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 October 11, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Tom Allen

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

TOM ALLEN: Good evening. I'm Tom Allen. And this is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

TA: Tonight...

CO: The truce has set him free. The Prime Minister of Ethiopia has won the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the conflict between his country and Eritrea -- which meant our guest could safely go home.

TA: Setting her party's record straight. After four years in government, the Liberals' "sunny ways" are a little cloudy -- and Chrystia Freeland tells us why her party should get a second chance now that the first impression has worn off.

CO: Force perspective. The Western world is condemning Turkey's aggressive military operation in north-eastern Syria -- but our Turkish guest says it has widespread support inside that country.

TA: Under fire. A California man tells us about his family's frantic rush to escape a runaway wildfire and about his unusual decision to return to his home.

CO: Forests to be reckoned with. I'll speak with author Michael Christie about his new novel "Greenwood" -- a book about trees, and people, and the complex relationship between the two.

TA: And the curse of the curse. The owner of a chain of pubs in England drops by one of his places for a nice pint -- and then shuts the pub down and fires everyone because he heard a customer say the "F" word. As It Happens. The Friday Edition. Radio that guesses he's made a lot of sworn enemies.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel Peace Prize

Guests: Berhanu Nega

TA: For 20 years there was conflict on the border of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Tens of thousands of people were killed. In 2000 an uneasy peace was reached but the bloodshed continued and the border remained closed. Only last year were families living on either side of that border finally reunited thanks to a deal brokered by then newly-elected Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Now, the Ethiopian leader has been awarded the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in achieving that peace and for his efforts to restore democratic freedoms within Ethiopia. Berhanu Nega is the former mayor-elect of Addis Ababa -- who was exiled from Ethiopia in 2005. He spent years abroad, first in the United States, and then in Eritrea where he led a rebel group that was labeled as a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian government of the day. When Abiy Ahmed achieved his peace last year, he allowed Berhanu Nega to finally return home to Addis Ababa -- and that's where we reached him today.

CO: Mr. Nega what's your reaction to the news that Prime Minister Ahmed has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

BERHANU NEGA: Well like every Ethiopian, and I presume most Africans, I am very pleased -- very happy -- that this precognition was given to him. I think it's a well-deserved recognition. I think in one year he has done quite a lot in terms of achieving peace within the Horn of Africa. But more important his attempt to establish a democratic political order, free political prisoners within the country itself, and move towards a democratic political order is quite laudable.

CO: And that change -- the development -- is what allowed you to go home, isn't it? This is why you are in Addis Ababa today because of the democracy changes that the Prime Minister introduced. Is that right?

BN: Absolutely. You know I came back a year ago mainly based on the agreement with Abiy and his groups that we have to open up the political system and that we have to allow people to decide what kind of government they want. And that was a very welcome move. This is the first time that democracy has become an agenda in European politics. So we are here.

CO: But there are people who say that while there are these developments that Abiy Ahmed has introduced that it might be too early to be giving him the Nobel Peace Prize -- that we're still seeing for instance that he is personally changing things but not working very closely with and reforming your institutions. And we saw that recently he shut down the country's state-owned internet provider temporarily. And these things don't bode well. Is it possible that they should have -- the Nobel committee -- should have waited a bit longer to see if this was actually the direction the country was going?

BN: Well my understanding of the way the Nobel committee makes a decision is not about only what one has done but what the intentions are. You know you remember I mean when Obama was given a Peace Prize I mean it was not because of what he has done, it was because of what the international community hopes that Obama would do in terms of stopping the conflicts in different parts of the world. I think the Nobel Peace Prize announcement made it very clear that it is not just about what he has done in the past one year, but it is in terms of what he promised to do. And I think they are putting the onus on him that you have committed yourself to a democratic political order and we are hoping that will deliver the international community is watching this.

CO: And so you're hoping. But how much progress has actually been made in Ethiopia?

BN: Oh there is a lot of progress. I mean this is the first time that we are having an independent election work. I think he is doing quite a lot in terms of actually changing the institutions to make them relatively independent and you know make sure that the coming election is going to be relying on independent institutions that are extremely crucial for a democratic political order.

CO: You mentioned and the committee also says it's not just because of reforms within Ethiopia. It is also because of the hand of peace that your prime minister reached out to Eritrea and that a conflict that had been slowing down but still freezing a border that many people needed to cross and all kinds of hardships people were facing there. But the reaction of many people in Eritrea today to the news is that your prime minister -- what he did was to legitimize their president who was a dictator and that your prime minister's hand of peace that he extended was actually to give legitimacy to Eritrea's President Afwerki. What do you say to that?

BN: Well I don't know if a leader of a neighbouring country is going to be measured by what he does in relation to the internal conditions of the country that he is making peace with. The courage of a prime minister of Ethiopia in terms of the Ethio/Eritrean conflict is to make sure that that conflict is settled peacefully -- and the issue of what to do with the internal conditions of Eritrea is primarily about Eritreans in my view.

CO: But can you appreciate that people in Eritrea -- they're critical of this decision because they're stuck within a dictatorship and that your prime minister has legitimized that presidency with his hand of peace?

BN: Well if that's a criteria by which you measure international relations then we have to blame every country in the world. Even Democratic countries such as the United States and Canada. So that's what they did -- it was government that they might not necessarily agree with in terms of the political arrangement inside the country. I mean the Ethiopian government's primary role is to make sure that internally was in Ethiopia that a democratic political order is established. But second, to make sure that there is peace -- there is a friendly relationship with the neighbouring countries. I can understand the concerns that Eritreans have. But it is their responsibility.

CO: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed when he was told he was winning the Nobel Peace Prize he says that this was recognition not just for Ethiopia but also for Africa. What is this prize -- giving this to Prime Minister Ahmed -- what does it represent do you think for Africans?

BN: Well what Prime Minister Abiy has done is to show that we can make peace within our region, within the continent, and that it is the responsibility of African leaders to achieve this -- not the responsibility of others. And I think that is what the Nobel committee is recognizing and I think that's legitimate. And I think that's correct.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Nega I appreciate speaking with you once again. Thank you.

BN: Thank you so much.

TA: Berhanu Nega is an Ethiopian politician and activist who spent years living in exile. We reached him today in Addis Ababa where residents are celebrating the news that Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Music]

Turkey explainer

Guest: Soner Cagaptay

TA: Northeastern Syria is in turmoil. For the third day in a row, Turkey has pummeled the Kurdish-held territory with airstrikes, forcing civilians to run for their lives. It's led to the closure of an MSF-run hospital. And it's also raised concerns about the fate of detention camps holding tens of thousands of ISIS fighters and their families. There have been casualties on both sides. At least 11 civilians have died and dozens of fighters from Kurdish-led forces and pro-Turkish factions have been killed, according to reports. Soner Cagaptay has been watching the operation closely. He's the director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. We reached him in Washington D.C..

CO: Mr. Cagaptay how far is Turkey willing to go in this military operation -- facing as you know growing international condemnation?

SONER CAGAPTAY: It seems to me that Turkey is adamant about establishing at least some sort of bridgehead in northern Syria. The United States has worked with the Syrian-Kurdish group called People's Protection Forces also known as YPG. That happens to be the third affiliate of another Kurdish group called Kurdistan Workers Party -- PKK. That is a terror designated entity not just by Turkey but by other NATO members.

CO: Including the United States recognizing...

SC: The United States and Canada. And Turkey tolerated their policy because U.S. and NATO allies partnered with YPG to combat ISIS because they did not want to put their boots on the ground. But the moment ISIS was defeated Turkey said I have a legitimate security concern. So in my view it was not a question of 'if' but 'when' that Turkey would take action in going to Syria to undermine Kurdish...

CO: Okay. But we know that the organization -- the units -- that the United States was fighting with -- they were partnering with -- they don't recognize them as having this association. This isn't association with the PKK that Turkey recognizes, not the United States. These are people they regard as their allies and now...

SC: Yes and no.

CO: All right. But they worked with them so they obviously didn't regard them as terrorists.

SC: So for legal purposes the United States never recognized the YPG as a terror designated entity but everybody knows that these groups are only a degree apart. And there was a fig leaf that was created called Syrian Democratic Forces so that the United States would not provide any weapons to YPG. But I think it was an open secret in Washington and elsewhere that the United States relied on this group and ignore the fact that it was a spinoff of Turkey's sworn enemy. And that's why I think it looks as if everybody's mocking Turkey's very serious security concern when people ignore these connections between these two groups. I have been quite critical of Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan but in this case I think he's right. And I think Turkey's right to go after this group.

CO: So you support that he is creating this corridor or this area or this zone that he would like to see no Kurdish fighters or Kurds in that zone. Do you support how he's doing it? Because we are watching the pictures of families, children, women fleeing. We've seen reports of people being killed -- children being killed. Do you actually support how they're prosecuting this?

SC: Of course not. I'm against war and I would like to see peaceful resolution of conflicts and I do not wish to see this evolve. But I also understand that Turkey has a tough neighbourhood -- that it unfortunately is sometimes forced to use force. I would like to see this with no harm done to civilians. But I think in this regard Washington's policy also recognizes this -- and this is perhaps why President Trump gave a "green light" to Turkey for it to carry out this operation with the understanding that it shouldn't cause collateral damage and it should not cause pain and suffering to the civilians.

CO: Which he's doing both. And when we say that Washington supporting -- you're talking about the White House, talking about President Trump. And we're seeing in Congress widespread opposition including from Republicans. So they're not supporting either the reasons or the way it's being prosecuted. There is serious opposition to the way Mr. Erdogan is approaching this. And some doubt as to whether he needs to have this cordon sanitaire at his border.

SC: That's correct. There is a serious split. The Congress is quite angry against Turkey's intervention -- incursion into Syria. And that after he "green lighted" Turkish incursion into Syria, Trump also invited Erdogan to Washington in about a month. So I think this suggests to me that Erdogan has nearly a month to wrap up this operation. In the meantime of course -- I hope it does not happen. But if you do see large scale civilian casualties that could make congressional anger more difficult to contain even for President Trump.

CO: Well we're already seeing all these people fleeing or they're being killed. And we pointed out United States was working with the Syrian Democratic Forces -- with these Kurdish forces -- in order to fight ISIS -- Daish as some call it. But now these 90,000 ISIS fighters and their families and women and kids involved in there are within this region. And people we have interviewed are saying these people are going to undoubtedly break out of these camps that they're in. In fact that's seems to be all ready happening. And so it sounds like a recipe for a great deal of insecurity on Turkey's border with Syria. Does it not?

SC: That's possible but Erdogan while he has failed to make Turkey a great Middle Eastern power he's now constantly leveraging United States and Russia against each other. He's basically getting what he wants from the Americans and turning to the Russians and saying, 'What are you going to give to me?' And then he's getting what he wants from the Russians. And turning to the Americans and saying, 'What are you going to give to me?' And I think in this case what Turkey has done is it has taken territory along northern Syria including in the northwest Syria areas controlled by Russia and its allies -- now in northeast Syria in areas controlled by America and its allies. So it's establishing this I would say cordon sanitaire inside Syrian territory in order to kind of create a buffer zone and that would isolate Turkey as Ankara sees it from instability, terror attacks, and ISIS they'll be emanating from that country.

CO: Meanwhile it's doing this with tremendous firepower on its side. It has the ability to launch airstrikes which it appears to be doing. This is a very powerful nation. And we are looking at a very poor undefended region with lots of women and children. So are there not humanitarian issues writ large in this campaign on the part of Turkey?

SC: Absolutely. And I think that's why this operation with American green light is going extremely slow. It's as if the Turkish troops are walking one inch every minute -- not to cause any collateral damage, to make sure that there are no accidents along the way, and that no civilians are harmed.

CO: But we're not seeing that. We're seeing aerial bombardments -- an aggressive move into this territory.

SC: Yes but you're not seeing civilians killed -- the new stories of schools being bombed...

CO: We are seeing civilians being killed. We are seeing schools being bombed. Doctors Without Borders says it has had to leave because they can't function in these areas. So we are seeing that.

SC: I'll grant you that but I have not seen the same reporting. So we can disagree.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Mr. Cagaptay thank you.

SC: All right thank you so much.

TA: Soner Cagaptay is the director of the Turkish Research Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the author of "Erdogan's Empire: Turkey and the Politics of the Middle East." We reached him in Washington D.C.

[Music]

California fire

Guest: John Mears

TA: Living in California, John Mears is accustomed to the threat of fire. So at first, last night when he was watching TV and learned of a fire nearby, he didn't think much of it. But soon after, Mr. Mears was in his car with his family rushing to get to safety. He is one of tens of thousands of people who were forced out of their homes by a runaway wildfire that is still burning across hundreds of hectares in southern California. Luckily for Mr. Mears his house wasn't damaged by the flames. In fact today he snuck past police to take a look at his house and his scorched neighbourhood. We reached him at his home in Los Angeles, California.

CO: John you are back in your house.

JOHN MEARS: Yes.

CO: Why did you go back?

JM: Well I'm not supposed to be here. It's a mandatory evacuation. I needed some health items. Also just wanted to check and make sure that nothing was left on and whatever. I had to sneak around and get in sort of the back way.

CO: But there is an evacuation order, is there not?

JM: Yes. Yes. I'm not supposed to be here.

CO: And so how dangerous is it? How close are the fires to you right now?

JM: The fire as far as I can tell is several miles away by now. Last night it was less than 20 feet away from our front door really. It was so crazy.

CO: Tell us about leaving. You left yesterday, right?

JM: Yes. According to my understanding, the fire started around 9. By 10 it has spread considerably. By roughly midnight, it was getting kind of worryingly close to our house. And then I actually saw a fire right down the street from our house and I said we need to get the hell out of here. We just packed up everything we could get into our car and left as quickly as we could. Our daughter had been at a concert and was coming back from the concert around midnight. She was in a very bad accident. But fortunately she and her friends escaped the accident without the injuries and got home in an Uber. As they were arriving at our house there were flames right across the street.

CO: She gets home and finds out that you've got to flee because everything's on fire.

JM: Yes. And it was just unbelievable. I mean the fire -- it was nothing compared to a lot of other people that face of course. But the fire here was just on three points across the street where we could see but it was just you know a lot of fire. It was crazy.

CO: This is when you left, right?

JM: When we were evacuating, yeah. But the smoke was so thick that we didn't even realize until the smoke cleared a little that the fire was actually right across the hill -- right across from our house -- that we couldn't because of the smoke.

CO: What can you see today of what got burned and scorched?

JM: Looking directly out from our front door at the street -- the house directly across from us is the large house, it has a lot of landscaping, and it was completely saved by the firefighters. As soon as you go over their wall -- behind their house where the hill is, it's completely black. So I mean the firefighters just heroically saved that house, our house, all the houses. Not one house in their area got damaged.

CO: And as you were traveling -- as you were going -- could you see other places where they didn't fare as well?

JM: Actually no. We have gotten to be sort of inoculated to fires here. And as we were leaving, the route was away from the fire. But if you go up farther there actually was a house in our neighbourhood that was burned. That was right on the edge of the wooded area. This is the third time we've evacuated from this house since we bought it. In 2008 we were evacuated twice. And then the second time was another Sylmar fire. Last night started in Sylmar and jumped over the mountains to us. [Coughs] Excuse me. A lot of smoke in here.

CO: Yeah I was going to say it's a smoky cough.

JM: [Keeps coughing] Yeah. I'll be okay. But I might go drink some water in a minute.

CO: I'm just wondering -- I'm looking at a map that shows where the hot spots are. But it also shows a number of highways, freeways, are closed or partially closed. If you need to get out, can you go? Are there roads closed?

JM: Yes. The good news is most of the fire danger and damage is north of us. And most of what we [inaudible] to do is south of us. So the fire kind of went mainly through mountainous areas and areas that were heavily wooded and areas where there were very few houses.

CO: You are under evacuation order now. Are there people patrolling the streets looking for people like yourself who have come home or are trying to get back to their houses?

JM: I did not see any patrols per say but the main street to our house is blocked by police. So I had to come up a back way that I happened to know that wasn't a secret but I just came up the back way and I got in my house no problem.

CO: John there are reasons why the police are blocking those roads -- you're not supposed to be there.

JM: I know. But I've never been much of a rule follower. [Chuckles] So...

CO: What are you going to do now?

JM: I'm going cough probably [coughs] and then after that I'm going to probably drink some coffee or just sleep. I don't know. Mentally I am rather shaken up.

CO: Are you going to get out? Are you going to leave?

JM: Yeah. My wife, daughter, and friends, and other family members are down at my wife's sister's house -- two miles down the road. And it's much you know -- it's legal there. I'm not legal here.

CO: Okay I'm going to let you go because I know you need some water. But stay safe, okay?

JM: Okay. Thank you.

TA: John Mears is a resident of Porter Ranch in Los Angeles, California. We spoke to him earlier today. As we went to air tonight, one person has died in the Saddleridge fire.

[Music]

Pub closure

TA: Earlier this year, the British pub chain Samuel Smith's banned mobile phones in all of its 300 locations. As a memo from upper management put it, "The brewery's policy is that our pubs are for social conversation person to person." Now that's the kind of thing we all applaud or we would applaud it. But then we'd have to put down our phones. The social conversation is important. The only thing is Samuel Smith pubs have now another ban introduced in 2017 "...a zero tolerance policy against swearing in all of our pubs." Seems a little contradictory to encourage fun chatting while also policing how people chat. But obviously no one enforces such a draconian law. Well enter Humphrey Smith -- the boss of Samuel Smith's. On Monday he went into one of his pubs -- the Fox and Goose in Droitwich, England -- and then he closed the place down. Not in the sense you understand of "He stayed and drank until closing time." No. In the sense of relieving the proprietors of their duties and literally closing down the Fox and Goose forever. Because, according to a customer, while he was there "A man was telling his wife a dirty joke and said the 'F' word." I'm serious. The publican and his wife now have to find somewhere else to live and work all because of one guy's prudish objection to cursing in a bar. Really puts the "humph" in Humphrey. I mean, didn't you want to encourage conversation? I could have sworn you did.

[Music]

Part 2: Chrystia Freeland on climate change, electoral reform and the Liberals' new challenges in Quebec

Chrystia Freeland

Guest: Chrystia Freeland

TA: When he was first elected, Justin Trudeau famously promised Canadians "sunny ways." But after four years in power Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals are no longer the bright new thing. They've got a record. And while they say it's a record of accomplishment, their opponents are busy reminding voters of all the disappointments of the past four years. We requested an interview with Justin Trudeau as we have with all the major party leaders. He wasn't available. Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland has agreed to represent the party. Ms. Freeland joined us in our Toronto studio.

CO: Ms. Freeland welcome to the As It Happens studio.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: It is great to be with you Carol.

CO: You know we are aware that Canadians are really now very closely trying to evaluate their options. And people who vote Liberal or have voted Liberal, have a lot of questions. And I want to get through as many of those questions we know they have as possible in this. And a lot of them come from what they expected in 2015 and what they're looking at in 2019. First thing -- 2015, the promise was that that would be the last election that was first-past-the-post. After that it would be electoral reform. And that hasn't happened. And a lot of Canadians are not happy with that. How do you account for that?

CF: Well I mean how I account for the unhappiness is I think...

CO: No -- for the lack of electoral reform.

CF: You know I think there was a parliamentary committee that did good and thorough work. And it came to the conclusion that we would need to have a referendum. My feeling is -- and I feel this actually even more today than I did at the time -- changing how a country elects people is a profound change in how your democratic institutions work. And I don't think you should never make changes. But I think you should only make changes where there is very broad public consensus that it's the right thing to do and where there is no perception by anyone that the changes are being made to give someone an advantage and to hurt someone else. And so our view was -- and I feel very strongly it was the right view -- that you could only proceed if you had a strong and clear cross-party consensus because otherwise people would have a feeling quite rightly that the rules of the game were being changed without everyone consenting to it.

CO: Why did you promise that then?

CF: I think that there was a belief that it would be possible to find a consensus and it turned out not to be possible to find a consensus. But I do feel very comfortable that we came to the right conclusion. And when I see right now how so many once strong liberal democracies are really finding themselves torn apart and polarized in part because there is a perception by people that one side is changing the rules of the game without consent. I think Canadians need to be very careful when it comes to how we change the rules.

CO: We're not going to linger any of these topics because there are just so many things in our short time [that] I want ask you. Again in 2015 as you know many people were very discouraged by the Stephen Harper government and what they had seen happen with executive power -- how it was used by Stephen Harper. We saw what was happening with the Prime Minister's office with the Senator Mike Duffy affair, with how Nigel Wright handled things. That was very much in people's minds when they went to vote in 2015. But we're seeing with the SNC-Lavalin affair -- we saw many of the same things: dealing with executive power, with power being used by the executive branch in the prime minister's office. And can people be forgiven if they have a bad taste about what they saw with the SNC-Lavalin affair?

CF: You know on the broader point, no government is perfect and everyone will find things to challenge. But to the broad question of has our government behaved in a way which is more fact-based, which is more respectful of the public service, which is more open and transparent to Canadians -- I very strongly say yes to all three. I would say you know my own personal experience is very much around the NAFTA negotiations. And there, the fact that we created a NAFTA council which included Perry Bellegarde (Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations), Hassan Yussuff (Leader of the CLC), Bill Downe (former CEO of BMO), James Moore (former Conservative cabinet minister), Brian Topp (leading NDP strategist). That speaks to me about an approach which is very much about bringing people together.

CO: Let's go back to the PMO. Let's go back to that executive branch. Because let's face it, the ethics commissioner said it was a conflict of interest what happened there. And what we're looking -- whether you want to answer the broad question -- the narrow question is, SNC-Lavalin affair gave people an idea of how the power is wielded in Ottawa and it didn't look any different from their point of view than it had under the Stephen Harper government where power was concentrated in that office and wielded from there. And you're left with that legacy there.

CF: I think the fact that the ethics commissioner has been able to work is an example of Canada having robust and independent democratic institutions. And the prime minister accepted the conclusions of the Ethics Commissioner. Also important for people to remember that the prosecution of SNC is continuing. In terms of whether a person can draw wider conclusions from SNC as to how the whole government works, SNC wasn't my file so I can't speak from personal experience.

CO: But you could tell me how the executive branch is wielding power -- are you personally concerned with that as a minister?

CF: So what I can speak to -- exactly that -- as a minister, I can speak to how I work with the prime minister and the prime minister's office. And there I have to say I feel that it has been an extreme and not just the Prime Minister's office -- also I would say all of my Cabinet colleagues -- I feel I have had a very collaborative relationship with my cabinet colleagues. Very collaborative with the prime minister and his office. Of course the prime minister makes the ultimate decisions. And the other thing which to me has been really important is I have felt supported by the prime minister even when I was doing difficult things that were being criticised. There was someone who stopped me in Ottawa airport when I was on the way home after we had concluded the NAFTA negotiations and he said you know well done minister. And then he said a thing that really has stuck in my mind where he said even when people were taking shots at you the prime minister never took you off the ice. And you know what? The thing is it hadn't even occurred to me that he would.

CO: But he took Judy Wilson-Raybould off the ice.

CF: As I say I am speaking to my own experience and there were harsh things said about me but I really felt that I had a strong relationship with the prime minister and with his office, that we kind of worked closely, all the steps we took we took together. And I felt throughout totally backed. And it would not have been possible -- I realised actually with hindsight -- it would not have been possible for me to stand up for Canada if I didn't know the prime minister was standing up for me.

CO: You mentioned NAFTA several times but I think one file of things that probably is on minds of most Canadians which is climate change and how we're handling that and the environment. Again, commitments and promises in 2015. Your government was the party that was going to be Canada's -- green prime minister -- green government. Commitment to G20. Commitment to phase out fossil fuels. And yet here we are four years later -- every Canadian now owns a pipeline. We all are pipeline owners. Would Canadians be forgiven for feeling what happened there?

CF: I feel so comfortable and actually proud of how our government has approached the environment and the economy and understanding that these are issues that you have to work at together. On the environment our government has done an amazing thing -- and you know this is really all credit to Minister McKenna and the prime minister personally -- which is as we promised to do to introduce a price on pollution across the whole country. This was a non-trivial accomplishment. It happened in the face of explicit resistance -- resistance which framed itself as resistance from some of the provinces and provincial leaders. And I think the government -- and I'm not grading my own work here, I'm talking about the work of my colleagues and my prime minister -- did a terrific job. Seeking a collaborative approach in the first instance and when that was not possible saying, you know what we need to move ahead on this and we are going to introduce a price on pollution across the whole country. Now is that a sufficient condition for addressing climate change? No. But it is a necessary first step. And it was a big deal and the resistance to it shows how hard it was.

CO: It's also a big deal to spend four-and-a-half billion dollars to buy a pipeline that's going to be -- well if it goes through, will take fossil fuels to Tidewater and to the world. That for a lot of people -- especially young people who put a lot of faith in your party, in the Liberals, believing that you're going to do things differently, that this was going to be the climate change government, and then you turned them into pipeline owners -- I mean can you appreciate how young people feel betrayed?

CF: I can appreciate how some people have real difficulties with that decision. And it was a hard decision for the government and for the cabinet. And I think it was a hard decision for the prime minister personally. For me I come at it from a kind of specific personal place which is on one hand I live in Downtown Toronto -- I live in my riding University-Rosedale -- I have three children, our family does not own a car. I ride my bicycle pretty much everywhere or take the subway. But I grew up in northern Alberta -- and while it is realistic for me to ride my bike, and take the subway, and for my family to do that -- my dad needs to drive his pickup to get anywhere. And by the way, his Combi, which he is riding right now probably even as we are talking, runs on fossil fuel. I also have just been campaigning in Quebec and I came here straight from the airport and that plane used fossil fuel too. So I really believe we need to be -- and I would sort of say this is the right approach to all issues -- we need to be a combination of ambitious about our goals, pragmatic about how we're going to get there. When it comes to climate change what that means is having ambitious goals and commitments -- net zero by 2050. Pragmatic about how to get there and pragmatic about how to get there means understanding that we are not going to flip a switch and tomorrow stop being a fossil fuel economy. Given that reality I 100-percent absolutely understand that Canadian oil is no less worthy to be part of that global fossil fuel mix than Russian oil or Saudi oil or Iranian oil. And I also as someone who lives about 50 metres from the train tracks that go through Toronto understand very very much that sending oil through pipelines is much much safer than sending oil by rail. So I do understand the concern, the frustration -- my own 10-year-old son took me to the climate change march and he said I support you in your political work mom, I would like you to support me. His whole class went and they all had these incredibly moving posters. They decided the way to convince older people was to offer us positive solutions, so all of them offered different things we can do. I understand and I agree with you I think you're totally right to point out the younger generation feels more urgently. But unless a person is prepared to say we can stop using fossil fuel tomorrow there is absolutely no reason to say we should not be using fossil fuels that come from Canada.

CO: I want to move to Quebec because you're in trouble in Quebec as we see in the polls. And the Bloc Quebecois is surging to some extent. Last night in the debates Mr. Trudeau he talked about Quebec's immigration programs and said that it was correct and appropriate for Quebec to have a values test for immigrants who had come. And it just seemed -- that point that Kellie Leitch was whispering in his ear. What are we to make of the fact that in 2017 if you said was no need to ever have a values test for immigration in Canada -- but it's okay for Quebec?

CF: So you've snuck in a lot of different assertions there as good journalists want to do.

CO: And you would know that.

CF: Well I've done some sneaking in my own day. And I do have to just address those. I would take issue with the notion that we're in trouble in Quebec. I was in Jonquiere this morning and it's the second time I've been to go Quebec since the writ dropped -- I have felt a very warm, very strong, reception there. We have a great team in Quebec and I feel actually very very good about how the campaign is going. I can also assure you that Kellie Leitch does not whisper in the prime minister's ear.

CO: But where did the support for the values test come from?

CF: The prime minister on Quebec -- one of the tough positions the prime minister has taken which distinguish him from any other leader is to say on C-21 he reserves the right for the federal government to intervene.

CO: Just for people -- this is the law in Quebec that prohibits people from wearing religious symbols and have certain jobs and professions.

CF: And the law which is being challenged by Quebeckers in the courts which is also an important part of this story.

CO: And that is what has distinguished the Liberals up to now. Until last night when we heard him say it's correct and appropriate for Quebec to have a values test. That's when things seem to change -- to shift for us.

CF: And the PM was also very clear on C-21 that he as a Quebecker does not support that approach, doesn't think that it's right.

CO: Okay but values test -- let's get to that answer.

CF: And so I think that the prime minister last night was -- as I think all leaders and you know we are here sitting in Toronto as Anglophones -- prime minister as a Quebecker -- and let me put it like this Carol that I do think that appreciating Quebec as a distinct society is very important. Quebec unlike other provinces does have specific control over its immigration. What I will also say is, having spent a lot of time in Quebec recently, when I speak to employers in Quebec one of their grave concerns is the lack of labour. They are really struggling.

CO: We are leaving the track here. Kellie Leitch said her idea was that there should be a Canadian values test. Hugely condemned by the Liberals. Hugely condemned by Mr. Trudeau. And last night we heard him say that it seemed to make sense. That Quebec should have this. One province should be able to do something the rest of Canada he feels should never happen. What has shifted? Why would he say that? Why did Mr. Trudeau endorse values test for Quebec?

CF: Again here what I would say is that it is an accepted principle -- it's actually the reality of Canada -- that Quebec does have particular rights when it comes to controlling immigration to Quebec. And that is appropriate because Quebec is a distinct society. And I think the prime minister was reflecting that. When it comes to any specific things that Quebec would seek to do when it comes to immigration and what was discussed last night was a hypothetical in the future. I think that it's going to be important for any federal government to look carefully at what that is and to you know respond to the details as they are made known. I think what the prime minister was speaking about is the reality which he rightly supports which is Quebec has the right to have specific control over and a specific approach to immigration.

CO: But Canadians elected you on a promise of hope. That was the emotion. The "sunny ways." And now we're not looking at that sense of hope. We are now looking at a lot of compromises -- necessary perhaps, when you have power you can't fulfill. Everything we've talked about there has been something where there's some compromise whether it is a pipeline, whether it's electoral reform, whether it's Quebec. And now we're wondering where that hope is because if you don't get about 3 million people who came out in that last election because they felt that, you're not going to get elected in this.

CF: You will remember that Mario Cuomo famously said you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose. And I think that's another way of saying what you've just said. But I also really feel so profoundly hopeful both about the journey Canada has been on over the past four years and where we are going in the future. And it may be because I've been foreign minister so I've spent necessarily a lot of time outside the country and you sometimes see things in sharper relief at that distance. But I have to say Carol, Canada looks pretty amazing from the outside. It really does. And it looks that way to other people. I mean I really believe that today Canadians can confidently assert our country is the strongest liberal democracy in the world. And that is a hugely audacious thing to be able to say but it is true. And for people who are listening, challenge yourselves and do a thought experiment: can you name another country that should be in that place? You will not be able to. And you know it is a pretty rough world right now. It's rough because of climate change but it is also rough because the rules-based international order and the whole idea of liberal democracy are under greater threat than they have been since the Second World War. And you see fresh evidence of that every day. In this rough world a lot of liberal democracies are tearing themselves apart and Canada is not. We are a strong liberal democracy. We are investing in our middle class. We're investing in innovation. The jobs numbers that came out today are very strong. And we still have a society that works. We are still able to talk to each other. I've been out campaigning and some of the nicest experiences I have are with people who say to me you know what I'm not going to vote for you but thank you for being here and thank you for your hard work on NAFTA. A lot of people say that. That is the measure of a healthy society and our society is healthy because Canadians are amazing. But it's also healthy because of specific things our government has done. And I would say specifically because of the single most important thread running through the past four years and which would run through the next four years of a Liberal government which is investing in Canadians and not allowing our society to fall prey to what I think is the cancer in some other liberal democracies which is a group of people who are left behind.

CO: Ms. Freeland we will leave it there and we will see what happens in about 10 days. Thank you so much.

CF: Thank you.

TA: Chrystia Freeland is running in Toronto for the Liberals. She joined us in our Toronto studio. You can hear that conversation again on the As It Happens website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 3: Michael Christie's book Greenwood tackles climate change, forestry and family dysfunction

Author Michael Christie on his latest novel, Greenwood

Guest: Michael Christie

TA: Jake is a tour guide who takes groups of rich people through an arboreal resort in BC in the year 2038. Her father -- Liam -- is a carpenter, dying in 2008. Liam's mother was an environmental activist in 1974. And her father, Harris, was a timber magnate in 1934 -- who lived in the woods with his brother Everett in 1908. All of these characters share a last name "Greenwood." Instead of a family tree, they're part of a family forest. Michael Christie's new novel, "Greenwood" is a thoroughly researched look at forestry practices, opium addiction, the Dust Bowl, rapacious capitalism, and the challenges of woodworking. But it's also a page turner about a cross-country chase, long hidden family secrets, and forbidden love. A big, serious, gripping novel that's made of and makes much of -- trees. We reached Michael Christie -- author of "Greenwood" -- at our CBC studio in Victoria.

CO: Michael Christie welcome to the As It Happens show and the studio in Victoria.

MICHAEL CHRISTIE: Thank you Carol. It's a pleasure to be here.

CO: You seem to have taken tree hugging to the level of art in this book "Greenwood."

MC: You could say that. I mean I didn't begin the book as a tree hugger but you know after I wrote the final page I am now a card carrying tree hugger. [Laughter]

CO: Well it's really wonderful. It's a remarkable achievement I have to say. But every part of it -- including just the object of the book itself and the structure. And we don't normally start an interview talking about the structure of a book except that it's so intriguing. Everything is woven into that including the book itself. So how did you come up with this structure? Describe what it is and maybe say how you invented it.

MC: For sure yeah. I mean the structure of the narrative mirrors the rings of a tree. So the cross section of a tree. So it begins in the near future, passes back in time to 2008, back and back to sort of the centre of the narrative tree in the beginning of this particular family that I'm writing about. And then the story comes back out through those same rings again to the near future. I mean I came up with the structure when I was cutting down a tree -- I'm sorry to report, but it was a small tree on our property where we live on Galiano Island in British Columbia. And cut the tree down, it had to go because we were putting in a driveway so it was a difficult decision. And then examined the rings of the tree and saw that you know a stump is a kind of record and is almost a kind of narrative in itself. And I had this -- I'm not a big believer of anyone when they say they had an epiphany but I did and I saw the structure of a story there.

CO: You start with the outer ring and moved to the inner ring which is in 1908. And then go back out to the 2038. And so I want to ask you about 2038 -- that's the outer ring of the tree. And Jake Greenwood who is the character of this family of that generation in this family saga. And her job at Greenwood Arboreal Cathedral. Tell us about her and her job.

MC: Jake is a highly qualified scientist. She's studied you know the inter-communicative mechanisms of trees for most of her life but she's been reduced to being a forest guide in this last remaining old growth forest that remains after something called the great withering has decimated forests and trees all across the world. So her job is to guide wealthy tourists essentially through the trees, describe their wonder and majesty to them, and be paid very poorly to do so.

CO: And these are these extraordinary Douglas firs that anyone who's been out there have seen on the islands at Cathedral Grove which are in some cases well 1,200-1,500 years old, right?

MC: Absolutely and they're towering creatures. They're you know hundreds of feet high. I called the Greenwood Arboreal Cathedral a cathedral for a reason and that is because they do feel like holy places. They have this sense of spirituality to them and awe that visits you when you are there.

CO: 2038 which isn't so far away and all the trees or very few trees are left on Earth after what you just mentioned "the great withering." Can you tell us what that is and to what degree is it an invention on your part?

MC: I mean I dearly wish that I could say it involved a lot more imagination than it did because where I live on Galiano Island the Western Red Cedars which are the provincial tree of British Columbia many of them are Browning and dying due to what people believe is drought stress. So you know a series of droughts has rendered these trees unable to survive. And so it's you know -- it's incredibly tragic. My wife who grew up on Galiano island her name is Cedar. So you know it's something that hits so close to home for me. And so I mean "the great weathering" is not a work of imagination.

CO: So what's left of Earth are great swatches of desert. Most of it's a desert. Most of it is like a dust bowl. And these places -- these last remaining stands of trees -- are where only wealthy people can enjoy them. So not only is this destruction of the Earth part of the story but it's also that there is the class society, there's very very riven, isn't it? It's really just those who have nothing and those who have everything.

MC: Absolutely. I mean it's a dark idea but it's one I think we ought to confront in terms of you know as these wondrous natural places shrink and as the world becomes less habitable you know the resources like water, like forests, like you know livable land are going to become more scarce. And who is going to try to control them but the wealthy and the powerful. And that's happening in my book.

CO: So we don't stay in 2038 as we've mentioned. This is a family saga that goes back through the rings of the story to 1908 and traces the history of Jake's family -- the Greenwood family. Each of these generations has a different relationship with trees. Can you sketch some of those?

MC: Absolutely. I mean it's that's sort of the unifying theme of the book is that each generation -- you know their lives are intimately entwined with trees in some fashion. So Jake is a scientist. Her father Liam Greenwood who's living in 2008 is a carpenter who does reclaimed wood for you know coffee shops and bars -- mostly in the New York area. His mother Willow Greenwood is living in 1974 and she's a sort of a fervent eco-warrior/protestor who pours sugar into the gas tanks of logging equipment to halt old growth logging in mostly in the Pacific Northwest. She also lives in a van for most of her life. Before that, we have the two brothers Everett and Harris Greenwood. They are living during the Dust Bowl in 1934. One of them -- Harris -- is a timber tycoon who is clear cutting massive amounts of forest land across Canada and amassing a huge fortune in the process. And his brother Everett Greenwood who is a survivor of World War One who is sort of a damaged drifter who plays pretty figuratively in this story of the Greenwood's.

CO: And it takes us back to 1908 and their origins. And for anyone who thinks this is just -- okay [chuckles] -- one generation begets the next generation. You completely tear that apart. I mean it has all the qualities of epic but these people, their relationships are so interesting and so unexpected. And as you point out at some point that the way trees are all connected through their roots but they're all individuals and separate. And that's really what you're multigenerational saga does, doesn't it?

MC: It does. I mean in a way I mean there's the overarching metaphor of the family tree. But I try to subvert that in the sense you know that I'm kind of saying that we're all interconnected in a way and whether we are related by blood or not, it is the relationships we build and the ties that we make that is truly what relates us.

CO: So the Greenwood family tree is really a forest.

MC: Oh it's a mess and a forest. It's a messy forest. [Laughter]

CO: You are listening to As It Happens and I am speaking with Michael Christie who is in our Victoria studio and about his new novel -- his fascinating novel -- called "Greenwood." And Michael I want to ask you a bit about yourself. You mentioned that you live on Galiano Island in British Columbia. And you obviously are surrounded by trees. What is your relationship with trees?

MC: It's very close. I mean I grew up in Thunder Bay, Ontario, smelling the mill -- the pulp mill smoke wafting past my house. And I've always been quite connected to trees and to forests and to natural spaces. And when we moved to Galiano we got a little piece of land and decided we were going to build a house. And I in my infinite wisdom decided that I was too cheap to pay someone to do that and that I was going to attempt to do this -- so I did that. We brought some trees down on the property and we had them milled right there and so we built a timber frame little cabin and that's where we live now. And it's lovely.

CO: And these kinds of experiences of yours all work their way into -- they're built into this story. And even this character Liam you mentioned -- this is the 2008 part of this story. Liam reflects that -- because he's a carpenter and he builds these beautiful counters in bars with recycled wood -- he says we think we live in boxes until we look closer and find that we are in fact living in irregular shapes in big misshapen accidents. So does that describe your house?

MC: [Laughter] Yes. Liam would look quite scornfully on anything that I've ever built. I am a hack. I am not a fine carpenter but I can get the job done. And I mean our house does appear square and for all intents and purposes it is. [Laughs] But you know that's one of the beautiful -- I think that's what people like about wooden structures is that they...you know they are not artificial. They are living structures. Wood is you know one of the materials that is closest to our hearts I think as human beings.

CO: The relationship people have with trees in this book and clearly yours as well, it's more than just this sort of pragmatic thing of we need them to recycle the air, we need them to build stuff with, we need them to shield us from the sun. There's a connection -- I am going to say spiritual, I almost said that -- but it's more than. It's vital. It's the vitality of people walking in the woods and feeling this connection with trees that revitalizes them in an essential way. Is that your relationship?

MC: Absolutely. I mean there's all this research now you know that demonstrates that time spent in the trees you know increases our sense of well-being, it actually lowers our blood pressure physically and this is measurable. It doubles our creativity you know. And I think we have structured our society so that we are so still removed from these natural spaces. And only now are we beginning to realize how fundamentally important it is to the human being to be in forests and to be in natural environments. And you know I get to live in one which is wonderful for me.

CO: But you must also see this as an important thing that you must do as a writer because there was a Global Mail article by Marsha Lederman describing the role that art plays during the climate crisis that so many people -- different types of artists are now looking at this environmental issue and incorporating it into their work. Did you feel like some kind of artistic responsibility to incorporate what you're seeing with the trees into fiction?

MC: I didn't at first. I mean this idea for this novel began you know sort of in the way that all of my ideas begin and that's I want to write about a dysfunctional family. [Laughs] You know most of my work centres around that basic kind of idea -- functional and dysfunctional. But as I was writing it and as I was doing research and as I myself was becoming more and more entwined with trees and more interested in forests and carpentry and you know the history of logging in Canada, I became more and more aware that I was writing what could be called an environmental novel in the sense that there is a kind of evolution that takes place -- a sort of a societal transformation that takes place throughout the course of the narrative with respect to you know how we look at trees. And also should be said that in my research you know I was reading John Steinbeck -- you know sort of classic novels of this kind. And in my reading of Grapes of Wrath again -- which I hadn't visited for a long time -- I realized that it's in fact an environmental novel. There's this huge you know environmental calamity that takes place in...

CO: Dust Bowl.

MC: The Dust Bowl. And the Okies are displaced and they become climate refugees within their own country and they're forced to travel to California. And so we can think of these new sort of like climate fiction as a new thing. But in actual truth you know people have been doing it for a long time.

CO: And children are very central to each stage of your book as they would be in kind of dynastic work. But the children -- all of them have this intimate relationship with forests. I'm wondering do your own children interact with the forest in that way?

MC: Absolutely. I mean you know they can't have no choice but to because it's sort of our playground. [Laughter] But yeah -- I mean it's just something that children get. You know they see a natural space and they're just itching to venture out into it. I don't know. It's innate in them. And the presence of my own children -- I have two young sons -- you know in my life has certainly upped the stakes for me in terms of you know the amount I think about the future and the degree to which I feel I'm invested in you know how this whole thing turns out. So my own sort of climate consciousness has been raised by them in the process.

CO: But we're hearing from so many young people. Their feelings of despair. Entire groups -- they're joining little societies of teenagers who are declaring that they will not have children, they will be the last generation because they feel there's no place to bring anybody else -- any other generation -- into it. Are your children aware of that? Are they aware of climate change and how it's affecting your forest?

MC: They are. And you know as particularly my youngest son who is 6 he has a very kind of emotional relationship with animals. He remembers animal facts. He can identify trees. Like he's got a really just sort of strong connection. And you know we'll watch you know Planet Earth, BBC documentaries, quite often and you know the section near the end when you see the polar bear floating on the tiny piece of ice and it can't hunt you know because of climate change, he gets very upset and sometimes we have to kind of turn it off or I'll say okay that's it you know it's over, sort of thing, because it's devastating. And I think that we ought not ignore that. I think that kids are tuned into something that we have built this callous over you know throughout our adult lives and they're right, it is horrific. It is grotesque. And it's terrifying. And it's something that we must manage.

CO: I am speaking with Michael Christie about his latest novel "Greenwood." And this is course As It Happens. When you say that about the despair just how depressing this can be for young people -- what I really admire about this novel is that it's hopeful. It actually doesn't make you feel that dystopian despair that works of fiction like this do elsewhere. And I'm wondering how you managed to do that. Did you consciously say, no -- I'm not going to infect people with the complete sense of suicidal despair after this book?

MC: Yeah. I mean I think that you know books that sort of traffic in you know just sheer outright pessimism are false. I don't think that life is meaningless and we're all doomed and blah blah blah. You know I do see hope everywhere and I see hope in the climate strikes and I see hope in all kinds of initiatives that are coming. And so I mean I think the sort of central idea of the book is that is our interconnectedness. And in every generation of this family there are people reaching out to others. There are people who are sacrificing for others. There are people who are you know falling in love and finding hope in one another. And so I mean the central idea of the book I think is this kind of interconnectedness that we all are part of a human family and only through that kind of thinking and through that kind of collective response are we going to be able to deal with this crisis.

CO: I think also all of your characters are infused with a tremendous amount of humanity -- even the bad guys. And there are some really evil people in this [laughing]. But even they are looking -- the timber tycoons and the rich who are trying to exploit the Earth -- they're all looking for some kind of joy within their lives or love within their relationships. And so I'm sure that's very conscious on your part.

MC: Absolutely. I mean that is what I understand about human nature. I mean I spent seven years working at a homeless shelter on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. And I came in contact with pimps and drug dealers and people you know who are predatory and people who are you know what you could normally say as evil. But even in them you know you'd see these glimmers of humanity and you know these sort of sad moments where you know either they're reaching out and they're trying to you know connect to their own life and trying to find joy in some small way. So you know that is what I understand about people. I don't think there are any evil villains in the world.

CO: It's such a page turner, right. I mean you have all those things that make book so un-put-downable. The recognition scenes. The "Oh my gosh! Are they related? Are they not related?"

MC: I love that stuff. I mean I love good storytelling. And I love you know that propulsive feeling that you feel when you're reading a novel. And you know I tried to sort of marry that with bigger picture ideas and depth of character and all the good stuff that literary novels do. But at the same time you know it's hopefully a good story.

CO: And there is sex, cross-country chase scenes, lost and found objects -- always a good one. But at the same time what you had to try to avoid -- I would imagine you did because you did avoid it I presume consciously -- that it could have been didactic. It could have been preachy given the thematic basis even the shape as we described -- the structure of the book. How consciously did you try to avoid that?

MC: I mean not too consciously. A novel I kind of think is just a series of balancing acts in the sense that you are trying to strike this perfect balance between doing it and overdoing it you know pretty much over and over and over again. And you know the editing process which was long for this book -- I put an enormous amount of work into it. There were you know hundred drafts. Just like incredible you know revisions, fine tuning. So you just hope that you can get that mix right where you know things are believable and exciting but at the same time human and rooted in life and affecting.

CO: But it is a book with a message. And perhaps we can all extract our own message from it. But what is yours?

MC: It's so hard to sum up a book of this size to one message...

CO: Sorry [laughs]

MC: I mean I'm happy to try. The message of the book is the interconnectedness of all living things -- which sounds grandiose and I apologize but the fact that we are intimately tied to one another, that we are intimately tied to our environment, and we ignore that fact at our peril.

CO: Okay since you are willing to venture yours. I'll say mine. My takeaway.

MC: Please do. I might like yours better.

CO: That we need to have a whole new relationship with planet Earth.

MC: Yes absolutely. And that's part of that interconnectedness. I think this is something that everyone is realizing you know increasingly that we have to radically change how we are living on this planet if we have any hope of surviving. And this book while it is not a didactic argument for that -- you know it is an argument. And my hope is that it would demonstrate the importance of collective type thinking.

CO: We just want to get you to do a little reading. And just set it up for us if you would.

MC: You bet. So I'm going to be reading from the future section of the novel which is 2038. Takes place in the year 2038. And Jake Greenwood who is a forest guide in the Greenwood Arboreal Cathedral has just had a meeting with a man from her past. And he has given her a book that he alleges was the property of one of her ancestors. And I should also say that books and paper have become in short supply obviously after the trees have withered across the planet and so not only is she amazed by this book's relationship or potential relationship to her own history, she's amazed by it as a physical object as well.

MC: [Starts reading] Later that evening, Jake returns to her staff cabin. Pours herself a hefty bourbon and curls into the love seat with the paper book spread in her lap. After five more tours shepherding pilgrims through the cathedral, her eyes are sludgy and unprepared for parsing the book's tricky cursive script. She hasn't seen anyone write in this antiquated fashion for years and never learned the technique in her Delhi elementary school. Just two pages in, Jake's chin begins to dip thereby unraveling the few narrative fibers that she'd managed to weave together. It was silly to get your hopes up, she tells herself rising to place the paper book in her father's old cardboard box filing it away with all her other meaningless family heirlooms. Though she understands this journal is something that ought to have great bearing on her life. Unfortunately for Silas and his scheme, Jake has always mistrusted the expression "knowing your roots." As though roots by their very definition are knowable. Any dendrologist can tell you that the roots of a mature Douglas fir spread for miles. That they're dark. And intertwining -- tangled and twisted and impossible to map. But they often fuse together and even communicate secretly sharing nutrients and chemical weapons among themselves. So the truth is that there exists no clear distinction between one tree and another and their roots are anything but knowable. Jake snaps back her drink and retrieves the paper book from the box, flipping to the inside front cover where she finds facing the first page -- a splash of crudely penciled words scrawled in a child's block print: Property of Willow Greenwood. Despite her reservations about Silas's true motivations and her general bafflement with the book's cryptic entries, Jake's heart takes a little skip at the sight of her grandmother's name however misspelled it may be. And while drinking herself toward a welcome oblivion throughout the evening she wonders about Willow Greenwood and who she was and what impelled her to give her fortune away. She wonders about her father and if he also drank and whether that's what made him troubled. If he did ,Jake already forgives him. Maybe she drinks because of his genes or because of his absence. Or maybe his genes created his absence which created her drinking. Or maybe he felt just as unwelcome in the world as she does now. And drinking was the only thing that allowed him any reprieve. Or maybe her roots are all too tangled and there's no single story to be told about any of it. Deep in the night just after she's dragged her cathedral issue comforter over her body and is preparing to pass out, she lifts the paper book one last time and fans its grimy hand-inked pages. How intimately a book is related to the tree and its rings she thinks. The layers of time preserved for all to examine.

CO: Michael thank you and thank you for this book and thank you for speaking with us.

MC: Thank you Carol. It was such a pleasure speaking with you. That was just so fun.

CO: All right. Take care.

MC: You too.

TA: That was Michael Christie speaking with Carol from a CBC studio in Victoria. He's the author of the new novel "Greenwood" which is published by McClelland and Stewart.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 11, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode