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 2020

The AIH Transcript for October 7, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Long term effects. COVID-19 is creeping back into long-term care homes in Ottawa. And families wonder whether the lessons of this past spring could have prevented it.

CH: Jihadi widow jailed. A German woman who was exposed as a former member of ISIS in Syria gets a prison sentence for her crimes, but a Yazidi activist believes justice has still not been served.

CO: Plastic times call for plastic measures. Canada's oil producers may be worried about otherwise plan to ban single-use plastics, but the federal environment minister bags to differ.

CH: And this year's entries for the coveted U.S. federal duck stamp are in and they're causing a flap thanks to a new rule from the Trump administration, which says they can't be limited to just ducks, they need to contain hunting imagery as well. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that guesses the administration knows its target audience.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Rule that U.S. 'duck stamp' must include hunting image misses the mark, says artist

Ottawa LTC outbreak

Guest: Melissa Acheson

CH: After a staggering number of deaths at long-term care facilities in the spring, people with loved ones in care homes hoped they would be safer this fall. After all, governments and administrators had months to prepare for the increase in infections we're seeing now in places like Quebec and Ontario. But there are outbreaks again in Ottawa, in 13 of the city's long-term care homes. The hardest hit is West End Villa. 19 people have died in the latest outbreak. Melissa Acheson's partner Shawn Hill was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the home a few weeks ago. We reached her in Ottawa.

CO: Melissa, first of all, how is Shawn doing?

MELISSA ACHESON: He's not doing well, I'm sad to say.

CO: Just to give us a bit of a background, he is in the West End Villa because of a brain injury, is that right?

MA: That's right. Yes.

CO: From there, though, he has been there during this outbreak of COVID and now he has it.

MA: Correct. He tested positive. It's been over 14 days now, so I actually don't know what his status is at the moment.

CO: How do you not know what his status is?

MA: Because I haven't really been able to get in touch with anybody who can give me that information.

CO: So what do you actually know? You say he's not doing well. What do you know about how he's doing?

MA: Well, I know that he's not doing well because I have been able to speak with him by Facetime. So when I talk to him, I can tell he's not doing well. And I worry about his cognitive decline just from being on his own, isolated in his room since August 30th.

CO: What does he said to you about that isolation?

MA: Well, he is not often very well rooted in reality. So he's kind of in and out of knowing what's going on. And he has told me that he feels like he is in jail. And he really misses us, his family. And he's had a lot of trouble cognitively, starting to experience some hallucinations. And I would say decline back to where he was earlier in his recovery from his brain injury.

CO: Do you think the isolation is doing that?

MA: Absolutely, yeah. I think that human interaction is really important for him. And being around people kind of helps bring him back into reality. And for him to have people around him can remind him of where he is and why he's there and what time it is or what day it is. It's just invaluable to his well-being. For him not to have that is really not okay.

CO: We're seeing this outbreak in long-term care facilities in Ottawa. After having seen all this go on in the spring when there's so many lessons learned, or we thought there are lessons learned. How do you think it's possible that there should be, again, this outbreak of COVID-19 in these homes?

MA: I think it's possible, because the recommendations that are coming from the government aren't being turned into action. And I can't really see how it's possible for that to happen with the lack of staff and funding. I think it's easy for people who aren't directly involved in the situation to make these recommendations, for politicians to speak up and make it sound like they're doing everything when in fact it's just talk and it's making it seem like they're doing their job. But there's no action to back it up. And the long-term care homes are so understaffed. And staff who work there, they work so hard and they're such good people and they do their best, but there's only so much one person can do.

CO: Extendicare is the company, is the operator, that runs West End Villa where your partner is, where Shawn is. They say that they have enhanced infection control policies, hired new employees, they brought staff in from other parts of the province even to try to manage this. So do you think that the problem is at the top -- it's where the government is not doing its job? Do you think that what you see on the ground, that the home is getting what it needs and doing what it needs in order to try and control this outbreak?

MA: Yeah I think -- I think they've brought in that staff from different parts of the province, and I know the hospital is now involved in supporting West End Villa as well, the Ottawa hospital. But that's after the outbreak started. So from what I see and from the people who I interact with that work there, I see that they are doing everything within their power to be able to slow the spread. For sure, they are doing their best, but they can only do so much with that outside support. So I am glad to see that they are getting it now. I just think it happened too late.

CO: Too late for a number of people who have died in the home and in the other 12 homes in Ottawa where there was an outbreak.

MA: Absolutely, yeah.

CO: You haven't been able to see Shawn in person since March. Is that right?

MA: That's right.

CO: When do you think you'll get to see him again?

MA: I really have no idea. [Chokes up]

CO: You okay?

MA: I'm okay. Thank you. I just really don't know. I don't know.

CO: And your son as well, is anxious to see him.

MA: Yeah, I think it would give us both a peace of mind to be able to see him in person. It's been really hard for us because we want to see him and know that he's doing well, for sure. But at the same time, it's hard for us to visit with him because he's just so much different than he was pre-injury. It definitely puts an added strain and stress and worries to not be able to see that he's doing okay, to see how he's doing it all.

CO: Melissa I'm so sorry that you and Shawn, that you're going through all that, and I just hope that there's an end in sight for you.

MA: Well, thank you so much.

CO: Thank you.

CH: Melissa Acheson's partner, Shawn Hill, is a resident at the West End Villa long-term care home. She was in Ottawa. We asked Extendicare, the company that operates the home, for a comment but did not receive a response before we went to air.

[Music]

Federal plastic ban

Guest: Jonathan Wilkinson

CH: It's time to prepare for life without plastic straws, plastic cutlery and plastic carry out bags. This morning, Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal environment minister, announced plans to ban six categories of single use plastics by adding them to Canada's list of toxic substances. The plan as part of the Trudeau government's promise to eliminate plastic waste by 2030. But it comes amid layoffs in the oil industry, and just a day after the government of Alberta announced its ambition to turn itself into a plastic recycling powerhouse. We reached Jonathan Wilkinson in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Wilkinson, as you know, there is a lot going on in this country right now. So what is a worker facing layoffs in a place like Come By Chance supposed to make of your promise to ban single use plastics?

JONATHAN WILKINSON: Well, I think Canadians clearly are of the view that governments needs to be able to actually do more than one thing at a particular point in time. Certainly, first and foremost, we need to be focused on the pandemic and ensuring that we are addressing that and that we are supporting Canadians through it. We obviously need to be concerned about environmental or economic issues, including the challenges that are faced by the workers in Come By Chance right now. And of course, that is something that the government is very much seized with. But at the same time, people do expect us to be taking action to protect our environment. This issue around plastics has been around for a number of years. It's something that's been talked about quite a bit. It's something that many many countries around the world have taken action on far earlier than Canada. And at the end of the day, in the context of the science assessment that we released, it showed that there is significant harm that is being done by plastics in our environment.

CO: Okay, so you have places like the province of Alberta on top of that as well. They are trying to relaunch the province as a recycling hub, to diversify. And so Alberta's energy minister, Sonya Savage, said about your plan today that don't damage us any further, stay in your own lane, stay in your own constitutional bounds and let Albertans get back to work. Did you consult Alberta on this plan?

JW: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the Council of Canadian Environment Ministers have been working on these issues now for about three years and we continue to work on them. We had a long discussion about it this summer when we met virtually with the chair being Saskatchewan. And let me say, I mean, I salute the work that Alberta has done and its aspirations as it announced yesterday, to become a recycling hub. I think that's fantastic. It's taking advantage of the kinds of economic opportunities that I spoke about today when we made this announcement. You know, the broad plan, people seem to get very focused on the list of six items that are going to be banned. But the broad plan is about actually keeping plastic in our economy, ensuring that it doesn't end up in landfills and in the environment. We all know that there are many, many, many plastic products that we are going to need going forward. But we need to ensure that we have appropriate recycling, that we're using recycled content in the products that we make, that people who produce plastics are responsible for doing a lot of this work. And that's exactly what this is. The ban is on six products which are particularly harmful in the environment that are hard to recycle and for which there are available alternatives. So I think that, you know, with all due respect to Minister Savage, what we announced today is entirely consistent with what Alberta announced yesterday. And I think that's a good thing.

CO: Okay. And as you've heard the criticism of those who think that you're doing the wrong thing for that reason and others who are saying you got it wrong because you're not covering enough of the plastics. You just said it represents one percent. So we heard from Sarah King of Greenpeace to say that your plan is nowhere close to the ban on single use plastics that's required.

JW: Well, I think Canadians want us to take action to ban the products that actually can't be recycled. I think that Canadians, though, would say we actually want to ensure that we're recycling the products that can be recycled. And we all use many types of plastics at our homes and our businesses. We need to make sure that the ones that we are not getting rid of can be recycled in a cost effective way. And so there will be work that will be done with companies to ensure that, you know, product design reflects that and all of those kinds of things. But I will tell you, I mean, most of industry is broadly supportive of this, go talk to Walmart. Go talk to Unilever, go talk to Canadian Tire go talk to the A&W, go talk to Tim Hortons. They're all on board because everybody recognizes that plastic is a problem if it gets into the environment. Plastic is not a problem in and of itself. It is a problem if we're not capturing and reusing and recycling.

CO: Well, if you talk to people in the hospitality industry, they might dispute the timing of this because the social media messaging that's going on today for people who work in restaurants who are just barely hanging on or are closing down, are now asking you why you want them to now buy more expensive takeaway products when takeaway is their entire business right now, that this is for them really really bad timing?

JW: Well, it's a couple of things. I mean, the first is the ban will not come into place until the end of 2021. Secondly, many restaurants and takeaway places have actually already moved in this direction. I mean, go into an A&W, they use paper straws, not plastic ones. Same thing with Starbucks. Most of the takeaways or many takeaway places are using compostable cartons rather than Styrofoam, which is the biggest problem in terms of not being able to recycle.

CO: What about the cutlery and the plastic bags that's also part of the takeaway? I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong to deal with single use plastics because as you say there's a lot of consensus in across the country that this is a problem. It's just that you say that there are alternatives to these, but they cost money.

JW: Well, there are. I mean, you used the example of plastic bags. I mean, in the grocery store that is in the community that I live in, they went to paper bags, you know, a year ago because they were cost effective and they were not plastic. So there are alternatives that exist out there and in most cases, they are very cost effective and they should become even more cost effective as there are economies of scale with respect to production. But at the end of the day, Canadians are very much view that we need to be taking action to ensure that we're not continuing to pollute our environment. I met with a guy last week in my constituency office who was part of a group of operators that got some funding from the B.C. government to go up and clean up the beaches in northern B.C. where there isn't very much of a population. In less than a month, they scooped up 127-ton of plastic from the ocean. This is a great problem. It is something that we need to address. We're drinking micro-plastic every time we actually turn on the tap. Every time we drink a water bottle. And it is an insidious issue that we need to address, and Canadians know that.

CO: We will leave it there. Minister Wilkinson thank you.

JW: Thank you very much.

CH: Jonathan Wilkinson is the federal environment minister. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music]

Duck hunting stamp

Guest: Rebecca Knight

CH: You'd think the rules for submitting a painting for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's annual duck stamp would be pretty straightforward: make a picture of a duck to put on a stamp. The duck to be flying or floating up to you as long as it's a duck to go on a stamp. And it used to be that simple. But this year, the Trump administration decided a duck or even multiple ducks wouldn't cut it. It was mandated that your duck stamp entry must contain imagery illustrating hunting. That's because the stamp is not just a popular collectible sold at post offices, it's also used as a permit to hunt wildfowl. Rebecca Knight is a wildlife artist who submitted her own entry to the 2020 duck stamp contest. We reached her in Appleton City, Missouri.

CO: Rebecca, what kind of duck did you paint for your entry this year?

REBECCA KNIGHT: I did a Gadwall. And I just did a single Drake, he's swimming from right to left. And the Gadwall is basically just a brown colored duck from a distance, but up close they have really intricate designs and patterns in their feathers.

CO: Lovely. And so you also, though, had to include hunting imagery in order to qualify. What did you include in your painting?

RK: I included a decoy, like an old wooden decoy kind of fitted in the grass.

CO: These are small paintings, right? These are miniatures. So how did you get all that into one image?

RK: Well, I just tried to make sure that everything sort of stood out and was very clear from a distance because the painting itself is pretty small, 7 by 10 inches. But you have to also remember that the purpose of these entries is that the winner is going to be reproduced into the size of a stamp, which is, I think, an inch and a half by two inches or something like that. So everything has to be fairly clear.

CO: What did you think when you heard that the artists who wanted to submit to this contest had to include this hunting related imagery?

RK: Well, the artist didn't want it. It was from somebody higher up. I do greatly appreciate the incentive to celebrate hunters because hunters are the ones that mainly buy the stamps. And I'm a hunter myself. So I do really really appreciate them wanting to recognize hunters. But I don't know that anybody who proposed this rule thought through the limitations that would be placed onto the artists.

CO: Well, we know that it was the Trump administration that rewrote the rules for this competition and we should point out this this duck stamp is a permit stamp for hunting waterfowl and not the postal stamp or postage stamp. And the competition rules were changed because it we should celebrate our waterfowl hunting heritage and not the waterfowl. So do you think this was a necessary change in order to celebrate the hunting heritage?

RK: I really don't find it to be necessary because the fact that the duck stamps, it's technically the migratory bird hunting stamp, but it's called the duck stamp and they feature ducks that are legally hunted in the U.S.. And to me, that alone is enough to recognize the hunters. Like that's the reason that it's just ducks and it's not all the other species of migratory birds. It's for the hunters. So I don't feel that adding this rule is a necessary change. I personally don't feel that it's going to help stamp sales because hunters have to buy it anyway. So somebody who is maybe not a hunter or just a birdwatcher, you know, it very well could alienate some people from buying stamps.

CO: What are some of the other paintings? What kind of paraphernalia are hunting imagery have you seen in some of the other submissions?

RK: After going through all of the entries it kind of boiled down to about four different elements. And that is a hunting scene in the background, whether that be a blind or some hunters with a boat in the water and the other would be decoys, and then duck calls like floating in the water or on the shoreline and shotgun shells.

CO: Right. I've seen some of them. I think the plastic cartridge floating beside the duck or the duck caller that's floating, what kind of kind of looks like garbage, doesn't it?

RK: Yeah. I mean, yeah, responsible hunters usually try to pick their stuff up. So I don't really see how that gets the message across as far as celebrating our hunting heritage.

CO: And what kind of message do you think that is sending to people with that being on the stamp?

RK: I don't think it's a positive one. And, you know, even just reading some of the comments on social media posts about this, you know, even hunters were wondering, they weren't aware of the rules. So some of the hunters were even wondering, like, why are there a bunch of calls floating in all these paintings and what's with all the shotgun shells? Like, what's the deal? So but they weren't aware that there's this required rule and we have to try to fit something hunting related into our entries.

CO: I mean, hunters are often they talk about conservation, the idea of taking care of wetlands and expanding them. In fact, the money for the stamp goes to creation of wetlands. So don't real hunters want to celebrate the outdoors and the survival of waterfowl?

RK: Right. And, you know, I have artist friends and hunter friends as well who have, you know, commented on this proposal that they would just like to see a painting on the stamp of just the bird in its natural habitat. Even though they're hunters, that doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, they would like the idea of every painting having hunting elements in it.

CO: Well, why do you think the Trump administration wanted to have this kind of imagery in these paintings with the birds?

RK: Honestly, I really don't know. I mean, it's because they want to celebrate hunters, and I get that. I do. I don't think anyone has thought through the limitations as far as the artist's perspective. And that's the only thing really to me that makes it difficult on my part as the artist.

CO: Rebecca, thank you.

RK: Yeah. You're welcome.

CH: Rebecca Knight is a wildlife artist. We reached her in Appleton City, Missouri. For more on this story, go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: MacArthur 'Genius' Grant winner fights to reform U.S. property laws that hurt Black families

ISIS German sentence

Guest: Mirza Dinnayi

CH: The people who met her in Hamburg, Germany, Omaima Abdi was an ordinary person, an interpreter and an event planner. But Ms. Abdi was also a former member of ISIS. She went to Syria to join her German ISIS fighter husband. And then after he died, she married a second jihadist. After his death, she returned home to Germany and tried to slip under the radar. She was exposed when a reporter obtained the contents of her cell phone with photo evidence of her ISIS activities. Now, a German court has sentenced Ms. Abdi to three and a half years in prison for membership in a terrorist organization and other crimes. Mirza Dinnayi is a Yazidi activist who lives in Germany. We reached him today in Duhok, Iraq.

CO: Mirza, first of all, this sentence that this woman has received, three and a half years, does that seem like justice to you?

MIRZA DINNAYI: No, because actually, Omaima was engaged in crimes against humanity, not only in joining a terror group. And I think this mild sentence that the German court decided is not enough to bring justice to what's happened.

CO: And you say that one of the things that she was convicted for is being part of a terrorist group. What exactly did this woman, Omaima Abdi, what did she do in Syria?

MD: Well, first of all, Omaima did a lot of crime. So not only did she join terror groups, she also talked to them from Germany, talk them to Syria and she tried to recruit other people from other countries. So she was very active. And even from the file of prosecution, Omaima had also kept a 13 year old Yazidi girl as a slave in her house for several days, and she was using that girl as a slave inside her house. So it is not a normal a so-called ISIS woman who was forcibly joining ISIS because her husband, for example, joined the ISIS. So it is not that kind of innocent women who we are not able to decide.

CO: I just want to take some of that apart and find out the different convictions that this woman has had. You mentioned, first of all, she enslaved this girl, this Yazidi girl was taken into her home and enslaved. Last time we spoke, you were talking about the trauma that these Yazidi women and girls went through as slaves. What effect did it have on this young girl that she was taken in by Omaima Abdi?

MD: We don't know even which girl she is. Is she still alive? Is she still in captivity? So even we couldn't reach this girl in the whole time. So we know only from the documents. I tried actually with different Yazidi activists to reach out because the Omaima didn't say the name of this girl, she said that it was a girl in her house as a slave because her friend who had this slave was in hospital and therefore she talked of the slave in her house. So she was justifying that she was only taking care on this slave, but she used this girl as a slave. Even if you have a girl, a victim temporarily for one week or two week or one month, and you do know that you are bringing that girl back to that as a slave and you are dealing with this girl, 13 years old, as a slave, and then you being here back to the owner so it means that you agree with this system of slavery and you are supporting this slavery. It is kind of crimes against humanity.

CO: When she brought her to the house as a slave, we know from you and from others that these Yazidi girls were brought in for sex. They were sexual slaves. Is that what you suspect happened to this girl?

MD: I don't know, it's actually not only sex slaves, so it shouldn't be only sex slaves because they enslaved them. And those girls who were actually somehow adult and in adolescence, they took them as sex slaves. 13 year old girl definitely was misused in all kinds of violence. But we don't know. We don't have exact information about the name of this girl. We don't know the destiny of this girl, whether she's still alive or not.

CO: What we've been told about this woman who has been convicted Omaima Abdi, she was coming, she was able to return to Germany. She was living in Germany with many people knowing that she had been involved with this. What was it like for the Yazidi women that, you know, living in Germany to learn that this woman could just return to Germany? And until she was caught, that she would live and work as though she hadn't been part of any of this, what was it like for other Yazidi women to learn that?

MD: Well, it's just like a shock. You know, it's just like a shock, because all women that I interviewed that I am in contact with were victims of ISIS and in their slavery and sex slavery of ISIS. They are reporting that the women of ISIS, they were even worse than the men, especially the wives of the fighters there. The hospital was using the women, sex slaves. The wives used the woman as a slave inside the house, in the family. So therefore, it is a big shock for them when they see that someone like Omaima will be sentenced only for three and half year. She will be after three and a half years or it might be less, free. And she will get face to face to those Yazidi victims who escaped from ISIS in Hamburg or in any city and so on. So it's painful for the Yazidi women when they hear that the sentence was so mild for her.

CO: Mirza I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

MA: Thank you dear. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

CH: Mirza Dinnayi he is a Yazidi activist based in Germany. He was in Duhok, Iraq.

[Music]

Crystal the Podenco

CH: A rescue dog from Spain landed on a Toronto runway and immediately became a Toronto runaway. Last week, a white Spanish podenco named Crystal arrived at Pearson International Airport. And apparently she wanted to live up to her status as a rescue, so much so that she had to be rescued again. Crystal managed to escape from her crate after landing, which kicked off an hour's long search and temporarily suspended all arrivals and departures. Rhonda Martins is one of Crystal's handlers. She works with a dog adoption group in Nova Scotia, and she helped bring Crystal and three other dogs to Canada. The CBC is Preston Mulligan spoke with Ms. Martins about Crystal's second rescue.

RHONDA MARTINS: The four podencos were shipped in by cargo. I went to pick the dogs up to meet them when they arrived. And we ended up with four crates and three dogs. And we found out upon inspection of the crate that the doors had not been zip tied by the airline or whoever placed the dogs. And Crystal got out in the hold of the plane. When they opened the plane and took out all the cargo, she somehow slipped out, nobody noticed her. The aviation security guys went out on the tarmac and started looking for. Somebody did fire about half an hour after we thought she got out. So they sent guys out there right away in trucks with big lights and flashlights and everything. They had nighttime vision cameras and everything to track her. I ended up getting security clearance to billowed on the tarmac and one of the guys drove me around for hours. It actually started to rain. It was so bad. It rained so bad. We could barely see in the truck driving along, trying to run after her. It was pretty rough trying to find her. We were pretty flustered that it had been raining so hard. We had hoped that she'd get cover, but she just kept running the whole time. I can't say enough about Toronto Pearson, they did a phenomenal job. This was not their fault. They spent 13 hours looking for her. They looked for this dog. They were not giving up until they found her.

PRESTON MULLGAN: Tell me about the moment when Crystal was finally spotted.

RHONDA MARTINS: We went back to the hotel in the morning, Dennise Snow, and I , and we took the other dogs back to the hotel and they continued to search throughout the night. In the morning, they brought on the clock trainers from the airport. And one of those guys actually found Crystal. And she actually came over to one and then laid on the prop. I think she was pretty tired. Her feet were pretty beat up and she just kind of gave up at that point after running for all that time.

PRESTON MULLGAN: How did it feel to finally lay your eyes on Crystal the podenco?

RHONDA MARTINS: Oh, you can't imagine. I think my heart stood still for the whole 13 hours. I'm pretty sure it stopped beating. And when they called oh I can't even...[chokes up] there you go. These dogs are pretty important to us. And I'm just glad she's okay.

CH: Rhonda Martins is a volunteer with Greyhound's Gallegos and Podencos of Atlantic Canada. She helped bring four rescue dogs to Canada, including the one that was on the lam for 13 hours at Toronto's airport. Crystal is now at her new home in Moncton, New Brunswick.

[Music]

MacArthur Grant recipient

Guest: Thomas Wilson Mitchell

CH: When you hear the phrase property law scholar, you may not automatically think genius, but in the case of lawyer Thomas Wilson Mitchell, the MacArthur Foundation is unequivocal. Which is why he's one of this year's recipients of the foundation's so-called genius grant. Yesterday, the MacArthur Foundation announced this year's 21 Fellows, the prizes given to, "talented individuals who have shown extraordinary originality and dedication in their creative pursuits and a marked capacity for self-direction." Mr. Mitchell is in a 2020 group that includes a cognitive neuroscientist and evolutionary geneticist and a speculative fiction writer. He is a professor at Texas A&M University and he was chosen for his work, which is aimed at reforming U.S. property laws that negatively impact Black people and other vulnerable groups. We reached Thomas Wilson Mitchell in Dallas, Texas.

CO: Thomas, first of all, big congratulations to you.

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Thank you.

CO: Did you have any idea that you were up for a MacArthur genius grant?

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Absolutely not. MacArthur had first tried to phone -- I don't answer phone calls that I suspect our spam. And so they then emailed me and said that they wanted to talk to me about serving on a grant review committee or something. So I had developed a whole speech where I was going to be very respectful and say how honoured that they were thinking about me serving in this capacity, and then tell them that I had no bandwidth, and I was totally overextended, so I had to decline the service opportunity.

CO: But instead, they were calling to tell you that you got the grant and you had 625,000 dollars you didn't know you're going to have.

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Yes. And they revealed that in about the first two seconds. So I was actually, frankly, overcome with emotion. And I'm not typically a person who is easily emotional, right.

CO: So the work that you are doing for which you have got this fellowship is really quite extraordinary. And I know there's a lot to it, but maybe you can just encapsulate what it is that you learned about property law in the United States that was so disadvantaging Black families as property owners.

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: I ended up discovering that there was a state law in every state in the United States that governed the most prevalent form of common ownership of property, and that this form was incredibly unstable because it essentially allowed one person to file a lawsuit, petition a court to then essentially dissolve the ownership and would result in a court ordered forced sale of the entire property, even if the overwhelming majority of those who had an interest in the property wanted to maintain ownership of it.

CO: And so how many people were losing their property because of this?

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: I think over the course of the last hundred years, like tens of thousands of families in a variety of states, not just in the south, but throughout the country. But I'd say the problem was particularly severe in the southern states.

CO: There's so many families, former slave families, in some cases, people who got title of land, and that by the turn of the last century, there were large numbers of people who owned land, who were Blacks and African-Americans. So why were they not able to secure the land? Why were other people able to do that and it was so difficult for Black families?

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Yes. First of all, kudos for recognizing that Black families did acquire land. Most people I've talked to don't realize that African-American families or Black families in the United States actually ended up having any significant property ownership or land ownership. So between the end of the civil war in 1910, Black families accumulated between 16 and 20 million acres of land. But the major problem in terms of them being able to keep their land was that from the very beginning, these families had a fundamental lack of access to affordable legal services so that they could use the typical legal structures that wealthier families who are more sophisticated who have access to lawyers use to ensure the continuity of the ownership of their property across multiple generations. Consistent with that, the overwhelming percentage of these families ended up not having wills or other estate plans so that when they died, they then got the form of property ownership that the state will give you when you don't make a will or an estate plan through this process called intestacy. And unfortunately for these families, that form of common real property ownership that the state will give you just turns out to be the most unstable form of common real property ownership that is recognized in the entire United States.

CO: How successful have you been in this effort to reverse some of that and to restore the property rights and the ability to hold onto this property rights for these families?

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Yes. With my work I kind of make it clear that what I am trying to do is help these families preserve their property and the assets so those are the families who still have ownership. This model state statute that I've worked on provides incredibly enhanced property rights protections that serve to enable these families to maintain ownership of their property. And from, you know, admittedly anecdotal evidence in the states that have enacted it, what I hear from lawyers on the ground, advocates for these families and communities, is that the law is working incredibly well, it is working as intended.

CO: Well done.

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Thank you. I appreciate it. I think part of the reason I was awarded the MacArthur Fellowship was that when I started this work 23-24 years ago, the received wisdom, the consensus among law professors and lawyers in the United States was that though this was like a noble undertaking that I was proposing to engage in, that I was kind of hopelessly naive, a wild eyed optimist because the assumption was that this particular state law would be impossible to reform. And largely based upon the fact that the property owners who were most impacted were disadvantaged property owners who are disproportionately African-American or other people of colour who fundamentally lacked economic power and political power. And so the thinking was, you know, what state would ever respond to their calls for reform? And there was something to that skepticism, because in a number of Southern states, beginning from the early 1970s, for several decades, there were individual attempts in individual states to change this law or reform this law, and they pretty much all met with failure. So the thinking was like, what makes you think that you could have any different outcome? And to go from this, you know, received wisdom that it was impossible to now we've had 17 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands enacted into law. Eight of the 17 states are actually southern states, which really shocks people. And some of those southern states even shock me.

CO: I can't think of anyone more worthy of getting this fellowship. And I'm hoping that the money is able to let you continue this extraordinary work. Thomas it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

THOMAS WILSON MITCHELL: Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity.

CH: Property law scholar Thomas Wilson Mitchell want to 2020 MacArthur Genius Grant. We reached him in Dallas. And you can find more on this story, including photos on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

CRISPR

CH: It's been called one of the most revolutionary scientific breakthroughs of our time. CRISPR, as it's known, can simply and cheaply edit the genomes of everything from wheat to mosquitoes to humans. And now, just eight years after its discovery, the two scientists who pioneered the technology have been awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna made the discovery by accident in 2012. Their work unleashed a gene editing frenzy, and it wasn't long before CRISPR became a common tool in labs. Today's award also makes scientific history as the only science Nobel ever won by two women. Here they are reflecting on that in Berlin today, starting with the Emmanuelle Charpentier, a microbiologist at the Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens.

EMMANUELLE CHARPENTIER: I was reminded on a very regular basis that very likely as a so-called CRISPR discovery will be awarded one day the Nobel Prize, and that may be I will be one that was the award is. But I have to say that this morning when I received a call from the general secretary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, I was extremely emotional and extremely moved, as a matter of fact. I found it for sure extremely nice that the award is going to two women. I think this is the first case ever seen for the Nobel Prize, but it's reflective of the fact that science becomes more modern and involves more female leaders. And I do hope that it will remain and even they've look more in this direction because it's obviously may be more cumbersome to be woman in science than being a man in science.

JENNIFER DOUDNA: It means a lot to me, thinking back to my own childhood, you know, growing up, I had been told more than more than a few times that, you know, girls don't do chemistry or girls don't do science. And fortunately, I ignored that. You know, my parents have passed away, so they're not -- where they are, they're looking down, I'm sure. And, yeah, I'm just thinking about my college experience, you know, being trained by a female biochemist. I think for many women, there is a feeling that no matter what they do, their work will never be recognized the way it would be if they were a man. And this recognition today, I think just, you know, refutes that.

CH: Jennifer Doudna is a biochemist at the University of California Berkeley. Before her, you heard Microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier. Today, the two women were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. On Quirks and Quarks this Saturday, Bob McDonald will speak with Jennifer Doudna, the new Nobel laureate, about the discovery of the revolutionary CRISPR gene editing technology and her concerns that we use this powerful technology wisely.

[Music]

Promo: Andrew Furey Interview

ANDREW FUREY: What a night! Really still overwhelmed. But my friends, I want to thank you for your competence, for your trust, and for making me the next member for Humber-Gros Morne.

CH: Andrew Furey can breathe a sigh of relief. The new premier of Newfoundland and Labrador won his seat in the legislature in a by-election last night. But that victory was the easy part. Now comes the hard part. Today, Carol asked him what his first priority will be as premier and as a newly minted MHA.

ANDREW FUREY: I think the biggest challenge for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is similar to the rest of Canada, that we all want a safe place to live and raise a family, especially in these times of COVID-19. So paramount to Newfoundland and Labrador is it would be for the rest of Canada is making sure that everybody is safe during COVID-19 and giving us the ability and the latitude to create a vision emerging from COVID-19 in the future.

CO: All right. There is somebody who quipped that after you won the leadership vote, that if you had asked to see the books on Newfoundland and Labrador's finances, you would have asked for a recount.

ANDREW FUREY: [Chuckles] As former Premier Wells has said and put quite bluntly and correctly, there's no sense sugarcoating it. Newfoundland and Labrador is in a precarious financial situation. And former Premier Ball , of course, stated that publicly many times, not just before the pandemic in particular. But we'll get through it. There is lots of great opportunity and reason for hope and optimism here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we'll work through it and we'll emerge from the economic crisis and the global health crisis, a stronger, brighter, more diverse and more caring, compassionate society that I know we can be.

CO: Well, I think that Premier Ball went beyond saying it was a tough financial situation. He was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. You're in trouble, aren't you?

ANDREW FUREY: Yeah. There's no sense sugarcoating. We're in a tough situation. But the harsh reality is now, the rest of the world is in a tough situation as well. So we'll navigate our way through it, I think, you know, with the help of the federal government. We're very lucky to be a part of Canada. As you know, we only joined Canada in 1949. And I think we've contributed to Canada, we've contributed financially, we've contributed culturally. And I think we're fortunate that we belong to such a strong federation now. And we can help with our federal partners to navigate our way through this tough financial situation.

CO: Things just got worse this week, though, didn't they, because they come by chance. Oil refinery is now once again looking for a buyer. So do you have a plan for what to do about Come By Chance?

ANDREW FUREY: Well, this is a valuable asset for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but it's also an agreement between two partners. So there was negotiations going on between two commercial entities and that's fallen through. But now there appears to be another one on the horizon. So we will help try to facilitate that as best we can as a government to protect the jobs and the families of the people who work in Come By Chance and ensure that that delivers the maximum value to the people of the province, which is an incredibly valuable asset, and we need to protect it.

CO: Well, how do you go about doing that? Right now it doesn't look very good, does it?

ANDREW FUREY: Well, you know, one deal fell through, but there's another potential buyer on the horizon. So, again, I'm not privy to the commercial sensitivities between two private companies negotiating a deal but we can try to facilitate a deal with another company now, it's called Origin. They had a news release yesterday to say that they were interested. And so hopefully they'll do their due diligence along with the current owners and we can get something done.

CO: That was Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey speaking with Carol today after winning a seat in the legislature in a by election last night. This Thanksgiving Monday, Carol will have a feature interview with the premier about his other job being an orthopedic trauma surgeon. He's just published a new book called Hope In The Balance about working in Haiti after the earthquake in 2010 and turning a small St. John's medical team into across Canada movement.

[Music]

Part 3: Saskatchewan nurse appeal

Saskatchewan nurse appeal

Guest: Carolyn Strom

CH: Saskatchewan's highest court has ruled that Carolyn Strom had every right to vent on Facebook, especially when that venting has to do with her family's health care and even though she's a health care worker. Carolyn Strom is a registered nurse in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Five years ago, she aired concerns on social media about the often subpar end of life care her grandfather had received at his care home. The Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association found Ms. Strom guilty of professional misconduct and ordered her to pay 26,000 dollars. This week, Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal overturned that decision and pointed out that her concerns about her grandfather's care were in the public interest. We reached Carolyn Strom in Prince Albert.

CO: Carolyn, does this court ruling mean you can finally move on from that Facebook post you wrote five years ago?

CAROLYN STROM: Yes, I hope it does. The decision was unanimous. So there's not as much room, I'm thinking, for an appeal, but we will see this.

CO: And how does it feel to know that the highest court in Saskatchewan has ruled that you have these free speech rights?

CS: I knew when I decided to fight the ruling, you know, from my disciplinary body that I thought in my head and heart that I had a case and I was just waiting for someone to realize the same things that I knew. So I'm feeling really glad, you know, that someone understood and actually got what was going on and made it right.

CO: So remind people. We spoke with you about this last year. But this goes back to 2015, and you posted something on Facebook. You were talking about your grandfather and the subpar care you believe that he got in his final days. But you're a nurse, and so your association found you professionally or guilty of professional misconduct, but you fought that. Why did you feel it was so important to resist what your association said about you and said to you?

CS: Well, just what I was being accused of was wrong. Like it's not what I did. What they said I did, I didn't do. And I couldn't sign or agree to something that wasn't truthful. That's ultimately the reason why I was like, no, I will not agree to sign something that isn't true. And that's where this all started.

CO: And what were you to sign? What did they want you to say?

CS: To agree that I did something wrong by talking about how I felt about my grandparents care like. Well, first of all, there were concerns and, you know, being told to be quiet about it. My grandma was still alive at that time at the same facility. And I was worried that, you know, her care, like, what if what if something happened to her? I just wasn't willing to say no, I'm going to be quiet from now on. Like, it just didn't seem right to me.

CO: There were complaints from nurses after that post. But you didn't name names in that post, did you?

CS: No, no. And I actually I didn't name professions either. You know, it was assumed that I was talking about nurses and there were lots of assumptions made about my case that weren't really looked into. And, you know, that's part of the reason why things just went a little sideways.

CO: It's extremely difficult to do what you've done, just to hold on to say I'm right and I'm going to keep going through all these different layers of law and court and to say, I'm not going to let go, I'm not going to give in. I know that what you were faced with 26,000 dollars in fines. But was it really the money that kept you motivated? What kept you so convinced you had to do this for five, I'm sure, very difficult years?

CS: For me, I was just like I have to do what's right. And to me, it was standing up for what I believed in and what I knew to be true. And then it was, yeah, I mean, the find you can somehow take out a loan, make the money, you know, just that. I mean, yeah, that would've been awful too. But it's just I would have had to live with myself knowing that that I could have done something and I didn't. And so I just wasn't willing to do that.

CO: What was the most important thing that you heard from that appeals court judge?

CS: You know, in the hearing itself a year ago, the thing that struck me the most was they wanted to get to the bottom of what was going on. They asked so many questions, they were engaged. And that's the most, you know, that had happened like this entire five years of people really wanting to understand what was going on. And I felt that from them. And that's what made the difference, was genuine interest in wanting to get it right.

CO: And Justice Brian Barrington-Foote, he pointed out in his ruling that, this is a quote, "Nurses, doctors, lawyers and other professionals are also sisters and brothers, sons and daughters." What did that section mean for you?

CS: That is exactly why this was important, because if people aren't allowed to speak about their experiences, if people are forced to be silent, it's just it...yeah. And all professionals have families and what that would mean, it just wouldn't have been good for people in care because then you'd worry that you would anger someone by asking a question or by raising a concern and it could take away your job. That's not fair.

CO: It's also interesting that you couldn't have imagined five years ago that this would finally happen in the midst of the pandemic. And frontline workers, what nurses are doing, I know you're dealing with COVID-19 every day. And what does this decision mean, given the context now of the fact that not only are people like you, so many people dealing with this pandemic, but they all have families too, and they have things to say about that? What difference do you think you've made in that context?

CS: I really hope it gives them courage to know that they can, you know, speak up if they have concerns. And of course, I still want people to be cautious and be respectful and all of that. I mean, that's important. You don't want people to feel silenced and to feel alone. And you need to be empathetic and validate people's experiences. And so I'm hoping that this is what this will do.

CO: Because all those frontline workers are sisters and brothers, sons and daughters.

CS: Yes. Yeah. We all have families that are not seeing us right now very much.

CO: Carolyn I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CS: Yeah, you're welcome, Carol.

CH: Carolyn Strom is a registered nurse in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

[Music]

Constant Awashish

CH: Yesterday, friends and families said goodbye to Joyce Echaquan, the Atikamekw woman who died last week in a Quebec hospital shortly after she recorded staff insulting and taunting her. And on the same day as her funeral, Quebec Premier Francois Legault made a formal apology to her family at the National Assembly. In his apology, Premier Legault said that the state has a duty to offer dignity and respect to everyone and that everyone has the right to expect to respect. And some say that apology should just be the first step to bigger changes in the province. Costant Awashish is the grand chief of the Atikamekw First Nation. He shared his reactions to Premier Legault remarks with CBC Montreal.

CONSTANT AWASHISH: It's a step in the right direction. But of course, there's still a lot of work to do. And those apologies, I can say that the family fully took it in a way that Premier Legault is totally sincere in his acknowledgment. They still have it in the heart, that the premier doesn't recognize the systemic discrimination against First Nation. But, yeah, I mean, I think it's a step in the right direction. But now we are going to be looking for action.

MIKE FINNERTY: I wonder if you could describe a bit more clearly what's missing from what the premier said there. I mean, he certainly sounded genuine, at least to my ear. Is it that he didn't go far enough?

CONSTANT AWASHISH: He didn't win the trust of the family. The premier didn't win the trust of the family. And there's still work to do. But I think at least what he could do is to sincerely apologize, which he did. And I agree with everybody needs dignity, deserve respect. I think for the family and the dignity and respect that the premier recognized the tragedy of the death of Joyce Echaquan. Echaquan, by the way, the premier doesn't say the name properly yet, and that was noticed by the family. They still don't feel like the premier takes it as a tragedy. That's how they feels.

MIKE FINNERTY: Well, he apologizes for this one incident and says it never should happen and that everyone is due similar treatment. But he's not willing to say that this happens a lot.

CONSTANT AWASHISH: There's a systemic discrimination against the First Nation in Quebec. So I think it's very important that the head of the state recognizes their own institution and recognize the rule of law. And I think it's very important for Quebecers that the head of the state recognizes all the policy, all the laws in place, it was always to put us aside and all those created stereotype about First Nation. It's just how it's built and we are disadvantaged. And that's why I think we need, that the head of the state to recognize this and from there then we can work all together, Quebecers and First Nations to recognize each other, to build a bridge between us and to make fall those walls that separates us.

CH: Constant Awashish is the grand chief of the Atikamekw First Nation. He spoke with Mike Finnerty on CBC Montreal's Daybreak.

[Music]

Ideas Promo: The Buffalo

CH: On Ideas tonight, the last of a three part series that examines the history of the buffalo and its profound and important links to Indigenous culture and heritage. Your guide is writer and broadcaster Thomas King, whose most recent book is the acclaimed novel Indians on Vacation. Here's an excerpt from tonight's program.

THOMAS KING: Native people say the buffalo will fix themselves. And we know better than anybody in North America that you can't ever go back to the way it was. In the late 60s, a massive hydroelectric project was completed in northern British Columbia. The Bennett Dam controls the waters of the piece as they spill out of the Rockies. Cheap hydroelectricity for Vancouver. And a thousand miles from the metropolis, the sedges where the buffalo feed are drying up in Wood Buffalo Park. As sedges dry up, the boreal forest encroaches and the prairies disappear. So how can you go back? But Carmac Gates is adamant using his way the wood bison or something very close to it will return. And he cites the jewel in the buffalo management crown, the McKenzie herd.

CH: Thomas King with an excerpt from part three of The Buffalo. That's tonight on Ideas with Nahlah Ayed after As it Happens.

[Music]

New reptile species

Guest: Catie Strong

CH: Most of us didn't even discover ourselves during our university undergrads. But Catie Strong didn't just do that, she made a major scientific discovery as well. During the final year to complete her undergrad degree at the University of Alberta, Ms. Strong led research on an ancient fossil of a reptile called a mosasaur. And in a paper released recently, the team says it's a newly identified species. Ms. Strong has now a masters student in evolutionary biology at the University of Alberta. We reached her in Edmonton.

CO: Catie, you are 23 years old, but you've already named a new species. So can you coast from here on in?

CATIE STRONG: Sure, yeah. [Chuckles].

CO: For the duration? [Chuckles]

CATIE STRONG: I guess I've reached the peak. [Laughs] That's it.

CO: Okay. What is a mosasaur?

CATIE STRONG: Mosasaurs are a type of ancient marine reptile. So you can picture them kind of as a giant Komodo dragon that is completely aquatic. So in the same way that dolphins are basically really weird mammals that are completely aquatic, mosasaurs are just really weird lizards that were completely aquatic. They are extinct. So they would have lived in the Cretaceous period, most abundant towards the end of that, about kind of 75 ish to 65 ish million years ago.

CO: How big were they?

CATIE STRONG: So the largest ones are estimated to be up to 17 or so metres long. So about a school bus and a half in layman's terms. So quite large.

CO: So before we get into what it was finding to eat. Let's just talk about how it differs from other types of these creatures that have been identified before. So why do you think this fossil is new? Why is it identified as a new fossil?

CATIE STRONG: Probably the most distinctive feature of this specimen is its skull and specifically its really long and narrow snout. So the distance from the eyes to kind of the tip of the skull is about three quarters of the total skull length for this one, which is very long compared to other mosasaurs. So right away, just looking at it, it's pretty obvious for anyone kind of familiar with mosasaurs that this is likely a different species. So based on that and some other kind of nit picky features related to this specimen, some kind of a more detailed anatomical features, it is pretty obvious that this is a unique species. It's not just a different version of one of the species that's already been described.

CO: And what did it find to eat, to support this size?

CATIE STRONG: So our hypothesis, kind of based on the anatomy of the skull, is probably that that really long and narrow snout was really important in allowing it to specialize on specific types of prey. And so our proposal was that it likely fed on very small and fast moving fish. And that's because this long and narrow snout is fairly hydrodynamic. So it would have basically allowed this animal to kind of with its heads through the water really quickly and essentially snap up these rapidly moving fish. So that's kind of our proposal based on just the dimensions of the skull and the overall structure. It's probably a very specialized type of predator.

CO: But it had interlocking teeth. What was the purpose of that?

CATIE STRONG: So that's probably tied into this idea of eating these small fish. Obviously, if these are small, rapidly moving, they're probably pretty invasive. They're pretty good at kind of zigzagging away from predators. So by having these really tightly interlocking teeth, that basically helps that animal grab onto those fish and make sure that they don't manage to evade it and help it be a much more effective predator.

CO: It cuts down on flossing probably too.

CATIE STRONG: Yeah. [Laughs]

CO: So now it's obviously going to be competing with a lot of creatures at the time. So what advantages or disadvantages did it have for survival?

CATIE STRONG: Yeah. So that's probably one of the most important and one of the most interesting aspects of this species is that it's living in an ecosystem with about a dozen or so other mosasaur species, which when you think of these, is all kind of school bus sized animals that's a lot of mega predators all competing with each other. So what likely happened is that they weren't, in fact, competing directly with each other for prey items. In this case, our species specific type of predation, feeding on these rapid fish would basically have allowed it to kind of separate itself from the pack, so to speak, by focusing on a specific type of prey. This would have minimized competition and it would have made it a lot easier for these animals to coexist. So that's a process that is called niche partitioning, but it's basically where different animals evolve specific adaptations to kind of help them branch out in an ecosystem so they each have their own little corner or niche of the ecosystem, and they could all coexist with a bit less direct competition.

CO: And so you were the one who found this fossil?

CATIE STRONG: So this fossil was actually discovered by workers in a phosphate mine in Morocco in kind of late 2000s.

CO: That's a place where we've heard of discoveries in phosphate mines. Is that a good place to look for fossils?

CATIE STRONG: Definitely, yeah. So phosphates specifically are a type of marine deposit. So they basically represent sediments that would have been laid down in some kind of marine environment. And Moroccan phosphates in particular, are an incredibly good place to find a lot of these mosasaur fossils because they, for whatever reason, have preserved so many different mozes or skeletons and skeletons of other animals as well. Like you said, there have been many other discoveries from these phosphate deposits.

CO: Okay, we said at the beginning that you named this new species. I'm not even going to attempt to give out the name. You tell us what it's called.

CATIE STRONG: [Chuckles] So the new species is named Gavialimimus Almaghribensis. Which, I don't blame you, it is a bit of a mouthful. But in English that would translate to gharial-mimic from Morocco. So obviously from Morocco indicates that that's where the specimen was found. And then gharial-mimic indicates that it's anatomy is mimicking or is similar to that of the gharial which is just a type of crocodilian that's still around today but that also has a really long, narrow snout and that feeds in the same manner of kind of snapping up these rapid fish that we hypothesized our mosasaur would also have used.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Catie it's fascinating. Thank you.

CATIE STRONG: Thank you.

CH: Catie Strong is a master's student in evolutionary biology at the University of Alberta. She's also the lead author of a paper on a mosasaur that was published in the Journal of Systematic Paleontology last week. We reached her in Edmonton.

[Music]

Exoplanets

CH: If devastating fires and floods, mass wildlife die-offs and the like, have you a little down, here's some hopeful news -- sort of. According to new research, Earth may not be the only habitable planet. Scientists have recently identified 24 exoplanets, planets orbiting stars other than our sun that could well support life. In fact, they could support life really well, possibly even better than this planet, which we've treated like a frat house scheduled for demolition. The research published in the journal Astrobiology found there is reason to believe each of these exoplanets is not just habitable but super habitable, meaning we wouldn't just survive, we would thrive. They're bigger, warmer, more biodiverse and with a longer planetary lifespan. Honestly, the pamphlets write themselves. Although according to the head researcher quote, "It's sometimes difficult to convey this principle of super habitable planets because we think we have the best planet." While he concedes there are some neat things about Earth, he says that doesn't mean that we have the best of everything. Well, first someone show him a picture of a manatee because it does not get any better than that. And secondly, before we get too exo-cited, let's maybe focus on cleaning up the mess we've made here at home. Though I admit there is some comfort in knowing that if Plan A doesn't work, there may actually be a planet B.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 7, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode