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 2017

The AIH Transcript for October 5, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight.

CO: The future is now. When asked about gun control in Las Vegas U.S. president Donald Trump said “we're not going to talk about that today.” But one Nevada state senator says there's no better time

JD: Sights unseen. Thousands of Inuit families don't know where their loved ones were buried after they were transported south for tuberculosis treatment. Now they're hoping an upcoming federal database changes that.

CO: Pipe down. Trans-Canada ditches its multi-billion dollar Energy East pipeline leaving Cabinet Minister Jim Carr defending the Prime Minister against accusations that he didn't do enough to promote it.

JD: There's one place like home. And because they feel a house in their neighborhood has been renovated to look too much like their own, a Toronto couple sues and demands their neighbors make over their makeover.

CO: Not seeing the forest for the trios. Our guest says awarding Nobel Prizes for science to a maximum of three recipients is misleading, at best, because it erases the work of dozens of other scientists who contribute to the work.

JD: And…Chairman of the board. We will speak with a surprise visitor to a U.S. Senate hearing on the Equifax data hack. The mascot of the game Monopoly rich Uncle Benny Pennybags, complete with little mustache and monocle. As It Happens the Thursday edition. Radio that guesses if you want to grab the spotlight, you have to make a spectacle for yourself.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Nevada senator, Energy East: Carr, Monopoly protester

Nevada senator

Guest: Yvanna Cancela

JD: Thoughts and prayers have been plentiful, but in the wake of the massacre in Las Vegas many U.S. politicians are avoiding talking about one thing that many believe could prevent another mass shooting — gun control. And the aversion to that conversation is especially strong in Nevada, which has some of the least restrictive gun ownership laws in the country. But Yvanna Cancela is speaking out. She is a Nevada state senator whose district includes the part of the Las Vegas strip where the shooting happened. We reached her in Las Vegas.

CO: Senator Cancela, how did you react when you learned that the Las Vegas shooter had amassed twenty three guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his hotel room.

SENATOR YVANNA CANCELA: Well, I'll tell you my initial reaction, which is something I'm pretty ashamed of, but I think speaks to where we are at with gun violence in this country, was that this was just another shooting, it would be contained, there’d probably be three to six people injured or maybe a death or two. And I feel so awful even admitting that, but that was my initial thought, and once I learned that there were, the final count was 23 guns in the room, I really asked myself the question how anyone is able to purchase that amount of lethal weapons and how he got them through the rooms — just all sorts of logistics questions. But really, it's a gloomy feeling, it's just awful to know that he was able to access that many weapons.

CO: Was anything that he had in his possession, anything that he had brought into that room before he began to kill people — had he broken any laws in Nevada?

YC: As far as law enforcement has reported no. He legally obtained each and every one of those weapons.

CO: Why are people in Nevada so opposed to having any restrictions on their guns?

YC: I think that not completely accurate. People in Nevada voted, last election cycle, overwhelmingly to put into place what I think is a very common sense reform, which is universal background checks on gun sales. And unfortunately our attorney general has decided to block implementation of that law.

CO: And what about what people keep pointing to? Why not a ban on assault rifles that come with high capacity magazines — things that they point to as being useless for hunting —these are things that kill humans this is what they're designed to do. Why can't you get a ban on those?

YC: Well, that would take the federal government intervening on this and doing what seems to me, to be a very smart solution to the fact that we have so many assault-style weapons all over the country. And there was total gridlock and there's not been the desire to change the rules around what kinds of guns people can have. And I think it's really shameful that particularly Republicans in Congress have not taken the initiative to at least have a conversation about whether or not that's a good idea. Anytime the conversation around gun control, certainly around gun restrictions gets started, they seem to just cower into a corner and refuse any sort of discussion.

CO: Maybe you can help people outside your country, people in Canada, people around the world who just simply don't understand why it's not possible after something like this, or after something like Sandy Hook, where you have 20 little kids who are mowed down. Why can't you change laws in your country? It's something we just can't fathom outside of the United States?

YC: I wish I had a good multi-factored analysis. But really what I think is the best answer is that there are a lot of politicians in this country who feel beholden to the National Rifle Association and its members the, NRA for short. And they, as a lobbying group, have instilled deep fear in any politician who is unwilling to follow their agenda, which virtually says you cannot touch anything on guns because you're then treading on Second Amendment rights.

CO: Is it really just the NRA that prevents these laws from being changed?

YC: I think the NRA is a part of what is now a deep ideological divide in this country and guns falls squarely in the middle of that. But it's it seems like people are unwilling to talk about even the basics of gun control. I think it's a legitimate question to ask why someone would want to own an AK-47, and I don't think “just because” is a good enough answer. I'm hopeful that people start to step up and say enough is enough.

CO: You mentioned at the beginning of our interview that you realized you're ashamed to say that at first you were blasé thinking it was just going to be just a handful of people killed. Do you think that's the biggest problem, is that people in the United States have become almost inoculated to this violence?

YC: I do. I think if we can watch children die in a classroom in Connecticut and not take action — how do we actually redeem ourselves after that? It seems like every week, and the statistics show, every day there is what qualifies as a mass shooting, four or more people dying. And I really am ashamed to say that I feel a part of that kind of numbness to gun violence and it's very different when it happens in your home state, in your backyard, and I feel a sense of urgency that could do something. I hope that, that spread to more people because we really cannot continue to allow this to happen and grow, because it will get worse. We thought Orlando was the worst feeling in our country's history, and then this happened this weekend. It will only continue to get worse.

CO: Senator Cancela, I appreciate you speaking with us and for being so frank with us. Thank you.

YC: Thank you.

CO: Yvanna Cancela is a Nevada state senator. We reached her in Las Vegas.

Rep. Tom Rooney

JD: Today the group that has consistently pushed for less regulation on gun ownership issued a somewhat surprising statement. The National Rifle Association said it would support more rules on so-called “bump stocks,” which allow semiautomatic rifles to fire faster. Bumps stocks were reportedly used by the shooter in Las Vegas. On CNN, Florida Republican Congressman Tom Rooney said that he would support regulation of bump stocks. Here's part of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

CONGRESSMAN TOM ROONEY: You can always say that this is the first step in coming after my guns. I own four guns, I have two shotguns and two handguns. I believe that I have the second amendment right to own those guns. I actually carry one of those guns when I'm not doing this job, back home in my district, in a concealed way. I'm a concealed weapons holder in Florida, and so I carry one around for my own protection. So I do not feel though that this is the same thing as somebody attaching a device to the end of a semiautomatic rifle to make it automatic, and be able to shoot down into a Jason Aldean concert. The only reason that you would need that kind of capability, I believe, is to kill a lot of people very fast. And so when somebody tries to equate that to me holding a handgun when I'm driving to the movies or to a mall with my kids for protection, I just don't buy it, I'm just not buying that.

JD: That was Florida Congressman Tom Rooney explaining why he favors regulating bump stocks, which allow semiautomatic rifles to mimic automatic rifles. We’ve posted more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Fiddle]

Energy East: Raitt

JD: In Calgary today, Trans-Canada announced that it was abandoning its Energy East pipeline proposal. That idea, of course, was Connect Alberta’s oil sands to refineries in New Brunswick, and now that, that idea is no longer the idea, the Prime Minister insists that Trans-Canada has just made a business decision following the fall in oil prices. The Conservatives however, disagree. Here is Lisa Raitt, their deputy leader in the House of Commons today.

SOUNDCLIP

LISA RAITT: Mr. Speaker the prime minister is dead wrong. The business decision was to invest a billion dollars to start the process. The decision to not go ahead is a regulatory decision because of the double standard that is imposing on Canadian projects. Mr. Speaker 15,000 Canadians job and they have hurt our economy to the tune of 50 billion dollars. The Liberals are putting the interests of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Algeria before Canadian Jobs.

JD: That was conservative deputy leader Lisa Raitt speaking earlier today in the House of Commons.

[Music: Ambient Hip-Hip]

Energy East: Carr

Guest: Jim Carr

JD: Jim Carr has a slightly different take. We reached the Natural Resources Minister in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Carr, you just heard Lisa Raitt say that you have cost Canadians thousands of jobs. How do you respond?

MINISTER JIM CAR: Well, it's actually the second time I’ve heard her, I heard her in question period too. Well she's wrong. The regulatory process hasn't changed at all. And the same rules apply, and the same assessment criteria that led to the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion and the Enbridge line 3 expansion, would have been in place for Energy East. We told the proponent that, and we told Canadians that. What has changed, is that market conditions are not the same as they were in 2014. There have been three pipeline or approvals since then, and I respect that TransCanada will make a decision that's in the interests of its shareholders, that's exactly what they should be doing. But I can assure Ms. Raitt and the conservative opposition, and your listeners, that the same rules that applied for those approved projects would have applied to this one, that needed to go through a regulatory process that carries the confidence of Canadians.

CO: OK I just want to unpack a bit of what you're saying. You said nothing’s changed, but there are changes aren't there? Because you're looking at the greenhouse gas emissions, the impact of the pipeline, beyond just the pipeline is the upstream and downstream impacts that have been added to that. That is the part that is being looked at as being an additional regulatory engagement that, according to Lisa Raitt and others, is the thing that killed the pipeline — what do you say?

JC: I say that the National Energy Board decided that it was going to enhance the scope of its assessment. But the government of Canada wasn't going to change its own criteria, that's the point. That was made clear to Trans-Canada, and others, and that the same rules that we announced in January of 2016, we called “interim principles” would have applied in the case of Energy East. The National Energy Board, as you know, is independent and quasi-judicial. They have the capacity and the mandate to determine its own scope, but the government of Canada reserves, not the right only, but the obligation to assess the project and then to determine at the end whether or not it's in the national interest, and to be held accountable for that decision.

CO: OK, you say that it's the National Energy Board that's responsible for this extra scrutiny, but you just said it yourself you said, in January 2016 you announced that pipeline projects were going to face a new environmental assessment process. So you did it first didn't you?

JC: Well, we did and we said that we were going to reassess upstream greenhouse gas emissions, and we did. Environment Climate Change Canada did the assessment, that assessment was considered by the National Energy Board in making its recommendations to the government, and was considered by the government when it made a final decision in both cases. And what I'm saying is that the same rules would have applied to Energy East in spite of the fact that the National Energy Board changed the scope of its inquiry.

CO: OK you said earlier that the reason you believe TransCanada made this decision is because of changes in prices, the value of that oil in the market, but the letter they have issued today, that they sent a National Energy Board, they don't mention markets once in this letter, it's entirely about the environmental assessment factors for the project. They say “there remains substantial uncertainty around the scope timing and costs associated with the regulatory review of the project.” It says “the existing and likely future the result from these regulatory process will have cost implications that we can't anticipate.” That's exactly what Rachel Notley is saying the same thing, that there is this uncertainty around what you're looking at how the projects are being reviewed, and that this is what’s affected it.

JC: You know that we inherited a regulatory review process from the Harper conservatives, and we were in a position where we had to announce principles that would govern all of the projects that were being reviewed now, we couldn't have stopped them. And one of the principles was that no proponents would be asked to go back to square one, and we have been loyal to that. We also said that there had to be appropriate consultation with Indigenous peoples and that we would assess upstream greenhouse gas emissions, and it was in the light of those principles that we have made several decisions. And those same principles would have governed this one.

CO: How do you propose getting Alberta crude to market?

JC: By approving the Trans Mountain expansion, which opens up the Asian markets. We're not happy that ninety-nine per cent of Canadian exports in oil and gas go to one country — the United States. So by approving the Trans Mountain expansion more and more of that will go to Asia. That is enlarging and expanding an export market that's very important to us. We also believe in Canada's role in the long term, in the LNG international marketplace.

CO: Now what about foreign policy? Because if Canadian crude can't get to market, that market capacity will be filled by countries like Saudi Arabia. Are you comfortable with that?

JC: Well, I'm just not sure where the opposition is going with that argument. I mean, do they want to race to the bottom in environmental regulation? No, I mean, we have a responsibility as a Canadian government to make these decisions based on our own reality in Canada, based on our own public consultations, based on our own climate change and reduction of GHG goals, based on our consultation and the constitutional obligations we have to meaningfully consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples. I mean, this is for Canada to decide, and we think that we've made responsible decisions and we will continue.

CO: All right, we’ll leave it there. Minister Carr thank you.

JC: You're welcome.

JD: Jim Carr is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Lo-fi Hip Hop]

Ishiguro Nobel

JD: He was chosen for his works of quote “great emotional force,” which have quote “uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world.” That does not sound like anything to celebrate, but in the case of Kazuo Ishiguro it is. The British author has been named this year's winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature. The announcement was made earlier today and it does seem that others heard the news before Mr. Ishiguro actually confirmed it himself. Here's what happened when the BBC called the author to get a reaction to the win.

SOUNDCLIP

KAZUO ISHIGURO: I'm slightly cautious because I've not heard anything here directly myself. You would think they would check up first that the person’s around, but maybe they don’t, maybe they just announce it these days.

BBC REPORTER: Well, congratulations. Can I ask your reaction?

KI: Well, you've got a pretty authentic reaction there. My reaction was, “do you have any evidence that this is true.” I mean I really heard it definitively from you just now. As I said my agents phoned saying they thought I had won the Nobel Prize. Yes, it's a magnificent honor because it means that I'm in the footsteps of the greatest authors that have lived. I mean, that's a terrific compliment.

JD: That was the authentic reaction of Kazuo Ishiguro to the BBC earlier today. The British writer’s 1989 novel, The Remains of the Day, won the Man Booker Prize for fiction. His 2005 book, Never Let Me Go, was also critically-acclaimed. When he published it he was in his early 50s. Mr. Ishiguro is now 62 years old. And the reason I'm telling you about his age is because of this interview Mr. Ishiguro gave the CBC in 1995.

SOUNDCLIP

KAZUO ISHIGURO: In most other walks of life you expect people to peak at a certain point —it's somewhere between 35 and 45. One evening I was flicking through an encyclopedia of literature and I played a little the game. I looked at all of the classic books from the last century this century, the average age for an author when they wrote the great books or the classic books, their best books — and I think we have this idea because writers status is often at its highest late in their life. That's why they're getting their accolades and their awards, that you kind of get better, and better, and better and you're a grand old man of literature and you’re very good into your 70s. The depressing thing is there are very, very few first rate novels written by anybody over 45.

JD: That was author Kazuo Ishiguro speaking with the CBC in 1995. Today he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. And if you'd like to hear Mr. Ishiguro’s 2015 rather interview with Writers and Company host Eleanor Wachtel, will air again this Sunday. It’s on at 3:00 PM, 3:30 in Newfoundland, 5:00 p.m. Pacific, Mountain and Central Time right here on CBC Radio One. Later on in the program we will hear from a biologist in the U.K. who is criticizing the practice of awarding Nobel Prizes in science to a maximum of three people.

[Music: Old School Hip Hop]

Monopoly protester

Guest: Amanda Werner

JD: The former CEO of Equifax, Richard Smith, testified before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee yesterday. In front of him were his interrogators, I guess, behind him an, unexpected guest — Rich Uncle Pennybags, the mascot of Monopoly — in full costume. Mr. Pennybags leaned in and photo bombed Mr. Smith as he testified about the Equifax data breach. The monocled mystery-man has now been identified as consumer protection advocate Amanda Werner, who says companies like Equifax have a monopoly on the justice system — like-a-get-out-of-jail-free card. We reached Amanda Werner in Washington D.C..

CO: May I call you Mr. Monopoly?

AMANDA WERNER: Sure.

CO: Mr. Monopoly, you had quite a high profile appearance in Washington yesterday. Did you have any trouble getting through security?

AW: No, the congressional security is actually very great about free speech, and letting people in, in costumes and signs and things like that. So I didn't have any trouble, but I had a lot of weird looks going through for sure.

CO: But how did you manage to secure this seat that you did, that managed to put you into every frame of this testimony on the part of former Equifax CEO Richard Smith.

AW: All credit for that goes to a very dedicated intern who got there early for me right at 7:00 a.m. and snagged the first spot in line. Luckily because I've been to several hearings before I had an idea of where the camera is and where the best spot to sit usually will be. So we were able to sneak in there and grab the best seats.

CO: Can you describe what you were wearing and what you looked like on camera?

AW: Yeah, so I was wearing a full black tuxedo with a white dress shirt, red bow tie, and a top hat, a monocle, I used $100 dollar bill as a pocket square, and had a big bag of money on my lap.

CO: And you kept mopping your brow?

AW: Yes, yes. Since I knew that my bottom half wouldn't be very well scene I wanted to make sure that folks saw the giant hundred dollar bills I had with me.

CO: Which is what you used to mop your brow?

AW: Only the best for Mr. Monopoly’s flop sweat.

CO: Of course this just went viral, as they say, because it was just extraordinary that you should do that, and it was just so subtle just to sit there peering over his shoulder. What was the message you were trying to send?

AW: I was trying to call attention to Republicans’ get out of jail free card for Equifax and Wells Fargo. Right now Senate Republicans are trying to repeal an important consumer protection that ensures that we can sue banks and lenders, like these companies, when they break the law.

CO: This is the people would have to if they wanted to get protection or to get information they had to sign on to this. Can you just describe what it was?

AW: Absolutely, so Equifax is a great example of this. Right as they told everyone about the data breach they directed people to this trusted ID site where they could get some sort of identity protection products. But buried deep in the terms and conditions of that website it had what's called a forced arbitration clause. What this clause does, is when you sue Equifax or another lender for a dispute, basically instead of being able to join together in a public court system that our tax dollars pay for, you have to go into secret arbitration proceedings where Equifax gets to choose the firm that decides the case. And it's very, very hard to appeal that decision.

CO: So any of the people who are affected by this data breach, if they wanted to sue Equifax ,they would have to first of all agree to the terms — it was kind of a take it or leave it terms — and that meant forced arbitration. And if they didn't do that what would happen?

AW: They wouldn't be able to use those services. So Equifax actually ended up taking out the arbitration clause after there was a lot of public outcry. But they were a really good example because even though they got caught and ended up having to remove it, this is standard practice across banks, lenders and all three credit bureaus. So consumers are signing these kind of things every day, it's often buried in the terms conditions of, apps or contracts we sign, and I think Equifax, you can imagine with 143 million people losing their most personal data, you can’t have 143 million separate arbitration proceedings. It makes the most sense to join together in a class action and challenge Equifax in court. But, you know, luckily we got them to take it out, but we need other companies to end it as well.

CO: Now what effect did your appearance have? Do you think that people got that message, were you able to warn people about the existence of these forced arbitration clauses used to often?

AW: Yeah, luckily it seems like it actually worked pretty well. Obviously I think a lot of folks got a lot of comedy from it. I'm really glad that I was able to kind of brighten folks day during an especially difficult week here in the U.S., but I think the message got across well. A lot of the coverage really talked about what the issue was, talked about this get-out-of-jail-free card and talked about the Senate repeal effort, and put this issue on people's radar in a way that will stop Republicans from rolling back these protections.

CO: Now while you were sitting there and adjusting your monocle and mopping your brow with a hundred-dollar-bill, he was testifying. He attributed the breach to human error, technological error. He apologized, but he said he's still kind of evaluating. He said he takes full responsibility even as he retires. What do you make of what he had to say while you were behind him?

AW: He ended up basically saying it was human error of one person, and I think any time your entire security apparatus is resting on one person, human harm goes much deeper. I didn't appreciate him trying to kind of throw employees under the bus instead of taking full responsibility himself. He tried to say that they had mistakenly put this clause in the contract. His reaction to that really showed that this is common practice, and they just forgot to take it out here, where people were looking a little closer.

CO: What about him, himself? He's retired, what did he take away from his from his job — his CEO position?

AW: Yeah, so he's taken away millions of dollars as a golden parachute for retiring from this position. So even though I think he's trying to paint himself as a bit of a martyr going down with the ship, he's actually going to get quite rich from this deal. And that's another reason I'm glad the Monopoly man was there to kind of you know call attention to that. And in fact, there was a fun moment at the end of the hearing as he was walking out to the elevator, he was being followed by cameras. I ran behind him trying to give him my bag of money, but unfortunately he didn't want to take it.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: And did he know you were sitting behind him this whole time?

AW: You know, people have been asking that and I wasn't sure. But actually just saw the video last night of the very beginning of the hearing, and there's a moment where he looks back at me and then kind of looks at stunned. So I think he knew I was there. I don't know if he had any idea what I was doing behind him.

CO: And is Mr. Monopoly aka Rich Uncle Pennybags, is he going to make any future appearances in Washington?

AW: I would say keep an eye out, you know. I'm warning Mitch McConnell right now, if he decides to try to push this vote again, Mr. Monopoly will absolutely pop up try to put an end to it.

CO: All right Mr. Monopoly, thanks for speaking with us.

AW: Thank you.

CO: Bye bye,

AW: Bye.

JD: Amanda Werner is the campaign manager at Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform. We reached them in Washington D.C.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Inuit TB database, lone scientist op-ed

Inuit TB database

Guest: Mary Nashook

JD: Mary Nashook discovered where her grandfather was buried almost by accident. He and thousands of Inuit tuberculosis patients were transported from their communities in the north, in the 1950s and 60s — they were sent south for treatment. Many of these patients like Ms. Nashook grandfather, Maki, never came home — and if they were buried their families weren't told where. Well, nearly 20 years ago Ms. Nashook discovered his grave in Quebec City while visiting the city for work. Now the federal government will release a database of tuberculosis patients, so that other families can find out more about their loved ones. We reached Mary Nashook in Dunbar, Ontario

CO: Ms. Nashook how helpful will this database be for Inuit families who still don't know where their loved ones are buried?

MARY NASHOOK: I'm sure it's going to be very helpful for Inuit to find their relatives where they have buried, because we wonder about our relatives if we don't know where they are buried or if they were still alive at the time.

CO: And you only were able — you found your grandfather quite almost by accident when you were visiting Quebec City, is that right?

MN: Yes, I was on a work assignment, and I know his name but I never knew he was brought — It was like finding a needle in a haystack.

CO: And where do you now know that he is buried?

MN: I don't exactly know the name of the place, but it's outside of Quebec City

CO: And is it a marked grave — is there a headstone?

MN: No, no, no there there's no headstone, they had put in a plaque. The Inuit that are buried underneath don't have a name, but they are registered and that's where we can find them.

CO: How many people, how many Inuit who had tuberculosis followed the same route as your grandfather — went south for treatment and never came back?

MN: I don't know because I come from one small region and and I'm sure there are many, many people that never came back because we have three regions — I'm from the Baffin region.

CO: What does your family tell you? I know who you went before you were born — he went south, your grandfather. What does your family remember about what happened to him — how your grandfather was taken away?

MN: My father used to say the ship arrived and and they would be tested and examined, if you had TB you would be shipped out.

CO: And this was in the late 1950s?

MN: Yes, in the 50s before I was born, and right after I was born in the 60s, it was still happening.

CO: And what do people remember about seeing people like your grandfather getting on the boat? Did they go willingly? Did they resist at all? How did they respond to this — were they ordered onto the boat?

MN: When they find out that you are infected with TB, or if you’re TB positive that's where you stayed, and you won't be brought back to the land — when the ship leaves you’re taken. And I remember my aunt saying that they stood on the beach while the father stood at the bow of the ship, and the ship was leaving and they watched the ship until it disappeared, and their father never came back.

CO: Did they have any choice — could they say no?

MN: We were quite new to the white man's way of life, and in them days we were very scared of them — they were the authority. My mother used to tell a story about this old lady who did not want to go to the ship because she was afraid to be taken away and never come back, because she was all old. And when the ship arrived she hid in Heather that was collected for installation of the house they were building, and she hid so she wouldn’t go to the ship, but eventually they convinced her to go there.

CO: If people had children, babies what happened? Did they have to leave their children behind?

MN: Oh yes, if the mother had TB, I used to hear that the baby will be given to the closest person in the ship, and the mother would leave. Those are some stories I have heard.

CO: And when your grandfather died of TB — he didn't come back — did they tell you anything about what happened to him or did he just not come back?

MN: In them days, nobody told anybody. My dad never knew if he stayed alive for long, if he remarried, all those thoughts go through his head and he never knew where his father was buried.

CO: What did it mean for you to find your grandfather's grave in Quebec City?

MN: It meant a lot of things. My father had passed away by the time I found my grandfather's grave One of my aunts was still alive and I had to go tell them, and we were quite emotional because we were joyful to have finally found out where he is buried. I felt a sense of closure for my father and for my late relatives, that finally I know where he is now — I finally found him.

CO: Most of the people who went south on that ship, they did have tuberculosis, they needed treatment, but how do you think the Canadian government should have done things differently?

MN: They should have at least sent records of deceased people back with the ship when it was going up the next year. It would give Inuit people some knowledge and at least relieve them of their not knowing.

CO: And do you think that Ottawa should apologize to people for what they did and how they did this?

MN: I believe they should, because if their relative passed away on my land and you weren't there, and I never told you, if you finally the find out where they were, I would have to apologize to you. And one other thing, I'm sure one of the reasons why the government did not really inform the Inuit of their relatives pass away is because we were numbers. I still have a number. My name is Mary a E51518.

CO: And do you still use that number.

MN: No, I don't.

CO: But that was your number — you were you were just a number?

MN: Yes, when we started going to school that was my name, I had no last name. I was Mary E51518.

CO: Mary Nashook, I am pleased to speak with you and know your name and speak it. Thank you so much.

MN: Thank you very much. And I'm very honored to have been interviewed by you.

CO: All Right thank you.

MN: Thank you.

CO:Bye.

MN: Bye.

JD: Mary Nashook’s grandfather was a tuberculosis patient in the 1950s. He was sent out of Pond Inlet, in what is now Nunavut, to the south for treatment. He never returned. We reached Ms. Nashook in Dunbar, Ontario.

[Music: Upright Bass]

Question Period: memorial plaque

JD: People are praising the National Holocaust Memorial’s design. It's sharp concrete peaks, the unsettling feeling you get standing between the tall, narrow walls. One reporter called it quote “the most important memorial to be added to Canada's capital in more than half a century.” Then there is the plaque that accompanies the memorial — people are not praising that part. It pays tribute to quote “the millions of men women and children murdered during the Holocaust,” but it fails to mention the Jewish people or anti-Semitism specifically. That is a glaring omission according to conservative MP David Sweet. Mr. Sweet raised the issue during Question Period this week. Here is his query to Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID SWEET: Mr. Speaker many people were tried for years to establish National Holocaust monument, including the honourable Tim Uppal. Last week the prime minister inaugurated with a plaque of his own. However, his plaque fails to mention anti-Semitism or the Jewish people by name. How could the prime minister permit such a glaring omission of reference to anti-semitism, and the fact that the millions of men, women and children who were murdered, were overwhelmingly Jewish. If we're going to stamp out hatred towards Jews, it's important to get history right. Will the prime minister is to commit to correcting this profoundly obvious omission?

[APPLAUSE]

MINISTER MELANIE JOLY: The government is committed to building a more inclusive society and the National Holocaust monument commemorates the six million Jews, as well as the five million other victims that were murdered during the Holocaust. It stands as a reminder of the danger of hatred, racism and intolerance while affirming respect for human rights, dignity and resilience. The plaque has been removed, and will be replaced language that reflects the horrors experienced by the Jewish people.

JD: Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly telling Conservative MP David Sweet that the plaque at the National Holocaust Memorial will be replaced, after the original plaque failed to make any mention of the Jewish people specifically.

[Music: Ambient Chimes]

Lone scientist op-ed

Guest: Jenny Rohn

JD: There's been a lot of Nobel Prize-type news this week because the Nobel Committee handed out prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, among other things literature as we mentioned earlier on in the program. Now if you were paying attention though, you may have noticed that in the science categories the prizes were shared by a maximum of three people, and that is because for science prizes the Nobel Prize has a rule that it can be shared by no more than three recipients. Jenny Rohn has a problem with that. Ms. Rohn is a cell biologist at University College, London, and she recently published an op-ed on this subject in The Guardian. We reached her in Gravesend.

CO: Ms. Rohn, what's wrong with the way the Nobel Committee gives out science prizes?

JENNY ROHN: Limiting the number of people who discover something to only three, and moreover to only three people who are alive, is a little bit limiting in my view.

CO: And who should it include?

JR: Well, the thing about science is that it is a collective endeavor, and it's often very difficult to ascribe one major discovery to only three people — and often it's quite controversial the three people who are chosen — and when you have winners you have losers.

CO: So, why do you think it's done that way? Why do you think the Nobel committee is so given to having these kind of these individuals who stand as geniuses in the world?

JR: It is very strange because the Peace Prize, which is also administered by the Nobel committee, is happy to recognize organizations on occasion, but for some reason for the science prizes they don't do this. I think it's because human beings are hardwired to want to digest the world in stories and narrative. It's a human instinct to want to think ‘OK that something happened that's this major who was involved — what was their story? How did they get there — what was their journey? What were their obstacles that they had to overcome?’ It’s a really powerful thing, Aand I think that people view science as being this epic struggle with heroes and winners and losers, and it is like a mythology I think. And I don't know why — well I guess I do know why, it's more compelling. It's clearly more compelling to say, ‘OK these three people discovered gravitational waves,’ than to say, — OK this was a process that began many, many decades ago, thousands of people contributed over the years, they're not all alive anymore, some of them had major roles, some of them had minor roles — but it's like we need a poster child for discovery, we need a face to pin the discovery on. And this is always going to end up limiting reality. This is not how it really happens.

CO: So in science the successes are buoyed up on the shoulders of many, many people?

JR: This is true, and it is often not the shoulders of giants like Newton said, it's often the shoulders of a very, very small, you might say, insignificant people. There's the technicians who run the machinery, there’s the students and postdocs, who do the bulk of the work. The bulk of science work is done by very young people on short term contracts — trainees, apprentices. They're usually not very well paid. The job prospects in science are not very good. The vast majority of people in science won't end up being a professor even if they wanted to be. So, science it turns out knowledge at the expense of this big machine that that's populated by tiny cogs, who are people, and each of these people has a story.

CO: But if it makes us appreciate science or support it, because we do have these heroic stories that we learn about, Alexander Fleming discovering penicillin, this eureka moment and everything changes because of that. I mean, if that's how we digest these things and then support the work itself, is there not some benefit in creating them like mythologies?

JR: It depends on what your agenda is. If you want to enlighten and inspire people, sure you could follow these genius myths and support them, but you just mentioned Fleming. Everybody has heard of Alexander Fleming, but nobody has even heard of the other two guys who won the Nobel with him, who were actually, you could argue, much more instrumental in getting penicillin out there as a drug that works. So do you want a palatable, fun story that inspires you, or do you want to know the truth? I think we can have both. I think we can have really good narrative stories —the story of penicillin is a great example because it started with Fleming, he was just the very beginning. He saw this great thing, he recognized it, but he abandoned it and moved on because he could make head nor tails of it. And it took further people in the future to realize it, and that is the story of science. Science is not an easy read eureka moment saying “Eureka I've discovered cancer,” science is “Oh I have a great idea.” And then really hard work, over many years, to make it happen. And I think it's important that people know about that as well. They need to be inspired but they need to see the reality of science.

CO: Do you think this attraction of this sort of great scientist mythology is that why there are so few women who win the prizes?

JR: That’s a good question. Obviously the Nobel Prize is delayed quite significantly, so it takes many, many decades usually before you're recognized —and back in the day there weren't as many women. But I think now we've come to the point where more women should be nominated and win the prize, and they aren't winning. I don't know maybe, women aren't standing up to take the credit like they should. Now if you if you think you've discovered something maybe a man is more likely to crow about it, and become known for that thing, whereas a woman might say, “well you know, I did this, but I had lots of help,” so maybe women are too generous spreading the credit because these myths arise during the lifetime of a discovery, a Nobel is a culmination. So if the myth is being created in real time by people talking it up, I could well imagine this is happening.

CO: So what do you think, should we just get rid of the prize altogether, or is there another way of doing it?

JR: Well, I don't want to diss the Nobel too much. I mean, I think it's an interesting idea, but I do think, particularly in this day and age of really big projects, and big collaborative international research, the kind of work that led to the discovery of gravitational waves, of the Higgs boson, or the human genome project. It would be great if the Nobel committee could consider teams and give the Nobel to, for example, the whole team who discovered gravitational waves. It's a named group, it's LIGO, and there were a thousand people in that group. If the Peace Prize can be given to an organization why couldn't the scientific prizes?

CO: All right you give given us lots to think about. Ms. Rohn I appreciate that, thank you.

JR: You're welcome.

JD: Jennifer Rohn is a cell biologist at University College, London. We reached her in Gravesend U.K.

[Music: Trance Bass]

Copied house lawsuit

JD: Mi casa es su casa — Spanish phrase — means my house is your house. Usually it is welcoming. Usually it comes at the beginning of a friend's visit. It is usually not accusatory and it doesn't usually come at the beginning of a lawsuit — and almost never is anyone named Scary Steve involved. Well, welcome to Toronto's Forest Hill neighborhood where a settlement has been reached in a case in which one set of homeowners filed suit against their neighbours because their neighbour's house looked too much like theirs. Or to boil the claim down — Sue casa es mi casa. Right after the defendants bought in 2013 they began renovating. The next year the plaintiffs filed suit, because where others in their neighborhood merely saw the building of an unnecessarily gigantic house with stones and windows and a door, the plaintiffs saw an un-funhouse image of their own unnecessarily gigantic house with the stones and windows and a door. The wood framed windows were painted blue — just like theirs. The Tudor style stone work done, according to the Toronto Star newspaper, by the aforementioned Scary Steve, was suspiciously similar to theirs — in a similar gray. The plaintiffs claim their friends and neighbors repeatedly pointed out the resemblances, and so they sued claiming copyright infringement, asking for more than 2.5 million dollars in damages, and demanding their neighbours change their house, which by the way was nearly a kilometre away. And thus began a lot of legal back and forth regarding who got what design element from where, who helped with what, and why this does or doesn't really look like that. And in the end, as I said, there was a settlement, but we don't know what it was. So it's a really frustrating story for everyone — including us. I guess we'll never know who's casa really is.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Las Vegas: cartoonist, Zuzana Růžičková obit

Abitibi barber

JD: At Franz Jacob’s barbershop he doesn't stand on ceremony. And for certain special clients, the Quebec barber will throw out all the rules about sitting in a chair and staying still during the cut. Recently a mom in Rouyn-Noranda posted a photograph of Franz Jacob lying on his side, on the floor, carefully cutting the hair of her son, Wyatt, who has autism. That photograph went viral and has inspired a wave of admiration for Mr. Jacob. Here is Franz Jacob speaking to Susan Campbell of CBC's Quebec AM.

SOUNDCLIP

FRANZ JACOB: I’m I really close to the client. I am really looking at how he is behaving and stuff, and I'm just following him. You know, each time I'm cutting Wyatt’s hair, he can sit on the chair, he can stand beside the chair, he can be on his mother’s knees, or on the ground like the picture you saw. You know, it's a regular business for me, in the way of being on the floor actually. It's not the first time.

SUSAN CAMPBELL: And so it's really just a question of responding to the child in the moment.

FJ: Exactly. You know, I have a lot of customers I have like rock musician who comes to the barber shop when the shows here, and honestly, I don't make any difference between Wyatt and other person’s needs — I'm just doing customer service. But if you do the extra mile for them, if you do something better for them, they will want to come back because they enjoy, and that the point of having a business or a barbershop. I didn't lay on the floor with Wyatt to get famous, I just wanted to finish my haircut, honestly. I really like to give people, I really like to give to my community here, and the amount of love and gratification I'm receiving from the people here is really, really big already. And with Wyatt's mother’s picture it came to another level.

JD: That is the barber of Rouyn-Noranda, Franz Jabob in conversation with Susan Campbell of CBC's Quebec AM. And we will put a photograph of Mr. Jacob cutting Wyatt's hair on our Twitter feed and that is @CBCasithappens.

[Music: Ambient Chimes]

Las Vegas: cartoonist

Guest: Bruce MacKinnon

JD: The cartoon depicts bodies lying on the ground bleeding from gunshots. In the centre of the image is a scared man in a suit, holding a briefcase. He is unwound, his briefcase is labeled NRA, and lying on top of him, shielding him is Uncle Sam saying quote “Everything's OK, you're safe.” That editorial cartoon by the Halifax Chronicle Herald’s Bruce McKinnon has struck a chord in the wake of a Las Vegas shooting. It is being shared widely both in Canada and in the U.S.. We reached Bruce McKinnon in Halifax.

CO: Bruce, once again, a very striking cartoon. Can you tell us the inspiration behind this one?

BRUCE MACKINNON: Well, obviously the Las Vegas shooting was a huge story. This is historic in terms of of all the mass shootings that have occurred in America, and with increasing frequency, this is now the biggest, and so that's a huge story. It's a sad story and one that I hope will make people angry enough to do something about it finally. But after Sandy Hook and so many other mass shootings, it's hard to imagine what it would take to change this sort of gun mentality.

CO: This specific image — what you're depicting in the cartoon — is that of a man with an NRA briefcase and Uncle Sam is lying on top of him saying, “everything's OK you're safe.” Where did that idea come from?

BM: The actual design of the image, we get the Globe and Mail here as well as the Herald, and on the front page of the Globe they had a photograph from the killings that showed a big husky guy over a woman who was lying on the ground, whether she was hurt or not I'm not sure, he might have been protecting her, he might have been just consoling her, but that was the image that that sort of struck me and I thought, ‘I'm going to change the characters here, and I'm going to put the gun lobbyist as the damsel in distress, as it were. and Uncle Sam is going to be the protector.’

CO: And it's graphic, I mean, there's bodies lying around on the ground bleeding, as there was. How do you find that place where it's not going to be distasteful or upsetting to people?

BM: Well, that's always a fine line and everyone has a different threshold of poor taste or what have you. I mean, I'm sure if you were there on the scene you would have seen some pretty terrible things. In a family newspaper we have to present something that — it has to walk that line between not being offensively graphic but at the same time being real enough to try to grab people's attention, so they understand what you're talking about, and they understand how critical the issue is.

CO: And what is it you're saying with this cartoon?

BM: That the gun lobby is being protected beyond all logic. And the hypocrisy of looking around at all these dead Americans and saying the most important thing is that you the gun lobby are safe, that your guns are safe, that no one is going to take your guns away, that's an important statement to make and we have to make it so often. Americans are slaughtering each other on a daily basis and the gun lobby has everyone convinced it's just the bad guys.

CO: What kind of reaction are you getting?

BM: Well, it was substantial, but I haven't really — there hasn't been any — you know, you always get right versus left, and when sort of Americans chime in you get — even Canadians, we have our right versus left here. For the most part everyone's been quite civil and most people have been very approving of the cartoon. There will always be people that will complain, if they aren’t complaining then it's not doing its job. It's a hard hitting cartoon, so I expect that, but it's been fairly civilized.

CO: Have you had the gun lobby respond?

BM: You know, I have had a few people that are probably very much on the side of the gun lobby respond. And, like I say, I expect a few kicks to the head in that regard.

CO: What did they say?

BM: Oh they just defend their rights to carry guns — the freedom to have any sort of gun. The thing that I think bothers me the most is the issue of semi-automatic or automatic weapons — weapons that are just to kill people and things, and that this somehow should be every American's right. And the background checks, the fact that no one should be subjected to that, or the idea that no one should be subjected to serious background checks when it comes to owning guns. It's a problem that's so far gone in the U.S. at this point, it's hard to imagine what can be done about it to rein it in.

CO: The last time you and I spoke was after another tragedy — horrible event. This was the shooting of Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the War Memorial in Ottawa. And you did a stunning cartoon showing that the statues, the soldiers on the memorial bending down and extending their hand to the dead Corporal Cirillo, and had huge response from everywhere. It was just one of those great moments in cartooning I guess. How do you distill all the stuff that's going on, all the emotion, all of the context in it. Bruce, I'm asking you how do you do it?

BM: Well, I don't know. Every day I wake up and ask myself the same question. There's no formula, If I had it I’d bottle it and sell it to myself. But the war memorial cartoon was a very different thing. It was a more serene consoling — it was pathos. It was completely non-political. Whereas this cartoon on the Vegas mass shooting is extremely political. No one will shed a tear — or it’s very unlikely. When they when they see this cartoon, I'm hoping it'll make a lot of people very angry, or angry enough to wake up and see that things can’t continue this way.

CO: Well, I know lots of people in Halifax sure like your political cartoons, and I hope you do have it bottled there and keep doing it. Bruce, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

BM: Thank you Carol. Nice talking to you too.

CO: Bye, bye.

BM: Bye, bye.

JD: Bruce MacKinnon is the Editorial Cartoonist at the Chronicle Herald and we reached him in Halifax.

Las Vegas Reunion

[Music: Industrial Pop]

JD: And many victims of the Las Vegas shooting continue to recover in hospital. Among them is Jan Lambourne from Teulon, Manitoba. Ms. Lambourne sustained a gunshot to her stomach. A bartender working the concert that night Justin Uhart sprang into action to help her. He rushed her to the hospital, he stayed with her before she went into surgery that night, and yesterday the strangers were able to reconnect for the first time since the shooting. CBS reporter Adriana Diaz was there for the reunion.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN UHART: Hey, how are you doing?

[SOBBING]

JU: It’s good to see you.

JAN LAMBOURNE: Is this is who you were talking to?

JU: I’m so glad you're OK. I was worried about you all night. Thanks for having finding me. You OK? Not too much pain? A lot of pain?

JL: I’m here. Thank you, you kept me very calm.

ADRIANA DIAZ: He told me that he grabbed your hand and did not let go.

JL: He didn’t leave me. He had held my stomach because I was bleeding out, but he was keeping me very calm, and you know he wasn’t and giving me the whole truth, which was probably a good thing because he was like, ‘no you're fine.’ I had a don't tag around my neck that said “number two” and he said, “see low priority, you’re fine. Well we found out later that number two meant I was the second one in so he kept me ver y calm. I’m thankful. I’m going home. And all these wonderful doctors and nurses — so amazing. He’s the same age as my son.

AD: Do you remember holding his hand. He said it was the tightest grip he’s ever felt.

JL: Yeah. I wasn't letting go any more than he was I think, because we were going to survive this and we did. I told him I'm not so sure if I'm ready to come back to Vegas, but he's more than welcome to come down to Canada and, we’ll cook him a good dinner.

JD: That was Jan Lambourne from Teulon, Manitoba. She was meeting with Justin Uhart, the bartender who took her to safety on Sunday night in Las Vegas. She was meeting him for the first time since the shooting.

[Music: Upbeat Piano Ballad]

Press shield

JD: When a journalist uses an anonymous source it is often because that source has something to lose. Whether they are blowing the whistle on corporate wrongdoing, or revealing crimes committed by powerful figures, keeping their identities secret can prevent them from losing their job, or even losing their life. And yesterday, for the first time, that reality was recognized by parliament with the passage of the Journalistic Sources Protection Act. The bill was brought forward by conservative senator Claude Carignan. Last November we spoke to Senator Carignan on As It Happens and he explained how it will work. So from our archives here's part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: And what do you think that your bill will do to prevent what happened to Quebec journalist Patrick Lagasse, who was not only spied, on he was his he was tracked. And the other journalists whose records were surveyed and spied on by police — their phone records. How will your bill prevent that from happening?

SENATOR CLAUDE CARIGNAN: First, my bill will cover all those type of warrants or search warrant, but also when you are under surveillance, when you want to have this information you have to go to see a judge, and all the information will be collected will be sealed by the court. And none of the parties can consult it without the tribunal’s permission. So if an officer wants to examine the information relating to a journalist it is collected and now it's sealed, you have to give notice to the journalist's concerned, and the journalist will have 10 days to oppose, ‘saying that I think that this information could be used to reveal one of my source.”

CO: But even after those 10 days the journalist if has said, “yes, this will reveal sources,” can the authorities and the police still proceed with that — with looking in that file?

CC: No, the judge will have to authorize that, and could fix conditions. So the judge will have to make the balance between the public interest of administrating justice, all to protect the communication. So first time journalist will have to demonstrate that he's a journalist, and this information was related to his work. And after that the police will have to demonstrate to the judge that they need this information and they cannot have information with other sources.

JD: That was conservative senator Claude Carignan speaking to Carol last November. And yesterday parliament passed the Journalistic Sources Protection Act.

[Music: Whimsical]

Scottish snow

SOUNDCLIP

CO: And you suspect that it may disappear completely.

ATILLA KISH: Absolutely. I think we're all in agreement that with the time of year that there's absolutely no chance that it’s going to survive — no chance whatsoever.

JD: That's Carol off in conversation with Atilla Kish last month on this program they were talking about a patch of snow in the mountains of Scotland called the Sphinx — the patch of snow that is. Over the last 300 years the Sphinx has only melted completely seven times. And as you heard Mr. Kish was not optimistic that it would survive much longer this year — it did not. Since we spoke with him, it has disappeared. And for the first time in 11 years, there is no snow left at all, in the Scottish mountains.

[Music: Banjo]

Zuzana Růžičková obit

Guest: Mahan Esfahani

JD: Zuzana Růžičková was a teenage harpsichord student when the Nazis took her family from their home in Prague. By the time she returned she had survived Theresienstadt, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. Slave labour had left her hands so injured, it seemed as if she would never play again. But in 1956 Ms. Růžičková returned to Germany for a music competition. Her husband had encouraged her to be there. He said quote “Play Bach to make them realize that there is another Germany, that Hitler didn't destroy all the great culture,” unquote. Zuzana Růžičková won that competition, and she would go on to make a name as one of the great Bach interpreters, recording the first complete recordings of the composer's keyboard works. Zuzana Růžičková died last week. She was 90 years old. She spoke to Czech radio earlier this year about a wartime memory. She had been forced to work at a factory near Hamburg. Here is some of what she said.

SOUNDCLIP

ZUZANA RUZICKOVA: We went to this canteen and there was somebody playing Chopin, and I don't know I suddenly — knowing that there is music somewhere in the world, and I’m absolutely cut from it, and maybe I'll never hear it again — it was just the feeling, but a terrible, terrible feeling. So I lost consciousness, and then somebody came and wanted me to go again to work, and I couldn't. So the men who were in command of us — a normal German not the SS — he took me into some room, which was warm and tried to revive me. My mother was with me, and afterwards she told me that the men looked at me and said, “My God she looks like I'm making a human child.” So the propaganda was show fierce that they really they did it as a [inaudible]

JD: That was harpsichordist Zuzana Růžičková recalling her time as a slave labourer in Nazi Germany. Ms. Růžičková died last week. She was 90 years old. Mahan Esfahani he was one of her students. We reached Mr. Esfahani in Prague.

CO: Mr. Esfahani, first of all I'm sorry for your loss.

MAHAN ESFAHANI: Thank you. I'm sitting here in my living room, she was just she was just sitting here a week-and-a-half ago. And I can hear her laughing, and talking, and drinking and smoking, as though it were five minutes ago. So it's been a big shock.

CO: How are you remembering her?

ME: How am I remembering her? Well, I was just with some friends here in Prague and it was one of those classic Prague evenings where everybody just sits around with a few drinks, and just kind of chats and jokes and everything. I remember her being very — she was very funny. She was a very witty person. Young people loved her. She had a lot of people around her in their 20s and 30s, who just really adored her. She was a very special personality, and I think a very generous personality. So the way I'm trying to remember her maybe is by remembering the best things that I learned from her as a person — and I think that helps.

CO: Ms. Růžičková told the BBC last year that it was her love of music that sustained her through extraordinary difficulties in her life. And she told them, this is a quote, “You have to have the feeling that you cannot live without the music.” How did that passion for music play out with her?

ME: I think in addition to being a great teacher I mean, she was just a great mentor and friend. I think every musician, every person for that matter, has issues and their life, problems, frustrations whatever, and her key to that was always work harder. Study the music harder, get to know the music better. And for her it wasn't a matter of escapism, if that makes any sense, it was more don't use the music to escape, but get to know the music to give meaning to your efforts. So I think that's a really important distinction, that she wasn't ever using music to run away from something.

CO: How would you describe her playing?

ME: Full of personality, she was a she was a big personality. Not in the sense of being an intimidating or unfriendly personality, but it was very subjective, I think that's the word I would use, in the sense that she had opinions, but there was also a lot of emotional generosity in it as well. She had fun with the music. She was a fun person.

CO: Why do you think she was so drawn to Bach given that this is a composer that is so celebrated in Germany where she suffered so much. What was it about Bach that drew her?

ME: That's a great question, and we did talk about it. I think her view was that Hitler didn't represent the best of Germans — that’s very obvious. Her view was that Bach represented the best of Germans. Beethoven, Schiller whatever these represented the best of Germans, and what she could do was as a service, was to take back to the Germans the best of their culture, which is Bach. So I think she saw herself as a person maybe helping Germany redefine its identity after the war. I know that sounds very lofty, but the way she did it, it deserves all the lofty language there is.

CO: She was an ambassador of their own culture.

ME: Oh, absolutely. I mean, you have to keep in mind here that the world that Růžičková grew up in, which doesn't really exist anymore, was the Central-European Jewish culture, which even in Bohemia or Slovakia orHungary or whatever, that they looked up to German culture as the high culture. So there was obviously this collective shock that this horror could have happened in Germany, or it could have been at the behest of Germany that this happened. And so, I don't think she resented the greatness of German culture for that, she felt that at some point it had gone astray, and that she, like many others who survived, should put it back on the right path.

CO: She survived Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, where she was almost in the gas chambers, she survived Bergen-Belsen. Did she talk about her or time experience and the great loss she suffered?

ME: She did. I mean, she probably talked to her late husband more about it than with me. I mean, I only knew her the last few years of her life. I didn't press, let me put it that way. We talked about it and we didn't, if that makes sense.

CO: You could have chosen others to study under, what is it about each that you wanted to work with?

ME: Because she is just awesome. There was just a conviction in the playing, you know. There was something really striking in her playing. I mean, the harpsichords that she was playing, which is to say the harpsichords that she could get access to behind the Iron Curtain, were they historical, no they weren’t. There was a lot she had to kind of put up with, I think that that made it difficult. But that playing, is playing that really grabs a person. There was a journalist from Gramophone who I think said it better than I can say it, which was that her playing seems to evade changing fashions in the playing of baroque music. There are different schools of playing every 10 or five or 20 years, there's a different style or different styles that are sort of the current style, the central interpretational language, if you like. And for some reason her playing is just timeless. It's truly timeless playing. And I thought, “gosh okay, I know this is the instrument I want to play. I think this is the way that I want to play it.” And so I was dogged in just finding her.

CO: Well, we are going to play some of that timeless work of hers, something from the Goldberg Variations. And I really appreciate speaking with you, again, I’m sorry for your loss, but it's just it is wonderful to hear about her. Thank you.

ME: Thank you, it's my pleasure. Even if one more person knows about her I feel like we're doing the right thing. So I'm very touched that we've spoken.

CO:All right. Take care. Bye, bye.

ME: You too.

JD: Mahan Esfahani is a harpsichordist who's studied under Zuzana Růžičková who died last week at the age of 90.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 5, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This