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 October 2, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight…

CO: Going for broker. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland helped make the USMCA a done deal. Tonight former prime minister Kim Campbell explains why she was rooting for her all along.

JD: A sour note. In a memo Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell tells Republican senators she would not bring criminal charges against Brett Kavanaugh. And one lawyer who worked under her says she jumped to the wrong conclusion.

CO: Newcomers on newcomers. For the first time the Coalition Avenir Québec —CAQ — wins a majority. Tonight, One of the party's elected members tells us why no one should panic about its approach to immigration.

JD: Giving a rat's assets. A researcher is an unexpected discovery in the battle between cats and rats in New York City, the rodents appear to be winning.

CO: Beaming herself up. Just before dawn this morning Waterloo University Prof. Donna Strickland picked up the phone and learned her work with lasers had made her just the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics.

JD: And…an atomic bomb. In a speech an Italian physicist claims male scientists are discriminated against because of ideology. And a female scientist who was in the audience says he doesn't understand the gravity of the situation. As It Happens: The Tuesday Edition. Radio that observes the scientific meathead.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: USMCA: Kim Campbell, Nobel Prize Winner, CERN Scientist Reaction

USMCA: Kim Campbell

Guest:

JD: The devil, as they say, is in the details. And we are still figuring out the details of the brand new U.S., Mexico, Canada trade agreement. The USMCA deal was finalized just hours before a Sunday night deadline. The Liberal government called it a win-win-win, while the Conservatives said the deal's so-called victories were nothing to write home about. The deadline drama, the political posturing — it is all too familiar to Kim Campbell. Ms. Campbell was a minister in Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government cabinet in the late 1980s and, of course, went on to be candidates first female prime minister in 1993. We reached former prime minister Kim Campbell in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In

CO: Ms. Campbell, how much was this week's announcement of the new trade deal a bit of deja vu all over again for you?

KIM CAMPBELL: Well, some things took me back to the olden days and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement. I was particularly sort of amused at the comment that the president didn't like our negotiator. And I was thinking that we should have sicked the irrepressible, indefatigable, irremovable Simon Reisman on them. I don’t know if you remember him.

CO: Oh, I do. The bulldog, I tried to interview him many times.

KC: But, you know, I think negotiators have to be tough. But I think, personally, I feel a sigh of relief because I think, you know, things could have been much worse and we're dealing in kind of uncharted territory here with this president.

CO: In fact, the Liberals are kind of calling it ‘It could have been a lot worse’ deal. So what is really different though from NAFTA? Because this is what's being criticized as that, ‘Well, what did we really get? What did really come out of this? They said it would be a win-win-win. What did Canada really achieve?’ What do you say to that?

KC: Well, I think there are quite a number of achievements. The investor challenge removal, the Chapter 11 removal, I think, is good for us. But also there were some things that really needed to be tweaked. The economy is very different now from what it was 25 years ago. So I think it's not unreasonable to say that there should have been some discussion about the modern digital economy, intellectual properties, some of those issues — and I think those were dealt with. Of course, the big to-do will be over the question of access to our dairy, access to our supply managed industries. But the interesting thing is that the percentages are very small. Just a tweak more than had already been negotiated in the TPP. I mean, supply management is controversial in Canada and I won't say that word of Maxime Bernier, but, you know, even within followers of similar ideological views, it's controversial. And I think that these industries have really not had any competition or any real pressure to innovate.

CO: I wonder what you make of the kinds of criticisms we heard yesterday from the Conservative Party. I mean, it's not the Progressive Conservatives that you were part of, but this is your former party, you were the prime minister and the head of this party at one time. What do you make of some of the ways — the kind of heavy criticisms from Andrew Scheer about this deal?

KC: Well, actually it isn't my party because this new party includes members of the Reform Party/Alliance. But, you know, Brian Mulrooney put out an excellent statement, and I know he's been consulted all the way through. And he made the point, you know, there's no conservative position or liberal position — there’s a Canadian position. I mean, Stephen Harper produced a memo basically saying roll over and play dead on this issue. So I think that it's a bit cheeky for the Conservative leader to suggest that his party could have done better. I think what is useful, and if I were them, I would say that that all parties should embrace it. James Moore and Rona Ambrose were part of the Advisory Committee. You know, this was not a single party negotiating strategy it was, quite comprehensive and I think all parties should take credit for it and not nitpick. Because we had this back in in 1988 with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. ‘Well, you know, I would have done this or I would have done that or we should have done this.’ But the point is you don't get to have your whole wish list incorporated in the agreement.

CO: I just want to go back to some of your comments you made about the political points that have been scored here. I mean, just, I know you said that Mr. Scheer is the leader of a very different Conservative Party. His remarks about how Trudeau backed down to Donald Trump and we’re on the short end of the stick. What do you make of the political points that the conservatives are trying to score here?

KC: Well, talk is cheap. You know, you go off and take on this president, given that the destruction of NAFTA was one of his main campaign promises. I think we've come out very well and, frankly, in the interests of Americans. You know, I just say, you know, righto, well, you know, maybe you'll get your chance someday, but I think it was a very, very difficult challenge. You don't make deals without concessions.

CO: I just want to ask you a question about as a female politician at the time and in the 90s, I watched you, I was covering Ottawa then and how bruising it often was for women in politics. You mentioned Simon Reisman who is really a bulldog and this sort of was a real boys club that was negotiating that deal. What did you make of Chrystia Freeland in her style?

KC: It just seemed to me that she's very professional. She had had the trade portfolio before she went into foreign affairs. So the fact that the Prime Minister asked her to lead the process is not surprising.

CO: But would it have been a surprising for a woman to be leading the negotiations back in the 90s or the 80s?

KC: Well, you know, Pat Carney would like you to think that she played an important role in the negotiations, and probably did, and think that sexism resulted in her being expunged from the record.

CO That’s right. She was shut out of the whole historical record of that.

KC: Yeah. And so I wish I could say I didn't think there was any sexism in that interpretation. But, you know, I think there is. And I think that she did a great and a professional job. And maybe we don't like the idea that women are saying that, but I think it's the last kick of the can there, I think, in fact, the Prime Minister was closely involved. So I think we should say good on us that we managed to fend off what could have been disastrous threat to our economy by someone whose understanding of trade is not the most current thinking.

CO: Is that as far as you want to go? I mean, you live in the United States now. You have a front row seat.

KC: People listen to As It Happens in the United States too. And, you know, I don’t want gore any oxen here to make life difficult.

CO: Do you really think that Donald Trump was serious that he was going to tear up NAFTA? I mean, he was even saying in so-called off the record conversations with Bloomberg that they're not going to like it. I'm ready to just walk away from them. I'm ready to sign with Mexico. We don't need Canada. Do you think he really was? Do you think he would have done that?

KC: Well, I don't think you or I can know that. I think it was a real risk. And who knows what would have set it off? And I think pulling out of the Paris Accords is a disaster, I think trying to restore coal is a disaster. His government has just put out figures saying that we're going to heat the world by seven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. So there's no point in try to do anything about it. You know, excuse me, I don't agree with that. So and that's why we're dealing with a great deal of uncertainty. And I think the players in this negotiation plowed through. It's not as different as Donald Trump might like but we have to be very careful and call it by its new name because that was part of the name of the game, the rebranding. But at the end of the day the substance of it, I think, is something that we can live with. And because it's supposed to be rethought every six years we will probably be dealing with a different American administration the next time.

CO: All right, we’ll leave it there. Ms. Campbell, thank you.

KC: My pleasure. Thanks. Bye-bye

JD: Kim Campbell served as Canada's prime minister in 1993. We reached her in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And for more on Ms. Campbell's views on the new USMCA, including her criticism of the way federal Conservatives have reacted to it, check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Talkback: USMCA

JD: Well, if there is only one good thing to come out of Canada's new trade agreement it's that our mailbox was quite full this morning. Last night on the program we told you about the USMCA, or the the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is the new name for their renegotiated version of NAFTA, of course. I tried to pronounce that as a word last night and then we spoke with a very angry writer who says that we shouldn't be saying it at all because it cannot be pronounced and therefore is not an acronym. And then we invited you to tell us what you would like to call it. And here is what we got. Paul Squiers from Wetaskiwin, Alberta wrote to say “I propose to pronounce it NAF-Two. It tells us what it is and that it is the Mark 2 version — and it sounds like a star wars character.” Very true. Twitter user @SoftyToughCookie had another idea, “Let's put Canada First — CAMUS — with an S on the end. What better name can sum up the philosophy of absurdism we are living these days? Erin Nichols from Squamish came in with a popular one. “I am probably the millionth listener to suggest this, but how about USCAM. Meets requirements of an acronym, is memorable — and has a ring of truth in the age of fake news. And then talkback also got creative.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID MERCER: Yeah, hi it's David Mercer from Newfoundland and I'm calling about what the new trade agreement should be called. I would suggest AFTA NAFTA. Thank you.

SOUNDCLIP

KATHLEEN: Hi my name is Kathleen and I'm calling from the beautiful city of Etobicoke. And I'm thinking that instead of calling it a word like NAFTA we should say we've got a new deal called the US-M-C-A. We got a deal called the US-M-C-A — and go from there. Thanks Bye-bye.

SOUNDCLIP

ALLEN SLAYTER: Yes, Allen Slayter calling from Lakeside, Ontario and I'm calling about this horrible name that they're calling the new NAFTA. You can't say it. So there's an easy solution to that, and that is to put Mexico first and then you have M-U-S-C-A — MUSCA. So I'm calling it MUSCA. I don't care what anybody else does.

SOUNDCLIP

GRAHAM DUNN: Hello. My name is Graham Dunn, I'm from Waterford, Ontario. I see no reason why it shouldn't still be called NAFTA. It is after all a free trade agreement between the three countries of North America, and therefore is presumably the North America Free Trade Agreement. As to the rather curious bunch of initials that Mr. Trump wants to call it. I think that's pronounced screwed. Thank you.

JD: And we’re going to let Mark Dowding have the last word Mr. Dowding suggested the Mexico U.S. Canada Ratified Agreement On Trade or MUSCRAT. Well, thank you to everyone who called or wrote or tweeted or commented. You can comment or tweet or write or call, I guess, (416) 205-5687.

[Music: Trance]

Nobel Prize Winner

Guest: Donna Strickland

JD: A Canadian Associate Professor will now be spoken about in the same breath as Albert Einstein and Marie Curie. Donna Strickland is only the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics. Professor Strickland works on Laser physics at the University of Waterloo. She helped develop short intense laser beams in a technique known as chirped pulse amplification. One application of the technology is laser eye surgeries — and she shares the prize with two other physicists. We reached Donna Strickland in Waterloo, Ontario.

CO: Professor Strickland, you're having a bit of a busy day, I think.

DONNA STRICKLAND: It's a very busy day, yes.

CO: When you first got the phone call, when you heard the phone ring this morning — 5:30 a.m. — did you think it could be the call?

DS: No, of course, your first reaction is ‘What's wrong?’ And then my second reaction would be ‘Who would call such a ridiculous hour?’ And then then they say it's from Sweden. So then you know.

CO: And then some point you got to hang up the phone and turn to your husband and say what?

DS: Well, even before that it was sort of like ‘Oh my goodness. This is amazing. Who should we let know?’ And then we both, you know, he got up and we texted our kids knowing that they would not be awake and my brother my sister. Then I thought, you know, I think I should get dressed. I don’t know, I thought maybe I should get some food in me before I have to do this press conference.

CO: That's wild. It must be the craziest day, because you're working away, you do every day, you're getting up, you're just pushing that ball up the hill — and then this comes along out of nowhere.

DS: Exactly, exactly. It's right out of the blue.

CO: Wow. So, first of all, big congratulations to you, also for being a woman to win this because the Nobel Prize in Physics has not been won by a woman in 55 years.

DS: Yes, that is amazing.

CO: Did you know that before you learned?

DS: I guess, I had never really thought about it, you know, so I did not realize. I'm a big fan of Maria Goeppert-Mayer who was the last one. And it just hadn't occurred to me that there hadn't been another one since her.

CO: And then the only one before that was Marie Curie.

DS: Marie Curie. Yes, of course. So I shouldn't really be — I shouldn't be lined up with those two incredible women. But anyway.

CO: Well, you are. Accept that, damn it.

[LAUGHTER]

CO: But, you know, it's interesting that we spoke last month with astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell and she told us about being overlooked for a Nobel Prize. She was one of a group of men and she was the only woman and they had developed this research in pulsars. The men won the Nobel and she said when the press came to ask questions they asked the men about the science and they asked her about her measurements and her bra size and whether she had any boyfriends. This was in the late 1960s, she was a scientist at that point. Did you ask did you experience sexism in science in the course of your career?

DS: Not blatantly, no. I mean, you know, along the way I've been told by men that I did better than that ‘I've been beaten by a girl’ or ‘How could a girl get that kind of mark?’ You know, that kind of silly thing. But I just always think it's silly when they say it.

CO: Well you must have heard the Italian professor Alessandro Strumia at the CERN conference.

DS: I actually have missed that and I should find time to listen to it because I've been asked to comment on it.

CO: Oh, you should listen. He said the visit was invented by men and built by men and now it’s turning against the men who invented it. So this is your profession.

DS: And he just forgot to think about Marie Curie. I mean, it is a fact of history that men did go to work and women stayed at home until there were more men. You know, that's just that's just a fact. But obviously there's people that are making contributions and they should all be recognized.

CO: All right. Let’s talk about what you should be recognized for, which is chirped pulse amplification. What is that, in layman's terms — or I should say in laywoman's terms?

DS: It's the fact that at the time when we were doing this work you could have short pulse lasers or you could have high energy lasers, but you couldn't have short pulse and high energy because of that peak power, which you want in order to maybe blow up an atom and strip the electrons right off the atom or molecule. If you did it, if you ran a short pulse through your amplifier you would then blow up your amplifier. So this is why it didn't happen then. So what chirped pulse amplification did, and it's a very simple concept, is the fact that we realize no you have to chirp the pulse first, which means you stretch the pulse to be many orders of magnitude longer, then you can go ahead and amplify it because now it seems like a long pulse to the amplifier. Nothing happens to the amplifier and after that it also does not destroy the stretch that you put on it, it maintains it. And so you can go ahead compress it back to the way it was except with all the energy, and now it's ready for the experiments. But that isn’t layman's terms, it’s really how to get the short pulse and high energy for the experiment but not inside the laser.

CO: So this dramatically increased the intensity of that pulse then?

DS: That's right.

CO: What is it able to do? Now that you were able to accomplish that, what applications does that have?

DS: Well, of course, many of the applications were scientific, right. So this is why we started to study just how molecules and atoms are ionized under — these fields and are bigger than what's holding the electrons to the atoms inside the laser field — and so this is a new sort of paradigm to work in. It was a very few years after it was invented that somebody actually commercialized a CPA laser for eye surgery.

CO: This is huge. There millions of people who have had corrective laser eye surgeries since this development.

DS: They don't all have to use this but millions have, yes, it is a huge. It’s probably the number one application of it, still.

CO: Come on, you must be pretty proud of that.

DS: Yeah, I mean, I found it amazing that it happened so quickly happened and that yes.

CO: It's made a difference to so many lives.

DS: But I personally didn't do that.

CO: No, I know, but paved the way, this science paved the way, then the commercial application came later.

DS: It made it possible, yes.

CO: And there's also a lot being made on Twitter that Nobel winning scientist is an associate professor at Waterloo. So what’s that all about?

DS: I'm very sorry because I think the university is being criticized for that — but I just simply never applied.

CO: What?

DS: Nobody told me not to. You know, I had male colleagues here tell me I should, it was time for me to be applying. And I said ‘Yeah I'll get around to that.’ But I just never did.

CO: Are you going to get around to it now?

DS: I don't know. I'm kind of hoping maybe the university is listening — they’ll just give it to me now.

[LAUGHTER]

DS: I don’t know, I guess if they have a lot of flak they’ll maybe help me fill out all the forms that have to be filled out.

CO: Well, I think Nobel-winning scientist is probably a good enough reason to have on your resume to become a full professor.

[LAUGHTER]

DS: I just like to do things that I find fun, and doing that kind of thing I never found fun so that's why I didn't do it.

CO: Professor Strickland, again, big congratulations to you.

DS: Thank you so much.

CO: Thanks for speaking with us. Bye.

DS: Bye-bye.

JD: We reached associate professor Donna Strickland in Waterloo Ontario. She won the Nobel Prize in physics today.

[Music: Ambient Beeps]

CERN Scientist Reaction

Guest: Jess Wade

JD: And as Carol mentioned in that conversation there Professor Strickland's Nobel comes on the heels of controversial comments by Italian scientist Alessandro Strumia at the research organization CERN. On Friday, Mr. Strumia spoke at a seminar about gender issues in physics. He claimed, as Carol said, that physics was quote “Invented and built by men. It's not by invitation,” unquote. He also said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit. CERN has issued a statement saying Mr. Strumia was immediately suspended for his quote “unacceptable remarks.” Jess Wade is a physicist from Imperial College London. She attended that seminar. We reached Ms. Wade in London.

CO: Ms. Wade, what was the most offensive thing you heard listening to Professor Strumia speaking the other day?

JESS WADE: I think the most offensive part of the talk is to say that physics was invented by men and is not by invitation, when actually, women have contributed hugely to physics throughout the whole of history — but for an incredibly long time we haven't documented or told these stories. And we have to be really careful because we have to remember that it was only midway through the last century that women were even able to that graduate from really prestigious universities like Harvard or Cambridge. And so their kind of huge impact on physics is only just beginning to happen now.

CO: This wasn't just some off the cuff remark that this professor made in a question period, he gave a series of slides discussing his views. Can you describe some of the presentation he gave?

I know you were in the room for that.

JW: That presentation had obviously had a lot of time taken over it and he had done a basic analysis of lots of publications and looked at the track record of men and women comparing their kind of time throughout their career and showing that at the beginning of a woman’s career and a man's career they have some number of citations for different publications and then afterwards this deviated hugely and men had more citations. And there’s actually a huge number of problems in the whole way of academic publishing at the moment. There's a bias against women and also against non-western people in the first very early stages of peer review. And then after that there's bias in who you cite. And you basically, when you're writing out a scientific paper, you cite or you reference the people that you know, the people that you're familiar with, the people that you see at conferences. And more often than not with men that's men and they cite men more often, they actually also cite themselves way more often than they cite women. So actually all of these little sneaky biases that are creeping in to make that data not right and not fair to be able to use as a metric to evaluate ability.

CO: And he said this is not just about his opinion or his bias, that this was he was proving this with his research. He said that ‘Physics is not sexist against women. However, the truth does matter because it is part of a political battle coming from outside. What was he referring to there?’

JW: What he was saying — and I think this is actually the most offensive part when you think about it — was he was saying that women had only succeeded in physics or been put in the positions that they are due to tokenism. So someone somewhere, the left, the liberals, whatever he wants to call them, had said you know ‘We need more diversity. Let's just put some women in here even if they're not as capable.’ And that's ultimately what his message was, and in one of his slides even compared himself to another successful woman who'd been given a position over him and compared all of his metrics to her.

CO: How did the young women, how did everyone in the room respond?

JW: It's a really, really tricky situation to navigate. And if you can imagine that you're working in a job which has a short term contract, you absolutely love what you do because scientists all love their research. It's such a privilege to be able to do it. And you're doing a job you love and your contract is three years. And at the end of that three years you have to apply for a new position. But the people making the decisions about you getting that job are senior scientists and then you're in that tricky situation where you want to have an opinion, you want to be able to say this isn't fair and this isn't right. But at the same time you know a few years down the line this guy could be making the decision about whether you get research grants or about whether you get your next job. And I think that the really frightening thing is that the majority of the time scientists are silenced into not speaking up. And sexism and bullying and racism goes on so often that that it's really time we called it out.

CO: This organization, CERN, this is the world's largest centre for scientific research — based in Switzerland. And how did, first of all, how did this professor end up giving this presentation didn't anyone know he was going to do it? And what have they donen about it since?

JW: CERN is a phenomenal institution and it's a huge, huge collaborative project between so many different countries all over the world. And I think he had proposed a different abstract, he had written out a proposal that he would present some analysis of women's representation in academic publishing. And people thought ‘Okay, well we should let this one go. Obviously we should let a man present. Obviously this is an equal world.’ And he went and did a presentation which was completely not what he had prepared or not what he'd proposed to do. And, you know, at the same time, of course, and all the rhetoric and discussion afterwards with the lovely people of Twitter has been ‘How can you deny this man free speech?’ And no one is denying anyone free speech. Scientific research as a process, and it's a process where we get to the closest possible truth for an answer, for a description about the world — whatever we're looking at. And I think the really frightening thing is that having a platform in the way that he did, giving him the authority and the conviction to be able to speak at somewhere like CERN, makes you think what he's saying is true.

CO: Do you think he shouldn't have been allowed to speak?

JW: You know, obviously with something that's controversial like this, or with anything, we want to make sure that what people are saying is right. The reason that this is so surprising is because you expect physicists to have a really open-minded broad view of the world. You want them to be able to think about lots of different topics, put different ideas together and try and find the best solution possible. And isn't a physicist like that.

CO: We just spoke with a physicist, a Canadian Donna Strickland, who was one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in physics today. And she's the first woman to win in 55 years in physics, there’s only been three in history. Do you think Professor Strumia, his views are shared by a lot of people in the physics community among the men? Do you think that they would regard this as being just tokenism?

JW: I really hope not. I think this is the most outstanding and perfect timing for this news to come. And actually when you look at the two stories you have this kind of absolute anger and rage coming from this place of comparing people's IQs and all of this. And then as the same time you have this perfect, very modest, very humble, very dedicated, committed scientist going on to win the Nobel Prize. So I think that is absolutely perfect timing. But I would really hope that he doesn't think that she's there due to tokenism. I think it's a really formidable achievement. You know, she started this this work as a graduate student and then has gone on to use it later on in her career and develop into all of these different kinds of innovative fields and I think that's a very cool thing to do.

CO: Ms. Wade, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JW: Thank you.

JD: Jess Wade is a physicist from Imperial College London. And we reached her in London. We have more on the story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

Back To Top »

Part 2: Quebec Election: CAQ, Kavanaugh: Mitchell Memo

Quebec Election: CAQ

Guest: Christopher Skeete

JD: That is the name of the new premier designate a François Legault being chanted at his victory party last night. Mr. Legault is a millionaire former airline executive who defied the polls and led his right leaning party Coalition Avenir Québec or CAQ to a decisive majority win in Quebec last night. It is the first time in 60 years that a party other than the Quebec Liberals or Parti Québécois will be leading the province as part of what Mr. Legault said last night after he won.

SOUNDCLIP

PREMIER FRANCOIS LEGAULT: I would like to say a few words to our fellow English speaking citizens. During this campaign you have been exposed to a heated debate. The election is over now, let's start working together for the benefits of all Quebecers. Let's work together to make Quebec stronger within Canada. And I want to assure you that my government will be your government.

JD: Now, of course, comes the hard part for François Legault. His majority government is made up of people who for the most part have never held political office. Christopher Skeete is one of those MNAs He was elected in the District of Sainte-Rose in a Laval. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Mr. Skeete, first of all, congratulations on your win last night.

CHRISTOPHER SKEETE: Thank you very much.

CO: What is it about his message that resonated with so many can Quebecers, do you think?

CS: I think the CAQ represents the change that Quebecers were looking for. After 40 years of going in circles — either the sovereigntist debate, or the federalist debate — I think people were just looking to move on and change the conversation in Quebec.

CO: You know that the rest of Canada — what people have watched closely, what's fascinated us is to see what the role of immigration has been in this election as an issue. And CAQ has had the toughest policy of all the parties, though all of them had promises of how they would control immigration immigrants once they arrived. What do you think, what message do you think that sends to those coming to Quebec that the idea that CAQ has it of having a French language test and a values test for immigrants, a possibility that they might be deported if they fail that test? What message does that send, do you think?

CS: Actually we have to be careful with characterizations that were given to us by our adversaries. There was a lot of fear going on, fear propagation going on. I think we were victims of that. If we were to tell you know Quebecers and the rest of Canada that we were looking to increase the budget by 20 per cent to integrate new immigrants, everyone would have said that that was a great idea — and that's actually what we're doing. By reducing immigration quotas from 50,000 people per year to 40,000 people per year, we're actually increasing by 20 per cent the investments per immigrant. So we're actually very much in tune with the current needs of immigrants, we need to invest more in them and that's actually a welcoming thing. I think that's a good thing.

CO: But that's not new money, but you’re saying that by reducing the numbers you have more for them?

CS: I was agreeing with you that by reducing the numbers by 20 per cent we're actually adding 20 per cent more dollars to people who are actually coming here. And that gives us the chance to integrate them better. You see, Quebec's climate is very Francophone, so if we don't speak French it's very difficult to talk about integration of new arrivals if we don't speak the same language, if you can't borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbour. I mean, so that's really what we're talking about we're talking about being able to live together, being able to function and work within our province. So it's, I think, a lot of people had a vested interest in throwing you know random accusations at us. I don't think it is entirely accurate to do so.

CO: But not just a French language test, a values test for immigrants and the threat of being deported if they should fail that test. That's pretty severe.

CS: Actually the provincial government doesn't have the power to deport.

CO: To ask the federal government to do it for you.

CS: We actually — no we never said that we would ask the federal government to do that. The reality is what we were proposing is that — and it's just something that exists even within Canada — is that people who immigrate here are asked to adhere to Canadian values in general and that's the only thing that we were suggesting. So we're not doing anything more or less than what the federal government's doing on its own.

CO: Who, whoa, whoa. Where is there a test anywhere else in Canada for your values, for your Canadian values? Tell where else say that happens?

CS: Immigrants that want to come to Quebec are asked a series of questions about how life occurs every day in Canada. And our position is very similar to that, and we're asking them to adhere to basic values of Canada, whether or not it's equality of the sexes, you know, same-sex marriage rights — very basic things. I think anybody who wants to come to Canada should know that this is a place that welcomes diversity and that's basically what the questionnaire would involve. And anybody who wouldn't hypothetically pass, and I think that would be extremely rare considering anybody who wants to come here manifestly wants to integrate within our society, at that point we would simply say that we won't admit the credential that's required. Ottawa at that point could welcome them anywhere. And, of course, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply. So I'm not overly concerned with that position and I don't find it’s extreme. I don't think that we’re anywhere near as deporting and I don't think it's accurate to say that we can do that because provincial governments don't have the power to deport.

CO: To clarify this, what we've heard from CAQ is that this test would happen several years after they arrive to see the degree to which they've integrated and learned the language. Is that not true?

CS: So what we have said is that we're very welcoming to immigrants and we want them to succeed and we’re going to be very flexible in the way that we dispel these deflection certificates and, of course, right now we're in the process of forming our cabinet. The Premier elect is looking into forming his team and I think, you know, the new immigration minister is going to have the responsibility of clarifying your exact roles. But, I mean, I don't think that now is a good time to get into the detail as to what that would look like. The future immigration minister is going to consult with bureaucrats within the Immigration Department, consult with our federal partners to make sure that we have something that's good. But to be clear, the CAQ wants integration, the CAQ wants immigrants to succeed and we want to throw more money at making sure that they do succeed. So actually, I think our position is very open-minded and I think it's in tune with what Quebecers want.

CO: What about wearing religious symbols? What restrictions will there be? We’re understanding that the party would not want people in the public service, teachers, to be wearing overt religious symbols. Is that the case?

CS: So our position for that has been that we support a recent recommendation that was called the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission was a commission that occur 10 years ago. Within that report it was determined that the best way to proceed would be to prohibit overt religious symbols in positions of authority. So anybody who is in a position to exercise the power of the state would be required to not wear overt religious symbols. And the CAQ believes that teachers in primary and high school are authority figures.

CO: That religious neutrality law is already the subject of a constitutional challenge. And so is CAQ going to go further than that religious neutrality law?

CS: We're going to have to see where that goes but I'm not going to speculate as to what we may or may not do with something that's currently in front of the courts.

CO: Would that also be — those religious symbols, include people wearing crucifixes?

CS: Anything that would be overt and religiously significant would be something that would be covered by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.

CO: This was an election for the first time in years in Quebec that was not focused on sovereignty. So what does that tell you about where Quebecers see themselves in Canada?

CS: I think it tells us that we've finally moved on and I think that's a great thing. You know, for me, I've been stuck in a world where we only had two choices. I had a party that wanted to stay within Canada and I had one that wanted to separate from Canada. And if you had an inkling for one side or the other you were stuck there for forever. The CAQ offers people a different choice and I'm very happy with that.

CO: All right, we’ll leave it there. Mr. Skeete, thank you.

CS: Thank you.

JD: Christopher Skeete is the newly elected MNA for the District of Sainte-Rose in Laval for the CAQ. We reached him in Montreal.

[Music: Spanish Guitar]

Talkback: Ektachrome relaunch

JD: Shutterbugs are bugging out over the news Ektachrome is back. Last week on the program Carol spoke with Stan Horaczek about Kodak's decision to relaunch its beloved slide film Ektachrome. Mr. Horaczek is a photographer and the tech editor of Popular Science. And like many photographers he told us how excited he is to get his hands on the old school film. Kodak stopped making Ektachrome six years ago, but it is widely known for its vivid colors and incidentally as the film the astronauts took to space on the moon mission in 1969. And after Carol's conversation with Mr. Haraczek we heard from listener Carole Schwartz who wrote us this e-mail to say Ektachrome is just as good in the deep sea as it is in deep space.

CO: Ms. Schwartz wrote: “Your segment on Ektachrome brought back vivid memories. It was my film of choice through the 80s and 90s. I found it particularly good for underwater photography. My husband and I like to do the developing ourselves, especially when we were on vacation. When we go on a dive trip to somewhere like Cuba, it was the only way to know how our pictures were turning out before we got home. Processing was always tricky because the water temperature was very critical. Sometimes our hotel room would lose its hot water in the middle of developing. One time I had to run to the hotel kitchen and beg a pot of hot water from the cook to finish the processing. It's much easier nowadays with a digital camera.

JD: It is indeed. Thank you for writing, Ms. Schwartz. To comment on anything you hear on this program you can find us on Twitter and Facebook. Both those accounts @CBCAsItHappens. Our email is AIH@cbc.ca And for all the Ektachrome film buffs out there you obviously have a thing for old school tech. Our landline: (416) 205-5687.

[Music: Upbeat Guitar]

Kavanaugh: Mitchell Memo

Guest: Matthew Long

JD: Rachel Mitchell is an Arizona prosecutor. She has tried many sex crimes cases and she says she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Now the Supreme Court nominee is not, of course, on trial — but he did appear before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday along with Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges he sexually assaulted her while they were in high school. And Ms. Mitchell is the lawyer The Senate Republicans hired to question both of them. Following the session, Ms. Mitchell wrote a memo to those Republicans stating that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case to court. Since that memo became public some prosecutors have taken issue with her conclusion. Matthew Long is one of them. Mr. Long as a lawyer in private practice. He was trained by Rachel Mitchell herself in Arizona. We reached Mr. Long in Scottsdale.

CO: Mr. Long, I know that Rachel Mitchell was a mentor to you. So what did you first think when she was chosen by the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be their interviewer?

MATTHEW LONG: I was heartened. I was very, very much at peace with the selection because of my associations with Ms. Mitchell, having known her to be someone who cares very much about balancing victim rights and the rights of the accused.

CO: What did you make then of this memo that Rachel Mitchell has written to the Republicans on the committee to say that given what happened she would not prosecute Judge Kavanaugh if she were a prosecutor in this case?

ML: I'm particularly troubled with the memo — that it was offered from a prosecution standpoint and from a sex crimes expert standpoint — both of those are particularly concerning given the format. There's no way that any prosecutor would, including Ms. Mitchell, would make the assessments and judgments that she did in that memo with the limited information that she was given and that we were given up to that hearing and in that hearing. But instead a prosecutor, including Ms. Mitchell, would certainly have demanded additional investigation in order to then take what was learned in that hearing and to find out whether there is corroborative or other evidence that's external to that testimony, or if there evidence that rebuts either of the testimony. So the hearing, from a prosecutor standpoint and the testimony that we've received from the hearing, was a starting point and ought to have been a starting point. So I find the memo disingenuous at best and misleading at worst, because it doesn't reflect the realities of what happens in prosecution offices every day.

CO: But she's very definitive, isn't she? She writes in this memo she said: “A he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that.” And she says that there is Dr. Ford identified their witnesses to the event and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. She said that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard. That's pretty strong definitive language, isn't it?

ML: Well, strong and definitive language, it’s absolutely also misleading. And it's misleading because the only witness statements that she's referring to are in these written statements not as it relates to an interview or any type of follow-up to these witnesses where their memories can be verified or whether or not the way in which they answer questions can be evaluated. Ms. Mitchell knows that this type of a statement, a written statement, would never be considered as evidence in her office or anywhere else. If that came in she would have demanded that those people be interviewed before she put any weight into those statements. And so that's one of the critical pieces where I find the contents of the memo particularly troubling and inconsistent with what Rachel Mitchell does professionally in her job every day. In her memo she is going against what she knows to be true.

CO: These are the things that she taught you in how to proceed with these cases. Perhaps the most controversial part is that she questions Christine Blasey Ford's memory of the timing of the event, the dates of what happened and when it happened, and this is what she points to as being evidence that Ford is not a credible witness. How does that sit with what Ms. Mitchell taught you about how to do question and to examine memory of victims?

ML: Well, it’s directly inconsistent to how I was trained. And that perhaps was the most misleading part of the memorandum because currently in the Maricopa County attorney's office where Rachel Mitchell supervises they have many, many, many cases where they had a charging document, their indictment has an expanded timeframe, an expanded date of multiple years that highlight a specific instance of assault because they know, we know, experts know that the ability to pinpoint a date in time is very, very difficult, if not impossible, as a result of memory. And that's why the law does not require date as an element of an offense. And that's why prosecutor offices, including Ms. Mitchell's office in Arizona, does not look to or rely on a specific date. And, in fact, they ignore that the victim isn't able to pinpoint a date.

CO: Just finally, because this was obviously a very good opportunity for Rachel Mitchell to be on the high-profile stage, has she done damage to herself? What consequences are there from this memo and from this performance on her career?

ML: Well, I can only speak to the calls and e-mails that I've gotten from prosecutors in this state and throughout the country, including those who were trained by Ms. Mitchell and hold her in high regard who are very concerned with the damage that she had done to prosecution offices, as far as calling into question their objectivity, as well as the damage that she's done to victims who will feel that prosecution offices, some of the last places that they feel they can go, will also not believe them but instead rely on an unrealistic standard, a false standard for what they think a victim ought to look like.

CO: Mr. Long, this is very important what you're saying and I appreciate you telling us about and I appreciate your passion about it. Thank you so much.

ML: You bet. I'm the rare person that has to be right about this because I represent both victims and those who are accused. I take cases, not to get paid, but to apply my skills and experience as it relates to protecting the vulnerable — both those accused and those who are victimized. And both of them deserve a real voice. And neither of them have got one in this proceeding.

CO: I appreciate so much. Thank you.

ML: You bet.

JD: Matthew Long is a lawyer who trained with Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor hired by Republican senators to question Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. We reached Mr. Long in Scottsdale, Arizona. We requested a comment from Ms. Mitchell's office. We had received no response by the time we went to air. And as U.S. president Donald Trump was boarding Marine One today, he took the opportunity to weigh in, yet again, on the sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and indeed against allegations in general. Here's part of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I'd say that it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of. This is a very, very, very difficult time. What's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. It really does. You could be somebody that was perfect your entire life and somebody could accuse you of something. It doesn't necessarily have to be a woman as everybody's saying, but somebody could accuse you of something and you're automatically guilty. But in this realm, you are truly guilty until proven innocent. That's one of the very, very bad things that is taking place right now.

JD: Donald Trump speaking to reporters earlier today. Meanwhile, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was also asked about the embattled nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. So here she is speaking with the Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: In his extraordinary presentation in the Senate, Brett Kavanaugh said that the quote “political hit job” end quote directed at him was being done on behalf of the Clintons among other people. Your response?

[LAUGHTER]

HILLARY CLINTON: I mean, really? Yes, it deserves a lot of laughter. I wasn't watching when he said that, I was having to be somewhere else and away from a TV and even my phone. And so I heard about it later and, you know, look, I thought it was just part of the whole of his very defensive and unconvincing presentation. And I told someone later, boy, I'll tell you, they give us a lot of credit.

[LAUGHTER]

HC: 36 years ago we started this against him.

JG: Back at Yale.

HC: Yeah, well even before — in high school, apparently.

[LAUGHTER]

So I don't — you know, look, I want the FBI to conduct as thorough an investigation as they possibly can within whatever restraints are imposed upon them. But I think for anyone who believes there's such a thing as a judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court to approach issues, approach plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, that there's a lot to be concerned about.

JD: Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaking at the Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C. earlier today.

[Music: Guitar]

B.C. LNG Project

JD: The project comes with a lot of modifiers and a lot of superlatives. As you may have heard on the news B.C.’s Liquefied Natural Gas project, or LNG, project is going ahead. It is being billed by the prime minister as the single largest private sector investment in the history of Canada. Justin Trudeau also pledged that the export terminal in Kitimat, B.C. will have the lowest carbon intensity of any large scale LNG facility in the world. Here is the mayor of Kitimat, Phil Germuth speaking with local CBC Radio host Carolina de Ryk this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

PHIL GERMUTH: Sixty-plus years ago Kitimat was the location of the biggest investment in Canada at that time when Alcan built a smelter. And today here we are with the biggest investment in Canadian history with LNG Canada moving ahead. This isn't great just for Kitimat, this is great for everybody. This is great for Northwest B.C., Northeast B.C. — all of B.C. and of course the economy of Canada. So it's a very happy day. There's no doubt about it. We've been looking forward to this and you know a big thank you to everybody who has been supporting this project over the years.

CAROLINA DE RYK: In about half-an-hour we're going to be speaking with the Pembina Institute about concerns about whether this is indeed a cleaner choice for B.C. and what it means for carbon output. What are your thoughts on that? What makes this a good choice for B.C?

PG: This is not just a good choice for B.C., this is a good choice for Mother Earth. You know, we don't all live in a bubble, we all breathe the same air all over the world. So the best thing we can do as B.C. and as Canada, is to get some of the emerging economies, get Asia off of burning coal, is to give them a cleaner natural gas to burn. While we're all in favour of solar power, wind power, hydro power — the actual fact is on a global scale we're not even close yet and we can't stop these other economies from growing. So the best option we have is to give them the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is until we get to that stage on a global scale where we can all be on renewables.

JD: Kitimat Mayor Phil Germuth speaking to CBC Radio's Carolina de Ryk in Prince Rupert, B.C. earlier today. Mark Lee is not pleased about the LNG announcement. Mr. Lee is with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Here is some of what he had to say on the CBC show B.C. Today.

SOUNDCLIP

MARK LEE: Well, make no mistake, I mean, this project is a carbon bomb. I mean, it is taking a huge amount of carbon that is currently sequestered below the ground in British Columbia and Alberta and putting it into the atmosphere. The whole problem of climate change is the use of fossil fuels for energy, and we're at a point now where we don't have the luxury of indulging in building big new fossil fuel megaprojects. We've had two summers now in British Columbia where the province has literally been burning. And I'm not saying that doing or not doing this project will necessarily affect that because it is a global issue, but I think the proponents of the project engaging in some dangerous wishful thinking about the impact that this is going to have on emissions around the world. It's an extremely energy intensive process starting from fracking in the Northeast, pipelines into the coast, chilling it down so that it can be put on a tanker and then shipping it across the sea. So there's huge amounts of energy involved just in making this whole supply chain happen. And, you know, we don't have any guarantees at all that this is going to displace coal in China. In fact, if it's exported to Korea and Japan, who are the two biggest LNG importers and are part of the consortium, it's definitely going to increase global emissions.

JD: Mark Lee is a senior economist in the British Columbia Office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. He was speaking with the CBC show B.C. Today earlier today.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Indonesia Tsunami Warning, Cats vs. Rats

Indonesia Tsunami Warning

Guest: Louise Comfort

JD: We knew the official death toll from last week's earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia would rise. That does not make it any less shocking. As we go to air the BBC is reporting that nearly 1,350 people have been confirmed dead, and aid workers say damaged roads are making it difficult to get supplies to the people that desperately need them. Now, of course, natural disasters cannot be prevented. But, in the aftermath of this there have been claims that Indonesia's tsunami warning system is inadequate. Louise Comfort is part of a team that has been working on a system that could detect tsunamis in Indonesia. She believes it could save lives in situations like this. But she says funding constraints have left the installation of the prototype in limbo. Ms. Comfort is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh. We reached her in Oakland, California.

CO: Professor Comfort, we're seeing all this devastation in Indonesia today and I'm sure it reminds many people of what happened back in 2004. Maybe to start, just how proud is this area to disasters like this?

LOUICE COMFORT: It's incredibly prone. Indonesia straddles the equator and it's on the Ring of Fire. So this archipelago of 17,000-plus islands is very prone to earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes — very risky environment.

CO: U.S. and Indonesian colleagues together, you've developed a tsunami detection system that you or you have been developing. How is it supposed to work?

LC: So there are two parts to the actual system that are technical. One is a set of undersea nodes that rest on the bottom of the ocean floor and they contain instruments, a bottom pressure sensor that measures the change in the water column and then transmits the data via a communication sensor to other communications in a bell hop pattern to a cable that connects to a shore station that transmits the data via satellite to the MKG, which is the geophysical agency in Jakarta that interprets the data, confirms a tsunami and sends the warnings out to provincial and city capitals.

CO: How quickly can that work?

LC: Honestly, minutes. The times vary and this is the reason we have to test it. We’ve estimated it to be between three and five minutes, three and seven minutes, five and seven minutes, but the whole process technically can be done very quickly. It's the human interface that actually reads the data, interprets the data and then sends the warnings out. And then once it is received in the emergency operations centres in cities and towns, it needs to be transmitted to the community. And here we have another community-based network of handheld devices, essentially cell phones and little Raspberry Pi devices that create a wireless Internet hotspot essentially where people can communicate with one another when the regular cell towers are down and the electricity is out it.

CO: Sounds really essential given what you've described about how vulnerable the area is. So when was your prototype supposed to be installed?

LC: Well, initially the program was to be completed by August 31, 2017. There were funding constraints in Indonesia, budget cuts among the agencies and they moved it to this year, 2018. The finance ministry actually allocated funding for the project and so it was supposed to be installed this fall September, October, but there was a devaluation in the Indonesian currency and the money that was allocated according to the marine agency that would do the engineering from would be our partners in the engineering side was not sufficient to cover their cost.

CO: Given all that, how disappointed are you when you see what happened on the weekend?

LC: I’m fundamentally disappointed. So it's heart-wrenching to see the loss of lives when we do have technology that we believe can help. And it's really mobilizing the agencies and the resources to get it done.

CO: If the prototype had been in place would it have made a difference for the people in Central Sulawesi?

LC: Well, this is a question of timing because this is a prototype. Had it been done in 2017, then it likely could have made a difference this year because the BMKG, the agency, the director general of that agency was very interested in this prototype and proposed it for inclusion in their Tsunami Early Warning System but wanted it tested first, which is a very sensible recommended, it should be tested first before they make a major commitment and major funding allocation. But this testing of the prototype was what was held up.

CO: And what does that tell you about Indonesia's commitment to try and help people in a disaster like this or to prepare them for it?

LC: Well, I think they're doing the very best they can. The difficulty is this is a very risk prone area. And Indonesia as a developing country has other needs as well. And so it's a question of setting the priorities. A major priority for Indonesia was infrastructure, building roads. It's very difficult to get around the country. And the hope is that the tsunamis won't come but you never know. And in this restless archipelago there is no way, literally, predicting when they will come. We just know, and the seismologists and geologists know, that there is a very high probability of tsunamis recurring throughout the archipelago.

CO: Professor Comfort, I appreciate you telling us about this, it's really a sad day for many people in Indonesia, but thank you.

LC: Yes, thank you very much.

CO: Bye-bye.

LC: Bye-bye.

JDL Louise Comfort is with the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. We reached her in Oakland, California.

[Music: Deep Bass]

Alex Trebek Pennsylvania debate

JD: The category is politics. The clue: terrible ideas. The answer: What is having a game show host moderate a political debate.? If you watch Jeopardy you understand that answer in question format. You also know that Alex Trebek is a master of that format. So you can see why someone thought it would be awesome for him to moderate last night's debate between the two main candidates for governor of Pennsylvania. But it turns out that pride of Sudbury, Ontario could have used a Daily Double — of some kind of liquor. Because the host who is a master of verbal economy on that popular game show — for some reason couldn't stop talking at the debate, and the boos were not meant for the politicians.

SOUNDCLIP

ALEX TREBEK: Now it seems to me that the legislature is trying to live up to its reputation as the place where good bills go to die. The last time I looked the approval rating for the legislature was at 14 per cent. The only thing with a lower rating in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the Catholic Church. Don't go there. I was I was born and raised Catholic and I'm just as ticked off as everybody else is.

SCOTT WAGNER: We're taxing the gas companies. Do the people believe that we should tax? Yes. Well, we already are.

AT: You’re not taxing them that much because most of them are based in Texas or Oklahoma. We’re out of time. We're out of time.

[CROWD BOOS]

AT: What did I tell you guys at the beginning? No booing or hissing. But now you're directing it at me.

JD: Jeopardy host Alex Trebek being booed while moderating Monday night's debate between the two main candidates for Pennsylvania governor.

[Music: Whimsical Guitar]

Theresa May Chequers plan

JD: Chuck Chequers. That was one of the messages in a speech by former British foreign secretary Boris Johnson given earlier today at the British Conservative Party conference. Chequers is the name of prime minister Theresa May’s proposal to leave the European Union. And Mr. Johnson made it clear today, as he has repeatedly and quite bluntly, he does not believe this plan will work. In his speech he said that it will leave the UK quote “locked in the tractor beam of Brussels” unquote. Now Ms. May has said she didn't watch Mr. Johnson's speech but she did respond in an interview with the BBC. Here's what she said when asked by a political editor Laura Kuenssberg what she would like to say to Boris Johnson right now.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY: First of all, of course, Boris, when he was Foreign Secretary signed up to the Chequers plan and then a few days later resigned from the cabinet. But what I would say to anybody who asks me about Chequers plan as far is what I've just said to you.

LAURA KUENSSBERG: But he’s directly challenging your authority, Prime Minister.

TM: What is important for people who are listening, what is important for people in their day-to-day lives, is that the government is putting the national interest first, both in what we do on Brexit but also what we do our domestic agenda. On Brexit what we have done is put forward a proposal that does reflect, it respects, it delivers on the vote that the British people gave. Leaving the European Union, doing so in a way that takes back control of our money, of our laws and of our borders — and all the other things like coming out of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. But it does it in a way which has a free-trade area and frictionless trade at its heart. That means we can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland as we deliver for the rest of the UK. And it means we protect jobs.

LK: But Prime Minister, in order to deliver on that plan you need the authority, you need your party behind you, you will then need parliament behind you. Boris Johnson has come here today and trampled all over that. You must be cross. How can you put up with it?

TM: Well, there are one or two things that Boris said that I am cross about. He wanted to tear up our guarantee you to the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. You know, we are all, he and I, all members here are members of the Conservative and Unionist Party. That's because we believe that in the union of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is part of that union. And do we have a guarantee for the people of Northern Ireland. And we are upholding that. Our Chequers plan does that. It's the only plan on the table at the moment that does.

JD: British Prime Minister Theresa May speaking to the BBC.

[Music: Banjo]

Cats vs. Rats

Guest: Michael Parsons

JD: The rat issue in New York City is no secret to anyone who has ever lived there or indeed walked there. So last year when a team of behavioural ecologists set out to observe and record rat behaviour New York City was the obvious location. They even offer New Yorkers up to $1,000 to anyone willing to give them access to a rat infestation in their home or business. It wasn't easy, but the researchers did finally find their rat-haven in a Brooklyn waste recycling plant. And the research was going fine until things took an unexpected turn. With the arrival of the feral cats. Michael Parsons is the lead researcher on the team. He is a visiting research scholar at the Department of Biological Sciences at Fordham University in New York City.

CO: Michael, we just described this place where you are doing your research as a waste recycling plant. Can you just tell us where exactly you were and what was like to be there studying rats?

MICHAEL PARSONS: Well, this place that is gross to many people at first blush was actually our heaven. We spent a year-and-a-half, maybe a bit more looking for a site sponsor that would actually allow us on site. And fortunately a Waste Management facility in Brooklyn came through for us. And so it's a dust-covered environment, rubbish is being brought in from private companies and it's being recycled. Some of it is putrefying as waste does, and of course, that's how the rats become attracted to the place.

CO: How infested is this waste recycling plant with rats? I mean, how many rats are we talking about here?

MP: Well, because rats are, you know, we call them the ‘Ghosts of Gotham’ because they’re just out of out of sight. So it's a really, really hard to do a survey of rats and also their uniform appearance. So it's really hard to tell rats apart from one another and many of them are nocturnal. So good luck doing an estimate. But from our having chips — so we've chipped 60 animals and we know each of the females that have in the time we’ve been there they could have had five to six litters of ten to twelve pups each.

CO: Okay, so you thought you had a pretty good location to study these rats and then the Cats showed up. And so you were your assumptions about what would happen to your rats when the cats came?

MP: We didn't really have any assumptions because we're taught from an early age that cats are the natural enemy of rodents. So we kind of think that maybe there's going to be this adverse reaction where the cats are going to eat the rats and each of our rats actually costs between 20 and 50 dollars. If you look at the fact we’re micro-chipping and working them up and spending a lot of time caring for each individual rat that we work with. So to our horror we just did not want to think these cats were consuming our rats or even changing the behaviour of the rats.

CO: And what did you find? Because you expected as we all were that the rats were going to scram, they’re going to get out of there pretty quickly or they’re going to get eaten and killed. So what did the cats do?

MP: So the cats did change the behaviour of the rats. And what we found was the rats spent more time walking and less time running from their colony to their primary source of food. And that was sort of surprising at first. But when a rat walks it's not sauntering or stroller, it's actually a stop-start-sniff, stop-start-sniff. And so because rats have such poor vision there are literally stopping and sniffing for a predator in the area, a predator that's in that facility now. And so the rats were more cautious in their movements and possibly stay out of sight a little bit longer. So that was an effect of the cats on the rats. On the other hand we were a little surprised when there are only three predation events the entire time. Furthermore, those predation events were all extremely similar in that the cat had disarmed the rat, if you will, by ambushing it in hiding. So among all the time where cats were out on an open floor with rats they did this little bit of this dance. So it was also a cat walking, stopping — and then when the rat stops the cat stops. And so instead of a predation attempt, the cat lives, we believe, observing the out for any weakness, signs of injury, limping, disease — and if the rat had appeared sickly, then we think the cat would have went and immediately takes it. Otherwise the cats stayed away from the rats on the open floor.

CO: Just trying to understand when you say a predation event, that's science speak for killing them?

MP: Right. It's actually killing the animal and maybe consuming.

CO: So what does this tell you about our assumptions? Because well we know that cats are hunters, we know that they're huge killers of birds and they catch the mice in my house. So why do you think that they were so unsuccessful or there were so few predation events among your rats?

MP: Our rats in Brooklyn with weighed on average 339 grams. And that's a mouthful. And so rats not only harbour and vector disease to humans, but they also harbour and vector disease to other wildlife. So if you're a cat, it pays you to be very hesitant about taking a meal that has two sets of growing incisors, one on the upper jaw, one on the lower. And that can be very sharp with an enormous bite force. And so it’s in the cat's best interests to fill up on easier meals. And so we think what we've understood is the paradox that cats control small mice that are conflated with big rats, but cats change the behaviour of big rats which overestimate the risks and pray. And those two things together give us the image that we commonly see that cats are the natural enemy of rats and that we can therefore count on cats for rat control. And that's really not what the science says.

CO: All right. Well, so that's kind of unfortunate for people who think that it's a good thing to have the cats around to control the rats, but great insights there Michael. Changing our view of cats and rats. Thanks for speaking with us.

MP: Sure. Thank you for having me.

JD: Michael Parsons is a visiting research scholar at the Department of Biological Sciences at Fordham University. We reached him in New York.

Drywall robot

JD: It does not sweat, it does not complain, it does not care about craftsmanship. But on the other hand it does not care if you make it do something over and over again. It's terrifying to look at, but then again, it requires no supervision. I'm torn about the HRP-5P. Yes, it is an astonishing feat of technology. Yes, it installs drywall perfectly, if slowly. And by installs drywall, I mean it picks up the boards, puts them in the exact right spot using its complex head sensors and actually attaches them to your walls. So what's the problem? It's a humanoid robot, meaning it looks somewhat like a person, but one that is impossibly powerful and has no emotions or face. It's a 182 centimetres tall — that's six feet. It weighs 101 kilograms, which is 222 pounds. If it does something I don't like I can't stop it and it could definitely take me in a fight. So while I appreciate the work it could do for my home renovation, I don't actually want it anywhere near my house. Also, according to the researchers that made it, it is intended to eventually do the work us fallible humans do on large projects, including ships, aircraft and, of course, rec rooms or whatever. The news release says quote “This will compensate for the shortage of workers, free human beings from heavy labour work and support to focus on higher value added work,” unquote. Sounds swell — unless you're a human who builds ships or aircraft or is an expert dry-waller. And if that's the case you might want to try focusing on higher value added work whatever that is. Because you can't fight progress and you definitely can fight the HRP-5P.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Oct. 2, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This