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 February 06, 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: Senator of gravity. Sexual harassment is still a serious problem on Parliament Hill, so independent senator Marilou McPhedran is offering independent help to women with a complaint.

JD: Separation anxiety. Pediatricians in Quebec urged the government to let parents board air ambulances with their sick kids. Our guest testifies to the heartbreak of being left behind when a child is medevac’ed without you.

CO: Badly shaken. Just before midnight, the coastal city of Hualien, Taiwan, is hit with a six-point-four magnitude earthquake. A British traveler tells us that she experienced.

JD: Slowing their role. There are new questions about whether the government will have its full marijuana legalization policy in place by July 1st. We talked to the Conservative senator who is fighting to have it delayed.

CO: I have never depended on the people kindness of strangers. And despite criticism of the Prime Minister's recent coinage of that gender-neutral sort of word, a language bloggers says “people kind” might be the newest wordy thing.

JD: And… the shellfish gene. In the case of the miraculous, scary marbled crayfish, the future is female, because it reproduces without a mate, and it's cloning itself with remarkable speed.

JD: As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that connects the daughters.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Marilou McPhedran, Taiwan earthquake, Trudeau: “Peoplekind”

Marilou McPhedran

Guest: Marilou Mcphedran

JD: Marilou McPhedran has decided she needs to take action about harassment in her workplace. And her workplace is the Canadian Senate. Ms. McPhedran is an independant Senator. Before that, she was a lawyer who investigated harassment in the workplace. Now, she's offering advice and legal help to staffers with complaints about mistreatment in the upper chamber. All they just have to do is write a confidential email write to an account the Senator has set up for the purpose. We reached Senator Marilou McPhedran in Ottawa.

CO: Senator McPhedran, why have you decided to take this on your own?

MARILOU MCPHEDRAN: Well, this is one small part of what needs to happen within the overall examination. There’s a lot of dedication within the Senate to make sure that we have the best possible responses, and the best possible prevention. However, with #MeToo, #Time'sUp, and the kind of responses that we are seeing here on Parliament Hill based on the fact, Carol, that I've worked on these issues, and I've conducted three different inquiries into harassment and abuse where there there's a difference in power and authority. So we're really talking 30 years of my time as a human rights lawyer. And this always seems to be the missing piece.

CO: What is the missing piece? I guess what I'm trying to get at is what is it you are hoping to do?

MM: Safe, confidential space where a survivor can come and receive expert advice that they don't have to divulge anything. Where they have the protection of solicitor client privilege; it remains entirely their decision whether any information will be shared.

CO: And you are the person that they will speak with?

MM: They have the option if they wish. They contact me through confidential@mariloumcphedran.com, and all they need to do if they want to go straight to the lawyer that I've retained is indicate that that's what they want. Interestingly enough, what's happening so far — and it's been not even a week — is that the inquiries that I've had — and there haven't been that many — have been along the lines of I'd like to speak with you first, and then I'd like to make a decision about whether or not I want to go on and speak to the lawyer. If they decide that they do want to share details — a description — of what happened to them and how the institution responded, I'm not looking for names. I'm not looking for that kind of identification. Looking for information directly from the experience of survivors about what happened and how the institution responded.

CO: Well, how much more do you need to know? I mean women have been complaining about this for decades on the Hill, as you know. Women have said that they still in 2018, are limited in what they do, what they say, what they wear, who they talk to around certain people. What more do you need to study?

MM: It's not so much what we need to study in terms of the veracity of what women are describing. What we know much less about is what happens inside the institution when someone does decide to try and seek some assistance, some justice. So today, for example, I had a communication from someone who was a page here in the Senate quite a number of years ago. And she wrote and said it's probably too late, but I just wanted you to know that this happened to us and that we had to basically learn to navigate this as part of our experience of being pages. I wrote back and said actually, if you would be willing to describe what happened, how you sought support, or if you decided not to, why you decided not to? What was it about the environment that silenced you? This is the kind of information that if an institution is going to make constructive, deep, genuine, sustainable change this is the kind of information we need, and we often don't get it.

CO: And why do you think that they don't go further? What have you heard? What do you understand about why women or men who have been harassed in this way don't take the next step?

MM: This is a relatively distinct piece of a much bigger puzzle. And the creation of the safe and confidential environment where someone actually can opt for solicitor-client privilege is the additional protection that I think is needed. What I have learned over the 30-plus years that I've worked on this issue is that the survivor needs to remain in control of the information that they need to discuss. And they need to remain in control of if and when they're going to share that information in order to bring about change, because, Carol, what people care about the most after this experience is to change the enabling environment, so the perpetrators are stopped.

CO: The Senate does have a subcommittee that is actually studying the harassment issue, but you're not on it. Why is that, given all your experience?

MM: I'm not a member of the parent committee. And so they chose to establish a subcommittee, so I literally can't be a member of that. And you know you really would have to talk to them to understand their reasoning on it. It's still not clear to me, but that is the decision that’s been made. And I'm sure they'll be very dedicated.

CO: Full disclosure: I published an article in the Globe and Mail on the weekend describing the scene I knew in Ottawa 30 years ago. I referred to the fact that I had been molested by a senator. And also told the stories of other women I knew who also had things. The point of the piece was that everyone was told don't ever report this; don't say anything, keep mum on that because it's the end of your career. And what I've heard since then from women is that it hasn't changed at all.

MM: I would never say that there's not a risk involved. Yes, of course, there is. But I do think we are at a tipping point. I can't say yet whether we're going to tip in the right direction? Whether we're going to be able to actually make the kind of deep systemic changes and the cultural changes within the institutions here?

CO: Why is it so hard to do this? Why has it taken decades of this discussion? Why is it so hard to make the Hill a safe place for people to work?

MM: Well, I think you probably actually know more about the Hill than I do. But I think it's the same explanation for when things go wrong with doctors or religious leaders. We're talking about hierarchies; we're talking about abuse of power. And in the case of where it's sexual harassment, this is a sexualized abuse of power. I mean you know, Carol, it seems it's shocking at one level. But you know I'm 66-years-old, I'm a chubby white woman, and I've experienced sexism since I came here. So we're talking about environments that are entrenched with this kind of privilege in so many ways that often they're invisible to people that have to navigate. But every hierarchical organization where you see abuse of power in this way, whether it's the military, whether it's the RCMP, et cetera, et cetera. What we see is that it's, of course, directed to people with less power and fewer resources. And one of the key resources missing for survivors in almost all of these situations is a safe, confidential place where they can just talk about what happened to them and get legal expertise to help them figure out whether there's any further action they want to take.

CO: All right. We’ll leave it there. Senator McPhedran, thank you.

MM: Thank you, Carol. And thanks for the article in the weekend. It was very important.

CO: Thank you.

JD: Marilou McPhedran is an independent Senator appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau. We reached Senator McPhedran in Ottawa.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Taiwan earthquake

Guest: Zeena Starbuck

JD: It happened ten minutes before midnight. Earlier today in Taiwan, a powerful six-point-four magnitude earthquake struck near the coastal city of Hualien. Several buildings — including hotels — have collapsed. Officials are now saying at least two people are dead, more than 200 are injured. Zeena Starbuck is resident of the United Kingdom. She was travelling in the area when the quake hit. We reached her in her hostel, in Hualien.

CO: Zeena, how are you doing?

ZEENA STARBUCK: I'm OK. I'm a little tired and a little scared. There's a lot of adrenaline because of what's happened. But yeah, everyone is OK. We're a little bit more calm now.

CO: And where are you?

ZS: I'm currently in my hostel, which is just down the road from one of the collapsed buildings. And we're just staying there is near the door. None of us are upstairs in the dorms.

CO: What do you mean you’re staying near the door? You're indoors all of you, but you're staying close in case you have to get out?

ZS: Yeah, so whenever there’s a kind of big aftershock, we've been told to go outside into the middle of the road. The buildings here are quite short, so it's better to be outside of the buildings and in clear areas.

CO: How often have you had to all get up and run out the door?

SZ: Quite frequently. The earthquake happened at 11:50, and I've kind of for the most part sat outside. But there have maybe been about ten aftershocks, and maybe three of them were quite scary, but the rest were just very small.

CO: What was it like at 11:50, when that earthquake first struck?

ZS: It was in a word very frightening. We've had earthquakes the past two days actually in this area, and there was even one this afternoon that we weren’t aware was an earthquake, but it was. But this one like the beds started shaking. You know it was bedtime, so people were in bed or reading, writing, I was writing an article. And yeah, the beds were just shaking and shaking like for too long, you know? And it was too intense. You could hear things crashing and falling. There was like a moment of calm where we all kind of went onto the floor and were like what do we do now? And then we heard people shouting go outside, go outside; go to the road. It was very frightening, but it wasn't very chaotic. Everyone was very kind of OK, follow the rules, do everything you need to do. And we didn't really realize the extent of the damage for a little while after. So it's just frightening.

CO: When you got outside, what could you see?

ZS: Motorcycles were completely knocked over. So in this city, the streets are always lined with motorcycles; people have just parked there. And we couldn't even open the door because all these motorcycles have fallen over. And we saw like is our hostel, all the shelves over, the books were off the walls, everything was broken. So we knew like OK, this is big. And then we got outside, and everyone had come outside. And then maybe a few minutes after, people started to realize one of the buildings down the road had completely gone on its side, and part of it has=d collapsed.

CO: The building, and people can go online and look at it; we're going to post some pictures of it. Extraordinary picture of a building of about ten stories completely on its side like the Leaning Tower of Pisa; it’s just right over, ready to topple. What was that building? What was it used for?

ZS: I'm not actually entirely sure. So that is the building that is very close to our hostel; you can see it from the door. I know there was one building that was a hotel, and unfortunately, that's where a lot of injuries have been kind of happening. And I know there have been some casualties. One of the buildings was also a military hospital. One of them was just a government building. We're not sure really which is which because none of us are that familiar with the city. Most people come here to go to the national park. But yeah, that building is the one is very close and you know it's quite large, and there are lots of people inside. So it was a little frightening to see that.

CO: Are there are people still trapped inside, do you know?

ZS: I think there might be, but it's a lot quieter. We used to hear a lot of ambulance noises, a lot of helicopters, and there was a lot of people from the army. We’ve seen them kind of being carried out. So I think they've gotten most of the people out of some of the buildings, but I really don't know. We're just trying to stay indoors for now.

CO: And was there any warning in advance? You said you’ve been getting rumbles for days. When did you first know that this was happening? Just when it starts to shake?

ZS: Yeah, so there have been smaller earthquakes in the previous maybe two days. There was one today, I was in Taroko National Park, and a lot of rocks started falling from the gorge. And my friend and I, we heard like a thud. We thought maybe okay this is just maybe like causing a small avalanche. But we looked it up later, and it was actually an earthquake. So there have been lots of small shakes, but you know all the reports said nothing this big was going to happen for another few years.

CO: And what have they told you now about what to do? Are there any expectations that there might be more?

ZS: I think you know it's kind of there's a hundred year cycle of earthquakes that is what people are reporting. This was expected not happen for five years or so. But we've been getting texts from the government that are written in all of the Chinese character, so many of us cannot understand what they say. But it's a lot of it is just warnings about what to do, stay safe, don't be in any unstable buildings, find a shelter, telling you like they're the magnitude scale, and this kind of thing. So most people here are looking for either flights actually out of Taiwan or looking to go south where the aftershocks are not being felt.

CO: I'm going to let you go. I know you're really tired, and I know you're surrounded by people who want you to stop talking so they can calm down. But Zeena, I really appreciate you speaking with us tonight. Thank you.

ZS: Thank you.

CO: Stay safe. Thank you. Bye bye.

ZS: Bye bye.

JD: Zeena Starbuck is a tourist from the UK. She experienced the earthquake earlier today. We reached her in Hualien, Taiwan. You can see some photographs of the scene on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Joshua Wong

JD: In 2014, three young men in Hong Kong were arrested. Their crime was organizing pro-democracy demonstrations, in response to Beijing's insistence on vetting candidates for the election of that city's leader. The sit-in became known as the "Umbrella Movement", after activists used umbrellas to shield themselves from police tear gas. And the three men — Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow — were all sentenced to prison time. Well, today, Hong Kong's highest court quashed their sentences. And that seems like good news. But at a press conference today, Joshua Wong explained why he doesn't see the decision as a victory.

SOUNDCLIP

JOSHUA WONG: It's not a time for celebration or to celebrate the freedom. Even the judges allow us to leave the court. We still face the same range or prison sentencing in the future. If anyone organized action related to civil disobedience just like we gained for our action, we will stay face the sentence and locked up in prison for a few months or even more than a year. That's why I would say that it is a long-time battle for us. We just urge people to continue to fight for democracy. At the same time, it’s not the time for any congratulations or celebration. It’s still a hard time for Hong Kongers to fight for democracy no matter inside or outside the institution.

JD: Joshua Wong is one of the three pro-democracy activists who had their prison sentences thrown out today. He was speaking at a press conference outside the courthouse in Hong Kong.

[Music: instrumental]

Trudeau: Peoplekind

Guest: Katherine Barber

JD: There are times when politicians make every effort to be neutral. And then there are times when they do all they can to avoid it — literally. Take Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Today, he suggested he will not sing the new gender-neutral words to the national anthem until they officially become law. Here's what he had to say to reporters on the Hill about belting out the line, "in all of us command".

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: It hasn't got real estate yet I believe, so I'll still be singing it until it actually becomes law. Well, it hasn’t it got royal assent yet.

REPORTER: Well, are you going to sing old or new?

AS: I respect the law, and I respect that you know when laws are changed it has meaning. But I'm disappointed that it has been changed.

JD: That was Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer speaking earlier today. In contrast, a few days ago, the prime minister spoke at a town hall in Edmonton — and used a gender-neutral word that raised some eyebrows. Here is his exchange with a young woman at MacEwan University.

SOUNDCLIP

WOMAN: We came here today to ask you to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation, so that it can also be changed, because maternal love is the love that's going to change the future of mankind.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We like to say peoplekind, not necessarily mankind because its more inclusive.

WOMAN: There we go, exactly. Yes, thank you.

JT: We can all learn from each other.

JD: That was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking at a town hall meeting in Edmonton. Katherine Barber writes "The Word Lady" blog. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Katherine, first of all, is “peoplekind” a word?

KATHERINE BARBER: Well, some people have used it, so it's not a word that's in common parlance I can say that. But it's not cut-and-dried whether something is a word or not.

CO: Have you heard it before?

KB: I had not heard it before this, but I went and looked for evidence of it and did find some.

CO: So Mr. Trudeau did not make it up. What else have you seen peoplekind?

KB: Well, actually, I found a quite early one in 1988, in a book about non-sexist writing. And this book was actually quoting someone else saying well, obviously, peoplekind will never catch on. But the person who wrote the actual book that I read said well, of course, we can't say that it will never catch on, we don't know. It may. I mean you can't predict things with a language like that.

CO: Is that the only reference you've seen to peoplekind in all these decades.

KB: No, no, no, I found other ones. I found one in a letter to the editor in 2004; I think it was in the Edmonton Journal. Anyway, it was a Canadian newspaper. So I mean there are very few and far between this evidence, but it's out there. So he definitely didn't invent it, no.

CO: We're calling it a word, but is it actually a word or is it two words?

KB: No, it's a word just like mankind, humankind. It's a word.

CO: And it's perhaps a word whose time has come.

KB: Maybe?

CO: So let's just talk about the word mankind because that was the problem — that was the issue of the evening — that someone dared to change the future of mankind. That was the phrase. What what's the problem with mankind from the point of view of what Mr. Trudeau was referring to?

KB: Well, the thing is that man, originally way, way, way back in Old English, Anglo-Saxon men meant human beings. But then it took on this new sense of specifically male human beings. And that has become by far the dominant sense of men. And so if you look, for instance, I looked at one Oxford Dictionary where they had quite a lengthy usage note saying you know you may want to avoid man and mankind. They specifically say this because it has come to be considered sexist. And so they suggest other things like “human race”, “humankind”, “humanity”, and so on. So that's the issue. And, obviously, we've become quite sensitive about inclusive language in the last fifty years or so. So this is one of the cases in point.

CO: Well, humankind is nice; I could live with that, or humanity. I mean these would be alternative words for mankind, would they not?

KB: They would indeed, yes.

CO: Now, so you say that when you say that man was originally humans, is that an Anglo-Saxon word then?

KB: Yeah, yeah way, way back in you know 450.

CO: So was there only one word for both men and women?

KB: No, no, no. They had specific words for men and women. So the word for the male of the species was wer. And the female was wif, which has given us the word “wife”. So they could distinguish. And then man meant human beings.

CO: So there was a werman and a wifman?

KB: Yes, exactly.

CO: Do people object strenuously to these kinds of changes?

KB: Some people do. I think people who have a bit of political agenda they get very upset notions of the colour, and say this is political correctness. But you know I think political correctness — what some people condemn as political correctness — is just is just actually a sensitivity to the other people that we encounter every day, and a desire to be inclusive. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

CO: Well, the prime minister had a big cheer when he did use that term “peoplekind”. But the British pundit Piers Morgan, he wrote a column in London's Daily Mail trashing Justin Trudeau for this. And saying, this is his quote, “How dare you kill off mankind, Mr. Trudeau, you spineless, virtue-signalling, excuse for a feminist.”

KB: Well, you know if we have to choose one side of the debate or the other, I’m with Justin Trudeau.

CO: OK, so do we really have to say peoplekind? Because it does some kind of awkward, we wouldn't say humankind; we’d just say humans. Can we just say people?

KB: We could say people, but I don't think it would work in this particular context. I think the original person said something about this is going to be the future of mankind. And if you say the future of people, it gives you an idea of individual people I think a bit more, whereas, mankind is a much more all-embracing collective — all of humanity — kind of word. So I don't think people would work in this particular context. But humanity or humankind would. But when you say peoplekind sounds awkward, we always have that reaction to new words. You know there was a big backlash in the 16th century because there were a bunch of Latin words that came into English. And there were people ranting and railing and saying these words will never survive in the English language, it's pretentious, and you know why do we need a word like excellent and alphabet anyway? So yeah, people always have a reaction to the new words, and some of them survive, and some of them don't.

CO: So eventually people kind of just roll off my tongue quite smoothly then?

KB: It may well do. There is no way of knowing.

CO: We just have one other issue to deal with, which is that the change in the national anthem, which Mr. Morgan also says is just deplorable nd turning cat into a global laughingstock. And that's the national anthem “in all the sons command”, should be turned to “In all of us command”. What do you make of that?

KB: Of Piers Morgan or of changing the national anthem?

CO: Of changing the national anthem. I think I know what you think of Piers Morgan.

KB: Well again, I mean think is an even clearer case. “Son” has always been associated with male offspring. And so I do think it's exclusive and exclusionary in the national anthem. And I think it's definitely an improvement to change it to “In all of us”. And I don't see why that's so radically horrendous, but people have a reaction against it.

CO: Well, on behalf of peoplekind, I thank you for speaking with us today.

KB: It's been a pleasure, Carol.

CO: Take care, Katherine.

JD: Katherine Barber writes "The Word Lady" blog. She's also the author of "Only In Canada You Say: A Treasury of Canadian Language." We reached Ms. Barber in Toronto. We did ask the PMO for a comment. And here is what Cameron Ahmad had to say, quote, "What I can tell you is the Prime Minister is a proud feminist, and our government's policies reflect our commitments to equality. I don't have any comment on the reactions." Unqoute. You can find more on this story, including video of Prime Minister Trudeau's "peoplekind" comments, on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. And if you people have some personal kind of response to "peoplekind", please people, be kind enough to let us know. We're on Twitter and Facebook bot those accounts @CBCAsItHappens. Our email address is aih@cbc.ca. And our Talkback number is 416-205-5687.

Back To Top »

Part two: Quebec air ambulance policy, marbled crayfish

Quebec air ambulance

Guest: Catherine Hudon

JD: When your child is medevac'ed in an air ambulance, it's stressful enough. But for families in Quebec, it can be downright heart-wrenching. Because in that province, parents are not permitted to accompany their kids on board the Challenger jet air ambulances. If they want to meet their child at a hospital, they're forced to board a commercial flight on their own. And this week, some of Canada's top pediatricians urged the government to change the long-standing policy, calling it, quote, "stressful, anxiety-producing, and cruel." Catherine Hudon has lived through it. Ten years ago, her nearly three-year-old son was evacuated by air ambulance — and died at Montreal's Children's hospital before she could reach him. Ms. Hudon told that story in La Presse this week. We reached her in Rimouski.

CO: Catherine, we know that it's standard practice elsewhere in Canada for parents to be with their children onboard these air ambulances. Why doesn't Quebec allow for that? Why does it separate families?

CATHERINE HUDON: I don't know. I mean the justification that I was given back then was that they didn't want to handle parents and that would be frightened or terrorized if something happened to the child. And they wanted to concentrate on the care that they were giving to those children, in case something happened up in the air. That was the answer I was given at the time.

CO: And so how you know this personally is because of what happened with you and your son. And I know you wrote about it in La Presse this week. What happened? How did you come to be separated from your son?

CH: Well, because he was very, very sick. And he needed to do go on the plane. It was a very difficult decision because I knew I couldn't get on. I tried to tell them I was a nurse, that I was working there, that I could be you know calm. But they still refused to me to get on the plane, so I let him go on the Challenger. But at the time, we had no idea, no idea that he wasn't going to make it.

CO: How long was it, and how and how did you finally get to the hospital to rejoin your son?

CH: They transferred him to the plane. Then, he left around 10-10:30. And then I arrived in Montreal at 9:30 at night, so it took almost 12 hours for me to reach him. And I was very lucky because even the commercial plane was not even sure that day; there was a blizzard going on, so we didn't know if we could land because the ceiling was very low. We finally made it through Montreal, but it was very late at night.

CO: I just want to remind people that you were coming from Chisasibi on the eastern side of James Bay. And so you didn't get there in time, did you?

CH: I didn't get in time for his brain to hear me. I didn't get in time for me to take decisions for him. I wasn't there when he had surgery. I wasn't there to whisper to him. I wasn't there for any decision. When he left, he was going to be my little boy. He was going to Montreal and was going to be okay. And I found out over a public phone in Val-d’Or by the doctor who told me that I had to come fast. He said when are you coming? You have an important decision to make. And I'll never forget that phrase because that's when it hit me right there that something was wrong. And I couldn't ask questions because I was in a rush; the plane was going to leave again. And then the whole flight from Val-d’or to Montreal, I got really sick, and I got scared, and had anxiety. I just wanted to get to him. I didn't know what was happening.

CO: What was happening?

CH: He had a brain clot. By the time that I got there, his brain had suffered. They said 50 per cent of his brain was already probably dead from the lack of oxygen and the lack of blood. So it was very fast.

CO: Catherine, I'm so sorry.

CH: Yeah, and it was hard because, in the grief process, I really felt that I wasn't given the chance to be with him. And to fill that hole it took me a long, long, long process. I find it was really unfair that I didn't get the chance to be with him.

CO: Even beyond unfair, I mean, obviously, this creates tremendous trauma — permanent trauma — for you because of the separation. I mean I know you're a nurse. That's one thing you could have brought to the situation, but how could you have helped Matteo? What could you have brought to his possible outcome had you been able to travel with him, in your view?

CH: He would have had me. He would have my voice. Maybe once we knew we had a brain clot, we could have put him out of his coma, so I can talk to him. Maybe I could have said goodbye? And I didn't know if he suffered. I didn't know if he was in pain. I didn't know if somebody spoke for him. I assumed they did. So I wish I was there to actually know that I was with my child when he got really sick, and when his brain died up in the or somewhere in between.

CO: And this is what we've been hearing other stories reported that over 30 years this has been going on. That remote communities in Quebec have been separating parents. And they've described parents running down the runways trying to see their children, children just hysterical in planes when they're away from their parents when they need them most, all these things have been going on for decades, haven't they?

CH: Yes, they did. And I witnessed them as a nurse. And I witnessed them as a parent. Once I was in the recovery room with Matteo, and there was a little Cree kid, and I was talking to him in Cree because he was really scared. And he was screaming because he woke up from a surgery and he didn't know where he was. Nobody spoke his language. He didn't have a face, so I had to come to him. and I said hi, how are you? What's your name? So I asked him, and I was trying to tell him that it was going to be okay. I witnessed even some of my patients’ mothers that we had to give them Ativan and some medication because they were crying and screaming from the separation of their child that might die during the flight. It was horrifying.

CO: There are many who are suggesting that this has continued for so long, and it’s the only community that province where this happens, is because these communities are mostly Indigenous. This is a continued legacy of policies of separating, of this indifference to what happens when children who are separated from their parents. Do you agree with that analysis?

CH: I think it's a part of the problem because there are many problems up north. There are other issues. Crees or not, and mother Crees are not going to write in La Presse. You know they're not going to tell you how much you suffer from that separation. Some of them are grateful that the child is OK at the end, you know? That he did survive or his arm is being fixed, but they’re not communities that are going to scream loud and say this is unfair. You know they've been through a lot: residential schools, and many other separations in their life. I think they just took that situation for granted. And nobody actually took that situation to their own hands over the years. Nobody said I'm going to resolve this. We're going to sit down, and we're going to look into it. And we asked parents that were put into this same situation as me, and we tell them the Challenger is coming. They’re in tears. They say no, they’re going to be separated. So I think it's part of the problem that it's such a remote place that nobody hears about it.

CO: Your voice — what you have had to say — has joined others in what we've heard today from Quebec’s Health Minister: that he'll review the issue. But he maintains that the Challenger plane is not big enough to accommodate more people. So what's the solution in your view?

CH: If they are going to change the plane — if they're buying planes — it should have been on top of their priority. You're just not in ICU. There are people around the ICU, and there are consequences into the care that you're giving. And the person is just not a cardiac arrest or a broken arm; it’s a whole thing. And it should have been brought up. You know it's a problem it's been going on for years. When it's time for new planes and to change them, it should have been taken in consideration. If you tell me the plans were too small 30 years ago, I'm sure to change that by now.

CO: Catherine, I appreciate so much that you would tell us the story of what happened to you. And hopefully other parents won't have to go through what you went through. Thanks for joining us.

CH: You're welcome. I hope things will change.

CO: Bye bye

CH: Bye bye.

JD: Catherine Hudon is a former nurse who wrote a piece in La Presse this week about her family's experience with Quebec's air ambulance. We reached Ms. Hudon in Rimouski, Quebec.

[Music: Ambient]

B.C. wine ban

JD: Tensions are ratcheting up between the NDP governments in British Columbia and Alberta over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Last week, the premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, said the province would restrict shipments of diluted bitumen, while it studies the effectiveness of oil spill response and cleanup. Now, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is hitting back — by going after B.C. wine. Here's part of what Premier Notley had to say in the Alberta legislature, earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL NOTLEY: Over the last few days, Albertans from all walks of life have reached out to offer their support in our ongoing campaign to protect our jobs here in this province from the unprovoked and unconstitutional attack on the Trans Mountain pipeline that B.C. launched last week. And I want Albertans to know that we are actively preparing measures to get Ottawa to step up, and B.C. to back down. Today, I want to speak to you about one measure. I am hearing from Albertans everywhere that I go that we have to send a clear message to B.C. now to make our point. And one of the ideas that I have heard about is that we can do that by boycotting B.C. wine. The wine industry is very important to B.C., not nearly as important as the energy industry is to Alberta and Canada, but important nonetheless. I know a lot of Albertans who love B.C. wine. Quite frankly I'm one of them. Just like I know a lot of British Columbians who love to drive their cars, fly in planes, and heat their homes using Alberta energy products. So I think that those Albertans who are calling for a boycott on B.C. wine and asking us to send a message to the government of B.C. on that basis are correct. And that's why today I am announcing that the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Control Board — the AGLC — will put an immediate halt to the import of B.C. wine into Alberta. In 2017, that amounted to roughly seventeen-point-two-million bottles, or over one-point-four-million cases. That's about 70-million dollars per year paid to B.C. wineries. Today's action will also include the AGLC stepping up enforcement on direct to consumer sales. I'm also encouraging all Albertans: next time you are thinking about ordering a glass of wine, think of our energy workers. Think of your neighbours. Think of our community. Think about our province. And maybe choose some terrific Alberta craft beer instead. Now, of course, this action will harm the B.C. wine industry. And I honestly wish that it did not have to be this way. But let me be clear, Albertans didn't want or invite this fight. Alberta will not stand by and be the only province impacted by another province's refusal to play by the rules.

JD: That was Alberta Premier Rachel Notley in the provincial legislature in Edmonton, Earlier today.

[Music: Percussive jazz]

Marbled crayfish

Guest: Wolfgang Stein

JD: To most of us, it looks like nothing but a humble crawdad. But according to a new study published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, the marbled crayfish is a truly remarkable species. And frankly "crawmom" would be a much more appropriate nickname. Marbled crayfish are all female, they reproduce through cloning. And even though the species is new, there are already huge populations around the world. Wolfgang Stein is an associate professor of Neurophysiology at Illinois State University. We reached him in Normal, Illinois.

CO: Professor Stein, what have you learned about these marbled crayfish in this new study?

WOLFGANG STEIN: So in this study, we sequenced the genome of this particular type of crayfish. And the really interesting finding is that they are essentially all clones of one another. So their genomes are essentially exactly the same no matter which individually you take. And we also found that they reproduce asexually, which means they don't need any partners. The whole species essentially is female. And there are no males, but they still reproduce. And I think that's quite interesting.

CO: It's very interesting. But I mean are there a lot of them?

WS: Yes, there are quite a bit of them, yes. So the interesting thing that we found is also that this whole species occurred or came into place about 25 to 30 years ago; it didn't exist before that. And there was one animal that had an anomaly which allowed it to reproduce without males. And so from that one animal the whole population now that we can find worldwide in Japan, in Madagascar, in Europe that's where the all of these animals stem from. From this one animal that had this anomaly.

CO: So wait a second, so that originally before let’s say 25 or 30 years ago, was there an original family? I mean was there a male and female that had some kids, and that this is one of them? And then that one produced all the rest?

WS: Yes, that's exactly what happened. The parents were called slough crayfish. Those are crayfish that live in Georgia and Florida. And, apparently, a couple of them mated. And then one of the daughters inherited an additional set of chromosomes. And so they have now three sets instead of two. And that one daughter started to reproduce without males. And it gave rise to the whole population that we see now.

CO: Good heavens! And where specifically — what parts of the world are her daughters? They’re all girls, right? She’s had nothing but girls?

WS: These are all girls. They are all over the place. So we know stable populations in Asia, specifically in Japan. We know that there's a very stable population in Madagascar. We know of several European countries of stable populations in the wild. And you can buy them in pet trade in the U.S., and most also in Europe. Although, more recently, they have been banned from pet trade in Europe because they are so invasive, and they outperform most local species in the wild.

CO: How do they get around? How did they spread so far and wide?

WS: It's humans that carry them around and sell them. That's actually how the first animal made it to Europe. So we don't know exactly who brought it over, but we know who bought that one animal that came to Germany in like the mid-90s or so. And from that one animal, all the offspring were sold in pet trade. And they are now sold in all kinds of countries. And that's how they spread. So they don't travel by themselves. But if you have one animal, essentially, three months later, you will have 200 or 300 offspring that are clones of the mother. And they will also reproduce within three or four months and have more babies. And so if you have one animal within no time essentially you have a large population. To give you an idea, in that particular study, we looked at Madagascar. And the first time this particular species of crayfish was found in Madagascar was around 2007. And at that time, they occupied an area that was about half the size of Rhode Island, so about 400 square miles. Now, in 2017, they occupy the area the size of Ohio, which is 40,000 square miles. That's a 100 fold increase in just a decade.

CO: They're coming!

WS: Yes, they are coming.

CO: Did you give a name to this creature?

WS: Yeah, it's called marbled crayfish, or Procambarus virginalis, which is the scientific name for it.

CO: Virginalis meaning like virgin birth?

WS: Yes, exactly.

CO: I mean there are other asexual reproduction creatures, so what's the viability of Procambarus virginalis?

WS: Well, there are asexually-reproducing animals. And they are also doing well in their reproduction and everything. The surprising thing about the marbled crayfish I think is that they are all essential clones of one another. So other species that reproduce asexually have quite a bit of genetic diversity that can happen over time. You know there are spontaneous combinations of the genome that can happen. But the interesting thing is now that we know that this species is around. It's a new species; just 25 years old. We can actually look at how they evolve over time because we know where the starting point of that species is. And now we can sort of follow how the genome will be altered in the future. So far, it's really not all that. It's essentially the same, which is very surprising because typically when we think of successful species, you have to have some genetic diversity because you know environmental conditions change, and you have to adapt to those conditions. And that usually works better if you have genetic diversity.

CO: And that's the argument that sex is good for many reasons, but especially because it strengthens the species, doesn't it?

WS: Exactly, exactly. And so we are very surprised that this species is so invasive and so competitive in the wild in many different habitats.

CO: What more are you hoping to learn from these creatures as you study them?

WS: So for me, I'm a neuroscientist, and so within neuroscience, one of the hypotheses that out there is that species maintain a certain level of diversity in their brain cells as well to as a species, respond best to changes in environmental conditions. Say, for example, you move to a different place, and the temperature is elevated there, your brain cells have to deal with this. And we usually think that this diversity in brain cells is the mechanism to do that. Now the marbled crayfish seems to defy that idea because for all we know they're identical, and so their brain cells should be mostly identical. And that makes it a perfect study organism you know to study this particular problem. So in my lab, we are trying to look at the nervous system and see how diverse the nervous system is based on the genetic similarities.

CO: Maybe you can add a food expert to your team, and see if you come up with some recipes?

WS: Yeah, that would be nice. Actually, commercially, that is an interesting species as well because they are very easy to raise. And I don't see why you wouldn't be able to eat them.

CO: Lots of protein!

WS: Lots of protein, exactly.

CO: Professor Stein, it's a fascinating story. And I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

WS: Thank you so much for having me.

JD: Wolfgang Stein is an associate professor of neurophysiology at Illinois State University. We reached him in Normal. For more on this story, including pictures of the marbled crayfish, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part three: Marijuana Senate hearings, Poland Holocaust bill

Metis hunter

JD: If there's anyone who could survive a brutally cold winter's night, it's Normand Preteau. But recently, even he — a Metis trapper and Canadian Ranger — almost didn't make it. Last month, the 66-year-old Manitoba man was making a trip on his snowmobile from his remote trapping camp to Churchill, Manitoba. He got stuck in a snow bank. It took 24 hours in brutally cold weather — and a mild heart attack — before Mr. Preteau was finally rescued. Today, he described his ordeal to CBC Winnipeg's Ismaila Alfa on "Information Radio".

SOUNDCLIP

NORMAND PRETEAU: I left my camp about 7:00 in the morning. And I got stuck by noon.

ISMAILA ALFA: Okay.

NP: So I'd been riding for about five hours. It was 36-37 below, and 51 below with the windchill.

IA: Ouch! That hurts to just hear. So you get stuck. You've been stuck before.

NP: Yeah.

IA: You start making the attempt then to become unstuck.

NP: That's right.

IA: At what point in time do you realize that that that's not helping?

NP: Well, I started by trying to dig it out. And that didn't work out. I was in about four feet of sugary snow.

IA: OK, yeah.

NP: And it seemed that everything I did it just went down more and more and more. I hooked some straps to a tree, and I tried hook-strapping it off. I tried pushing, pulling, I mean name it. Packing the snow underneath the front, packing the snow underneath the track, I even cut the top of that tree that I was hooked to and tried to shove it…

IA: Under the tracks so you could get some grip there and move.

NP: I worked like 12 hours; up from noon till midnight.

IA: Oh wow!

NP: And I had only moved at about 24 inches.

IA: Did you start to worry at any point in time?

NP: No, I still wasn't too worried, until I got very weak all of a sudden, and started having a bit of chest pain.

IA: OK.

NP: And I realized oh, maybe this is not good here. So I made up my mind, I wasn't making any progress, so about 1:00 in the morning, I said no, that's it. I can't do it anymore. I had no food. I hadn't eaten all day. And the water that I had was frozen solid. So I decided well, that's it. I carry a spot locator.

IA: OK.

NP: I broke that tab off the spot and pushed the S.O.S button not knowing really what's going to happen. I'd never done it before in 20 years. And I was frozen pretty bad by then already. I never froze like my skin freezing or anything, it was core — my core was getting cold.

IA: OK. That's scary.

NP: You know I'm kind of used to the cold weather.

JD: That was Normand Preteau, speaking to CBC Winnipeg's Ismaila Alfa on "Information Radio" this morning. After surviving 24 hours in brutally cold weather — and even suffering a mild heart attack — the Metis trapper was rescued by helicopter last month.

[Music: Folk]

Senate Marijuana hearings

Guest: Claude Carrignan

JD: Canada Day 2018 may not be as high a time as some Canadians might have hoped. The government, of course, has set July 1^st of this year as its deadline for decriminalizing marijuana. But the legislation has yet to pass the Senate. And, in Ottawa, this afternoon, the ministers responsible got a grilling from Senators with doubts about whether Canada is ready for the roll-out, so to speak. Conservative Senator Claude Carrignan is leading the calls for a delay. We reached Senator Carrignan in Ottawa.

CO: Senator Carrignan, a majority of Canadians support legalizing these drugs. They want these reforms. Why delay it?

CLAUDE CARRIGNAN: At first, I'm not sure that the majority of Canadians support it because that's not what I'm hearing on the ground. Secondly, the objective is not to delay; it's to do our job, our responsibility to study this legislation. So that's exactly what we are doing. And we will continue our study during the spring.

CO: The last time we spoke with Bill Blair — the parliamentary secretary who is responsible for this policy — he was quite confident that he would be ready, and that the police would be ready. So what are your concerns? Why do you think we won't be?

CC: That's not we hear actually. We study C-46, C-46 is the impaired driving bill. And we just started our study in the in the legal and constitutional community. And last week, we have had the high commissioner of RCMP. And he said very clearly that they will not be ready to apply this legislation during the summer. So that's too far for them, and that's exactly what we hear from a lot of police organizations. So that's a big piece of legislation, and I think we have to study all angles and make sure it will do it properly.

CO: But we know that people are already driving impaired. They are already under the influence of drugs, and they're behind the wheel. So is it not the case that there will be part of this regime — part of what will be put in place — is all this methods of detection that don't exist to any great degree now — that, in fact, there will be better detection of those who are already out there on the road behind wheel with drugs.

CC: That's true. And what we I've seen, particularly in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon when we legalized marijuana, the impaired driving were growing very high. So that's a reason why we need to have tools because people, and particularly young drivers think we can drive safely with cannabis, and that’s not the case. So we have also a lot of education to do.

CO: And that's also part of it, isn't it? Because we saw what happens when we had the breathalyzer — when it was introduced. That if you were driving under the influence of alcohol, there was a very good chance you might be caught. And that if you were in an accident, you were in big trouble. So is putting that message out that if you're under the influence of drugs now, the chances are you might be caught and your life is going to be ruined if you do that. So is that not a deterrent? Is it not built into this legislation?

CC: Yeah, but the problem is to catch the people. And actually the devices or are not ready, and we don't have enough drug recognition experts to apply the Criminal Code, so that's part of the problem.

CO: But it isn't part of not just catching everyone who was doing something wrong, but the prevention aspect of people thinking well, I better not do this. I might get caught. And so that's a deterrent — is there not that deterrent effect?

CC: yes, what we could do in the studies is when you have the tools, and you free to be caught. It’s a big deterring effect. And actually, we don't have this effect.

CO: Now just to be clear, you're not saying that this shouldn't go through— that there shouldn't be legalized marijuana, are you?

CC: Look, I think our job in the Senate it’s to study the legislation, and not be rushed by a political agenda. And make sure that we will not create a system where the people will not be safe and secure. And we have to also protect youth. So we have to make sure that the intention of the government to do that the legislation of the government does exactly what it's supposed to do. And actually, we have seen a lot of problems with that with the legalization bill C-45. We have seen also a lot of problems with the C-46 for the impaired driving bill. And we have to do our job. And we'll probably recommend amendments to those two bills to the government. We will see after what the government will decide to do.

CO: So you're not trying to stop this legislation from going through; you're trying to improve it. So what specifically do you want to see happen? You want a delay first of all, Do I understand that's the most important thing you’re seeking?

CC: I don’t know if it will be delayed? If it is the consequence then it will be the consequence. Our main objective is to improve the legislation.

CO: Now just finally, because I know you have to go. An issue is that right now, we've had because of the legacy of our drug laws, so many young people getting criminal records while we wait for this to happen that there have been many convictions. Is not also important to reduce the numbers of those young people who are getting convictions?

CC: I agree with you. It’s for that that I'm in favour of the decriminalization of cannabis, but not necessarily the legalization. That's important, but I don't think that we have to. We have to go with the legalization. And we have like in Norway, the rate of consumption is very low. So I think we have to see what's happened in the other countries for best practice to reduce consumption.

CO: We will leave it there. Senator Carrignan, thank you.

CC: Thank you.

JD: Claude Carrignan is a Conservative Senator. We reached him in Ottawa. For more on this story, go to the As It Happens website.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Polish Holocaust bill

Guest: Rafal Pankowski

JD: It's always been taboo to refer to Nazi death camps in Poland as “Polish death camps.” Now, however, using those words is more than just offensive — it's illegal. Today, the Polish president signed a bill into law that makes it a crime to say "Polish death camps" — or to accuse the Polish nation of complicity in the Holocaust. The law has pleased the extreme right in Poland. Some, however, are worried that it will silence anyone who argues that any Poles were complicit in Nazi crimes. Rafal Pankowski is a political scientist. We reached him in Warsaw, Poland.

CO: Professor Pankowski, what message do you think that Poland's President Andrzej Duda is trying to send by signing this bill into law?

RAFAL PANKOWSKI: I am very critical of this law. And I think there are many people who are critics of this law because, unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to silence the debate about Polish history, Polish identity, you know the Polish history in World War 2, and some of the dark pages of The Polish history. Which I'm afraid is something that that we should we should talk in a free way.

CO: But are the lawmakers who are putting this together and the president who is signing it, are they speaking to you, or are they speaking to Poland's right wing, who are applauding this bill?

RP: Well, unfortunately, there is also the kind of rise in the far-right activity in Poland. The far-right and the extreme nationalist movement that is sort of trying to capitalize on this kind of debate in a negative way I'm afraid. This kind of radical right, fascist movement is also out there. And it is obviously attempting to sway especially the younger generation of the Polish people.

CO: Let’s just look at what this new law would do, which is that it says would criminalize references to Poland's role in the Nazi atrocities. And said anyone who claims that Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes — or any crimes against peace, humanity, war crimes, anything that would be said about its being a perpetrator — shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to three years. Is it the case that Poland played no role — had no co responsibility — for Nazi crimes within Poland?

RP: Well, like you said, the phrasing of this bill is very broad. It could mean anything. And it could be anything meaning for anybody who says anything critical of Polish responsibility or co-responsibility of any crimes at any time in Polish history. I think we should be very much concerned about that. And I think it is giving the authorities a kind of tool which they could use against anybody at any time.

CO: The Nazis invaded Poland, occupied it for about six years during the war. Millions of Poles killed, millions of Jews, and, of course, the most notorious camps for the Jews: Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Belzec all in Poland. But Poland was not a collaborator though, was it?

RP: Well, there was very little or no organized collaboration — political collaboration — in Poland with the Nazis. And, of course, Poland suffered enormously during the Nazi occupation. And there were many of ethnic Polish people too who died during the Nazi occupation. So I think we should not play that down in any way, and we should not forget it. Having said that, of course, among Polish people, there were also those who collaborated with the Nazis in terms of denouncing the Jewish victims of the Nazi occupation.

CO: But now what we're seeing is that the criminalization of that full and frank discussion you just described. What happens if someone says that they were collaborators, as you just mentioned; that there were Poles who were part of it. What happens to Holocaust survivors who want to talk about what happened to them in Poland in the camps? Is this speech that will be possibly going to get them convicted of breaking this law?

RP: Well, this is the question, isn't it? You know maybe us on this show talking about it you know might be problematic in terms of this particular legislation. And I very much hope that doesn't happen in the case of the Holocaust survivors who had something important to say in terms of the less positive experience they had with their Polish neighbours during World War Two.

If I understand you that the very conversation we're having now — what you're saying to me right now about the history, of the historical fact — could actually have you arrested, charged ,convicted, thrown into prison for three years?

RP: Well, you know if you look at the legislation in the literal way — in you know in a crude way…

CO: Well, that's how you look at legislation — it's very literate.

RP: Then I'm afraid this this could be a case. But I very much hope it doesn't happen. But I think that actually illustrates the danger of this legislation. And that it poses to an open debate about the Holocaust and Polish history.

CO: All right. Professor Pankowski, it's good to talk to you and thanks for explaining to us.

RP: Thank you. Goodbye

JD: Rafal Pankowski is a political scientist. We reached him in Warsaw.

[Music: Horns]

From Our Archives: Buried mercury

JD: In an interview, over a year ago, Kas Glowacki told us about his guilt — and why he decided to speak out about what he did in the early 'seventies when he worked at the paper mill in Dryden, Ontario. He said he put dozens of barrels filled with mercury in a pit in the area. His story exacerbated already-serious concerns in the nearby Grassy Narrows First Nation — concerns about continued mercury contamination in the river. People in the area's Indigenous communities have suffered health problems, after the mill dumped mercury in the water more than half a century ago. After Mr. Glowacki went public with his story, the Toronto Star and an environmental group tested the dump site for mercury. They found it. And now, the Star reports that the Ontario government has found mercury and, quote, "metallic...anomalies" in the ground at that site as well. So from our archives, here's part of that interview with Kas Glowacki from June of 2016. Here's what he remembered from his time working at the mill in Dryden.

SOUNDCLIP

KAS GLOWACKI: It was hot, it was muggy, the smell of the salt with the chemicals in it, and the fact that the dirt that it was buried in it was all soft and boggy.

KG: Yes.

CO: And so your job was to put it in the barrels?

KG: Yes.

CO: And where was it disposed after you put it in the barrels?

KG: Well, they had a pit dug up behind the mill itself. And they had it lined with black polyurethane. And when I got up to the pit with the last couple of barrels, most of barrels are stacked in there. But the last load is just dropped into the pit itself.

CO: What did you think at the time? Do you remember reflecting on this task?

KG: I didn't think much of it at the time. I was, just like you say, a labour those being paid for the job. I had a family to support, and that was my main concern at the time.

CO: What kind of material were the barrels made of?

KG: They’re just the typical 45-gallon steel drums.

CO: And the pit was lined with black plastic?

KG: Correct.

CO: So did you have any have any reason to believe that could have leached through both the barrels and the plastic?

KG: Well, with the last several barrels that were dumped in there, I think they might have punctured the poly. Plus, the fact that it was just black earth, and the salt content of the barrels themselves would have just deteriorated the barrels completely. Just like the salt on the highways of Ontario.

CO: So that's something you could figure out from that why do you think that all the experts who are supposed to have studied this and to have recognized what was going on, how come they haven't identified this?

KG: Well, that's beyond my realm of thought.

JD: From our archives, that was Kas Glowacki, former paper mill worker in Dryden, Ontario. That was him in conversation with Carol in June of 2016.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 6,2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This