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 17, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

GILLIAN FINDLAY: Hello, I'm Gillian Findlay, sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

GF: A victory for the alloyed forces. Now that U.S. tariffs on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum are finally being lifted, our guest's spirits are lifting as well — tentatively.

JD: Tunnel fission. Gregory Jaczko was once the top regulator of nuclear energy in the United States. And now, after a career in that field, he's calling for a total ban.

GF: Dumpster fire. After some trash talking, Canada misses the deadline to retrieve its rotting garbage from the Philippines — fanning the flames of a diplomatic spat.

JD: When shove comes to pushers. A Toronto law firm files a lawsuit against two dozen pharmaceutical companies, alleging they promoted opioids without revealing how addictive they could be.

GF: Vocal opposition. Inuit throat singers say they'll boycott tonight's Indigenous Music Awards, after a non-Inuit singer tackles throat singing. They call it cultural appropriation.

JD: And...not a watchdog -- a gold watch dog. Journalist Michelle McQuigge plans a retirement party for her faithful guide dog, Reva — a tough-as-nails reporter's aide who rolls over for no one. Unless there’s a liver treat in it.

JD: "As It Happens", the Friday edition. Radio that salutes a dog that followed the path of cooperation — instead of the path of leashed resistance.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Steel tariffs, Philippines garbage MP, guide dog party

Steal Tariffs

Guest: Ken Neumann

JD: Nearly a year after they were first imposed, U.S. tariffs on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum are finally being lifted. Since last June, the U.S. was applying 25 per cent tariffs to steel, and 10 per cent tariffs to aluminum, citing a threat to national security. Canada responded with its own retaliatory measures. Now, all those tariffs are off the table. And at a press conference at the Stelco steel plant in Hamilton, Ontario today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau struck a jubilant tone.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: One of the great things is… and a lot of people were talking about whether we would accept quotas, whether we would accept certain restrictions, and we stayed strong because that's what workers were asking for us. But also, that's what Canadians were saying — that these tariffs didn't make sense around national security. This is just pure good news for Canadians, for families, as they head into that long weekend, families will know that their jobs are a little more secure.

JD: Ken Neumann is the national director for Canada with the United Steelworkers. We reached Mr. Neumann in Toronto.

GF: Mr. Neumann, pure good news is the way the prime minister put it today. How do you characterise the agreement that they announced?

KEN NUEMANN: It is good news to finally have, after a long eleven-and-a-half months, having the tariffs on the twenty-five and ten on aluminum and steel. And the other good news that comes with that that there was some contemplation that the possibility of some quotas. So on that front, yes, it is good news. Our members, we've been fighting for that on both sides of the border. As you know, a lot of our companies are integrated and have a footprint both in Canada and the United States. So our members have been affected on both sides. But I must tell you it's been a tough eleven-and-a-half months almost.

GF: I do want to ask you about that. Eleven months these tariffs have cut deep. What has been the impact on your industry?

KN: Several impacts. First of all, the uncertainty to our members that are going to do their work every single day. The fact not knowing what the longevity or what employment opportunities are going to be. Companies… the orders are starting to dry up. We have an excess of, currently speaking now, some 600 folks that have been laid off in various provinces from Quebec to Ontario to Alberta. Those 600 jobs, hopefully, now with this lifting of these tariffs that there's gonna be some light at the end of the tunnel that hopefully get them returned as soon as possible. The other thing that this has dampened is that we've had some companies that were planning on doing some investment in their facilities. For example, an aluminum place up in Alma, Quebec, they're going to put in a plant which is going to create some 60 permanent jobs and 400 construction jobs. They just put it on hold. They just put it on the back burner. And the company said look, we're not going to invest. Also Stelco in Hamilton, talk about Hamilton — the steel capital of the world — there was an opportunity to make a huge investment with the new owners. And basically, they've done the same thing that we're just not going to invest when we have that cloud hanging over us. The news today is to me very good news. But there is an a caveat to that that I share with folks is that Canada is one of the only countries that has not protected its industries. And we've been calling on our government to put in some safeguards because you’ve got the United States and Mexico and most of the other countries that have put in safeguards. Because of what Trump has done with all these tariffs is that there's a lot of countries out there like China and India — they're not playing by the rules. They have overcapacity. And they're going to try to find a home for it. And that's why it's so serious that we need our government to put in place some safeguards.

GF: So just stop there for a second. Just explain that to me, because that's one of the concerns as I understand it about the details of the agreement that was released today. So what are you particularly concerned about and what are you concerned that this agreement will not address?

KN: We haven't seen the fine details of what they mean by the so-called “monitoring committee”. So I imagine that there's going to be a tripartite committee or just Canada US that's going to monitor surges of products that are coming in from other countries. My concern is that because Canada does not have safeguards like the United States or Mexico is that we're going to become the dumping ground from the rest of these countries that are going to look to dump their excess capacity.

GF: And if they do, your concerned then that the Americans will use that as an excuse to reinstate the tariffs they’ve just taken off.

KN: Exactly. Somehow, it’s not going to help us. And that's going to deteriorate. So that is a concern, and I've raised that with the Minister today.

GF: Did you get any reassurance from her?

KN: Well, she said that look, it’s something that you know they need to talk about. The question is that we need to get these safeguards and protection in that the industry is protected and we're still not quite there.

GF: Why do you think it took so long to get these tariffs lifted?

KN: I think the reason is because we didn't play the cards that we had initially. I think finally there was enough pressure that was coming from our union on both sides of the border. And don't forget you got 35 US states that have a surplus — a trade surplus — with Canada. And you know with our countervailing duties that I believe that has had a significant impact. And I think that finally that I think the penny has dropped, and President Trump has seen fit to now move in this particular direction. Because there are obviously a lot of other issues that are outstanding there what's happening in the US.

GF: What about Canada? You were not happy the way this was handled by the government.

KN: Oh no, and I've been very vocal about it from day one. I mean the fact is that when the president says to our prime minister that once a NAFTA agreement is reached, the tariffs are going to be removed. And they didn't hold them to account of that. The other thing there was some more recently I think that the government of Canada was quietly saying to people in Washington that we're not going to ratify the USMCA until those tariffs are removed. And there has been some momentum also in the US Congress — or the House — that they're saying they'd look, there's just no way that this agreement will even get off to a starting point if these tariffs are still there. So I think that that also got the attention of the US president that this deal is not going to go anywhere with these tariffs in place.

GF: So now, they've committed they say within 48 hours on both sides the tariffs will be eliminated. Do you see this as unblocking that road to having the new NAFTA signed? And is that ultimately a good thing for you and your workers?

KN: Today's a good day. I mean I have to say — especially to our members that have stood with us — and we're very vocal. And you know we lobbied very hard and both sides. And our union you know has taken it to everybody that was prepared to listen. And the other thing that's important is that we worked very closely with the Canadian Steel Producers Association. We had a common voice. And I think that that's important because from our perspective, we no longer have a Canadian steel industry. All of our industries are foreign owned. I mean there's no such luxury anymore of having decisions made in Hamilton or Regina. So I was pleased that we were able to bring together all the stakeholders and speak with one strong voice that this is just wrongheaded, and we gotta continue to fight to get this removed.

GF: All right. Mr. Neumann, thanks so much.

KN: Thanks for having me.

GF: Take care. Bye-bye.

JD: Ken Neumann is the national director for Canada with the United Steelworkers. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music: Ambient]

Philippines garbage MP

Guest: Kevin Lamoureux

JD: The deadline, it has come. And the deadline, it has gone. And still the garbage sits, rotting, as it has for nearly six years. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte set Wednesday as a deadline for Canada to collect its dumpsters full of trash. But they haven't budged. Last month, he threatened to ship the garbage back, and said Canada could, quote, "eat it" if we liked. Now, things seem to be escalating: yesterday, The Philippines recalled its ambassador and consuls general. Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux says his government could have done better on this matter. We reached Mr. Lamoureux in Ottawa.

GF: Mr. Lamoureux, you've called it an embarrassment that six years later, Canada's garbage remains in those Philippine ports. Why an embarrassment?

KEVIN LAMOUREUX: It's embarrassing in the sense that given the importance of the environment for us, for me personally, I look at it and I say that's a long period of time.

GF: What’s the answer? Why has it taken so long?

KL: My understanding is that… and I get my understanding based on a trip that I made to the Philippines last summer — where I had found out about the issue. I was curious to why at that time — you know five years — why it was sitting in the Philippines. So I had raised the issue back then. And I was provided the answer in terms of well, it's private companies, and there's a court process that has to be followed, and other issues that had to be dealt with. But at the end of the day, I was given assurances that it's okay. That it's moving along. It will be dealt with.

GF: But in Canada, when you've raised it with the government of which you are a member, what answers do you get here as to why it's taken so long?

KL: Well, I've never raised it with the government prior to raising it with the bureaucrats in the Philippines. What happened was is that I was in the Philippines, and was very much aware that there was an outstanding issue surrounding garbage. And that's when I first raised the issue.

GF: Okay, but certainly as of last month, when this came to a head after the Philippine president Duterte you know threatened Canada essentially to send it back, we've all been aware of this. The Canadian government said it was going to get onto this and fix this. And then there was a deadline set this week that we didn't meet. Why did the Canadian government miss this week's deadline?

KL: Well, first of all, I truly respect you know President Duterte. He is a man that's very, very blunt. I've had the opportunity to meet with him when he was the mayor of Davao a number of years back. And enjoyed the discussion I had with him back then. And I attribute the success that we've had in the last few weeks to his comments. He's the one who's taken it out of the bureaucracy and has said hey, look, this is very serious. It's an environmental issue. We want the garbage out of the Philippines and back in Canada. And the unfortunate thing is that he when he raised the issue, he put a date of May 15^th. And it just wasn't possible for us to be able to meet that date.

GF: In an interview, the presidential spokesman — Mr. Duterte’s spokesman — said what the Canadian government needs is more political will. And Justin Trudeau is not a leader that has that.

KL: Well, I don't think that's a fair assessment. Since Mr. Duterte has made the statement that he did, we have responded I would suggest to you in a fairly appropriate way. We've expedited it. It's just not possible for us to meet the May 15th deadline. So you know I think that as a government, we have taken responsibility. Could it have been done earlier? We could have always done better on this particular file. But you know we had trust and faith in the bureaucracies of both governments that, in fact, there was forward movement.

GF: You represent a riding that has one of the largest Filipino populations in Canada. What are you hearing from your constituents as to how they view how this government has handled it?

KL: I haven't had anyone to me indicate that we are as a government doing a bad job on it. It is embarrassing. You know I'm sorry that it's taken as long as it has. But at the end of the day, when you throw six years, and you say 69 containers, why are they still there? There is a rationale for it. Since it's been raised by President Duarte back in April, we have been very quick to react to it. You know we still have to do some diligence on the file. And we've made the commitment to finance and get it back to Canada.

GF: What more is needed now to get the garbage back here, and to repair — if it can be repaired — this this break in the relationship with the Philippines.

KL: Well, number one, it's getting the contractor. And we should know who the contractor is before the end of next week — after it's been properly tendered. That company would ultimately then have to give some sort of indication, and I suspect it be within their proposal, in terms of a timeframe.

GF: So what do you think that timeframe is? How long is it going to take?

KL: Well, for me it can never be quick enough.

GF: Well, that's not an answer. [laughs] How long do you think it's going to take?

KL: Well, I would I would like to think… again, like I don't know the complexities of it. But I would like to think that it would be out of there before the end of June. I would like to think that that would be the case. And if it can be done before the end of May, I would very much welcome that news. We want this issue resolved. And we want to minimize any sort of you know discomfort between the two governments. And I'm confident that not only will we get the garbage back to Canada, but any sort of damage in terms of the relationship between our two countries will, in fact, be minimized. And what's there we'll be able to fix in a relatively short order.

GF: All right Mr. Lamoureux, we'll see what happens.

KL: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

GF: Bye-bye.

KL: Bye-bye.

JD: Kevin Lamoureux is the Liberal MP for Winnipeg North. He also chairs a parliamentary friendship group between Canada and the Philippines. We reached Mr. Lamoureux in Ottawa.

[Music: Percussive]

Guide dog party

Guest: Michelle McQuigge

JD: Next week, in the Toronto Canadian Press offices, a very special member of the team will receive a fond farewell — and likely, various scratches behind the ears. Reva is described as a laser-focused worker, a supportive colleague, and, quote, "[the] world's best broadcast dog" The black labrador is reporter Michelle McQuigge's guide dog, and she's about to hang up her harness. And Reva will be so missed around the CP newsroom that Ms. McQuigge has decided to throw a retirement party. We reached her — Michelle McQuigge that is, not Reva — in Toronto.

GF: Michelle, how are you feeling as you're planning Reva's retirement party?

MICHELLE MCQUIGGE: Very emotional. This is a very exhausting process in a whole variety of ways. The process of detaching from a guide dog who's been with me virtually 24 hours a day for almost a decade is not something that I'm finding terribly easy. At the same time though, she deserves a really good retirement. She's been an incredible guide dog. And she's in her twilight years, and she's still healthy enough to enjoy them. So I owe it to her to let her go and do exactly that. But it can be hard. No question.

GF: So how do you mark the occasion for a guide dog? Tell me what this party you're planning is going to look like?

MM: [laughs] Really, you should be speaking to my co-workers in a lot of ways — because they're the ones who got emotional about it even before I did. And they said we've got to do something. She's part of the team. She's been with us all this time. So we need to do something to honour her. She's like a human co-worker. Let's send her off. So everyone in the Toronto newsroom at Canadian Press will get together. There will be human cake and puppy cake. I'm ordering that as we speak. And I think there's some talk of having an obstacle course of the trashcans that she normally tries to dive into when I let her off the leash around here — maybe with some treats concealed in some of the empty ones, that sort of thing. I don't know exactly what's planned. So there's an element of surprise I think. But certainly everyone wants to show her a bit of love before she goes.

GF: So tell me a little bit about Reva. You've had her for almost 10 years. What does she do for you?

MM: She allows me to navigate the world safely. She's invaluable. She helps me navigate the streets. Because of her, I can walk in a much more comfortable, faster pace, and not feel like I'm being hemmed in by the crowds. Generally, she a confidence booster — and she can help keep me safe even in situations where they may be changing factors.

GF: Okay. And we haven't said what kind of a dog is Reva?

MM: She's a black lab.

GF: A black lab.

MM: A very cute, little one.

GF: And how would you describe her personality?

MM: She's frisky and playful, even at age eleven-and-a-half, she's still quite often acts like a puppy and loves to play. She loves attention. She assumes that everyone's role on earth is to pet her and love her and tell her she's wonderful. So she'll make eyes at people and elevators. She'll come and lay her head on me sometimes when I'm working or when I'm just around my home. So she loves people. She's a really fun, cheerful presence to have around any workplace or home.

GF: And I know that these relationships are very intense, aren't they?

MM: Absolutely.

GF: So I can appreciate that after a decade, the decision to retire her as it were must've been a very difficult one. How did you do that?

MM: It was. And it was really dictated by her health. There's no fixed date on when a guide dog retires. It's totally contingent on their health, and how they're doing on the job. I've been unbelievably lucky now twice that my dogs have stayed in great health and had nice long careers. Reva’s though has been longer than most — nine-and-three-quarter years is a really long time to keep going. So I knew it was coming. It's a numbers game at this point. She's still in good health. She can still go at a pretty good clip, but her pace has slowed down some. Her energy level isn't quite as high as it used to. And I figured it was time to spare her from another summer of hot, crowded streets, and the joys of our local transit system. And it was time for her to be able to enjoy herself and go and unwind and be in the country — where she's going to have a lot more leisure time and space and opportunities to just be a puppy.

GF: And where will that be? What kind of a place is she going to?

MM: I have family members living east of Toronto, and they have a lovely rural property out there and she's going to go live with them.

GF: She's going to kick back, maybe take up golf.

MM: Exactly, she's probably going to have a better retirement than me at this point.

[both laugh]

GF: But nevertheless, you still need a guide dog.

MM: That’s correct.

GF: So who is Reva's replacement?

MM: That’s to be determined. I'm going to go to guide dog school in June. I'm choosing to go to one in the US. And once I'm there, I will get matched with my new partner. And I suspect they have a sense of who it might be yet just based on my past history. But that's not anything I'm going to find out much about until I'm physically there and they've had a chance to assess me.

GF: So there will be another party I guess at the Canadian press as you welcome a new guide dog into your midst.

MM: Well, at some point. But this is part of why it's fun for the co-workers to send her off and have some playtime — a more a more structured playtime than what we've been having so far. When I get back with the new dog, I'm going to have to be much more strict. And the co-workers won't have the same latitude that they do currently. With Reva, I can just let her off, and she can run around because our boundaries and our relationship are very well established. With the new dog, it's going to take some time to establish who is boss, and for me to get a feel for how this dog operates and whether there’s going to be any pushback and what they're comfortable with. So the first few months here won't be quite as much fun for my colleagues because there won't be as much puppy playtime as there has been for the past nine years or so.

GF: Well, I hope you all enjoy the party next week. And we look forward to seeing some pictures.

MM: We will definitely be posting those. [laughs]

GF: All right, Michelle. Thanks so much.

MM: Thank you. Take care.

JD: That was Canadian Press reporter Michelle McQuigge. We reached her in Toronto. And if you'd like to see some photographs of Reva on the eve of her retirement, head to: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Country]

Swimming pools

JD: This shouldn't be hard for us. Just like a "newspaper" is paper with news on it, and a "fireplace" is a place where you have a fire, a "swimming pool" is a pool, in which we swim. It's right in the name. But listen, I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou. In the past, perhaps, I may have treated a swimming pool as more of a bathing pool — by skipping a shower and just cannonballing in. I also may have injured at least two people doing Aquafit — for which, I apologize, but I digress. And according to a survey done by the U.S. Water Quality and Health Council, I'm not the only one who has failed to shower. The survey says 51 per cent of Americans, quote, "report using a swimming pool as a communal bathtub." Unquote. That is, 51 per cent of Americans who were sweaty and gross have just jumped right in the pool, without cleaning themselves off. And this, the Council says, makes the water sweaty and gross. Interesting. And I know, I know, we should all shower. But...doesn't "jumping in the pool when you're hot" constitute, you know, swimming? Which is the proper use for a swimming pool? Who exactly is running this survey? On Twitter, Jessica Huseman of Pro Publica made it plain. Quote, "This survey was conducted online by a PR firm whose client is chlorine." Unquote. Ah. I see. She goes on to point out, quote, "The PR firm conducted the survey because they are being paid by this client to tell you that your eyes don't burn because of chlorine; they burn because of all the human sweat...in pools. Really." Unquote. Well, huh. So I guess, if you're hot, just dive right into the swimming pool. Because this survey is so iffy there's no reason to go off the deep end.

[Music: Indie]

Part two: Nuclear energy critic, throat singing boycott

Nuclear energy critic

Guest: Gregory Jaczko

JD: As a young scientist, Gregory Jaczko was fascinated by the potential of nuclear power to produce clean and renewable energy. And as the chair of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under President Obama, it was his job was to ensure the safety of American nuclear power. But this morning, in a Washington Post essay, the former chair called for the abolishment of all nuclear power. Not just in the US, but around the world. We reached Gregory Jaczko in Washington.

GF: Mr. Jaczko, given your previous positions, this is quite a statement. Why do you think nuclear power should be banned?

GREGORY JACZKO: Well, I think if you look at the reasons for nuclear power, there's really two or three reasons. It produces electricity that's relatively stable. It doesn't emit greenhouse gas emissions. And so when you think of those ideas, and you know it makes sense to have nuclear power. But when you really delve into the facts, it turns out that nuclear really doesn't deliver those things in a way that's really meaningful. And the fundamental challenge we face today is dealing with climate change. Nuclear power simply is not a good solution for that.

GF: Well, you used to be quite optimistic about the potential for nuclear energy precisely because of climate change. What's changed?

GJ: Well, a couple of things have changed. The first thing that changed is that there are now better ways to generate carbon-free electricity. We have renewable energy, we have geothermal, hydro, solar, wind. All of these sources produce electricity, and they produce it cheaper than nuclear power. And they don't have the kinds of problems that nuclear power has when it comes to accident risk or environmental contamination or even health effects on people.

GF: And that wasn't always the case, is that what you're saying?

GJ: That's right it really wasn't always the case — certainly from a price perspective. I mean this is something that's happened over the last ten years or so. The price of renewable energy has come down dramatically, and it's continuing to fall. So it's gotten to the point now where these solutions are actually cheaper not only than new plants that people might build — new nuclear plants — but they're cheaper than existing plants that are operating, and they've paid off all of their construction costs, which is really the bulk of the expense for nuclear. So it's really this dramatic shift in the electricity market that makes it possible now to say we can walk away from nuclear and not doom the planet from a climate perspective.

GF: I want to talk a little bit more about your own evolution — your personal evolution — you wrote in your piece in The Washington Post that in 2005 is when your views began to shift. And then something happened in 2011 that was important. What was that?

GJ: Well in 2011, I was the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And I dealt with a major nuclear power plant accident in Japan. And this was really the first time that I had to confront the realities of a nuclear accident, the people who were getting evacuated, the crisis mode that ensued both in Japan and here in the United States — as they struggled, and we struggled to help them get these reactors under control. That was very different than the hypothetical computer simulations I had dealt with previous to that.

GF: And we're talking here about the accident at Fukushima in 2011, right?

GJ: That's right, in Fukushima Japan.

GF: And you write in your essay. You say that at that point it was your job to reassure the American public that everything was going to be okay. But even then you were starting to doubt whether that was true.

GJ: Yeah, there was incident after incident while this accident was unfolding. The things I thought or I'd been led to believe were true about nuclear power just turned out not to be true. We saw radiation produce away from the plant at distances much further than I had believed was possible really for a major nuclear accident. And so I had to go out and say right now, we don't have a reason or a basis really to say that plants in the US are unsafe. But what I did promise at that time was that the agency that I led would look at these issues and identify things that needed to be improved to make the plant safer. And you know it was really when I drove into implementing those recommendations that I really saw the power of the industry as it tried to downplay this accident and argue that it really wasn't a big deal. When, in fact, I knew from personal experience that it was a big deal.

GF: And now you've come even further than that. And you are calling for nuclear energy to be banned. How realistic is that? For instance, here in Canada, about 15 per cent of our electricity comes from nuclear. In the province of Ontario — the largest province — it's closer to 60 per cent. How do you phase out nuclear without increasing carbon emissions?

GJ: Well, the reality is that that's actually easier than it appears because the cheapest way to generate electricity today is through wind and solar. So you can begin to replace those plants with this kind of technology. And, in fact, you can do it more cheaply than the electricity you're getting from these nuclear generators. A great source of electricity near Ontario is, in fact, the wind that's in the Great Lakes. So there are alternatives. And that's really why I was really comfortable coming to this conclusion, and really publicly saying now that I feel strongly that nuclear’s future is really is really not there — that its time has passed. Because there now are alternatives.

GF: You know own I understand a wind power company yourself, which I suspect your critics might point to as a potential conflict. Is your position in any way influenced by that?

GJ: No, absolutely not. It's really a reflection that I think I like to think of it as an intellectual honesty on my part that I think that's where the future is. And so I started a company a few years ago to try and do development in the wind space and in other clean energy areas. And it's because of what I saw in the marketplace that I realized this is where the opportunities are. So the conditions are there for the right decisions to be made. I think to a large extent, government just has to stay out of the way and let the market work. And it's going to be doing the right thing. Like I said the right thing for the planet and the right thing for your pocketbook, and it's a nice time to be in a you know somebody who supports environmental goals and you can say that.

GF: All right. Well, thank you so much for talking to us today.

GJ: It was a real pleasure, Gillian.

GF: Bye-bye.

GJ: Bye.

JD: Gregory Jaczko is the former chair of the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We reached Mr. Jaczko in Washington.

[Music: Country]

FOA: Stella Nyanzi Award

JD: She called the Ugandan president "a pair of buttocks" on Facebook. And for that, human rights activist Stella Nyanzi was thrown in maximum security prison, and subjected to a psychiatric evaluation. As It Happens spoke to Ms. Nyanzi, back in the summer of 2017, as she faced trial. This week, she was named Activist of the Year by a Uganda NGO. With Ms. Nyanzi still behind bars, her daughter accepted the award in her absence. Here's a clip from Carol's conversation with Ms. Nyanzi, from two years ago. Carol begins by asking her why she called the Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni "a pair of buttocks."

SOUNDCLIP

STELLA NYANZI: What other words were there for me to use? I think that calling him a pair of buttocks was an expression I use to capture a range of government failures. I think that the metaphor of the buttocks and what the buttocks do is an interesting metaphor and to just think about a national leader who defecates on everything that he's leading. Our economy is full of his products. The best metaphor to use was one around waste and spoiling and dirt and pollution, and I think that pair of buttocks is quite a decent metaphor to use on a president.

CO: You have a lot of support, followers on Facebook, but you also have a lot of critics in Uganda. People who think that you are vulgar, you're a woman who is using bad language. What do you say to your critics in Uganda?

SN: Basically, I laugh at them with scorn [laughs] which is quite outrageous and I think that irritates them more. I mean look, if language is the only bullet that will bring Golliath down, if dirty language is the only weapon that's left to us, lets use it.

JD: That’s human rights activist and writer Stella Nyanzi, speaking with Carol in 2017. Ms. Nyanzi was named “Activist of the Year” by an NGO in Uganda.

[Music: Ambient]

Herman Wouk obit

JD: "The Caine Mutiny", "The Winds of War", "War and Remembrance." Just a few of renowned American author Herman Wouk's many long, and long-admired, novels. Mr. Wouk died this morning in Palm Springs, California. He was 103 years old. He was considered one of the most popular writers of his generation. And he redefined historical fiction. He wrote about the Second World War, and the real-life characters who defined it, at a time when the death and destruction was barely in the distant past. And he did it well — well enough to win a Pulitzer Prize. In October of 1972, Herman Wouk spoke with "CBC Tuesday Night" host Stephen Banker about "The Winds of War". Here is part of that conversation, beginning with the author describing how he uses real people in his works of fiction.

SOUNDCLIP

HERMAN WOUK: It's very important not to take liberties with them. That creates a tin-ie and vulgar and unreal effect. And while nearly all of my work in connection with these great men, aside from getting a grasp of them and a vision of them in my research, went to using details that were believable and that would bring them to life with a touch or two. And not pushing them around to make any author's points, which is the usual error in handling great men in books and plays.

STEPHEN BANKER: Let's move on to Winston Churchill, who was also a character in your book. And about whom a paragraph appears on page 405.

HW: Oh yes, this is Churchill and Victor Henry. He's visiting Churchill on Roosevelt's behalf, in connection with radar, which was then a British secret. In a small, hot, cluttered room that smelled of old books and dead cigars, the corpulent old prime minister stood near the window, one hand on his hip, looking down at the spread of photographs on his desk. He was very short, and very stooped, with graceful little hands and feet. He bulges in the middle, and tapered upward and downward like Tweedle Dum. As he turned and went to meet Victor Henry, his walk was slow and heavy. With a word of welcome, he shook hands, and motioned Pug to a seat. The secretary left. Churchill sat in his armchair, put a hand on one arm, leaned back, and contemplated the American naval captain with filmy eyes. The big ruddy face, flecked and spattered with age, looked severe and suspicious. He puffed at the stump of his cigar, and slowly rumbled we're going to win, you know?

[laughs from both]

SB: You're kinder to the villains in history than you are to the heroes.

HW: There's nothing unkind in my treatment of Churchill. That's the way he looked…

[crosstalk]

SB: Rather repulsive physically the way you describe him.

HW: Possibly. I think, however, that the literature, more or less, bears out that's what he looked like. And I think he emerges as a very heroic figure in “The Winds of War”.

JD: That’s Author Herman Wouk, speaking on “CBC Tuesday Night” back in 1972. Herman Wouk died this morning. He was 103 years old.

[Music: Jazzy piano]

Throat singing boycott

Guest: Jolene Banning

JD: When the Indigenous Music Awards take place tonight in Winnipeg, one of Canada's most prominent performers will not be noticeably absent. Tanya Tagaq is one of several Inuit throat singers boycotting tonight's awards, in protest of Connie LeGrande. Ms. LeGrande is a Cree woman who's up for Best Folk Album at tonight's IMAs. Her latest disc features throat singing. And Ms. Tagaq, and others, say that amounts to cultural appropriation. Jolene Banning is a writer and columnist who's been covering the story. We reached her in Thunder Bay, earlier today.

GF: Jolene, what has Connie LeGrand done that has so upset Tanya Tagaq and other Inuit throat singers?

JOLENE BANNING: She included throat singing on her C.D. And she recorded it herself, without hiring an Inuit throat singer to perform on the album for her.

GF: And this was offensive because she's not Inuit, is that right?

JB: Yes.

GF: So, first of all, let's remind people of what throat singing is. Take a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: “Throat Jam” by Connie LeGrand]

GF: So that was Connie LeGrand, singing a song called “Throat Jam”. Now, you're not Inuit either. We should point that out; you’re Anishinaabe as I understand. But what is the significance of throat singing in the Inuit culture?

JB: The significance around throat singing from what I understand is that it has been an art form that has been practiced from time immemorial. But when colonialism came, and the violence that ensued, it was nearly lost because it was banned. So the collective feel that it's really important that they're given the time and space to reclaim what was theirs, to re-strengthen their society. Because this art form was nearly lost, and only within the last couple of decades have artists such as Tanya Tagaq been able to bring it back and revitalize it.

GF: So you have talked with Connie LeGrand I understand. And do you know how she got to be interested in throat singing, and got involved in performing it herself then?

JB: Yes. What she told me was that she was introduced to it in 2012, when she had a brief three-hour introduction to it during a cultural demonstration. She tells me that she does not believe it’s Inuit throat singing. However, Tanya Tagaq has said that it sounds too much like her own style, like her own way of singing. And that's why she's calling cultural appropriation.

GF: And how has Connie LeGrand responded to that?

JB: She says she's simply taking the skill of throat singing, the inhalation, the exhalation, and using her own sounds, and her own Cree vowels. And that when she is in the middle of throat singing that she is in prayer — that she sees it as when you would go to a powwow, and you would hear the men singing around the drum, singing “hey ya” as the same way.

GF: She's actually a fan of Tanya Tagaq I understand.

JB: She was a huge fan. And that was one of the things that she loved about throat singing. She told me she never missed a concert when Tagaq was in Edmonton, where she's from. And that's what got her curious about throat singing, and got her visiting the web to find more throat singers, and then she came across Tanya Tagaq’s YouTube videos — where she gives further instruction and demonstration.

GF: So how is she responding then to this criticism? I mean the very fact that this group of Inuit singers may boycott the music awards tonight because of her, how is she reacting to that?

JB: She told me she feels very scared to go to the awards tonight. She feels unheard. She feels almost bullied. And that she wished it could have turned out different.

GF: Did she ever consider withdrawing?

JB: She did. She told me that she did contact the IMAs about withdrawing. And what I heard back from the IMAs is that they needed time to develop policy. And right now, there are rules and regulations in place. And it just couldn't happen in one year that rules be changed. And they couldn't allow her to withdraw.

GF: I suspect that Connie LeGrand thinks that she is appreciating Inuit throat singing, and that what she's doing is a celebration of it. But obviously, at some point, there is a line that separates cultural appreciation from cultural appropriation. Where do you think that line lies?

JB: I think the line lies within the Nation that is calling out appropriation. I think that they need to be given the voice to say here's the line.

GF: This is a bit of a window I think to many people into tensions that they may not have known about between Indigenous communities. Is this unique? Is this something that happens in other ways in other art forms?

JB: Well, I think what's interesting about this debate is the pan-Indigenous culture perspective — painting all Indigenous people as one. So when I spoke with [a professor] he said that the public still see Indigenous people as a singular group — as one Nation with only one opinion. But the reality is that we are all individual Nations with specific opinions. That we all have our own lodges — our own forms of governance, our own societies, our own clans — and there are bound to be debates within these different societies, and within these different Nations of Indigenous people.

GF: All right. Well thanks, Jolene, for telling us about it tonight.

JB: Thank you.

JD: Jolene Banning is an Anishnaabe writer and columnist. We reached her in Thunder Bay, Ontario, earlier today.

[Music: Ambient]

FOA: Grumpy Cat obit

JD: She had the kind of scowl that could light up a room. Tardar Sauce, better known as Grumpy Cat, was a little kitty with a big underbite. And that face propelled her to internet stardom. She graced t-shirts, phone cases, even landed her own Lifetime movie. Yes, the harbinger of harrumph shone in her time on this Earth. But like so many bright lights, she burned out too soon. The famously fussy cat died this week. In a message posted to her social media accounts today, her owners note, quote, "besides being our baby and a cherished member of the family, Grumpy Cat has helped millions of people smile all around the world — even when times were tough." Unquote. We spoke with her manager Ben Lashes when she signed her movie deal. Here's part of his conversation with Carol, from May 2013.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: What do you think it is about Grumpy Cat that has such mass appeal?

BEN LASHES: Well, you know on one hand, I think the means have really met the time right now when the mainstream audiences are becoming more savvy with Internet pop culture. And it's leaking more and more into mainstream pop culture. And with Grumpy Cat, it's a universal theme. We all know someone or are somebody who's grumpy. And even your grandma can get Grumpy Cat. So it's got that it's got that magic where it translates to everybody, and everyone can relate some way. So you know as grumpy as she gets, she just always looks adorable. So it’s an undeniable thing. Even when shes’s scowling at you, you just want to kiss her and hug her.

CO: Is there some explanation for her face looking like that?

BL: Well, I mean she's just she's really unhappy with the world.

[both laugh]

BL: I don't know. It's just how she was born. It's part of her special gift. And other than that, I think you'd have to look to the cat gods to really explain why she looks as she does. But one thing's for sure, when people see her on the street — whether they know that she's Grumpy Cat or not — they stop, and they go oh my gosh, I've never seen a cat like that.

CO: It is an extraordinary face.

BL: It really is. It's one-of-a-kind. You know when I first met Grumpy Cat, after I started working with her, I was like oh man, you know I'm gonna show up and she's just going to be all smiles and in a great mood. And luckily you know she always looks grumpy.

CO: She didn't disappoint you.

BL: No, not at all. It’s just part of her DNA, and she really is a sweet cat — sven though she looks upset all the time. So she really is a sweetie.

JD: That was Ben Lashes, manager for Grumpy Cat. The Internet darling died this week. She was seven years old.

[Music: Sombre piano]

Part three: Opioid lawsuit, NL election,

Opioid lawsuit

Guest: Adam Tanel

JD: They made billions selling opioids. Now, an Ontario law firm wants them to pay. A new class-action law suit is seeking one-point-one billion dollars in damages from drug manufacturers — alleging they marketed opioids, while misleading doctors and downplaying the risks. The suit — which has yet to be certified — targets some two dozen drug manufacturers, including Apotex, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson and Johnson, and Purdue Pharma. And it centers on a doctor who became addicted to percocet, and then fentanyl. Adam Tanel is a lawyer with Koskie Minsky — the law firm behind the suit. We reached Mr. Tanel in Toronto.

GF: Mr. Toanel, can we start by talking about your lead plaintiff, Dr. Gebian, how does an ER doctor become addicted to opioids?

ADAM TANEL: Yeah, absolutely we can start there. This is a man, had a minor sports injury, I think he was playing hockey when he injured his hand, and was prescribed Percocet by his doctor. That started a spiral of addiction in an otherwise healthy and very successful man, a family man. And that spiral of addiction cost him serious ramifications with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It ended up in him serving a jail sentence, and losing access and custody of his children.

GF: As a doctor, would he not have known that Percocet was potentially addictive?

AT: Well, whether he would have known that it was potentially addictive isn't the question. The question is what extent did the medical community have knowledge of the actual dangers — not just potential dangers. Because let's not forget he's one doctor who was struck by this, but there were doctors all across the province prescribing serious opioid medications for these minor physical injuries. This isn't a one-off. People were being prescribed fentanyl because they had minor back pain. And doctors would not have been prescribing that if they were aware of the very serious risk of addiction.

GF: All right. And that brings us to the class-action suit that you have filed. You are taking on two dozen drug companies. What are you accusing them of?

AT: Well, a lot of things. But it starts with knowing of this very serious risk of these opioids, and underrepresented those risks to doctors and to the public at large. This is very much a manufactured crisis that started in the ‘90s. People were not dropping dead in the ‘80s and early ‘90s of back pain and wrist pain, and the kinds of things that Purdue and others were pushing doctors to prescribe opioids for. There was no crisis then that the pharmaceuticals had to solve. The pharmaceuticals manufactured this pain crisis in part by teaching lectures at the medical schools, convincing doctors that pain was an under prescribed and underreported phenomenon in their practices, and really pushing aggressively to have these opioids used when they knew just how dangerous they were.

GF: And what is the evidence that you intend to bring to prove that they, as you say, that they knew about this and manufactured this crisis?

AT: Well, nobody knows the drug's better than the manufacturers — we start there. In 2018, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, an article was published showing that for many conditions for which opioids are prescribed that they are no more effective than non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. And to us, it's simply unthinkable that this knowledge was not in the hands and in the minds of the manufacturers themselves.

GF: But do you have evidence to show that it was?

AT: No, you can't get evidence at this stage of litigation. But the first stage is to issue a claim and have it certified. Then, as plaintiffs, we’re entitled to documentary discovery, which entitles us to look inside the minds of the defendants and find out exactly what information they had. But I can tell you from past experience and other work we've done in pharmaceutical class-actions that nobody knows the products better than the developers and the manufacturers. So it would be a very bizarre situation where the side effects and the lack of efficacy caught them off guard.

GF: Well, one of those companies that you've named as is Purdue, which is as we know is the manufacturer of OxyContin, which is probably the most popular opioid, most widely prescribed. And in the United States, they have acknowledged that it's marketing of OxyContin was misleading. And, in fact, three of its top executives paid fines to settle criminal and civil charges. Do you believe that Purdue in particular will allow that the same kinds of misleading marketing was going on in Canada as well?

AT: They haven't made any admissions to us yet. I'm sure you're also aware that they settled I think for 270-million dollars in a lawsuit in Oklahoma — that was Purdue in the Sackler family. I mean our firm prosecuted Audi for the “Dieselgate” conspiracy. And in some instances, allegations were admitted in the United States litigation and then still contested north of the border. So we can't rely on common sense prevailing here. We're going to have to litigate pretty diligently to make sure that we get those same kinds of admissions.

GF: There's something like 40 states now in the United States who have filed lawsuits against Purdue in particular. We know that the government of BC has launched a lawsuit, trying to recoup the health care costs that are associated with the addiction rates that they see there. Where does all of this end? I mean there seems to be so many different jurisdictions that are tackling this, but what is going to be the result of all that, do you think?

AT: Well, it ends when everyone's been paid back for the corporate malfeasance. We applaud the British Columbia government's action. Our action is distinct from that. And what we're looking for is compensation for the family members of people killed by this epidemic. And for the people who suffered through addiction themselves, and may have like our client lost their jobs as a result of their addiction, incurred additional health care costs as a result of their addiction, and really just had their lives spiral out of control. The other thing that we do know is that of people dealing with long-term opioid addiction, approximately three-quarters of them started with legally prescribed opioids. So this is an enormous class. And it's something that really has touched every segment of Canadian society from coast to coast to coast.

GF: And how is Dr. Gebian himself doing today in terms of his own addiction?

AT: Today, he was at Queen's Park, advocating for mandatory Naloxone kits for all police officers. He is tireless in his efforts in pursuing a safer Canada — because he's seen firsthand what these opioids do to people and families.

GF: And he is opioid-free?

AT: He is.

GF: Thanks so much for telling us about it today.

AT: My pleasure. Thank you for having me on, and thank you for covering this important issue.

JD: Adam Tanel is a lawyer with Koskie Minsky — the law firm behind a proposed one-point-one billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against dozens of drug companies that manufactured, sold, and marketed opioids. We reached Mr. Tanel in Toronto.

[Music: Hip-hop]

FOA: Milgaard anniversary

JD: David Milgaard was only 17 years old when he was convicted of murdering Gail Miller. A crime he didn't commit. He spent the next 23 years in prison before his conviction was thrown out. During that time, he was abused, and raped. He escaped twice, and was shot by RCMP officers while being recaptured. DNA evidence would fully exonerate him in 1997. And on May 17, 1999, the Saskatchewan government announced a 10-million dollar settlement for Mr. Milgaard. In 1995, Mr. Milgaard spoke to CBC "Midday" host Tina Srebotnjak about his time in prison. From our archives, here's part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

EX-INMATE: To be a person accused of a crime, and to feel they know basically that wrath, that sense of animosity you know as a young person in my situation, I'm sure to be locked into a picture like that you know that that's horrific. There is no two ways to get around that feeling of you know people think of me as that sort of person when you're not. Prison is one of the most horrible experiences anybody can live with. You walk around there sometimes the atmosphere of prison can change in a period of three seconds.

TINA SREBOTNJAK: David, you had you were 23 years. I mean it seems unbelievable. What's sustained you?

DAVID MILGAARD: He pegged it there. The same thing — the fact that you didn't do something and you know you didn't do it. If you didn't have that there as a basis, one of the things most wrongfully convicted to do is maintain that they haven't done nothing wrong long. Ordinary prisoners under certain circumstances won't do that. I've been out now for a couple of years. I'm fed. I have a place to stay. I mean I'm working on you know maybe staying in Toronto permanently. But you know, a person you know, first of all, has to be able to just feel his way around, you know? And say well, this is where I’m at. I think I walked into a store at one point to get a rose from my mother. And you know this is just after I was out, and I felt like maybe the whole world knew I was a prisoner, and I was scared. And you know it was hard to do that. And people told me I might feel that, right? And I said oh no, no. I'm sure that everything out there is just the same way that it was 20 years ago.

TS: Do you think you will be able to get over this?

DM: In my situation, it's not going to be over until I have an apology from the people that know the truth, that have the evidence right to this day, that told Saskatchewan that what they were supposed to do was make it clear to this country that I'm not guilty. And Saskatchewan refused.

JD: From 1995, that's David Milgaard, in conversation with Tina Srebotnjak on CBC's "Midday". Today marks 20 years since the Saskatchewan government announced it would give Mr. Milgaard 10-million dollars in compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned for almost a quarter of a century.

[Music: Horns!]

NL election

Guest: Jordan Brown

JD: Voters in Newfoundland and Labrador re-elected a Liberal government last night — one seat shy of a majority. But in Liberal Premier Dwight Ball's victory speech, he sounded far from disappointed.

SOUNDCLIP

DWIGHT BALL: So I commit to all of you that in the next mandate, I will stay humble, and I will humbly hope that I'll be joined by all MHAs — no matter what stripe, no matter what political stripe. What we need is a commitment to make this province a better place to live and a better future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

[Sound: Cheering]

DB: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are better than cheap shots, better than mudslinging, we are better than robo calls. I will keep working with every single member of our House of Assembly, and I will keep partnering. And our liberal government, made stronger with new members and experienced veterans, will keep moving Newfoundland and Labrador forward.

JD: The Liberals will govern with a minority. But the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Ches Crosbie, said he's still not ready to concede defeat. Voters also sent three NDP members to the provincial assembly. One of those NDP members is Jordan Brown. He's 29 years old. He won his seat by five votes — beating an incumbent Liberal cabinet minister. Mr. Brown is at his campaign headquarters in Labrador West, that's where we reached him.

GF: Mr. Brown, congratulations, I guess. Maybe we'll have to wait for the recount to be sure.

JORDAN BROWN: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Thank you so much. It's an interesting day. It was an interesting night. So I'm still you know we're still waiting through the system now to see what happens.

GF: So really five votes — that's what it came down to?

JB: Five votes, absolutely. It's something else I have to say. I was told it's going to be a close race, and all our numbers showed it was gonna be a close race, but I didn't realize how close the race was.

GF: Yeah. What was it like for you last night?

JB: Oh, I was very mixed emotions. The numbers were showing how close we were, and I was you know I was prepared, you know? Am I going to get this, or am I going back to my day job on Monday morning? And when everything came down to it, and some of my volunteers yelled out five votes, you won. It was quite emotional.

GF: Now, you ran against a longtime liberal incumbent and a cabinet minister, right?

JB: Absolutely, he's been the MHA for this region for three-and-a-half years.

GF: And you've never been a politician before?

JB: No, absolutely not. I ran for town council, and it didn't work for me then actually. [dry laughs]

GF: So why do you think you won this time?

JB: I managed to talk to a lot of youth and get a lot of youth out, myself and my and my volunteers. And a lot of first-time voters. And I think that's what did it for us.

GF: And so what kinds of issues were attracting those youth and those first-time voters?

JB: A lot of mental health and addictions was one thing that they were concerned about. And a lot of medical travel — a lot of young families in this region, so medical travel was another thing. So we appealed to them that way. And I think they were looking for someone that looked like them. They wanted a representative that was truly representing the young population of this region.

GF: When you say medical travel, tell me what you mean by that?

JB: We live in a very remote region of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So there's not many specialty doctors and stuff. So if you are a cancer patient, or have any special medical needs, we have to actually get on a plane and fly to the capital, St. John's, to receive checkups, or surgery, or treatments. So it does add up. It's a bit of a cost to the populations.

GF: And you also mentioned mental health issues and addictions.

JB: Yes, this region has, as Labrador as a whole, has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. Services here are improving, but we still have a long way to go.

GF: So as of today, you have a Liberal government, a minority government. And you have the Progressive Conservatives refusing to concede, which suggests to me that the NDP members, of which you are one, are going to be in demand by both sides. What do you know about the discussions that are going on between the parties?

JB: I'm not 100 per cent sure of what's going on there. I know that I'm prepared to represent my region, and my region is appropriately as best as possible. I believe it's too early to even speculate on that. I haven't been in any contact in anything like that. Like I said, it's less than 24 hours since I won.

GF: Do you think a minority government is a good result for the province?

JB: I've always been a fan of a minority government. I think that's when some of the best work in the country or in our province gets done. Because everyone has to put the partisan aside and actually work together as one.

GF: And I know I'm putting you a bit on the spot here. You don't speak for the whole party. But from your own experience and understanding, do you see a more natural alliance with the Liberals as opposed to the Conservatives?

JB: I'd see that we'd have to listen to both sides and see what is the best interest of the province.

GF: Do you see that there's anything to be learned here that might reflect across the rest of the country as we head into a federal election in the fall?

JB: I haven't really been able to pay attention to much of the federal politics lately. I've been head and eyes and into my own campaign. So I do have to catch up on that a bit. But you know, I think the rest of the country will be looking at us because we didn't follow the trend from the last couple of provincial elections.

GF: Can you expand on that a bit? What do you mean?

JB: Well, we see that the NDP government was booted in Alberta, and then the Liberals in PEI and New Brunswick. And I think we didn't go the whole way here. So I think everyone has a lot of eyes on this province to see what stopped that trend?

GF: And what do you think it was?

JB: I think people want change, but they don't want the change that they're getting. And I think that's why here that's why a lot of NDP kept their seats and I added my seat. I think people realize that's what they were looking for.

GF: Right. So assuming that the recount goes in your favour, and that you are actually declared the member for your riding, what will be your priorities when you get to the House of Assembly?

JB: I really want to tackle mental health and addictions. Also, I want to tackle anti-replacement worker legislation for bargaining units. And I also want to try to tackle the issues with keeping of family doctors in the region. So it's three pretty poignant things that need to be tackled in The House.

GF: Right. Well, I wish you the best of luck. We'll look forward to see what happens.

JB: Oh, thank you. And thank you for calling.

GF: Thanks. Bye-bye.

JB: Bye-bye.

JD: Jordan Brown is the newly elected NDP Member for Labrador West. We reached him at his campaign headquarters.

[Music: Fiddle!]

Ian McEwan

JD: Earlier on this week, author Ian McEwan launched his new novel, "Machines Like Me", at an event in Toronto, presented by Knopf Canada and Another Story Bookshop. As part of the evening, the celebrated author sat down for a Q-and-A with Carol. Mr. McEwan's new book explores a love triangle between a human man, a human woman, and an android, in a re-imagined, alternative UK of the 1980s. Britain has lost the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher's rule is being challenged, and real-life computer pioneer Alan Turing is still alive, and has helped to bring hyper-realistic robots to daily life. In his sit-down with Carol, Mr. McEwan mused on the threat of AI, human fallibility, and his own imaginative power. They began by discussing the central non-human character of the novel, Adam:

SOUNDCLIP

IAN MCEWAN: I needed a character who is highly intelligent. And one of the constant problems that face writers is when you have a character who's more intelligent than you are, which really requires a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors.

CO: He knows everything, in fact.

IM: Yeah.

CO: Absolutely everything — because he access to the Internet.

IM: Yeah.

CO: So he is all knowledge. But he is highly ethical, he's curious, he's caring, but the question that Charlie Friend keeps wondering is that just what he's programmed to be, or is that really him?

IM: I mean is a great problem I think for us as humans. We're very well-disposed, predisposed, to cast inanimate things as human. Anyone whose car breaks down, they get out and give it a good kick is already in an emotional relationship with a machine. So, yes, I'd like to imagine that we know how to be good. I mean we've thought it through. We have major religions, and minor religions, and millennia of philosophy. Our great difficulty is being good all the time — especially en mass. So I think it's going to be exciting, maybe horrifying, but completely fascinating.

CO: But Charlie and you, through your testing what would make this character of Adam make him human, he is, first of all, self-conscious.

IM: Well, he says he is.

CO: Yes, of course. And maybe he's programmed to say that.

IM: Yeah.

CO: But he says something very, very important that helps him in the struggles that all the Adams and Eves are going through is that he feels hopeful, which has to be one of the most important human emotions that help us get through all the things we face that a machine could have unless they had the sense of hope. He feels hopeful.

IM: It's a real problem because he says he feels hopeful. And how's this going to work out? If over the next 500 years we manage to militarize our own technology and find the battery that actually run these things and reproduce everything we know about all the connections between all the neurons you know 100 billion — 7000 axons on average — how will we know it's conscious? We will never discover. We will just think well, let's take the Turing test. Now, Alan Turing test was very simple. If you can't tell the difference between a machine and a human, treat it as a human.

CO: You use this backdrop in the Falklands Wars of that time as this canvas that these characters are operating on — this love triangle exists on — why did you want to do that? Why did you want that 1982 backdrop?

IM: It started first because I wanted Alan Turing, who committed suicide in 1954, and really was one of the founding fathers of the digital revolution, I wanted him alive, but not too old. And I really wanted to stick with his wartime record. So in 1982 he would've been 70; in other words, not entirely decrepit. In the sort of toddlerhood of old age.

CO: But we should tell people that because Alan Turing is a character in this book, it's 1982. And If you know about Alan Turing, the great mathematician who was crucial to the end of World War 2 with cracking the Enigma code, that he doesn't die in the 1950s after being persecuted for being homosexual. Ian brings him to life here. And so one of the things that happens when I was reading it was that I was beginning to think that you had a really bad editor. Because right from the beginning, there are references to laptops, and the Internet, and things being online. I’m thinking how could they not have caught this? How could he possibly have people on cell phones. And then, of course, finally the nickel drops, and I realized how you bent history when you brought Alan Turing in. So what role does he play? What does he change by virtue of being alive in 1982?

IM: He acts as a kind of conscience in the novel, possibly its moral centre. Depending on one's view, actually. Because there is a moral dilemma in the centre of this novel. One of the first great scientists of the 20th century to wonder aloud whether a machine could think, and I've been wondering about Turing nearly all my writing life. I read a play in the late ‘70s for the BBC, a television play called “The Imitation Game”. And in it, there is a Turing-like figure working at Bletchley. And in their off duty moments, he and his colleagues are discussing whether a machine could think. So this has been a long kind of fascination. But to come to your question about playing with the past, one of the characters says, and really says it on my behalf, the present is so overwhelmingly self-evident. And yet, it is the frailest of improbable constructs. If tried to be guessed at from the past, we’re hopeless, utterly hopeless, at getting our own near futures from all the actions we take together. We didn't know the Internet was coming even when we had the Internet up and running in the year 2000. We never guessed at social media. And yet, we're the ones making this. So what we get, whether it's present Trump, or Brexit, or whatever it is, here it is. And yet, we know how easily it could have been otherwise. Given that I had all these other concerns about consciousness and robots and a moral problem coming up, I could feel this sort of tidal wave of having fun with what didn't actually happen begin to overwhelm me. And I have made something of a rod for my own back. One highly intelligent reader said to me it's all great, but did you know President Kennedy was actually shot in Dallas?

CO: Oh dear!

JD: That was a British author Ian McEwan, speaking with Carol on Monday night. Nora Young will have a feature interview with Mr. McEwan this coming Sunday afternoon on “Spark”, on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Indie rock]

Ambassador food

JD: "For a taste of home, I like white rice with spinach stew and fried plantains. Growing up, we used to call it Black Stars. It's a dish we didn't joke with." Unquote. That's how Ghana's ambassador to the United States answered when asked what food he eats when he feels homesick. Washington Post asked and the majority of other DC-based ambassadors contacted gave similar answers. Argentina's ambassador said he eats calf's liver and onions — remarking nostalgically, "I know liver is not for everyone, but for me it reminds me of my mother's love." The ambassador from South Korea mentioned yuk gae jang, saying, "Shredded beef and vegetables make it as nutritious as it is delicious, and the broth is so spicy you can't stop eating it, lest the heat catch up and overwhelm you." All very diplomatic. But a couple of diplomats had surprising responses. First, the Swedish ambassador to the U.S., who said he takes his family to IKEA for what's apparently called "lordagsgodis" — which means "Saturday candy". He says "In my house, we eat two pounds of candy every Saturday," he said, adding that he personally favours "gummy jelly teeth". And then we have the Colombian ambassador, Francisco Santos. Quote, "My staff gives me a hard time about it, but I'm a freak for Taco Bell. I go to the one in Union Station because it's near the embassy. I chow down." Unquote. Well, okay. Chacun Ã son gou, as the French ambassador might say. And, you know, you have to admire the guy for his honesty: that's some straight talk about going straight to tacos.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 17, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode