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 December 06, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Show and telecom. The arrest of a top executive with a Chinese smartphone company in Canada has become an international spectacle. Our guest warns we should expect more than angry emojis from China.

JD: Foes to be reckoned with. After two years of no direct consultations, representatives of the government of Yemen government and Houthi rebels meet in Sweden. And while the stakes are high, hopes are not.

CO: Creature discomforts. A Danish opposition politician is shocked that the government is planning to send migrants to live on an island now used to study diseased animals.

JD: Slowly, but Shirley. 50 years after Shirley Chisholm became the first black woman elected to the U.S. Congress, New York city announces it's honouring her with a statue.

CO: Her enthusiasm is injectious. An Ontario woman tells an immunization conference how to change the minds of so-called "anti-vaxxers" — as someone who resisted shots for her own children for years.

JD: And...ramen holiday. A few years ago, the owner of a used-car dealership in Japan began selling his own noodle soup — and now, thanks to an approving Michelin review, it's full steam ahead.

JD: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that hears his broth is so rich you could call him a bouillon-aire.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Huawei arrest, vaccine conference: former “anti-vaxxer”, Denmark migrants

Huawei arrest

Guest: Wenran Jiang

JD: The arrest here in Canada has sent shockwaves through China. Last weekend, Meng Wanzhou — the Chief Financial Officer of the telecom company Huawei, and daughter of the company founder — was detained at Vancouver's International Airport. Her arrest came at the request of the United States, which is seeking her extradition — reportedly, on suspicions of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran. For a while now, U.S. politicians and some Canadian intelligence experts have raised cybersecurity concerns around Huawei. It's the world's second-largest smartphone maker, and China's largest private company. Wenran Jiang is a senior fellow at the Institute of Asian Research at UBC. We reached him in Edmonton.

CO: Mr. Jiang, how significant is it that a top executive from China's largest private company has been arrested in Canada?

WENRAN JIANG: Well, this is, of course, a shock to everybody. And it is literally unprecedented in our recent memory. Obviously, the Canadian authorities have worked in coordination with American counterparts to track her down — probably for days, if not months — and to pick her up at the transit point in Vancouver on the very same day of the China-U.S. summit in Argentina Saturday last week. I mean this is quite a shocker to everybody.

CO: When you say that they were tracking her and watching her for weeks if not months, what are you basing that on? Do you actually know that or is that your speculation?

WJ: Well, I mean I don't think she would be just passing by the airport and then here you go pick her up. She's not living in Canada. With a request with the U.S. and Canadian octet they have to track her.

CO: But what we understand is that she has been detained in Canada. She's out on bail I believe. We don't know the details of why the Americans want her. They'll have to make a case why she should be extradited. So where does that leave Canada in its relationship right now with China?

WJ: Well, Canada is, by simply acting on this one in coordination with the U.S. authorities, is already in a fairly tough spot. By tomorrow, when the hearings happen, if the Canadian legal procedure says the U.S. has not provided enough evidence and let her go for free, the Americans will not be very happy. But that will de-escalate and have a relief for Canada's relations with China. But if Canada decides to send Ms. Meng over to the United States, we can see the Chinese government will have even stronger reactions than what it already has. And I think we will be seeing more pressured and constrained relations between China and Canada and between China and the United States.

CO: How would China retaliate against Canada if it goes along with that extradition requests and sends Ms. Meng to the States?

WJ: well, China could have immediate short-term or long-term tools. They already reportedly cancelled an appearance of the Chinese parliamentarians at the Parliament Hill today in the Foreign Affairs Committee. They may calling off high-level dialogue with Canada. You know slowdown our economic talks on sectorial trade issues or even more serious depending on whether what they perceive to have enough evidence that Canada is actually having a legal case. Because Canadians are basically saying look, we have a judicial independence here, we have an extradition treaty, and this is actually being treated as a criminal investigation — because we will not send people over to those states in this arrangement without a criminal investigation going on. We are very uncertain what territories we're going into now by tomorrow.

CO: We still don't know what the U.S. officials are pursuing against Huawei. But the speculation is that Huawei is being investigated for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran, and possibly violating U.S. trade controls with other countries — including Cuba, Sudan, and Syria. So those are the possible charges, and some of them would be criminal, right?

WJ: That is correct. You gave a good list here. Our audience would know the key is not that China, Huawei cannot do deals, economic interactions, or trade with Iran, with Cuba, with other countries which are hostile to the United States. The case here, a criminal proceeding will have to prove U.S. equipment which should not be handed over or being resold to Iran. For example, if that was done by Huawei, U.S. would have a jurisdiction and a criminal case against Huawei. So we don't know the evidence. That is why the initial and the only statement out by Huawei officially is a very low-key, cautious, and moderate one. Basically saying Huawei and Ms. Meng have not violated any laws, and they are confident she will be cleared.

CO: Do you think that what we have to look at — what Canada will be looking at — in this extradition request is if this is a political move or if it is actually a violation of law move — if it's something to do with the law or is it something to do with politics?

WJ: This is a very good question. Make no mistake, Americans do treat China as an adversary. So is some of our hawks here in Canada. Intelligence agencies, they want to drive Huawei out of not only the United States market as it is now. They want Huawei to be out of Canadian market. They're already out of Australia and New Zealand market. And U.K. just announced they're removing Huawei equipment in the current infrastructure of communications. And therefore, Trudeau government is truly under pressure for not taking Huawei in our 5G network bidding. So therefore, there is a broader strategic issue involved. Even we do not believe in any conspiracy theories here.

CO: Just finally, you mentioned the retaliations China could impose on Canada for this. Canada's cybersecurity chief Scott Jones says his agency is prepared for the possibility of cyberattacks from China in retaliation for Canada's involvement in this extradition request. Should we be very concerned about that possibility?

WJ: There's always a possibility. I always have some doubts about the speculation that the Chinese government would order is cyber troops to begin descending on our Canadian cyber infrastructure. That will be apparently so stupid. They have many other tools they can deploy. But the trouble now for Canada I think in the future doesn't matter what the outcome is, the damage with China on the relationship wise already done.

CO: Mr. Jiang, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

WJ: Thank you for having me.

JD: Wenran Jiang is a senior fellow at the Institute of Asian Research at UBC. We reached him in Edmonton.

[Music: Folk]

Vaccine conference: former “anti-vaxxer”

Guest: Tara Hills

JD: The Canadian Immunization Conference was full of the usual faces this year in Ottawa — health professionals and policy wonks. But one of this year's speakers was neither. Tara Hills spoke at the conference this week as a parent. For years, Ms. Hills didn't vaccinate her children. She feared health risks. She has now changed her mind. We reached Tara Hills in Arnprior, Ontario.

CO: Tara, what message were you trying to get across at this Immunization conference this week?

TARA HILLS: I wanted to encourage health care providers that they could connect positively with vaccine-hesitant parents like I was if they would make their approach more conversational and more relatable.

CO: And how are they now? How do they approach people who doubt vaccines? Some people call them anti-vaxxers. How are they approached now by public health?

TH: Well, there's a range. Some are more authoritarian. Do what the doctor says, and don't question this. Others, like my doctor, didn't really know how to handle it, and kind of just don't even have a conversation about it. And so they just don't talk about it at all. So there's a whole range of responses. And all of them are unhelpful.

CO: And why are they unhelpful?

TH: Well, if we don't talk about it, there's no opportunity to address concerns with a parent who's hesitating. I wasn't hard core anti-vax, but I had enough concerns that it was hesitating. My doctor wasn't authoritarian and like refused to see me or talk to me or anything. But he didn't give me an opportunity to address my concerns with him.

CO: What led you to doubt vaccines?

TH: Several years ago, we started to notice a lot of just angry tone online and in personal conversation towards people who didn't vaccinate for any reasons. And a number of our friends was stopping vaccinating as well. So we just became increasingly uncomfortable. We weren't sure if it was safe to vaccinate anymore, if it was a good idea, if it was actually dangerous to vaccinate. We just sort of froze, and hesitated, and didn't feel comfortable really talking to anybody, didn't know who to trust because there was so much money involved so we thought with childhood vaccines.

CO: You're thinking about Big Pharma.

TH: Exactly. It wasn’t until I found out that the patents had all expired, and there was literally no money in childhood vaccines in Canada that I began a process of re-evaluating my position.

CO: And there were also all kinds of if you Google vaccines, you find sites claiming that the vaccines cause autism — that they create medical conditions. Is that the sort of stuff you were reading and hearing from your circle?

TH: Mm-hm. Just again, all that sense of unease that leads someone like myself to doubt and not feel comfortable just blindly accepting what my doctor says and putting a needle in my kid's arm.

CO: Why would their message that you're getting from Google and you're getting from this circle why would that be more powerful for you in making decisions than your doctor, than the public health community?

TH: I think at the time it's part of vaccinations being a victim of their own success because the threat doesn't seem imminent. I had never seen what, for example, measles looks like, or polio. It's been virtually eradicated for generations. And so it was hard to believe that there really was a threat.

CO: You had seven children at the time that you were going through this; you were of the opinion that they shouldn't be vaccinated, and then you began to change. What changed you? What persuaded you to start moving over to the possibility that vaccines were necessary for your kids?

TH: Well, like I said, I was noticing the cultural conversation was really heating up. And anti-vaxxers — anybody who didn’t vaccinate for any reason — was lumped in one big category and sort of vilified as a bad parent and a general idiot. At the same time, my family had a very close call with measles. And my friend described what she went through for an entire week with her two kids in and out of the hospital, the fevers, the diarrhea, the rash. And suddenly it became real. And that's what pushed me to decide I really need to be sure why I'm not doing this.

CO: And you started to vaccinate your kids, right?

TH: I immediately called my doctor's office, and rearranged for all seven kids to be caught up.

CO: But not soon enough, right? You had your own scare with a contagious sickness. What happened?

TH: One week before the vaccination process would have restarted, all seven kids were diagnosed with whopping cough. They had to stay inside the house for five days. And it was one of the most difficult experiences of my life as a mother because they were very sick. I didn't need that illustration, but there it was. It couldn't have been illustrated more profoundly. So I chose to go public in sharing my story. I wanted to connect with other moms like me who hesitated so they could avoid this.

CO: You were blogging from your quarantined home, and saying I’ll answer your questions. What do you want to know about why you need to vaccinate your kids, and answering their questions. You had a really interesting example of someone who had been quite persuasive for you. What was the friend-of-a-friend who had coaxed you in this direction? What did she say to you?

TH: Yeah, a friend through Facebook connected with me from www.scientificpartent.org. She was pro-vax, so I was skeptical. But she talked to me like a fellow mom. First thing she said was Tara, I think you're a really good parent. And it's totally okay to ask questions about vaccines. And she defied my stereotype of the angry, judgmental pro-vaxxer. So her approach immediately set me at ease, and made me more comfortable. She didn't judge me right off the bat as an idiot. So I wasn't busy defending my integrity or my intelligence. We were able to progress in the conversation, and it very quickly expedited a productive conversation that led me to be vaccine-confident instead of vaccine-hesitant.

CO: And also to try and persuade others that it's a good idea.

CO: So back to this immunization conference that you were part of this week, which had a lot of experts at it — people who know all about vaccines, and why you should be getting them. There was a packed house; standing room only for you at your talk. Is this what you told him about just talk to us, don't condescend to us, tell us what we should do and how we might do it, and how to persuade people that it's a good idea to vaccinate your kids?

TH: I'm still kind of blown away that health care providers even want to hear from a mom from Arnprior. But what they were telling me is there's a disconnect. They have all the info, all the evidence, but they're not connecting with enough parents. And there's this growing group who are anti-vax, but they're hesitating. And they're really struggling you know from the policy makers to the media to the health care providers of how do we positively connect with the vaccine-hesitant parents of today? Our strategies aren't working, but something worked with you. So they wanted to just hear my journey.

CO: I can hear in the background because I know you homeschool your kids in their home, and there are now nine of them, and I can hear one in the background needing your attention. Someone’s found you on the phone. So Tara, I just want to say thank you so much for talking to us.

TH: I appreciate it, Carol. Have a good day.

CO: Take care, bye.

JD: Tara Hills was a speaker at the Canadian Immunization Conference this week. She's the mother of nine in Arnprior, Ontario. For more on how Ms. Hills shifted her views, from anti-vaccines to pro — go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Up-tempo]

Stranded yachtswoman

JD: An around-the-world sailor is stranded in the Southern Ocean, more than 3-thousand kilometres west of Cape Horn, Chile — after she and her yacht were battered by a vicious storm. Susie Goodall, a 29-year-old Brit, is the youngest competitor and only woman in the Golden Globe Race. It's a recreation of a famous 30-thousand kilometre solo race held in 1968 — which has since dubbed a "voyage for madmen". Ms. Goodall survived 60-knot winds and massive seas relatively unscathed. Her boat, however, is a different story. Here is a recording of Ms. Goodall's first call to Race HQ, after yesterday's storm.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: First of all, can you confirm that there are no other problems with the boat? Your satellite phone is okay, and your safety gear is okay?

SUSIE GOODALL: No. No. No. No. The boat is destroyed. The boat inside and out is destroyed. I can’t make a jerry rig. I can make no jerry rig. My boat is ripped to pieces. So the boat, the only thing that's left is the hull.

SPEAKER: Okay. Then I would recommend you leave your epurb on, and we will assess the situation. So at the moment, what you're saying is the hull is secure, you are not at risk of sinking, it's just that you are extremely disabled and you cannot make progress?

SG: Yes. Yes. Yes. I didn't know if my engine works? I haven't tried, but I have no form of jerry rig. My entire rig has gone over overboard. But the whole hull and deck is intact.

SPEAKER: Okay, so Hull and deck, and all hatches and portholes — everything is secure? So you can remain afloat, but you are totally disabled. And you're okay? No injuries for you?

SG: I rolled, and I threw across the cabin, and I think I was knocked out for a moment or two because I didn't quite know what had happened. Yeah, so I got a bit of a…

SPEAKER: Hit in the head, yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Can you describe the conditions — the wind strength and sea state?

SG: Wind state right now is probably about 45 knots. It’s calmed down. It’s been sat at 60 knots.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Okay.

JD: Yachtswoman Susie Goodall, communicating with Don McIntyre, chairman of the Golden Globe Race, after a storm left her stranded at sea. Rescuers are expected to reach her tomorrow.

[Music: Horns]

Denmark migrants

Guest: Carolina Maier

JD: For years, the island of Lindholm in Denmark has been home to diseased animals — which were shipped there for scientific research. Soon, however, a human cargo may be on its way to the island. The Danish government has announced that migrants it deems, quote, "undesirable", unquote, will be sent to live on Lindholm. The group will include failed asylum seekers, and those convicted of crimes. The plan is being celebrated by the anti-immigrant right in Denmark. Carolina Maier is a member of parliament for the left-wing Alternative Party, which is against the plan. We reached Ms. Maier in Copenhagen.

CO: Ms. Maier, when you first heard that the Danish government had hatched a plan to send migrants to Lindholm Island, what did you think?

CAROLINA MAIER: Well, I was quite shocked, to be honest. Because it's not common in Denmark to isolate certain groups of people to certain kind of non-habitated parts of the country. So it's really a new thing for us to be thinking of groups of people as if not deserving the same rights as the rest of the population.

CO: And yet, on Facebook, Denmark's immigration minister she wrote that they are undesirable in Denmark, and they must feel it. So she is deliberately saying that they're not welcome — that they are a different class of people, right?

CM: Yes. This is what's new that with open eyes she said that these people are not welcome, that they belong to another category of people than the rest of us, and therefore, they should have other conditions to live by. But really these people have committed a crime, but they have made their time in prison. So they've kind of done their punishment. And usually, in Denmark, we have a rights system saying when you've kind of done your time in prison you are accepted as a citizen like the rest of the population. So it is really looking at these people with eyes as if they belong to an inferior race.

CO: Now, who are the people that they want to send to Lindholm Island?

CM: So these are people that have been denied asylum, but that we cannot send back because they are personally persecuted in their home countries. They can risk torture, for instance, or being persecuted in other ways. So we can't send them back, but they don't fulfill the criteria for asylum in Denmark. And then also there are people who have been given asylum but have committed crime in Denmark. And therefore, as part of their conviction, they are expelled from the country. But they cannot be sent home because their home countries will not accept them in their home.

CO: Can you describe it for us?

CM: What is there now is a research centre researching contagious diseases in animals. And not very big island. I think you can walk around it maybe in half an hour or so. And with a lot of buildings that are now used for the technical university. So it's office buildings and chemical laboratories. And they're going to rebuild these buildings to house these people that they want to send there. And it's going to cost almost a billion Danish crowns, which is quite a lot of money. So it's also very, very expensive to do it this way.

CO: And what would those people do there?

CM: Well, nothing really because there's nothing to do. They can stay, talk to each other. There is a ferry crossing. But what is really horrible for me as well is that the Ministry of Foreign Minister also said that she's going to make it as difficult as possible to leave the island for these people, even though you can say it's legal for them to move around freely. But you want to make the ticket price for the ferry as costly or as expensive as possible, and she wants to make a few as possible ferry transportations. So really what she also says is we're going to put you on this island, and we're going to make sure that it's going to be very difficult for you to leave it.

CO: So is this a violation of international law?

CM: We think it is, but we can't prove it until it's proven in the court of justice.

CO: You were saying that in Denmark, it's never been this idea that there are different kinds of people or classes of people. But with this language that they are undesirable and they must be made to feel it. That they're not people like Danes. Have you heard this kind of language from government before?

CM: Not in Denmark. This is really a shift of paradigms in Denmark. And we have a very proud tradition of being a very humanitarian country. But, of course, you get connotations when you hear this back to the 30’s in Germany, where they also had a view on people that they belonged to different races and therefore should be treated differently. And this is the talk in Denmark right now that we're beginning to speak of how this resembles something that we've seen previously in in the history in Europe, which we're not proud of.

CO: We also heard that when we covered the story of your country initiating this jewelry law as it was called that would enable authorities to seize all valuables from asylum seekers to cover the cost of feeding and housing them, even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. So how is this being received in Denmark — these kinds of programs and this kind of language that does sound like the 1930s.

CM: Well, what really concerns me as is that, of course, there are a lot of public opinions saying this is just too much. Now you've crossed the line because this is really not okay. But then again, there is no public arousal about it. We don't see the big demonstrations in the streets against it. But it is more and more acceptable, unfortunately, that we hear these kinds of politicians speak this way without public opinion saying now it's enough.

CO: We saw this Danish People's Party — it's a right-wing party in your country — posted an animation on Twitter showing a Muslim man being dropped off by a boat on this island. What message does that send to the world? How do you think that outside of Denmark people are regarding your country?

CM: I'm really concerned that the international society is going to look at us and think well, this is not a country that we'd like to visit or have cooperation with because we're really moving back in terms of multiculturalism and acceptance and tolerance.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Ms. Maier, I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

CM: You're so welcome. Thank you.

JD: Carolina Maier is a member of parliament for Denmark's Alternative Party. We reached her in Copenhagen. We've more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Lullaby]

Part two: Yemen conference, Shirley Chisholm statue

Yemen conference

Guest: Michael Aron

JD: It's been two years since the warring parties in Yemen have come to the table. But today, at a castle in Sweden, delegations from the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels did meet — brought together by the UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths. The war in Yemen has triggered the world's worst humanitarian crisis. At least ten thousand people have been killed. A prisoner swap was agreed to today. But hopes for these peace consultations — which are expected to last a week — are humble. Michael Aron is the British Ambassador to Yemen. He's in Sweden for the talks. We reached Ambassador Aron in Stockholm.

CO: Ambassador Aron, we heard the U.N. special envoy today, Martin Griffiths, the special envoy for Yemen. He said that he is not optimistic, but that he is over ambitious. What do you hope can come out of these talks?

MICHAEL ARON: Well, I think we're all extremely concerned about the terrible situation in Yemen. The UK government is extremely worried about the situation. We think that the time has come to move from the military campaigns to a political negotiation. So we're delighted that the two parties have come. So we hope that they will work with Martin Griffiths on the agenda that he has set them. And he set them three tasks. One is to talk about the framework that he's given them kind of gateway to the negotiation. Secondly, he's got some confidence-building measures which he's working on. Today, they both agreed to start with a prisoner exchange. That's a positive step. And thirdly, the de-escalation starting to move away from fighting. He's not asking for a full cease fire. It's more complicated than that. But he wants to look at ways of reducing the violence.

CO: It all sounds rather vague. And I suppose that how things must be when you're finally getting players to sit down. But Mr. Griffiths says that what he has to do is to get them to suspend their belief that there is a military victory that's even possible. Has he gotten to that place yet? Do they still believe that if they keep fighting they're going to win?

MA: I'm sure that there are generals on both sides, as in all conflicts, who are telling their political masters that they can win in you know it three months or six months or whatever it is. But we are convinced, like Martin, that there is not a military solution. And we hope that the politicians who are here recognize that that is what the international community are telling them.

CO: But you know we've seen ceasefires even recently that were just declared and absolute nothing changed on the ground — sometimes it even got worse. Now you're in a situation where you're not even asking for a ceasefire at this. So what possibly do you think you'll come out of these talks with?

MA: Well, I think we'll come out with some trust between the parties starting to build up slowly. Using small steps and small confidence-building measures, and then bigger confidence-building measures the biggest debt so that by the end of this period of a week or so, they can demonstrate they've made small tangible progress. And then they agreed to meet again, and they come back, and then they take that forward because if this was easy, we wouldn't have to be here. It's not. It's a complicated problem. It needs patience and perseverance. And we think Martin is the right person to lead that process, but he needs the help of the international community. And the UK is fully behind him to try and support his efforts.

CO: Well here's the thing that people are asking, that if the UK and the United States would withdraw its military support to Saudi Arabia, that you could have ended this war a long time ago. That it's your supply that — you and the United States — your supply of military aircraft and munitions and intelligence that have prolonged this conflict and have contributed to a large number of the deaths in Yemen. So what responsibility do you have in all of this?

MA: Well, I completely reject that characterization of the problem. We have traditionally and with a number of other countries provided or close ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, with weapons. They are entitled to defend themselves and to have weapons for their own security. And we sell those weapons to them in line with very strict procedures to make sure that the weapons are used in line with international humanitarian law. And we will continue to do that as long as we're confident that they are doing it in line with humanitarian law.

CO: And as you point out, it is a civil war. It’s between an internationally recognized government in Yemen and these rebels known as Houthis, who are supported by Iran. But at the same time, how could Saudi Arabia continue its airstrikes if it didn't have the arms that you are supplying. I mean the U.S. and the UK have supplied military personnel in the command centre for the airstrikes. And the airstrikes have been hitting civilian targets for many of the past three years that this war has continued — bringing this country to the brink of disaster. So I am just wondering what are you offering? Why doesn't the UK withdraw its support to Saudi Arabia until it stops this coalition led war in Yemen?

MA: That is a misunderstanding of what is happening. We are providing advice to Saudi Arabia on how to make sure that its procedures in line with international humanitarian law, in line with targeting, in line with dealing with civilians in warfare are in line with the best international procedures. It does not involve targeting advice. So we are not involved in the military campaign in that sense at all. Other than making sure that those troops and those officers targeting people from the coalition are trained to the highest possible standards.

CO: And yet, they have bombed school buses full of children. So what influence can the UK have on preventing them from hitting those kinds of civilian targets?

MA: They've acknowledged they've made mistakes. And we provide them advice on how to avoid such mistakes. We think the campaign has gone on too long. But as long as there is a military campaign, it is going to be complicated. You know there are going to be mistakes made. And that is why we want to move to a political solution.

CO: But as it's a military campaign, you will support them? But as long as you're supporting them there's going to be a military campaign, is that not the case?

MA: No, that's not the case. We are talking to them about finding a political solution to the problem.

CO: We have had the same conversation for more than three years. And yet, this continues. We're on the brink of disaster — the largest manmade humanitarian crisis in the world right now is in Yemen. And yet, the best we can hope for out of this is that there might be a ceasefire. Why is that the case?

MA: I think that the main reason is because the party which started the conflict, which occupied large areas of the country illegally, and has deposed the legitimate government, refuses to withdraw from those parts of the country that it has occupied. I think that is the main problem. You’re concentrating hugely on what the coalition are doing. They are backed by a Chapter 7 Security Council resolution which calls on the other side to disarm and withdraw.

CO: So unless the Houthi rebels stop what they're doing and Iran stops supporting them, this war continues?

MA: That certainly is a big part of the problem. We think that we now need to move to a political process where the parties sit down and talk to each other and find a way out of it which is in the interests of the Yemeni people to end the suffering of the Yemeni people.

CO: Ambassador Aron, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

MA: Thank you very much indeed.

JD: Michael Aron is the British Ambassador to Yemen. We reached him in Stockholm.

[Music: Sad piano]

Shirley Chisholm statue

Guest: Niambi Carter

JD: Shirley Chisholm famously said: "If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair." In 1968, Ms. Chisholm was the first black woman elected to Congress in the United States. A few years after that, she was — again — the first black woman to make a run for the presidential nomination for the Democratic party. She died in 2005, at the age of 80. Now, the city of New York has announced that it will erect a statue of Ms. Chisholm in 2020 by Prospect Park in Brooklyn. It's part of an ongoing effort to fix a monumental imbalance: the vast majority of statues in New celebrate men. Shirley Chisholm was on this program in 1983, a decade after she made her bid for the presidency. At the time, the Reverend Jesse Jackson had been named as a possible candidate in the Democratic race. Here's some of what Ms. Chisholm told guest host Walter Stewart.

SOUNDCLIP

SHIRLEY CHISHOLM: This is ten years later. When I ran, it was ten years ago. Lots of things have changed. The black vote has increased. We just elected a black mayor in Chicago and one in Philadelphia — two cities in the United States of America where it would not be felt that a black could be mayor. Black people are registering in greater numbers. We're putting together different kinds of coalition. And a dynamically changing society brings change. Ten years later, a lot has happened which gives any black candidate the credibility and opportunity to make a decision as to who is going to be president of this country.

WALTER STEWART: As you know, one of the things that is being said is that if Jesse Jackson or a similar figure were to run, it might hurt the black cause by drawing supporters away from the liberal candidate in the Democratic Party.

SC: Some of the black elected officials feel that we should run a black candidate. Others feel differently. The black people are not a monolithic group. There are all kinds of feelings and approaches. White people are not monolithic. I think any time you're going to make a change — a change is in the nature of things — sacrifices have to be made.

JD: Shirley Chisholm, speaking to As It Happens guest host Walter Stewart in 1983. Niambi Carter is an assistant professor of political science at Howard University, who has written about Shirley Chisholm. We reached Ms. Carter in Washington, D.C.

CO: Professor Carter, if we said that was Shirley Chisholm speaking to our show 35 years ago, what are your thoughts and feelings as you listened to that today?

NIAMBI CARTER: Well, I mean I think what she was saying was exactly right. I was actually quite chilled at how relevant what she had to say 30 years ago is to today. I mean I think we see this within the Democratic Party, but more generally in the United States electorate that now you have more people of colour, more women who are demanding a seat at the table. And this idea that some group with some person has to wait until some ideal time for their chance; I think offended her in some deep abiding way.

CO: Yeah, you're right. That could have been an interview we heard at any time and in recent months and few years. But it was the strength of her voice that is the most striking. I mean what kind of an effect that she have on people when she spoke?

NC: Well, I mean she was a very petite woman. But from everything I've been able to hear in everyone called her Ms. Chisholm. And that she was erect. That she was direct. And that she was just persistent. And so she commanded a great deal of respect from her colleagues in the chamber, but also from anybody who met her from staff all the way down that when you saw Ms. Chisholm coming, people felt the need to straighten up because she was such a forthright, powerful person — even in her small stature.

CO: How many terms did she spend in Congress? How many times was she re-elected from Brooklyn?

NC: She was elected in 1968 initially, and she retired in 1982. So that would have been about seven terms.

CO: And then she made this bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She wanted to run for the president's office. What was she up against? This was like I guess 1972. What was she up against?

NC: I mean she was the only woman in that field. And she was up against a lot of forces. For one, her own party didn't want her to run. They thought she would take votes away from more viable candidates like McGovern. But she also had to fight within the Congressional Black Caucus, who felt like if there was going to be a black leadership, then the first black person to run for president should be a man and not a woman. And she just did not subscribe to that patriarchal kind of politics.

CO: So she was opposed by the black political leaders of the time. But women, and white feminists, they opposed her. Why is that?

NC: Well, I think it was a couple things. I think this has been a problem with feminist organizing circles for a long time, which is women of colour can help you, they can organize with you, but you don't want them to be the leadership of those organizations. And I think this is something that we've been talking about a lot in this country with the election of Donald Trump, where white women seemed to defect from the coalition of women voters that we're going to throw their support behind Hillary Clinton. Now that's not exactly true. When we look at how white women vote, they typically vote Republican it this country and have. But I will say I think for the organizing circles at the time, whether it be Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug and those folks, I think they were making a calculated decision. And that decision was who is more likely to win the nomination, and who is more likely to take the vote all the way. And they didn't see it for Shirley Chisholm.

CO: What was the campaign like for Shirley Chisholm? I guess she even had some assassination attempts?

NC: Yes, there was an assassination attempt. I think that the trail by all accounts was brutal. She had very little party support. So her infrastructure was really kind of ramshackle when you think about it. I mean these are people who are really just invigorated volunteers who believe in Shirley Chisholm who are taking their own time and running around. And they talked about how they would have their campaign materials mysteriously lost when they would arrive somewhere. The fact that she had to fight for equal time in a Democratic debate was a large part of her campaign. So I think she was just really exhausted because it wasn't enough for her simply to know she was an underdog. But the fact that you had all of these forces kind of militating against a real challenge I think was probably hurtful because Ms. Chisholm till the very end really believed in the transformative power of democracy.

CO: The announcement that there will be a statue — a commemoration to Shirley Chisholm — comes well, at an interesting time in the politics in your country, isn't it? The mid-term elections saw historic gains by women in Congress, by minorities who are there now. What can what can they all learn — what can everyone in Congress learn from Shirley Chisholm?

NC: I think her unwavering belief in the institutions of democracy. Not in a Pollyannaish way. I mean I think she knew very clearly that the rules of the game could be rigged. But I think she believed fundamentally in these institutions as a place of correction. That if we honour and take seriously what the lawmaking body is supposed to be. And that we discharge that duty without reference to our particular politics but with a focus on doing what is the right thing, what is the ethical thing, then we can actually remedy a lot of the issues that ail the most of us. Because even though she came from a largely minority district, Shirley Chisholm really thought broadly about what the kinds of policies she supported meant for all of us. And I think she took a certain reverence in knowing that her job was to bring better lives to her constituency through service.

CO: Professor Carter, I really appreciate you telling us about Shirley Chisholm. And I look forward to seeing that statue.

NC: Thank you. And so do I.

CO: Take care. Bye bye.

NC: Have a good day. Bye bye.

JD: Niambi Carter is an associate professor of political science at Howard University in Washington, DC. That's where we reached her. If you'd like to see some photographs of Shirley Chisholm over the years, visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Ramen restaurant:

JD: "Let's eat a delicious meal at the used-car dealership" is not generally a thing people say. In fact, it may be a sentence that no one has ever uttered in English. But they say it all the time in Japanese. At least, they do in Tottori Prefecture, in the vicinity of a business called "Hot Air" — where owner Katsumi Yoshida sells used cars, and fresh ramen. Now, you might question the idea of trying to establish a top-notch restaurant in a small building where people go to haggle over the price of a dented hatchback. And you'd be in good company: because, initially, everyone questioned it. But Mr. Yoshida didn't give up. He was devoted to making good ramen, with real ingredients. So much so that he renovated the dealership to include seating, and worked tirelessly to create his ideal broth. As his wife, Kaori Yoshida, told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, quote, "He has groundless confidence that 'all things must go well,' and I had no choice but to go along with him." Unquote. Well, now, Mr. Yoshida's groundless confidence has paid off. Against all odds, Hot Air has been included in the latest Michelin Guide to restaurants in Kyoto, Osaka, and Tottori. Apparently, someone tipped a Michelin rep off that the little used-car place had good ramen. He strongly agreed. Which is how Mr. Yoshida's bifurcated business got listed as what's called a "Bib Gourmand" restaurant — which means they offer excellent food at moderate prices. Now he sells out every day; of soup, not cars. And he'll keep selling each of his products — because finally, he’s got the best of broth worlds.

[Music: Showtune]

Part three: Strand landmark, Ecole Polytechnique: Nathalie Provost

“Sounds of the Season” promo

JD: Have you ever wondered what interview Carol wishes she could do over? Or, what Carol thinks about working with me? I have. And both of us will get to hear the answers to questions like those — and more — at the special As It Happens Ask Me Anything event in Toronto tomorrow morning. It's part of the Sounds of the Season event that our colleagues at CBC Toronto put on every year. And Carol and I are going take the stage at Glenn Gould Studio here at the CBC Broadcasting centre at 10. We'll answer some of the questions you've already sent in, and answer some live ones from the audience as well — so you can get a glimpse of what it's like to make this program. So If you're in Toronto, please drop by the Gould and be a part of our audience. But we're also be live-streaming it on our Facebook page: @CBCAsItHappens at 10am Eastern.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Strand landmark

Guest: Nancy Bass Wyden

JD: If you love books, and you've visited New York, you've probably been to The Strand. The enormous, nearly century-old bookstore is famous for its slogan "18 Miles of Books" — and for the famous people who shop there. So is it a landmark? In the minds of bibliophiles, it certainly is. But when it comes to an official designation, the owner of The Strand disagrees — or at least, doesn't seek, nor want, the label. Nancy Bass Wyden is the third-generation proprietor of the bookshop. We reached her at The Strand.

CO: Nancy, before we dig into whether The Strand should be a landmark or not, would you at least concede that it's a cultural icon in New York?

NANCY BASS WYDEN: I'd like to think that. We've been around for 91 years, and we certainly act as I feel a community centre or tourist designation. And, of course, we're filled with books. And that's always a place of discovery.

CO: Can you just describe what it's like? How many books do you have?

NBW: We have about two and a half million books. Our slogan is “18 Miles of Books”. We actually measure it at one point, and it was even more than that. But we thought that 18 miles sounded just fine. But you know you first come to the store; it's in Greenwich Village, which is kind of the heart of a cultural centre and a little bit of Bohemia. We're right on the corner, and we have carts outside — just so many frontage of dollar, 48 cent, and two dollar books. So that's one of the places people will love to look. And then you come in and we have new books and used books mixed together. We also have a third floor book room which is very affordable. It's become a place where we have movies are filmed here. Presidents come here. Authors are always in. It's been in my family for 91 years. Our family mission has always been to put right books in the reader's hand.

CO: And it's that building that is iconic. As we just said it’s in Greenwich Village; built in 1902. And the city of New York wants to declare it a landmark.

NBW: Right. Add the face of it, it seems like a nice thing to do to have something be a landmark. But the reality is that it just adds bureaucracy because the city becomes a part owner in your establishment. They want to get approval. I have to give them approvals for everything that I'm going to do both internally and externally.

CO: What would that designation — being called a landmark — what would it do to The Strand?

NBW: It's just going to add more bureaucracy, unnecessary expenses, it's going to slow us down, it's going to add restrictions. I'm going to have to go through committees with things. We've never added a coffee component to the store, which our customers really want. I have to get approvals through them. And you know landmark is a good agency I believe for a building that's endangered. But you know we're in no danger of being raised by developers.

CO: So it wouldn't help The Strand at all. And you've gone one step further. You've said that by land marking The Strand, they could actually destroy a piece of New York history. I mean that's quite an irony, isn't it?

NBW: And it's really we're a political pawn. It started off with an I.T. centre — a technology hub — and the village was very unhappy about the mayor's decision and the council woman's decision to allow it without any zoning. And then, as a result, they allowed landmarks to hand-pick, cherry pick seven buildings that were safe. You know my dad worked all of his life toward establishing this bookstore. My grandfather founded it 91 years ago, and went through the Depression with it. Where it's a hard story — he even had to live in the cot in the basement of the building. And his wife died. And so my dad and his sister got sent into foster care. So it's been a lot of struggling; my dad started working here when he was 13 years old. And really have saved up for 68 years to be able to buy the building. And my dad knew eventually with almost all retail in New York the where the rents go up then the store is usually forced out.

CO: So you own the building?

NBW: Yeah, now we have the security of owning the building in a book business with low margins. We have a lot of employees. We have 238 employees. Most of them are unionized. And we really cannot afford to have anymore costs, especially when they're not necessary.

CO: Another irony you've pointed out is that this move to landmark The Strand and these other buildings that comes as Amazon has just received millions of dollars in incentives. What does that say about the city's priorities?

NBW: It's pretty mixed up. I mean we're not asking for any taxpayer-funded subsidized, no tax breaks. We're not asking for any special favour, and it's just to me seems like you know Jeff Bezos waltzes in, and you know claims he can provide jobs and they hand him through three billion dollars — the richest man in America. We just want to be left alone. We're not even asking for anything.

CO: But you went to City Hall this morning to make the arguments before the Landmarks Preservation Commission. And it's quite extraordinary, you had people like Art Spiegelman and Fran Lebowitz and Gary Shteyngart making the case with you. Do you think the city heard you today?

NBW: I think they did. I think it was a real grassroots effort. And we had red T-shirts that said “Protect The Strand, Already a Landmark”. And so many people spoke that I did not even expect — and heartfelt. And I think they really made a very, very strong case to just leave us alone.

CO: We'll be watching to see what gets decided in this case. And, of course, book lovers are not going to leave you alone that's for sure.

NBW: Thank you. I hope that. I love our community here, and I hope your listeners will come to The Strand, and just keep reading.

CO: Absolutely. Thank you, Nancy.

NBW: Thank you so much, Carol.

CO: Bye.

NBW: OK. Take care. Bye bye.

JD: Nancy Bass Wyden is the owner of The Strand bookstore in New York City.

[Music: world music]

Cyber security threat

JD: Smart home devices are becoming more and more common in Canada. And that means Canadians are going to have to get smarter about protecting themselves. That's according to the first-ever report from Canada's new Centre for Cyber Security. The centre says devices that are always connected to the internet, and always listening to you, often put convenience ahead of security. The head of the Centre, Scott Jones, addressed reporters at a press conference in Ottawa this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

SCOTT JONES: I think one of the key things in the security community what we've done is we spent our entire time scaring people. And we're purposely trying not to do that here. We're trying to get people tools that they can use to protect themselves. I often use the example when I was growing up we didn't lock our doors because you didn't have to worry about it. And then suddenly we did. We started to think Ok, it's time to lock my doors, and then you had dead bolts, and then you have a security system — things like that because we started to get concerned about breaking and entering, etcetera. We've never given the equivalent of those basic cyber security steps you can take. That's what we're trying to do with this report. Take it back to so hear the threats we face, but here's what you can do. There are things we can all do. We can make just a few decisions around when we buy something. We recently published a holiday guide as part of the Black Friday sales to say you know if you're buying some of these devices, we are absolutely saying go for it. Buy some of these things. They make your life better in some cases, but do it with some basic tips. Here's some basic things you can do. So our “Get Cyber Safe” campaign actually published that to say here's some things to consider. And, hopefully, as people take those, you slowly raise that bar, you make yourself more resilient and more secure.

JD: That's the head of the Canadian Centre for Cybersecurity, Scott Jones, speaking in Ottawa today.

[Music: Ambient]

Centre Block closing

JD: Parliament's iconic Centre Block is closing for renovations. Which means you won't be able to enjoy a tour of that historic building until they're complete — in approximately ten years. Starting in January, the House of Commons will be temporarily located in the newly repaired West Block. Staff and MPs have been slowly packing up for the move. And all the art, artifacts, and mementos in the Centre Block are being carefully relocated too. There is, however, one person is staying put — for a few years, anyway. This morning, she spoke with Robyn Bresnhan, host of "Ottawa Morning".

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREA MCCRADY: Hello, my name is Andrea McCrady, I’m the Dominion Carillonneur. I play the bells of the Peace Tower. And we are currently up in the planning.

[Sound: Bells]

AM: We certainly are. So we are currently in the playing room for the carillon, which is about two-thirds of the way up the tower. If anyone is sitting in this room as a guest, and they look out the window of the room, they see a dark wall because we are literally embedded in the belfry. I can't see my audience. They can't see me. But they certainly can hear me. Now, you just heard the clock chime — those four bells are part of the carillon. They're just immediately above this room. They're big bells, and they're being struck by big hammers on the outside of them — driven by a great rolling drum down on the fifth level of the tower that connects to the clock mechanism. And then the hour is struck on the biggest bell, which is called the Borden. The six largest bells are right below this room, including the Borden. And the Borden — one bell — weighs over ten metric tons.

ROBYN BRESNHAN: How big is that?

AM: Oh, what did they say? Two African elephants, I don't know? You can fit about six people inside it.

RB: Wow!

AM: It's our big bell.

RB: No kidding! Who cleans those?

AM: They don't need to be clean. They're made of bronze; bronze last millennia.

RB: Now, when this big move takes place, everybody is going to be packing up, leaving Centre Block. You’re so going to be coming here to play. Was there ever any talk about you moving as well?

AM: I, of course, had no clue in 2008 when I took the job what was going to happen on the Hill. When I heard Centre Block was going to close for a decade, I said well the Peace Tower carillon cannot be silent for a decade. Not only is that just really sad, but would somebody say who needs a player after that? Why don't we just put in a computer? And I said I don't want to be known as the last Dominion Carillonneur. The House of Commons Administration has been very supportive of this. They don't want it to be silent either. So my line was if the flag master can put up the flag, I can come up the tower and play. And I may have to wear hardhat and steel-toed boots to get here. But we will do it as long as it's logistically possible. I've been told that at least through 2021 maybe 2022. There is a very important date coming up: July 1^st, 2027. That is the one hundredth anniversary of the Peace Tower and it's carillon. And the House Administration has told the planners you must make sure the carillon is in its best possible playing condition for that date.

JD: That was Andrea McCrady. She's been the Dominion Carillonneur of Canada since 2008. She spoke with Robyn Bresnahan this morning on CBC Radio's "Ottawa Morning".

[Music: Guitar]

École Polytechnique: Nathalie Provost

JD: On this day in 1989, Nathalie Provost was shot multiple times at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. She survived. But 14 women were killed in that massacre by shooter Marc Lepine. Just days after the shooting, Ms. Provost, then a 23-year-old student, spoke with "As It Happens" host Michael Enright from her hospital bed. It was December 11th, 1989 — and she was watching the funeral for her classmates on television

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Was it a help to you in your grief to watch the funeral on television?

NATHALIE PROVOST: Yes, because now it's reality. You know it was a bad dream for me. Now, it’s a reality. It was a way for me to say goodbye to all of my friends — a real goodbye.

ME: As you watched the funeral, and you saw all those people there, obviously you must have thought about your friends. Did you think of them in happy times? What kind of images did you have of your friends?

NP: I had such marvellous images of them. They were beautiful girls, they were intelligent girls, they were girls with a high potential, and it’s in that way that I will remember them.

ME: Have you had a chance to think about yourself, about your own future?

NP: Yes, I will try to make my future as normal as possible. I will try to complete my dream, and to make my dream true. But then I would like to be better to try to create this world. I dream of a world where respect of the humanity of life is a big thing.

ME: The question I have though is that after you've gone through the nightmare, and you saw your friends today being buried at mass, you still believe in the world?

NP: Inside of each people there is good. After the shot of hate that I had, I had a shot of love, you know? I feel it. And I hope that all of my friends that have been hurt receive it — a shot of love.

JD: That was Nathalie Provost in 1989 from her hospital bed. She was speaking to our former host, Michael Enright. In September, nearly three decades after that conversation, we called Ms. Provost again. Here's an encore presentation of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Nathalie, as you listen to yourself on that day five days after the shooting at the school, and you're 23 years old at that time, what is it like when you hear yourself? How do you react?

NP: I'm so amazed. I don't know where I found this strength? Almost 30 years after that, hearing how wise, how calm, or how hopeful I was at 23 years old. I'm amazed. And I remember how that was really what I thought at the moment.

CO: Is it still what you think?

NP: Oh, life is tough experience. I don't know if hope is so strong now? And I don't know if I still have so much love in my heart.

CO; That day of the funeral, I was there in front of the cathedral covering it as a journalist. It was freezing, freezing cold, and the cathedral was overflowing into the streets and down into the old Montreal — everywhere people in the cold. As you know, nine of the women were part of that funeral. Nine white hearses, nine white coffins went into the cathedral. What was it like when you looked at that? When you were watching that scene that at the time was so filled with pain?

NP: I think it was my real first contact with the reality of it. Because what I've been through on December 6th was a quick, crazy moment. And I was not totally conscious of what was happening. I know it was awful. And I thought for a long moment that I would become crazy because of what I've been through. So looking at those coffins, looking at the crowd, looking at the church, I think for the first time I was not in contact with what happened to me, but with what happened to us. And you know from December 6th to I think it was December 11^th — just five days after. For me, it's something like a long, long day — never ending day. That week was the craziest week of my life. And I was out of time. I quit Polytechnic, and was on a hospital bed, and I haven't even stand up before the funeral. So I understand that I'm a bit disconnected because it's very disconnecting even that I've been through.

CO: Within the city, in Montreal, the entire city was in this state of grieving. And on the street and the metro, people would cry and people couldn't even have conversations. It was so much pain going. Another emotion that was really strong in the city at that time was anger. And you heard it from people even who were at the funeral. They were angry at men. There were memorials in which women didn't want men to take part. There was this anger toward men. They saw Marc Lepine, the shooter, as being just an example of what men are. Did you feel that at the time? Did you know about that anger, and feel any of it yourself?

NP: I think I heard something on the radio, you know I think it was December 7th. I was hearing a radio playing while I was waiting for a surgery. There was some men saying that Marc Lepine did good. That woman take too much place. So it just opened a lid on something that was not going really well. So it was just like the boiling point, you know? Everything was exploding because things were not going well. And people were just repeating that I said that we were not feminists, and feminists were feeling so bad about that because they felt rejected. And people used what I said. Some people said oh, poor girl. And some other men said oh yes, but she said she's not. So I understand that anger. I felt that anger. It took me a long, long, long time to overcome it. But I was not ready just a few days after to go to anger. I was just alive. And I didn't have the energy to live anger.

CO: You said at that time, and you just referred to it, that when Marc Lepine was on his rampage through the school that you came face-to-face with him. And you said to him we are not feminists; we're engineers. He said he had come hunting feminists. He was going to kill them. You said we’re not; we’re engineers.

NP: We were only students studying in engineering. And you can come in engineering. We're not taking your place. Come with us. Yes. But you know almost 30 years after, it something like a myth what I said because I don't have clear memory of that. But I know he told us that he was there because he was against feminist. And then he shoot.

CO: You're trying to reason with a killer. You’re trying to reason with someone who is completely irrational at that moment.

NP: Yes, but I didn’t know that.

CO: You were trying to negotiate to save lives at that moment.

NP: Yes, that’s what I tried. I reacted. I have not analyzed what I was doing. He said something. For me, it was wrong. And I just tell him no.

CO: Just a few days later, when you spoke with Michael Enright, you spoke of that you felt this respect for every human being, you still believed that inside all people there was something good. When you hear that, when you remember how good your heart was, how much love you had in your heart. Where do you think you got that strength?

NP: I think it's a gift. I was born with a piece of it for sure. I think also that I received so much love in the hospital. I received so much love from my family, my friends, my teachers, that my own capacity to enjoy life was multiplied by that. So I took it, and that became my base for recovery. But that capacity to feel love and to receive love, I think it was something that helped me.

CO: And do you still have that capacity?

NP: I don't know? I hope? But life is difficult, and it's tough to keep faith when you meet injustice, craziness. I had a discussion a year ago with my four kids, and I tried to the best I can to give them my will to live. And they told me Mama, look at what's happening in the environment. Look what's happening in this society. Look what's happening with the difference between the poor and the rich. Look at our own future. We don't know if we will have a better life than you. And I understand that. They are very in French we say lucid. So I don't think I would react in the same way tomorrow if something like that happened to me.

CO: Over these 30 years since that day when you encountered Marc Lepine, how do you reflect on what happened now. How has it changed you, and changed the way you see things over these decades?

NP: Oh, you know as I say scientist, I say I don't have any comparison point. I cannot imagine what I would have been without it in my life. So personally, I don't know the way it changed me. I think it quickens some processes that were inside me. And it slows some others. But my feeling now is that we are what we are. We are born with some capacity with some energy with some values. And that's what's creating the adult we will become. And for our society, I think it was just the beginning of something You know the distress inside the heart of Marc Lepine that brings in doing it. I think that there is just more people that can express this today. And I think that our world is tougher than it was. So Marc Lepine was just the beginning of something. And so our society didn't improve in 30 years on taking care of those who suffer.

CO: You know there's one other voice that we've finally heard from years later that was the mother of Marc Lepine, who finally wrote a book and spoke about her experiences, and what she went through, and her grief. As a mother, do you ever think about her and wonder what she's going through?

NP: I raised two boys, so yes, she was in my heart. And I can't imagine what she's been through. Her destiny is really, really, really hard. And again, I think she was powerless to change the course of the event. She did her best, as every parent does. But she received an awful gift. She just have to live with it, and to forgive herself, and maybe forgive her son too. I don't know?

CO: You know Nathalie, I still hear that same young woman who was in the hospital bed with a heart full of compassion for others. I can still hear that. Whatever else you think has happened in 30 years, she's still with us today.

NP: Probably. I'm the same. I'm just older.

CO: I feel that I have opened up a lot of pain for you in these questions, and I thank you so much for being so generous with us and your thoughts today.

NP: It's not pain. You're just talking to me at a period in my life where I have to close this book to understand. To say OK, that's where I was. That's what happened to me. And today, what do I do with it? So I'm sensitive, fragile, but it's not painful. My emotions are just on my skin. I don't need a lot to open my heart, and to connect with those emotions.

CO: And I thank you so much for sharing them with us. I think it matters to a lot of people to hear your voice.

NP: Thank you.

CO: Thank you, Nathalie. Bye bye.

NP: Bye.

JD: That is an encore of Carol's September interview with Nathalie Provost, who survived the Ecole Polytechnique shooting in Montreal 29 years ago today.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 06, 2018 full episode transcript

More Stories Like This