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 2018

The AIH Transcript for January 2, 2018

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 Douglass. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Frenemies with benefits. After the U.S. president rings in the New Year by accusing an ally of harboring terrorists, Pakistan's High Commissioner to Canada advises Mr Trump to think before he tweets.

JD: Sticker shock. An experiment in putting warning labels on bottles of booze and Yukon is put on hold, maybe permanently, and one of the researchers tells us about the pressure they're getting from Big Alcohol.

CO: Playing it ghoulish. A hugely popular YouTube personality posts a video in which he discovers someone's remains in Japan's so-called “suicide forest”, but he takes the video down after it's met with widespread disgust.

JD: Don't fence me ouch! We visited the archives and returned with tonight's episode of “As It Happened”, which is all about neighbours, including an old interview with a U.S. politician who wanted a barrier along the Canadian border.

CO: He painted himself into a corner. But when a man who vandalized an Arkansas mosque with hateful graffiti is facing jail time for not paying a fine, the mosque itself steps in to save him by covering his debt.

JD: And… it's not fashionable, but it's still looking sharp. A woman turns in a pointed stone she found as a child in Toronto in the 1930s. And our guest discovers it's an indigenous arrowhead that may be 6,000 years old.

JD: As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that figures it was a case of trial and arrow.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Trump Pakistan, YouTube suicide video, mosque fine paid

Trump Pakistan

Guest: Tariq Azim Khhan

JD: The Trump administration is doubling down on its denunciation of Pakistan. Yesterday, President Trump kicked off the New Year with a tweet accusing his supposed ally of lies and deceit. Pakistan's Foreign Minister tried to dismiss the tweet as being of, quote, "of no importance". But this afternoon Nikki Haley, the United States' Ambassador to the UN, raised the issue again.

SOUNDCLIP

NIKKI HALEY: Pakistan has played a double game for years. They work with us at times. And they also harbour the terrorists that attack our troops in Afghanistan. That game is not acceptable to this administration. We expect far more cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against terrorism. The president is willing to go to great lengths to stop all funding from Pakistan as they continue to harbor and support terrorism.

Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, speaking earlier today in New York. Tariq Azim Khan is Pakistan's High Commissioner to Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: High Commissioner, you just heard Ambassador Haley speak of Pakistan playing a double game. Donald Trump is accusing your country of lies and deceit. How do you respond?

TARIQ AZIM KHAN: Well, there is no deceit here. When she talks about double game, there's always a double game when two countries interact with each other. There's a game which you know sometimes our interests coincide and there's going to be one single game. Otherwise, each country plays its own game. We have to look after our interests and US will look after US interests. We cannot be you know like caddies for somebody else.

CO: And so are you suggesting that your interests don't coincide at this point?

TAK: At the moment, we have sacrificed a hell of a lot: our 73,000 civilians dead, 8,000 security personnel dead, and has that been recognized? No. I mean we still keep claiming that we have got safe havens. Of course, we have said to them many a time. OK, let us know where they are. You got the best intelligence in the world, you let us know, and we’ll take care of it. They’ve failed to do that. And why should anybody have safe haven in Pakistan? When by their own admission, by the United States and the coalition forces in Afghanistan, they admit that almost 40 per cent of Afghanistan is out of their hands. It is in the control of the Taliban. So why should Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan when they have such a big area their control in Afghanistan themselves?

CO: So are you suggesting that there is no Pakistani Taliban? Are you suggesting there's no Haqqani network operating? Are you suggesting that there are none of these militias operating and functioning and getting a haven in Pakistan?

TAK: If there are any, they are based in Afghanistan. In fact, we are the ones you know who are suffering at the moment. They keep crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and attacking us as it happens in Army Public School, where 130 odd people and little children were blown to pieces by them. Where our security personnel and our army people that had got cut off and play football with them. Are we going to train these people so that they can do these games with us? Of course, we cannot control the other side of the border. Let's say for a second assume that they're going from Pakistan side. Isn't it the duty of people on the other side to stop them from crossing over? We can only try and control our side of the border but not control both sides of the border.

CO: But sir, I'm sure you have heard this for years. This begins a long time ago — this this round of it. In the war against the Taliban, the George Bush administration accused your country of complicity with the Taliban and with al Qaeda. You heard it from Barack Obama, who made the same accusations and warning in 2011: he would cut ties with Pakistan if Pakistan didn't cut ties with the Haqqani network. They have had intelligence, and they've repeated it over and over again that there are these links, and that Pakistan has been giving support to Taliban within Afghanistan. Are you saying none of this is true? That this has been going on for decades.

TAK: That is something that we have been telling them that please stop scapegoating us for your own failures in Afghanistan. Please have a look at your own policies. Don't go by the failures of your own generals and your own armies in Afghanistan. You must look at your own policies. Pakistan is trying to do its very best. All the support that we have given to the coalition forces: lending our own airports to you, lending our communications to you, taking all your containers from our ports to Afghanistan. All the support that we are given, which runs into billions and billions — far more than anything that they can claim, and out of the $33 billion that they are talking about, do you know the actual money that they have given us in terms of military support? It does not exceed $7 billion over 16 years. The rest of this economic aid, food, even a lot of money that is about narcotics control coming through the narcotics are coming from Afghanistan.

CO: OK, but still a lot of money, Sir. What concerns does Pakistan have about losing that American support?

TAK: Well, any aid, of course, lost is a little loss. Our total budget is nine billion dollars a year for our military. So if we lose about $450 million or $250 million that Nikki Haley was talking about this afternoon, it is just about under 5 per cent. OK, 5 per cent is 5 per cent. OK, we would like not to lose it. But it’s the cost that we have to pay for all the innuendoes, for all the scapegoating because of their own failures in Afghanistan. I think that's not fair on Pakistan.

CO: But they point out, and you've heard from military leaders for years, that they have been frustrated by Pakistan's role in the Taliban. That's what they say. That's what you've heard from Afghanistan. At the same time, Osama bin Laden turns up hiding in Pakistan for years, right under your nose. So these are the things they point to as examples, long before Donald Trump, about they see as a complicity between Pakistan and those elements of the Taliban.

TAK: We can go back in history and who brought Osama bin Laden to Pakistan? Did Pakistan bring him to Pakistan? Who brought all these people right from Somalia right to Malaysia, brought them over, set up all them, paid them all the money, who were treated in Mr. Reagan in the Oval Office? I can go back in history and tell you exactly what was going on. Of course, we were all together. We tried to defeat Soviet Union, which we defeated. Once we have supported you, once Soviet Union was defeated in 1989, once they left what did you do? You just dumped us, you know? Five million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, even today we have two million refugees in Pakistan.

CO: Just very briefly, because you said you're all in this together. How will you get that back together now?

TAK: So that is so long the reality dawns on people in the administration. So long they stop scapegoating us. We don't want to be the whipping boys for their own failure. They want to find out who can we fail? OK, there's got to be some other reason, and the reason is Pakistan, which is not factually true.

CO: We'll leave it there. High Commissioner, thank you.

TAK: Thank you.

JD: Tariq Azim Khan is Pakistan's High Commissioner to Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Three notes on piano]

YouTube suicide video

Guest: Julia Alexander

JD: As he zooms in on the body, he apologizes to his fans, saying, quote, "This was supposed to be a fun vlog." It wasn't fun. In fact, the 15-minute video posted by popular YouTuber Logan Paul generated outrage and disgust. It shows Mr. Paul and his crew discovering someone who had apparently taken their own life in Japan's Aokigahara forest — a site that's been nicknamed the "suicide forest". Here's just a bit of what Logan Paul says in the 15-minute video:

SOUNDCLIP

GUY: I don’t feel very good.

LOGAN PAUL: What? You never stand next to a dead guy?

GUY: No.

That video has now been deleted. The storm though is far from over. Julia Alexander is a cultural reporter for the website Polygon. We reached her in New York City.

CO: Julia, we've just heard a clip from this very disturbing video, who would be watching this? Who is the audience for Logan Paul?

JULIA ALEXANDER: Logan Paul's audience is mainly children and teenagers ranging anywhere from nine to 15, predominantly young girls and young female teenagers.

CO: The video is no longer there, but have you seen it?

JA: I've seen it multiple times. Unfortunately yes, for my job.

CO: And the audio is disturbing enough. Can you — with some limitations — describe what actually happens?

JA: Basically, it starts off with him and his friends entering the Aokigahara forest, which is nicknamed the “suicide forest” in Japan. And they're entering the forest and they see this body, and they start yelling are you playing? Are you serious? Are you joking? They realize it's not a joke. And Logan Paul walks up to the body, focuses on the fists, on the gentlemen's pants, panning upwards so the camera can see his full body. It, basically, ends with him in the parking lot making jokes and taking selfies with young fans.

CO: How many people saw this video?

JA: Six million before it was taken down. And about a million I believe before the age gate was implemented, which means you have to sign in to confirm you're 18.

CO: Who is Logan Paul? Why is he so popular with young people?

JA: Logan Paul started as an influencer on Vine. When Twitter got rid of Vine in end of 2016 - early 2017, Logan Paul and his brother, Jake Paul, moved to YouTube. He is now a vlogger, which means he logs his daily life, and people like him because he's basically YouTube answer to a Justin Bieber. He's objectively attractive, and he's funny, and he's charming.

CO: What has been the reaction to this suicide video?

JA: That's a really interesting question because the reaction from mainstream media, from actors, from celebrities, and the general public is disgust. It is. I can't believe this video is on the website. I can't believe YouTube would just allow this stay up for about a day – day-and-a-half. I can't believe someone would think that this is okay. But the reaction from his fans are very tearful, emotional like thank god Logan is bringing attention to depression because they don't realize how sensationalized and how insensitive he is by portraying the body of a man who looks like he has recently committed suicide.

CO: But he didn't monetize this video, did he? I mean he didn't set it up to make money. So is it possible that he actually thought this would be instructive in some way?

JA: I think there's two things to be said about that. I think it implicates that he knew it was a bad idea that he didn't monetize it. And the other thing, which is more important, as another part to their YouTuber, actually the most popular YouTuber — a man named Pewdiepie pointed out, is that by not monetizing it, Logan would have gotten around a lot of flags on YouTube that would have said this is not appropriate for advertisers. It seems like the intention is that he knew full well that this was not a great idea, but I'm going to put it up on YouTube anyways and get people talking about my like myself, Logan Paul, and the brand.

CO: He has released a video on Twitter and YouTube with an abject apology, saying that he was raw and unfiltered in his reactions when he was laughing and responding on that thing about being next to a dead person. We’ll just hear a bit of that apology. What he's posted.

SOUNDCLIP

LP: So what we came across that day in the woods was obviously unplanned. The reactions you saw on tape were raw. They were unfiltered. None of us knew how to react or how to feel. I should have never posted the video. I should put the cameras down and stopped recording what we were going through.

CO: That's his apology. What do you make of that?

JA: I think it's interesting, first of all, that he uploaded to YouTube as well. A lot of YouTube creators don't. They try to keep their persona separate on YouTube and their brand separate than what they do on Twitter. So that shows that he actually may be remorseful for what he's doing, and he wants to get this out to his subscribers and his fans. There are certain key words though that make me a little bit apprehensible. I mean the things that he says I should’ve never posted a video, I should have put the cameras down, from the bottom of my heart, I am sorry. It's very rehearsed. He had time to plan this and write it out. And the question is what YouTube does in the future? Will they issue a strike because technically he broke the rules of YouTube's guidelines. Or will they let him be? He generates a lot of money for the company. That's the big question right now.

CO: Well, he did break the rules, didn't he? He broke YouTube standards and practices and its rules. But YouTube didn't take this video down.

JA: No. And that's the big question is whether or not they implemented the age gate, or whether he did himself? And all signs point to YouTube implementing it. I feel like at that point, there was enough reporters, including myself, who had reached out asking what's going on with this video that they put the age restriction on. And then it wasn't till the backlash started going up again that Logan Paul took the video down. The question now is whether or not he was instructed to by YouTube, or just was having enough of the backlash and decided I'm going to remove this video?

CO: Will this change anything about how YouTube does its business? We've seen similar things with Twitter and Facebook, and YouTube itself said they're going to start putting moderators up to flag content. Will this have any effect on YouTube's practices?

JA: Going forward, that's kind of what I want to focus on. And I think a lot of other reporters want to ask about. YouTube, at the end of the day, doesn't care. YouTube has had so many problematic creators that have been called out by the Wall Street Journal, by CBC, by A lot of people, and they just haven't done anything because, at the end of the day, problematic creators are the ones generating income and revenue for the company. I think they will strive to take down individual videos, but YouTube has a very interesting, contentious problem within its top creator base. And it's only going to get worse. We won't see an implosion in 2018, but we will see YouTube go through some pretty drastic changes.

CO: Just finally, will this have any effect on Logan Paul's popularity?

JA: Not at all. Logan Paul is absolutely fine. He'll only continue to grow.

CO: Julia, I appreciate speaking with us. Thank you.

JA: Thank you so much.

JD: Julia Alexander is a culture reporter for the gaming site Polygon. We reached her in New York City. And we do have more on this story on our Website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Piano and string duet]

Mosque fine

Guest: Louay Nassri

JD: The act was pure malice — pure hate. The response from local Muslims to the perpetrators was love, and forgiveness. In 2016, three Arkansas men vandalized a local mosque with racist graffiti. Recently, one of those men was facing years in prison for failing to pay the fine for that crime. And then the mosque cut him a cheque. Dr. Louay Nassri is president of the Al Salam mosque in Fort Smith, Arkansas. That's where we reached him.

CO: Dr. Nassri, why did your mosque decide to pay the fine for Abraham Davis?

LOUAY NASSRI: Well, it's because he was sentenced to six years suspended. So he did his community service, and he started paying the fine every month. And then we heard that he and his family are having financial stress, and actually, they were evicted from their house. And we didn't want to go to prison for six years for heaven’s sake. So we decided in the mosque to pay his fine.

CO: I mean but he did the crime, why not do the time? And why did you want to protect him from being punished for what he did to your mosque?

LN: Because, first of all, he sent us a very sincere letter of apology. And his brother told us very clearly that he was not the instigator. And he showed clear remorse and apologized sincerely. So we forgave him. And like anybody who does something bad to you, and then he apologizes, you forgive him. It should be over. It should not be hanging over his head for the rest of his life.

CO: Can you just us to what happened in October 2016? This is when you came to the mosque, and what did you discover that day?

LN: Other members of the mosque came early in the morning for the morning prayer, and they found that there was a whole lot of swastika signs all over the mosque. And there was foul language, I mean really foul language, and go home. We don't want you here. And that was all over the walls and the signs and everywhere.

CO: When you saw that, when you saw how your mosque had been vandalized, you saw these swastikas and this thing go home, and you came to the United States from Syria many years ago. You've built a life for yourself. How did you feel when you saw that?

LN: I was extremely surprised because for the last 37 years that I've been in Fort Smith, I have never seen anything but kindness, friendliness, acceptance, appreciation, and I thought regardless of all the Islamophobia that's being stirred up by the by the election and all that deal, this cannot happen in Fort Smith. Not in Fort Smith; not in Arkansas, where it did happen. So I had two feelings. One is I was surprised that it happened. At the other is I thought OK because of this atmosphere, some young people did this because two things: one, they are uneducated. Second, there was no communication between us and these guys. If we had known that they were in trouble, or if they had known who we are, this wouldn't have happened.

CO: But did that feeling that — that belief that if there was a bridge between you and the these young men — if there had been a connection it wouldn't have happened. Was that your immediate thought? Or did that come after this letter that the young man wrote to you from jail?

LN: No, it was immediate. No, it was not after the letter. The letter only gave us the impression that this particular person, one out of the three, is not innocent, but he apologized, he showed remorse, so we accepted it.

CO: The New York Times wrote a piece a lengthy piece some months ago when this first happened. And they described how this young man no one told him to write that letter. It wasn't some sort of condition of his release. He was in jail, and he describes to the New York Times reporter the remorse he felt. And that he just sat down on the floor of this horrible place, and he penned you that letter.

LN: Correct. That's correct. So when his brother, Noah, came to the mosque, entered the mosque, and took off his shoes and was very proper and gave me the letter from his brother apologizing. It was then that we forgave him.

CO: I just want to read a bit of the letter he wrote; this is a quote from it. He said, “I know you guys probably don't want to hear from me at all. But I really want to get this to y'all. I'm so sorry about having a hand in vandalizing your mosque. It was wrong, and y'all did not deserve to have that done to you. I hurt y'all, and I'm haunted by it. And even after all this, you still forgave me. You are much better people than I.”

LN: We did. But I mean at the time that we did this, we didn't think that it was something unusual. We thought this is what anybody should do. Somebody does something bad to you and apologizes, you forgive him and go on.

CO: What happened to the other two young men?

LN: They were sentenced with the same thing. But I don't know because I believe really the sentence was a little more stiff to others. Because the one who did the vandalizing, he was the instigator, and I'm told that he said he wants to burn this mosque down to the ground. So we didn't we have any kind of contact with him or anything.

CO: The New York Times piece describes that Abraham Davis, this young man, his family was struggling, they were very poor, and Abraham was a really important person in his brother's life. And do you know how he's doing now?

LN: Yes, he has a job and he's doing well. I mean we heard that he is under financial trouble, and he may not be able to pay his fine. And he may go to prison for six years. We certainly don't want him to do this.

CO: People in Fort Smith, how have they reacted to this story?

LN: We received support from every part of the community. There was not a church who did not send us flowers, cards, and some donations. And the strongest support we received was from the synagogues. I mean I always said that this was a blessing in a great disguise.

CO: Dr. Nassri, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

LN: Well, thank you very much for calling.

JD: Dr. Louay Nasseri is president of the Al Salam mosque in Fort Smith, Arkansas. That's where we reached him.

[Music: Jazz]

Jeopardy gangsta

JD: The Jeopardy category was "Music and Literature, Before and After." Then came the clues:

SOUNDCLIP

ALEX TREBEK: A song by Coolio from “Dangerous Minds” goes back in time to become a 1667 John Milton classic, Nick.

NICK SPICHER: What is “Gangster's Paradise Lost?”

AT: Yes.

JD: Nick Spicher, one of last night's contestants, must have felt pretty clever putting together Coolio and Milton's greatest hits so quickly. But not so fast:

SOUNDCLIP

AT: Our judges have re-evaluated one of your responses a few moments ago, Nick. You said gangster’s instead of gangstas on that song by coolio. So we take 3,200 away from you. So you are now in second place.

JD: Ouch! That was “Jeopardy” host Alex Trebek, schooling a contestant on how to say “gangsta.” Turns out “gangster” and “gangsta” have separate definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. So the correct answer was, of course, actually “Gangsta's Paradise Lost.” That mistake, as you heard, cost Mr. Spicher 3,200 bucks. But he did still go on to win the game, and he will be the returning champion on tonight's show.

Back To Top »

Part two: Yukon alcohol labels, old arrowhead

Yukon alcohol labels

Guest: Tim Stockwell

JD: For about a month last year, liquor at the Whitehorse Liquor Store in Yukon was being sold with a bright yellow warning sticker. Back in November, we spoke to one of the researchers behind that study, Erin Hobin, who described the labels she was personally affixing to the bottles.

SOUNDCLIP

ERIN HOBIN: This is the first time in the world that an alcohol warning label contains a message linking alcohol and various types of cancers, such as breast and colon cancer.

CO: Can you describe what these labels look like?

EH: So they are two-and-a-quarter inches by about one-and-a-half inches. They are full colour with a bright yellow background and a red border, so that they are easily noticed in red. And the messages are simple and direct. And specifically these warning labels were informed not only by evidence, but also by information from local stakeholders and the general public in Yukon. The purpose of these labels is not to say you know not to drink. If people do choose to drink, what the purpose of these labels is to provide them with information so that they can make an informed decision.

JD: That was Erin Hobin in November of last year, talking about the stickers she was applying, personally, to bottles at the Whitehorse Liquor Store. In that interview, she also told us about her hopes for the experiment. Now, those hopes are going to have to be put on hold because the Yukon Liquor Corporation has abruptly put a stop to those warning stickers. Tim Stockwell is the co-investigator on the study, and a professor at the University of Victoria. And that's where we reached him.

CO: Professor Stockwell, why is Yukon no longer allowing these labels on bottles of alcohol?

TIM STOCKWELL: Well, they've informed us investigators that this is a pause in the study, which we're concerned is actually going to be a complete shuddering halt. And we know it's in response to concerns raised with them by alcohol industry groups, and specifically that there's a threat of legal action on behalf of brand owners, who are concerned that the messages about cancer risks and so forth are detrimental to their brands and to their sales.

CO: Well, they might be detrimental to sales of their alcohol. But this is not the first time there have been labels warning people of health risks to drinking — to liquor. So why is this in particular causing this reaction?

TS: I think the other reason here is that the Yukon is a very small government with limited resources. And I think they feel completely intimidated by the weight of major corporations. I mean that international multinationals concerned about this precedent that the Yukon looked like they were courageously setting. Well, they did set when they started this labeling study. So I think the worry is that they wouldn't be able to have the resources to fight a legal case, even though our independent advice is that they have every authority to put those labels on the alcohol containers in their government monopoly liquor store.

CO: But Yukon is concerned that Big Liquor, with deep pockets, is going to say look, we need to draw the line here before anybody else gets this idea.

TS: Yes, and honestly, as I understand it they haven't actually issued an illegal writ. They've only threatened to. And I believe looking at the reasons put that those reasons are entirely frivolous. They couldn't win a case that says alcohol does not cause cancer because the World Health Organization has deemed that to be, and shown that, to be the case for the last 30 years. There was a paper in The Lancet from the US College of Oncologists, the leading cancer experts, confirming this causal link between drinking alcohol and cancer. And it really would bring very bad publicity that the company would want to stop consumers knowing this. One of the reasons for the study incidentally is our data show that 75 per cent of people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are unaware that there was a link between drinking alcohol and increased risk of cancers.

CO: And you also have recognized that in Yukon, there are problems with substance abuse and that you regard Yukon as a good place to actually do this study.

TS: Absolutely, Yukoners have the highest per capita consumption of alcohol. I mean it may well be in the world. Actually, there's a couple of exceptions in Eastern Europe, but it's very, very high. There are serious concerns there. We conducted lots of consultations with residents in the Yukon before we started this study. There was massive support for the idea of this kind of labeling. And for the particular kind of messages that we were proposing then to put on the alcohol containers.

CO: But now did you consult the industry at all? Were there any discussions with the players — the producers — of alcohol about why you were doing this and why this study needed the stickers in order to do the study? Did you talk to them?

TS: I've talked with industry players on these topics ever since I’ve been working on this topic in Canada for at least 13 years. And I sit on a national alcohol strategy with representatives of the beer industry, the wine producers, and the spirits manufacturers. And I know their positions. If we're proposing a study looking at health warnings like warning of cancer, they will resist it with every resource at their disposal. Originally, we had a national alcohol strategy endorsed by those same groups, which approved and recommended labeling alcohol containers to say how many standard drinks they contain. Now we need that information to follow low-risk drinking guidelines. Guidelines like women should not drink more than 10 standard drinks a week; men no more than 15, and sprayed no more than two a day for women; no more than three a day for men. But you need to have the number of standard drinks labelled on the containers to follow that advice. But more recently, they have bitterly opposed even doing that. So if one was to do this work, which we believe is in the public interest, there's no point in talking to them.

CO: This labeling was part of a study, wasn't it? What does it actually do to your work not being able to put these labels on the bottles?

TS: Oh, it ruins the study. This is peer-reviewed, federally-funded studies funded by Health Canada. It's like a world first, it’s a nice, natural policy experiment. We're introducing new very carefully designed labels in one jurisdiction. Comparing behaviour's, knowledge, attitude, awareness, opinions in that jurisdiction, and compared with a similar control jurisdiction: the Northwest Territory. And we began to follow up, we’ve got surveys of liquor store customers. We've done baseline. We were going to do at the same time in the spring - early summer this year. We were going to do follow-up surveys to see if there’s change in awareness and knowledge. We were also planning to look at sales data to see if there were shifts and See if behaviour changes, but we can't do that.

CO: But you mentioned that Yukon Liquor Corporation is just calling for a pause. So is there any hope that you can you can return to this process?

TS: Well, I really hope. I feel it's a slender hope, but I hope they find courage. Maybe some third-party will offer to provide resources for them and/or confidence advice that they can withstand this pressure. Because they are not serving the public interest of the people of the Yukon, they're serving the interest of the alcohol manufacturers by not allowing the study to go ahead. So we think there's a lot at stake here. We really hope that maybe they realize that they do have sufficient support and legal standing to allow us to continue.

CO: Professor Stockwell, we'll keep in touch to see if there are developments in this story. I appreciate you giving us this update today. Thank you.

TS: Thank you.

Tim Stockwell is a researcher with the Northern Territory's Alcohol Study, and the director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria. And we reached him in Victoria.

[Music: Indie]

Natural gas outage

JD: Across the country, people have been dealing with just brutally cold temperatures recently. And many of us have been doing anything we can to stay inside, and stay warm. But that hasn't been easy for some people in Mackenzie County, Alberta. Last week, natural gas wells in the area froze — leading officials to declare a state of emergency on Friday. This morning, Peter Braun spoke about the situation. Mr. Braun is the Reeve of Mackenzie County. Here's part of what he told the CBC's Jennifer Keene about recent temperatures in the area.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER BRAUN: We did see some temperatures go down to minus 40. Currently, we've had a little bit of a warm up since yesterday it was minus 32 yet. But right now, we're at minus 22. So it's warming up a little bit, and that's helping with the gas supply.

JENNIFER KEENE: So did this mean because of the system outages, that people were left without heat in Mackenzie County?

PB: Yes, very much so. The southern part of our county is the end of the line, and that's where the pressure has dropped the most right away. And so the last that they reported was 16 reported residential outages. And we suspect there was many more, but they have not reported it yet.

JK: And what's the situation with those people who don't have heat?

PB: Well, those people that don't have heat, we're lucky we have electricity, and we have ovens that we can use, or space heaters. And then quite a few people over the last couple of years because of the ongoing issues have put in woodstoves and other sources of backup heat.

JK: So this, as you said, is an ongoing issue. This has happened before. How is it that the cold affects the gas supply in McKenzie County?

PB: Well, my understanding from the Northern Lights Gas Co-op is when we reach about the minus 30 temperatures, these natural gas well they kind of freeze off. And if they're not being looked after on an hourly basis or so, then they are not supplying into the line. And that's where our big challenge is because the last I heard there is only about 50 per cent of the wells are currently pumping into the line. And they're working hard to unthaw more of them so we can get more supply coming our way.

JK: What are people in your area saying about this? You’re the Reeve of Mackenzie County, you must be hearing from people around those parts?

PB: Oh, it’s pretty challenging. It's hard to understand when we in northwest Alberta sit on some of the largest gas reserves in Alberta, and that we are short of natural gas here. You know the South — the urban centres — that's where the gas goes first because that's where a lot of people are. But where it comes from up in northwest Alberta, we’re being challenged with the supply up here. And they're pretty frustrated.

JD: Peter Braun is the Reeve of Mackenzie County in northwestern Alberta. He spoke with the CBC's Jennifer Keene earlier today on the “Calgary Eyeopener.”

[Music: Electronica]

Old arrowhead

Guest: Richard Gerrard

JD: When you're a kid, and you’re out walking around, and you see something cool, you pick it up. That's true today, and it was true in the 1930s in Toronto, when Jeanne Carter was a child. She saw something cool, she picked it up, and she held on to it… for a few decades. Recently, Ms. Carter gave that cool thing away. And eventually, that cool thing ended up on the desk of Richard Gerrard. Mr. Gerrard is a historian with the city of Toronto, and also an archaeologist, which meant he was the ideal person to see that cool thing Ms. Carter had picked up all those years ago. And to notice that it has some serious historical significance. We reached Richard Gerrard in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Gerrard, what is the artifact that Jeanne Carter found and kept for so many years?

RICHARD GERRARD: It's a small, Quartzite arrowhead. It's actually very small — about an inch-and-a-half long and an inch wide.

CO: Can you describe it?

RG: It's made of Quartzite, which is a white, semi-crystalline stone. It is flaked all over it. It’s what you would think of as an arrow point, except it's not the dull gray colour that you usually think of flint being. it's this creamy white.

CO: And how old do you think it is?

RG: I'm told, reliably, that it's somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 years old.

CO: How does that compare with other artifacts that you have and the city's collection?

RG: The city has a very large collection of things, but this is quite possibly the oldest thing we have.

CO: And it’s now part of your collection? You've actually taken it in.

RG: Yes.

CO: And so can you tell us this story that it possibly would tell? Who might have made that arrowhead?

RG: It was probably made by someone who practiced hunting and gathering, lived in a small family group, and was fairly nomadic. It's a bit of a possible because the Quartzite is odd material for this far south. You usually find it up on the Canadian Shield. So how it actually got down here is a bit of a mystery?

CO: So you haven't got anything this old in your collection. Does it compare with anything else you have? Is it similar?

RG: We have other Indigenous artifacts which have come from excavations at Fort York. We've been doing archaeology there for about 50 years now, but it's just a handful of objects. So it makes this one really special for the site.

CO: Do you know the story of where Jeanne Carter, she's 92-years-old now, where and how did she find it?

RG: The story she related to me is she went to a public school here in Toronto, and was taken on a school trip to Fort York probably in the late ‘30s. The fort opened as a public museum in 1934, and she remembers walking along a gravel path. And you know as kids do, looked down, and saw this white thing sitting there on the ground, and picked it up, put it in her pocket, took it home, put it into a little mahogany box that she kept her treasures in, and kept it in the box for a very long time. At some point, and I'm a little hazy on this to be exact, she gave it to a colleague of mine because she thought he'd like it, and he worked for the city museums. And he held on to it for a little while longer and turned it over to another archaeologist who had worked for the city, who turned it over to the site administrator for Fort York who just sent it onto my desk a couple of months ago.

CO: And what makes you so sure that it might be as old as 6,000 years?

RG: Well, I took a bunch of digital photos with it and emailed it to a series of colleagues who know this much better than I. They all came down with the same date that it was this old, archaic point.

CO: Do you have any idea how it managed to get to Fort York?

RG: No, is the long and the short of it. We have found other prehistoric material on the site. So it could have been traded down from the Canadian Shield to a group living down here. It could have been brought by someone. Because it's broken — it's broken at the base — I imagine that it was used, missed its target, hit the ground, and was lost. Because we've got nothing quite like it quite that old off the site. So I think it's just an isolated find from somebody passing through.

CO: But it tells a story, doesn't it?

RG: It does. It does.

CO: And the story of Jeanne Carter, I mean she was a kid who happened to see something; kids see stuff. But she did have an eye for it, didn't she? And that didn't stop her interest in finding things and artifacts. What relationship has she had with archaeology?

RG: Jeanne has been involved with many things at the Royal Ontario Museum. She was one of the members of the Bishop White group that is associated with the Chinese collections. And she was involved with bringing over, I don't know if you remember, there was an exhibition of jade burial suits back in the 1970s, and she was involved with bringing that show from China. And actually got a reciprocal trip back to the People's Republic in the mid-70s, which is phenomenal.

CO: So she's always had an eye for looking for these kinds of things, even as a kid.

RG: I think so. I think so. And it’s wonderful talking to her because she remembers so much. And I just hope I'm that sharp when I'm that old.

CO: Where will you display this arrowhead that Jeanne Carter kept in a box on her table for all those years?

RG: A few years ago, we opened a new visitor centre at Fort York. And we have a small gallery in there, which we lovingly call “the vault”. Where we display interesting things with fascinating stories, and I can see this going in — we cycle objects through there quite regularly — going into that, along with Jeanne's story and its story to try to explain that things really do have a long history, and it doesn't really end when they come into a museum.

CO: Do you have other things there that were found by civilians?

RG: No, that's fairly unique. The site has been protected as a historical site since 1999, so having people come and poke around and dig has not ever really been a problem — touch wood. So no, most of the material, and we have hundreds of thousands of specimens excavated from the fort, have all been done by professionals.

CO: Mr. Gerrard, it’s good to talk to you. Thank you.

RG: Thank you very much.

JD: Richard Gerrard is an historian, and an archaeologist. We reached him in Toronto. And if you'd like to see a photograph of that arrowhead Jeanne Carter found so many years ago, visit our website: ww.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Cultural]

Guy Fieri restaurant

JD: "If we called it aioli, does that make it sexier? It's aioli." The words of Guy Fieri, TV host, restaurateur, food enthusiast, and enthusiasm enthusiast. He's talking about his signature sauce. It's aioli, but he calls it "Donkey Sauce". That name is kind of a Rorschach test — or, as Mr. Fieri might call it, an "inksplosion challenge". If you find it disgusting, you shouldn't eat at one of his restaurants. But if you find it fun, and find the name "aioli" stuffy, then do make a reservation. Just not at Guy's American Kitchen and Bar in Times Square Because, after five-and-a-half years of operation, and of frequently brutal criticism of its food, that huge, 500-seat location is no more. The last night of 2017 was its last night period. You may recall that Mr. Fieri's New York City venture received a famous critical… let’s call it thrashing from Times reviewer Pete Wells. It was made up entirely of rhetorical questions. It began, quote, "Guy Fieri, have you eaten at your new restaurant in Times Square?" Unqoute. And then later, Mr. Wells asked, quote, "Were you struck by how very far from awesome the Awesome Pretzel Chicken Tenders are?" Unqoute. And, quote, "When you hung that sign by the entrance that says, WELCOME TO FLAVOR TOWN!, were you just messing with our heads?" Unquote. And, quote, "...when we hear the words Donkey Sauce, which part of the donkey are we supposed to think about?" Conclusion: zero stars, except for the cartoon ones whirling around Mr. Fieri's head. The thing is though, that Times Square location stayed open for years after that review. Because a lot of people just like aioli by a goofy name. It's the key to the story of Guy Fieri's success — and, maybe, the story of this particular failure, which is why I'm pinning the tale on the Donkey Sauce.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 2, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This