that they are to consider climate impacts over 25 to 100 years in the future.

CO: But now as the New York Times is reporting these changes by the Trump administration will result in changes to how government scientists will be even allowed to report climate data. So what is it that they're going to attempt to limit in terms of what Americans can know about climate change?

KH: Well when the reports were released the White House's response was climate always changes naturally, they're using a most extreme scenario, I just don't believe what they say. So that was already the response to the climate assessment. And what they're talking about now is they've been talking about a few different things. They've been talking about setting up a so-called 'blue team-red team' debate where the national climate assessment would be used as a de facto liberal version of the science even though there was of course no political questions when they ask the scientists to write the report. They don't even know what our politics are. Then they're also talking about in the USGS agency limiting the information that gets used to make decisions to no more than 20 years in the future. And there's also a number of statements made that the National Climate Assessment uses only a most extreme scenario and they should be backing down and dialing down from that. And that is completely false. The National Climate Assessment looks at a broad range of scenarios. And the highest scenario is there because that's what a fossil fuel future looks like. And that ironically is exactly the future that the current administration is taking the United States towards. So if they really wanted the most likely scenario, the scenario they should be looking at is the highest scenario.

CO: But so what will it mean as far as our understanding of what's going on -- what the trends are, what we can come to expect? If it's limited to 2040 -- if you can only project 20 years in the future, if it's forbidden for scientists to project further than that -- how does that change the understanding of what climate change trends are doing?

KH: Well the biggest piece of information that that is going to take out of the equation is the implications of the decisions that we make today because our decisions today will determine our future. But we won't see the impact of the decisions that we make today regarding policies to reduce carbon technology -- until at least 20 years and more into the future. So by saying we can't look any further ahead than that, we won't have any information on how our choices today will determine our future. And that's really the whole reason we do climate projections -- to say if we continue to depend on fossil fuels, global average temperature will increase by 3, 4, and eventually 5 degrees C, and these are the impacts where if we can reduce our emissions -- transition off of fossil fuels, eventually reach carbon neutral -- carbon zero -- then this is what our future will look like. We need this information to make good decisions today.

CO: What do you think is in it for the Trump administration? Why do they want to limit these projections and limit the whole understanding of what climate change is doing? We know that well there's a lot of climate change denial within that administration. We saw Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the Arctic recently talking about the opportunity and abundance that would be available with the rapidly warming Arctic -- that this was looked at as an opportunity. So what do you think is the political objective in limiting what our understanding of climate change is?

KH: Well I can't speculate regarding their motives but what I can say is that climate projections past 2040 show us very clearly the dangers of continuing to depend on fossil fuels. So if you don't want people to be informed as to the dangers of continuing to grow and build our dependence on fossil fuels, the best thing you could do is just cut that information off so people don't have it.

CO: The pushback they're giving is that for instance James Hewitt a spokesperson for the US Environmental Protection Agency he says that the models are inaccurate and do not reflect real world conditions. What do you say to that?

KH: [Chuckles] I say that that is absolutely false. The models are based on fundamental physics that we've known since the 1850s. And what he went on further to say -- the spokesperson from the EPA -- was we only use the most extreme scenario and there's such a broad range in the future who knows what's going to happen. Well the reason there's a broad range in future projections is because we are the biggest uncertainty. We are the ones who are behind the drivers wheel today of our global climate. And so in the National Climate Assessment we want to show a broad range of future scenarios that depend on the choices that we humans make. So it's kind of like going to the doctor and the doctor says well you know you haven't been exercising hardly at all and your diet is not very good so I'm going to show you what the future could look like if you continue on your current pathway you'll end up on the operating table for quadruple bypass surgery probably in about 25 years. But if you change the way you eat and you exercise in your lifestyle, you could live a long and healthy and happy life with no heart problems. Or if you're halfway in between, this is what it could look like. So those are some very different future outcomes.

CO: So if your doctor says well I'd love to tell you what's going to happen in 30 years from now if you keep living this way but I can only tell you what's going to happen within the next 10 years it would look pretty good, wouldn't it?

KH: Precisely.

CO: Professor Hayhoe thank you.

KH: Thank you so much.

JD: Katharine Hayhoe is the director of the Climate Science Centre at Texas Tech. We reached her on Possum Kingdom Lake, Texas.

[Music]

Different opinions

JD: In the House of Commons today, opposition MPs hammered the Prime Minister on his handling of the new NAFTA negotiations. But elsewhere on Parliament Hill, the Prime Minister received more sympathetic treatment. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told reporters in Ottawa today that Prime Minister Trudeau, quote, "drove a hard bargain" in negotiating the new trilateral trade pact. The Vice President was there to discuss trade issues and China relations with the Prime Minister. But some thornier issues were raised as well. Here is the Prime Minister telling reporters about their difference of opinion on the issue of abortion.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I highlighted to the Vice President that there was a significant amount of concern amongst Canadians on the new anti-choice laws being passed in a number of American states. And highlighted that Canadians and indeed this government will always be a staunch defender of women's rights and a woman's right to choose. It was a cordial conversation. But it is one on which we have very different perspectives.

MIKE PENCE: Well let me say I think one of the great things about the relationship between the United States and Canada is that we're able to be candid with one another, we're able to share our perspective on a broad range of issues, and different approaches. But let me be clear, I'm very proud to be part of a pro-life administration. And our administration has taken steps to stand for the sanctity of life at home and abroad. What we find troubling is the Democratic Party in our country and leaders around the country supporting late term abortion -- even infanticide. But those are debates within the United States. And I know that Canada will deal with those issues in a manner that the people of Canada determine most appropriate. But for President Trump, for me, for our administration, we will always stand for the right to life.

JD: The Vice President of the United States Mike Pence and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreeing to disagree on the abortion issue at a press conference in Ottawa today.

[Music]

Danube Accident

Guest: Benjamin Novak

JD: It was supposed to be a picturesque cruise down the beautiful Danube river in Budapest. Now there is a desperate search for survivors. Last night, two river cruise boats collided. One of the boats, carrying dozens of people, sank within seconds. At least seven South Korean tourists have been killed. And while some people have been rescued, many are still missing. Benjamin Novak is a freelance journalist in Budapest. That is where we reached him.

CO: Benjamin just how dire is this rescue mission?

BENJAMIN NOVAK: Well it's looking increasingly dire. Aside from the seven bodies that were recovered and the seven people that were recovered, it does not look like any other survivors have been found thus far.

CO: And so how many people are at this point believed to be missing?

BN: About 21.

CO: What is making this search so difficult for the remaining bodies?

BN: Well we've had pretty intense showers in Budapest for the past few days and what this has done is it has raised the water level in the Danube river and the current has also increased -- it's quite fast now. And so when this boat capsized it was very possible that many people were actually -- the water dragged them further down the river. And there were reports of bodies turning up -- actually quite a distance from the bridge where the boat capsized. The rescue efforts were hampered by the low visibility in the water. The water is quite brown and muddy and it was quite treacherous. So even scuba divers were having a difficult time as I understand getting down to the actual boat itself under water.

CO: The people who have been rescued and the bodies have been recovered -- is there evidence that they had lifejackets?

BN: When the boats collided -- and a there's a video of this that's available on the Internet --what you see is that a larger boat kind of clips the back of the smaller boat and kind of puts it on its side very quickly and then within seconds the boat is submerged under water. And so the people that were standing on the deck, according to the statements that have appeared in the press, were kind of flung off the boat into the water and they were not wearing life vests from what I've gathered.

CO: And what about those who were down below when the boat capsized?

BN: Well it stands to reason that they probably would have had a very difficult time getting out of the boat if possible.

CO: In this video that you can see, the police have released, that shows it -- can you give us a few more details about how this might have happened?

BN: It's very hard to tell. You have two boats that are in very close proximity to each other. So how either of these boats couldn't have noticed each other or seen each other to me is a -- yeah I'm not a sailor, I can't comment on that. What experts have said is that boats are equipped with technology that essentially allows them to see what vessels are in their close proximity to them. Now in this particular case it appears that both visually and maybe with the use of this technology, they might not have seen each other. I would add though that there were very intense showers when this happened -- that might offer some explanation but I'm not sure.

CO: And it was dark -- it was night too when this happened.

BN: It was night. The collision happened at approximately 9:05 p.m. and it was about 10 minutes for the first calls to come in to the emergency services to let them know that this boat had capsized and that people were in the water. And then just before 9:30 it was when the first responders actually started to show up. So you can imagine people were in the water for quite some time when this had happened. And as I said the conditions were quite bad. Visibility was quite bad. The water was moving very fast. So it was a very bad situation.

CO: And the water was cold I understand.

BN: It is cold.

CO: And so what's the explanation for why it took 10 minutes before they send out the alarm?

BN: It's something that hasn't quite been addressed yet. I did hear from police officials that there were people, there were civilians, nearby who immediately got to work and started going along the river bank to see whether you know people could be pulled out. But the question here -- very interesting point is -- you can understand how it would take first responders a bit of time to get out to the scene. But it was about 10 minutes before the first call came in.

CO: So not an immediate distress call -- this is obviously something that's going to be looked at quite seriously?

BN: Sure. And again it's very interesting as I was speaking to medical experts about this, it must have been a terrible thing -- you know as a passenger on a boat not expecting to be flung into the water you can imagine the shock that would come over people as this accident is happening. And with this very treacherous water -- this fast moving current and obviously the coldness of the water -- if you're not wearing a life vest, how you know panic sets in.

CO: Just finally, people have seen the ads for cruises on the Danube. This is a big business right now for tourism and that river has a lot of traffic on it. Is that being looked, is that being cited, as possibly part of the reason why this collision happened?

BN: Well there are reports in the Hungarian media that are now starting to look at this issue of whether these larger cruise boats here you know are in any way causing problems for waterway traffic in Budapest. Well what we do know is that there are a lot of boats and especially when the weather is good there is quite a bit of traffic on the Budapest river. But this is obviously an issue now that we're seeing and the Hungarian press is also starting to look at more closely.

CO: Are the police involved in this investigation?

BN: They are. The police have opened a criminal investigation into this matter.

CO: All right we will be following this story. Benjamin I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

BN: Thank you. Bye bye.

JD: Benjamin Novak is a freelance journalist based in Budapest. We reached him there earlier today.

[Music]

Leon Redbone

JD: Producer John Hammond once asked Leon Redbone for his phone number. Mr. Redbone gave him the number for a Dial-A-Joke service. Bob Dylan also found him enigmatic. In a 1974 interview he said, "I've heard he's anywhere from 25 to 60. I've been [a foot and a half from him] and I can't tell. But you've got to see him." For his part, Leon Redbone once said, quote, "I'm less than forthcoming, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm mysterious. It just means I'm not inclined to go there." But that was a bit disingenuous, wasn't it? From a guy who once told Rolling Stone his parents were the Italian composer Paganini and the Swedish opera singer Jenny Lind -- who died in 1840 and 1887 respectively. But it did seem true that he wasn't being mysterious just for the sake of being mysterious. He was being mysterious because he found it more interesting. Leon Redbone died today. He was 69-years-old. Although the statement on his website says he was 127. You may not know that investigations revealed he was Armenian -- born Dickran Gobalian in Cyprus before his family moved to Toronto in the mid-60s. Or that he started his career in Toronto in the 70s as part of the Yorkville scene. Well that is...he performed in Yorkville. But he was kind of a scene unto himself -- playing the distinctive mix of '20s and '30s style blues, jazz, and ragtime that made his music seem timeless. Trends came and trends went but he kept doing his own thing -- putting music in the spotlight rather than himself. As he once told the Toronto Star, "I've never considered myself the proper focus of attention. I'm just a vehicle -- not so much for the particular kind of music I prefer, music from an earlier time, as for a mood that music conveys."

[Music]

Conrad Black

JD: Conrad Black -- pardon in hand -- is contemplating a triumphant return to his Lordly duties. The Lord Black of Crossharbour has not appeared in the UK's Upper House since his convictions for fraud in 2007. But, owing to the clemency of Donald Trump -- and apparently a renewed interest in British politics -- he told the BBC's Michelle Fleury that could soon change.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHELLE FLEURY: Do you have any plans to return to the House of Lords?

CONRAD BLACK: Yes I suspect it.

MICHELLE FLEURY: Is that something that now takes on a more -- sort of more reality since your pardon?

CONRAD BLACK: Well I was going to do it anyway, but I suppose it makes it easier. But the truth is these last 15 years, I haven't been as interested in British politics as I was before in the Thatcher days and John Major. It could be quite interesting again. In fact it is. As of right now, it's very interesting.

MICHELLE FLEURY: So if Brexit could lure you back to the House of Lords?

CONRAD BLACK: Well I wouldn't put it quite like that, but I think as it turns out it's my good fortune that at the time when it is feasible it happens by happy coincidence that it is a time of great fermentation in British public affairs.

JD: That was Conrad Black -- known in the UK as Lord Black of Crossharbour, among other things -- speaking to the BBC's Michelle Fleury.

[Music]

Part 3: Charges against scientists dropped in Italian olive tree devastation

Spy Museum

Guest: Alka Pradhan

JD: There's a lot of fun to be had at the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C. In the lobby you're greeted by James Bond's silver Aston Martin. Deeper inside you will see a wall of movie posters featuring Hollywood spies such as Jason Bourne and Austin Powers. But when a group of Guantanamo Bay defense lawyers visited the museum last week, they were not there to have fun. They went to see the exhibit on torture. And they came out of it with some scathing reviews. Alka Pradhan is a defense lawyer representing Guantanamo prisoner Ammar al-Baluchi who is charged with helping facilitate the 9/11 attacks. We reached Ms. Pradhan in Washington.

CO: Ms. Pradhan this doesn't sound like your average field trip. What brought you to the Spy Museum last week?

ALKA PRADHAN: Well I had seen on social media that the spy museum had included an exhibit on the CIA torture program post 9/11. And a lot of the commentary I saw and the photographs I saw were really concerning, completely off base, factually incorrect. You know myself and a number of other people who have worked on detainee cases out of Guantanamo had a lot of commentary on Twitter and we were invited by the historian of the Spy Museum to come and actually visit the exhibit and then provide feedback.

CO: So what were your impressions of this installation in the museum?

AP: In what seems to be an effort to provide a balanced account of an issue that doesn't require balance -- that is fairly black and white -- I believe the Spy Museum has tilted way too far to include CIA propaganda about the torture program. We had criticisms of almost everything in the exhibit -- from the text on the wall framing the program, to some of the examples used of the techniques that were used on the detainees, to the testimonials -- video testimonials -- that were included in the exhibit which we see as providing a platform to people who committed crimes.

CO: If people remember at the time George W. Bush and the White House and the CIA described them as enhanced interrogation techniques. They denied they were torture. Eventually the program was completely discredited. Can you describe for people what the CIA did in order to extract confessions from people in Guantanamo Bay?

AP: Sure. And to be clear they did not extract confessions from people at Guantanamo Bay what they did is they extracted what they considered to be intelligence. What they did to get that is to use as much pain as possible. To include of course waterboarding which in fact was not just waterboarding but also included water dousing where people were placed on tarps and mock drowned. They include walling which was taking someone's head and slamming it against a wall repeatedly. It included holding people nude in freezing conditions. Forced starvation. Stress positions that basically shattered people's you know muscles and joints.

CO: Are all these methods of torture -- are they included in the exhibit? Do they actually admit in this exhibit that these things happened to people?

AP: There's sort of a blanket acknowledgement that yes we used, quote, "enhanced interrogation techniques." There is no discussion of whether or not those techniques rise to the level of torture as every international legal scholar agrees that they do.

CO: There are testimonials from people including the person who's considered to be the sort of architect of all this, James Mitchell. What is he saying in this in defense of their actions?

AP: He provides a very broad blanket statement about how this program was meant to protect Americans and how this was a difficult decision for him but he thought it was the right one. Now what's really striking is that it's almost really directly contradicted by his testimony under oath in a deposition that he gave brought by a detainee who died at one of the black sites. And that testimony is publicly available -- and one of our questions for the Spy Museum historian Dr. (Vince) Houghton was, why is that testimony not included in this exhibit? Because it directly undercuts what Mitchell and Jose Rodriguez -- a former CIA official -- are saying about the program.

CO: There were lots of evidence at the time that there was no usable intelligence that came from any of these interrogations. Is that stated in this exhibit?

AP: No -- it's not stated in the exhibit. And far from providing useful leads or useful intelligence, they actually sent people off course. They lengthened the search for bin Laden. They provided false information which everyone knows happens when men are tortured -- they'll do anything to make it stop.

CO: At the end of the exhibit visitors are asked to answer yes or no to a question and the question is would you be willing to have the U.S. government torture suspected terrorists if they may know details about future attacks. Apparently 59 percent of the people who responded pushed yes. What do you make of that?

AP: What I make of that is that the exhibit has basically just reinforced exactly what the CIA wants people to think about their program -- to avoid liability for it and to avoid really the horror of the American people finally understanding how badly wrong this program went. So what it tells me is that people we're allowed to come in with preconceived notions. They had those notions reinforced instead of debunked and they left with exactly the same misinformation.

CO: You have a client, Ammar al-Baluchi, who is accused of helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks -- who also experienced significant torture under this program. Why does it matter to you that this exhibit is there? What affect do you think that might have on your ability to defend Mr. al-Baluchi?

AP: Well first of all it has to be understood that under international law, if the state tortures an individual any product of that torture is then barred for use against that individual because it's understood that that information is not reliable. What happened to Mr. al-Baluchi which is portrayed fairly viscerally in the movie Zero Dark Thirty is that he was tortured continuously for three and a half years at the black sites during which he was interrogated thousands of times. Those statements that he made at Guantanamo immediately on the heels of three and a half years of torture, that's what the government wants to use as their primary evidence against him in a death penalty case. Obviously a big part of the trial will be the fact that almost all of the evidence against Mr. al-Baluchi and a number of these other defendants is tainted. And at that point, it will matter very much what the members of the jury believe to be true about what Mr. al-Baluchi and these detainees said about each other under conditions of torture.

CO: Just finally you mentioned, Vince Houghton, who is the museum's chief historian who's argued that this exhibit is balanced. But he's also said that he will take your objections into account. Do you believe that will happen?

AP: He's been very receptive to some of our correspondence following the visit. And we're taking it very seriously and I very much hope that Dr. Houghton will take those into account. He has told us that he will.

CO: Ms. Pradhan I appreciate speaking with you thank you.

AP: Of course. Thank you very much.

JD: Alka Pradhan is a defense lawyer representing Guantanamo Bay prisoner Ammar al-Baluchi. We reached Ms. Pradhan in Washington D.C. And we did request an interview with the International Spy Museum's historian Vince Houghton -- he was not available.

[Music]

Captain Molly Kool

JD: Captain Molly Kool was one of a kind. Literally! Because when she became a licensed ship captain in 1939, she was the first woman in Canada and the first in North America to do so. And today in St. John's, a new Coast Guard icebreaker was named after the New Brunswick native. At the dedication Captain Kool's sister, Martha Miller, spoke about her trailblazing sibling.

SOUNDCLIP

MARTHA MILLER: I am just so pleased to be here and to look at so many women in the Navy. [Crowd applauding] And just remember Molly got the law changed so you can be a Captain. [Laughter] You know? It's harder to look at it after now -- what's she doing here? We're going to be Captain. She's not going to be get Captain. So when the time came to write her Captain's papers they were really not happy about this. You know? You can't do that. So when it came time to write them, they took all the men and put them in class and let them take their exam. They took Molly to a room by herself and they sent two special officers from Ottawa to examine her. So here she is with two examiners -- with these two guys, they look pretty serious. And for two days they drilled her on everything she had ever learned -- and she came 100 percent. [Applause] 100 percent! So now she passed it. But in the meantime to offer this certificate to give her they have to get the law changed so that took a day or two but they did. But eventually she sent a telegram home that's around somewhere in keeping it civil -- call me Captain from now on.

JD: Martha Miller, the sister -- the very proud sister -- of Molly Kool, speaking earlier today at the dedication of a Coast Guard icebreaker named after Captain Molly Kool.

[Music]

Josh Chouinard

JD: A Windsor family is grieving the death of a teenage boy. A death made worse because it was captured on video and shared on social media. 16-year-old Josh Chouinard died early Monday following an apparent overdose. Alexander Morillo is a former drug user who knew Josh. He spoke to CBC Windsor about Josh's life and death.

SOUNDCLIP

ALEXANDER MORILLO: He was very troubled when I first met him. He didn't want to open up to me about anything as well as my friend. He was very distant with us to begin with. And as I got to know him a little bit more after connecting with him on social media platforms, I kind of got to learn a little bit about him. He felt like nobody in the world cared for him. He felt like he was lost. He was out of place. He just wanted to fit in with the right crowd. And unfortunately the crowd that he fit in with over a product of the drug world. For me alone the most devastating part is the fact that the people who he was hanging out with egged him on to actually do the carfentanil drug. And then instead of helping him and trying to save his life, they took pictures and recorded a video that was posted on Instagram, Snapchat, various social media platforms. And it's very upsetting to figure out that that's how his mom found out that her own son passed away. Very upsetting for a mother to find that out.

AMY DODGE: Did you see the videos? Did you see the photo of him when he died? What went through your mind when you saw that knowing also you have a bit of a history with using drugs?

ALEXANDER MORILLO: I instantly -- I got sick to my stomach. It made me vomit. Literally I went to the bathroom and threw up. Nothing like that should ever be posted on any social media platforms. And I think the people who recorded the video as well as shot the picture are just as guilty as anybody who has actually committed murder. It's just devastating. We've lost so many young people over the past couple of years and this is just another reason why we need to be here for each other as people and as a community we need to reach out to one another to make sure that the people in our community stay safe especially the younger future generations.

JD: Alexandra Morillo speaking with CBC reporter Amy Dodge. They were speaking about Josh Chouinard, a Windsor teen who died earlier this week of an apparent drug overdose that was captured on camera and shared on social media.

[Music]

Infected Olive Trees

Guest: Enrico Bucci

JD: Italian scientists have been trying to spread the word about a deadly disease -- one that has infected hundreds of thousands of olive trees in Italy and other parts of Mediterranean Europe. Their warnings however landed them in court -- accused by farmers and politicians in the Puglia region of Italy of spreading the infection. But last week a regional magistrate threw out a case against 10 scientists accused of environmental pollution and destruction of a natural treasure. The conspiracy theories persist. Enrico Bucci is a biologist who has worked with these scientists on this disease. We reached him in Ivrea, Italy.

CO: Mr. Bucci we first need to understand how important olive trees are to this region of Italy?

ENRICO BUCCI: So basically you have their olives that are maybe a thousand years old and they were also prompted I think generation for every new born in some families. So there is some deep connection among people living there. And those fantastic trees not to mention the economic value of them.

CO: And what was this disease doing to the trees?

EB: Well basically when the bacterium entered the olive you perceive nothing. Symptoms start to develops from one year up to two years after the infection. First, the top of the tree start desiccating, and then the entire tree is affected and die in a few months. And there is nothing you can do once you are at this stage basically.

CO: Can you just tell us how do you pronounce it -- what's the name of this disease?

EB: This is an infection by a bacterium which is called Xylella fastidiosa of a peculiar strain which has (been) found for the very first time in Italy and this strain is named SP 53.

CO: And so this is new to Italy. And how devastating has it been to the olive groves in Puglia?

EB: It is possibly affecting some millions of olives in certain parts of Puglia, and possibly several tens of thousands olives are already dying or even dead.

CO: Okay, so quite devastating. What did the scientists say to the farmers as to how they could control the spread of this disease?

EB: Once the infection gains a foothold then the olives will be eradicated. And not only the infected olives but also all the vegetation in a hundred metre radius around this infected olive.

CO: The farmers were instructed to cut the trees down, to uproot them, to destroy the disease trees and to stop it from spreading -- right?

EB: Yeah. These were the instructions that were never ever fully applied in Puglia.

CO: And that's because as you said at the beginning these trees are like family to the farmers, some of them are generations old, and they're very attached to them. What happened? How is it that the scientists who recommended this be done ended up being charged?

EB: What happened is that immediately there were riots and revolts starting. Interestingly most of them were not led by farmers but by activists basically -- so even people not owning a single olive tree. And they started spreading misinformation things like for example that Monsanto was planning to uproot all olives in Puglia and replace them with transgenic olive trees -- which by the way are nonexistent. Or that there was the intention also to make room for new buildings and new tourist resorts. And then they even pretended that scientists infected the olives and caused the epidemic. Or that the epidemic was an invention by the scientists. And there was -- in Italy -- a campaign which started physically preventing the uprooting so that the disease which could have been contained within the eradication of a few olives it became a disease which cannot be eradicated anymore from Italy and from Europe of course.

CO: Right. So not only did you have a whole bunch of conspiracy theories -- even conspiracy theories that contradicted each other’s. Some of it was that it didn't exist, or that the scientists had put it there, that Monsanto was responsible for it. All these different things -- none of which was found to be factual. And it was this Five Star populist movement -- the Italian party -- that was really pushing this idea of this kind of -- some people compare it to the anti-vax movement here. So it all ends up in court. What did the judge eventually say about all this?

EB: They took all these conspiracy theories and most of them were used to build up allegations against scientists. So you find in the very same indictment documents you'll find at the same time that scientists are accused of introducing and propagating the epidemic from one side and two page after this you'll find that the bacterium is not responsible for the epidemic and the scientists are falsifying data to pretend these to be the culprit.

CO: But the charges were dismissed even though the judge upheld all the conspiracy theories, is that right?

EB: Yes. They are not saying scientists are innocent and these theories are crazy. What they are saying is scientist are guilty in a moral perspective but they say since we found no evidence -- no solid evidence for this -- then we have to basically release them of any charge. So at the same time they smear scientists and dismiss the charges.

CO: Wow that's quite a story. And the trees -- meanwhile -- the trees are dying of the disease.

EB: Yeah. There were 124 new infected trees detected roughly two weeks ago.

CO: Mr. Bucci it is extraordinary and I appreciate you telling us the story of this. Thank you.

EB: Thank you.

JD: Enrico Bucci is a biology professor at Temple University. We reached him in Ivrea, Italy. And we have more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Albert Almora Jr.

JD: It was the kind of hit that no baseball player wants. Last night, during the Chicago Cubs game against the Houston Astros, Cubs player Albert Almora Jr. hit a foul ball into the crowd. Then he broke down because that ball hit a young girl in the head. She was taken to hospital and onlookers said she was conscious and alert. After the game, an emotional Mr. Almora spoke with reporters.

SOUNDCLIP

ALBERT ALMORA JR.: It's just the way life is. As soon as I hit it, the first person I locked eyes on was her. So that's what...yeah. God willing I'll be able to have a relationship with this little girl for the rest of my life. But just prayers right now. That's all I really can control. I'm speechless. And I'm at loss of words. Being a father of two boys, I want to put a net around the whole stadium. Yeah man I don't know...sorry. Puts life into perspective kind of. We get upset when we don't hit -- make errors. Like I was -- I was upset I don't make that play. And then...life you know put things in perspective.

JD: That was Chicago Cubs outfielder Albert Almora Jr. speaking after a game last night in Houston. The young fan who was hit by the foul ball was taken to hospital. Reportedly she was aware and alert.

[Music]

Pokémon

JD: It was a time when Pikachus, Charmanders, and Squirtles roamed. And across the globe, legions of smartphone-wielding teenagers set forth to capture them all. It was 2016, "Pokémon Go" was everywhere. The video game super-imposes of course a digital world onto reality. Gamers tap into that augmented world with their phone and use GPS to hunt for Pokémon characters. Since its release, the craze has quieted down. But millions of people have downloaded the game. And as we've covered on this very program Pokémon Go has its critics. Turns out accidents happen when armies of sleep-deprived teenagers roam the streets, eyes glued to their phones. But Tsunekazu Ishihara believes he has the solution. On Wednesday, Pokémon’s chief executive announced the franchise is launching Pokémon Sleep. The game will track users' sleep patterns and reward players who practice good sleeping habits. As Mr. Ishihara explained, quote, "Everyone spends a large part of their lives sleeping, and turning that into entertainment is our next challenge. The concept of this game is for players to look forward to waking up every morning." Now despite Mr. Ishihara's bright-eyed and bushy-tailed enthusiasm, most people are hitting snooze online. Video game designer Ian Bogost tweeted, quote, "Making sleep fun is a concept that could only exist today when nothing is considered enjoyable or even valid unless it contributes to some secondary economy." Others are asking whether Pokémon is positioning itself as a lifestyle brand and wondering what's next. Pokémon Three Meals a Day, Pokémon Eat More Fibre, or Pokémon Drink More Water. Because it used to just give us things to catch. And now everyone's worried that there is a catch.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 30, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This