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 2019

The AIH Transcript for May 27, 2019

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: The centre did not hold. But while traditional middle ground parties suffered major losses in the European Union elections, the Green Party made major gains across the continent.

JD: Extremely elevated risk. So far this season, 11 people have died on Mount Everest. Our guest blames a deadly combination of overcrowding, bad weather, and climber inexperience.

CO: These fuel-ish things. A University of Regina professor had a simple question for her school: what oil and gas companies were funding its research? But since it won't tell her, things have become complicated.

JD: Men overboard. ownership problems and maritime laws leave two crew members stranded on a container ship that has been in the Port of Quebec for more than two years.

CO: Land recognition. Too much scientific research has a bias toward the surprising. So a new journal has taken an interest only in studies with uninteresting results.

JD: And… pail-less by comparison. When we last spoke with Lord Buckethead, he was running for office in the UK. But as we will hear, the man under that giant helmet has since cleared his head.

JD: As It Happens the Monday edition. Radio that calls up guests at the drop of a hat.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: EU vote: Germany, oil and gas professor, Lord Buckethead

EU vote: Germany

Guest: Terry Reintke

JD: Germany is looking a lot more green today. Before the European Union elections, it was expected that far-right parties would make significant gains. And traditional centrist parties did lose a lot of seats. But in Germany especially, it was the Green Party that siphoned off the votes. And across the continent, the Greens elected a record number of MEPs — making them possible kingmakers. Terry Reintke is a German Green MEP and we reached her in Brussels.

CO: Ms. Reintke, first of all, congratulations.

TERRY REINTKE: Thank you.

CO: Why do you think so many people in Germany came out to support the Greens this time around?

TR: As you know, we have a lot of mobilization at the moment around climate change. Young people going to the streets, pupils who are skipping school to say we need to do something about the climate crisis. And that has certainly given us a very good starting point. But also when we talk about other topics, I think we just managed to really come across as a very credible force in standing up for what we believe in.

CO: Why do you think though that the main parties in Germany — the traditional parties; the Christian Democratic Union or the Social Union — why couldn't they exploit that? Wasn't it obvious that in the months leading up to this election that young people especially wanted to hear strong ideas about dealing with climate? Why do you think they didn't capitalize on that?

TR: Well, because I think young people want to hear strong demands on climate, but they also want to see strong action. And when you look at the track record — both in the European Parliament as well as in the German government — a lot of people are disappointed with what the government has been doing. I think that was also one of the reasons why they turned to us because they felt that we are really going to put the things that we are now saying into action. And that made the difference for us.

CO: You stand — the Greens stand — to have a fair bit of influence in the European government at this point because it's so fractured, isn't it? There's no clear bloc that has all the influence. So what do you think? Who are the likely allies for the Greens in Europe at this point? What parties do you see yourselves lining up with?

TR: Well, you know it's interesting because we have very, very controversial and intense negotiations ahead of us. And five years ago, when I was elected to the European Parliament for the first time, basically the two big blocs — the Social Democrats and the Conservatives — they basically neglected us. They didn't care about what we wanted. And now with this big Green wave that we have seen in so many European countries, and we are suddenly a player that they cannot really get across without talking to us, and having serious negotiations. So I'm hopeful that they will take our demands into consideration. And we are going to negotiate with all pro-European forces, with our democratic forces, and then we will see what comes out of it. But one thing is absolutely clear: we really put our demands first. You know we don't care so much about who is going to get into which position, but we really want to change policies. And that's going to be our absolute priority in the negotiations with the other parties.

CO: You saw the Green Party in Germany come in second place — a very solid second place. In France, the Green Party pulled off quite a surprise and came in third. You saw gains in… well in Ireland, gains in votes in Belgium, in Brussels, a strong Green showing there. But I'm wondering why do you think Greens won only two seats in all of Central Europe — both in Austria and none in the east and south?

TR: Well, we have seats in Lithuania and Latvia. But, indeed, if you look at the map, there is a structural challenge for us , especially in eastern and central Europe. We don't have very strong institutionalized parties there. And we can see that then it’s much, much more difficult for us. Even when there is movement from the civil society to materialize that into actual votes, and that's definitely something that will be a priority for the next five years for us internally to work on. Because obviously, in the long run, we want to be a pan-European strong Green movement and we will put a lot of effort into doing that.

CO: But on the other hand, you do have to face that though the far-right parties did not make the big gains that they were anticipating or thinking they would get. But they did quite well, especially in Italy. And Matteo Salvini's League had a strong showing. What does that say to you?

TR: Well, we certainly have concerning election results in Italy and France still and also in Belgium, in Flanders for example. But at the same time, I mean this big surge that they were hoping for becoming maybe the second or the third strongest group in the European Parliament, that didn't happen. And that's good news I would say. At the same time, I think what we really have to look at is obviously what is happening in the far right, and are they growing in certain member states? But also what our centre-right parties — Conservative parties — are doing faced with that. We have seen in a couple of member states where centre-right parties were moving towards forming coalitions with the extreme-right. And I think that's the exact wrong answer because we really have to make clear that they are not just parties like any other. They are parties that stand up against the democratic consensus in European societies. They stand up against certain groups of people. And that's something that we will not go into coalition with, but that we will resist and stand up against.

CO: But aren't you also going to see resistance to the green agenda? And given that environmental measures that we saw in France, for instance, the yellow vest movement turned against that. And that other efforts to deal with fossil fuels, to deal with changes that might affect people's incomes they've been met with a great deal of resistance. I mean aren't you going to have a hard time with your agenda in Europe?

TR: Well, I think we were not take it lightly what is going to happen in the next weeks. So we see that there are a lot of challenges ahead. And obviously, the question of how we can create a policy, an environmental policy, a climate policy that is not basically making it more difficult, especially for low income households, is going to be our priority. But let me say that I don't think that that is going to be the only opposition that we are going to face. Here in Brussels, we have a lot of big lobby organizations not only from the energy sector, but also especially from the agricultural sector. They are still very influential institutions here. So the next weeks are certainly not going to be easy. We had one night of celebration now. And now, it's for us to get to work and to actually put the things that we have been demanding in the campaign into practice.

CO: All right. We will leave. A lot of people are watching, Ms. Reintke. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

TR: Thank you.

CO: Bye.

TR: Bye.

JD: Terry Reintke is a German Green MEP — Member of European Parliament. We reached her in Brussels.

[Music: Ambient]

Oil and gas professor

Guest: Emily Eaton

JD: Emily Eaton thought she was making a simple request. In 2017, the associate professor at the University of Regina wanted to know which oil and gas corporations were funding research at the university. And so she did something fairly simple: she asked. But the school refused to tell her. And about a year-and-a-half later, she's locked in a legal battle to try to get that information. We reached Emily Eaton in Regina.

CO: Professor Eaton, what first tweaked your interest into oil and gas funding at the University of Regina?

EMILY EATON: Well, I'm part of a larger research project that's looking at the power and influence of carbon extractive companies in Western Canada. So as part of that research, I'm looking at how that plays out at post-secondary institutions.

CO: So it was just a fairly routine request that led you to try to find out what the funding was for research at U of Regina.

EE: Yes, it was my first stop. And I wanted to just get a very broad sense of what was happening, what kind of research was being done, and who was funding it.

CO: Okay, so what information were you looking for?

EE: I was asking for four pieces of information related to all research grants and contracts at the university. And those pieces of information were: the funder, the amount of funding, the title of the grant, and the unit that was receiving the grant on campus.

CO: Okay, pretty straightforward. So how did the university respond?

EE: Well, I was very surprised. First, they narrowed my request to a few keywords related to oil and gas and carbon capture and climate change. And then they informed me that under the act — the local area Freedom of Information and Protection Act — they were going to deny me two pieces of the four categories of information I had requested.

CO: And what were the pieces that they were refusing?

EE: They were refusing the names of the funders, and the units that were receiving the grants.

CO: Okay, pretty key two parts of your research. [laughs]

EE: Absolutely.

CO: And so did they not give… I mean what did you do next as far as trying to get this information?

EE: Well, there's a process where you can you can challenge a decision. So I did that through the Privacy Commissioner in Saskatchewan. And that took many months. And they came back with the recommendation that the university release all the information to me.

CO: Okay. And so then what happened.

EE: The Privacy Commissioner, unfortunately, can't compel, they can only recommend. And so the university replied that they disagreed with the privacies interpretation of the act — even though, of course, the Privacy Commissioner is the expert in the act.

CO: Okay, so at this point, where you starting to think what are they hiding?

EE: I was starting to think what are they hiding. I mean I thought it was a very simple request. And the fact that they were going to such lengths to deny this to me made me very suspicious.

CO: Okay, and did it make you say okay, I guess there's no point in pursuing this, I'll go away. Or did it do the opposite?

EE: Well, I actually did consider letting it go away. I had only 30 days to file my appeal with the court. And I knew it was going to cost a lot of money and be a long battle. And so I was almost discouraged, but at the very last minute, I just said I can't let them get away with basically thumbing their nose at the legislation.

CO: Where is this now your efforts to get this information?

EE: So we did file the appeal in January with the Court of Queen's Bench. After that, the university submitted an application to have the hearings held behind closed door and with confidentially submitted arguments so neither side would hear the other side's arguments. And the judge would make a decision in private. And so we had to first go to court to argue that the proceeding should be held in public. And we won that first court date. So now we're waiting to hear when our substantive hearing will be. And we're hoping that that'll be in July or August or early in the fall.

CO: Good heavens! And how are you funding this?

EE: Yes, well, the research itself was going to be funded. But, of course, not an expensive legal battle, and so I started a GoFundMe campaign, and I've had quite a bit of success with that because I think academics from across the country and members of the public really understand that the research that is done in public institutions should not be done in secret.

CO: Now, the University of Regina argues that this information releasing it would expose confidential details about the research itself. Is that not a fair concern?

EE: Well, I wasn't asking for the results of the research. So it's a confidential detail about the research who is funding it? And that's what we're going to find out through the courts. But if the courts do allow this to be held private and confidential, then we're basically saying that the university can engage in partnerships in secret. And I don't think that that's a road that we want to go down. And as a public institution, I think these very most basic details should be made available to the public.

CO: What happens at other universities that are getting the money from oil and gas or from other corporate interests? I know the University of Calgary has been under scrutiny a number of times for the influence that oil and gas financing to there their school may have influenced things. So what are the scrutiny is there that can you can compare this to?

EE: Well, this is important because universities are public institutions. And I think as they're being less and less funded by governments, they're open to increasing their partnerships with private interests. And I think that as we've seen in the case of the University of Calgary, that can have a real impact on research trajectories and even on what types of things get taught in different departments and faculties. So I think you know it's really important that universities maintain some degree of disclosure to the public about these partnerships because we need to be able to scrutinize them and ask questions about whose interests both teaching and research are serving.

CO: So they have to be transparent. Otherwise, I mean already there are questions asked about how the sources of money might be influencing things. But if you don't even know who's giving the money, it really puts you in a bind, doesn't it?

EE: That's right. In this case, if we don't get a positive decision from the court, research we'll be allowed to be conducted in complete secrecy at the university.

CO: This is now two years you've been doing this. So what drives you on? Why is this so important to you?

EE: Well, I think again the fact that the Privacy Commissioner can't compel I think is a really big barrier to private citizens who want access to information. And because I was in the position of being able to mobilize sort of networks across the country, I felt like you know it was important for me to take this on.

CO: All right. We will be following your efforts, Professor Eaton. Thank you.

EE: Thanks for having me on.

JD: Emily Eaton is an associate professor in the University of Regina's Geography and Environmental Studies Department. We reached her in Regina. In a statement, the University of Regina told As It Happens, quote, "Often, University researchers are conducting work that is unique, sensitive, controversial, confidential, and potentially proprietary in nature. Releasing information related to some research activities could put research at risk, and undermine competitiveness both for the University and its researchers." Unquote.

[Music: Banjo]

New York Times correction

JD: Usually, New York Times corrections involve simple misspellings or minor factual errors. For example, this one, posted yesterday. Quote: "An article on Page 26 this weekend about 'The View' misstates Lis Smith's role in Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign. She is his communications adviser, not his campaign manager." Or this one, probably the result of thousands of emails from furious, panicky heavy metal fans. Quote: "An article last Sunday about the Verde Valley wine region in Arizona misstated the status of Maynard Keenan, the lead singer of the alt-metal band Tool. Mr. Keenan remains active in the band." Unquote. So kind of standard stuff — you know the kind of stuff that probably elicited an "oops" from the original reporter. And then there's the odd correction that seems like it was probably more embarrassing for whomever wrote the article. In this case, that's Times op-ed writer Timothy Egan, who wrote a column entitled "The Comeback of the Century". The column was about the return of actual books, in an era of supposedly shortened attention spans. And here's the correction. Quote, "An earlier version of this article misattributed a quotation. The lines, 'We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race,' were said by a character in the movie 'Dead Poets Society,' not by Walt Whitman." Unquote.

[Music: Bluegrass swing]

Lord Buckethead

Guest: Jon Harvey

JD: In politics, two years can be a lifetime. And in British politics — especially over the last two years — it's like several millennia. But try, if you can, casting your mind back to 2017. It was the general election in the UK. And we called up an intergalactic space lord vying for a seat in Maidenhead against Theresa May. It wasn't Lord Buckethead's first time on the ballot. He had taken on former prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major. And two years ago, Carol asked if he was the same candidate from those past races. Here's what he had to say:

SOUNDCLIP

LORD BUCKETHEAD: I am Buckethead. We are Buckethead. We are legion. Does that answer your question?

CO: Not really. But maybe you can tell us what Buckethead is?

LB: We’re getting quite philosophical now. But I like the fact that you said it didn’t answer the question. Most British interviewers are too polite, and they simply say yes, and they move on. But your right, my last comment doesn't answer the question, does it? But never mind.

JD: Now we do have an answer to that question. The man behind that mask was British comedian Jon Harvey. We reached him in London.

CO: John, welcome back to the program.

JOHN HARVEY: Thanks so much for having me, Carol. It’s nice to be back on the show.

CO: When I spoke to you last time, I asked you if I could call you Lord buckethead? I understand they can no longer ask you if I may call you Lord buckethead.

JH: Well, I think it's safe to say that I am not Lord buckethead. But I was. I'm the guy who took on Theresa May in the 2017 election, and lost narrowly by 31,469 votes.

CO: [laughs] But you had 249 votes to your name, right?

JH: Yes, yes, which is which doesn't sound like a lot, but I was worried it would be zero. And it was a Buckethead record. The other guys who stood in in the past had only mustered about 100 each. So it was certainly progress.

CO: And, of course, it was worth it wasn't it just to have that photograph of this scene. Can you describe yourself with Theresa May that photo — what’s that from?

JH: I just assumed that that's all that would happen is I'd at that photo. No one would know it was me. And then it would vanish into insignificance and that would be the end of it. But I would be able to then you know do some comedy or whatever and be able to say to people oh, by the way, that was me. I think the fact that it happened in the Internet age is what made it go viral. Added to the fact that this time round when I did it, I actually went the whole hog, and I had a manifesto, I had election broadcasts, music videos, I went to the hustings, you know I went the whole hog.

CO: Just described the photo though for people haven't seen it.

JH: So basically, it's like a line up — like the usual suspects — of all the candidates in the local constituency. And at one end, you've got British Prime Minister Theresa May. On the other end, you've got someone dressed up as Elmo from Sesame Street. And in the middle, you've got this guy dressed up as a sort of ridiculous Darth Vader clone with a bucket on his head.

CO: [laughs] Which is you.

JH: Which was me. [laughs]

CO: Now, the story of it is from the film world. This is a film called “Gremloids”, right? From 1984 — a kind of budget Darth Vader character named Lord Buckethead, and that's who you're playing.

JH: Yeah, it's a sort of low budget Star Wars parody. And this character who I believe in the film he's only actually called the leader, but in the credits, he's called Lord Buckethead. But it was the fact that after I watched the film, and I read the trivia online, and it said did you know that someone had dressed up as this character and taken on Margaret Thatcher in the 1987 general election? I was like what?! Went online, and there he is. You can find it on YouTube. And then it said did you know someone dressed up as him in 1992 and took on Prime Minister John Major in Huntington? I was like what?! There he is again. And so that's when I thought wouldn't it be funny to bring him back? And it was only when Theresa May, in her infinite wisdom, called that snap election in 2017, which she didn't need to do. And me and a couple of friends thought oh, let's give it a whirl. [dry laugh]

CO: Just to make it clear for people who have not seen Lord Buckethead or “Gremloids”, it’s a buckethead, but it looks more like a stovepipe, right? I mean it's a tall bucket that you're wearing on your head with a little slit for eyes.

JH: Yeah, I mean this is sort of elongated bucket type thing. A long black tube really. With minimal visual ability at all; I could barely see a thing in it. It was just made of cardboard with a sort of vinyl outer. Not much ventilation either, so it wasn't much fun to be inside. I've got asthma for a start, but it was worth it for the comedy. [dry laugh]

CO: All right, so now let's get to why you cannot be Lord Buckethead anymore.

JH: Well, I mean in a sense, it's simply the fact that obviously the character pre-existed. And I was claiming to have created this character.

CO: So Lord Birkenhead is dead. Long live Lord Buckethead. Who is Lord Buckethead now?

JH: I guess that's not really for me to say. I believe it's controlled by this American guy. He's the creator of the original film. Because I’ve stepped away, it's not really for me to say, I guess.

CO: So Hollywood has taken back Lord Buckethead?

JH: [laughs] Well, I mean you could say it's gone back to where it belongs in the sense that it's being run by the guy who originally created him I guess.

CO: All right, now we’ll go to Theresa May, who has resigned. Does it seem that you — Lord Buckethead and Theresa May you basically had parallel careers. And you sort of starting and ending in the same place.

JH: Yes, exactly. Although, I mean I'm sure Theresa would agree with me that this isn't the beginning of the end, but surely just the end of the beginning. [laugh] And I'm sure she is destined for great things — maybe the president of the EU, who knows. But yeah, you know it's funny to be repeating myself, so to speak, just as she is heading for the exit door. Yeah, it's weird timing, but quite fun.

CO: You have been in politics as Lord Buckethead in a period of madness in UK and British politics. I mean you couldn't have chosen a more bizarre time to be there.

JH: Yeah, exactly. It's almost like you can barely notice him right, amongst all others.

CO: It just seems sort of okay, whatever. What did you learn about politics in the course of being Lord Buckethead?

JH: Do you know what? I mean one of the things I learned is it's a real relief to know that British politics still has space for this kind of thing. Because you know we do live in quite strange times. And I think it's one of the most wonderful things about British democracy. The fact that once every four or five years — or whenever there is a general election — these powerful people, the MPs, ministers, even the prime minister, they have to go back to their local town and stand in a village hall or church hall on a pokey little stage amongst other members of the public who've chosen to stand against them for election. And that ultimately, they're all facing the same judgement. There is something fantastic about that. And it doesn't matter whether you wear a suit or you wear a bucket on your head or a clown costume or you dressed as Elmo or a fish finger as one person did that that there is this right that we have to do this. There's something really special about it. And it was tricky to do, but the fact that in 2017, and hopefully in the future as well, that people are able to express their democratic right in this way was really special. And that's something I'll always remember.

CO: And if we can't laugh about this and have a sense of humour about it, we're going to go mad.

JH: Well yeah, exactly right. As you say, some of the other candidates they’re mad enough as it is. So who's going to notice another madman, right?

CO: John, it’s great to talk to you. Thank you.

JH: You too, Carol. All the best.

CO: Bye.

JD: British comedian Jon Harvey is the man — or was the man — behind the 2017 candidacy of one Lord Buckethead in the British general election. He is, alas, Buckethead no longer. We reached Mr. Harvey in London.

[Music: Show tune]

Part two: Everest climber, boring journal

Everest climber

Guest: Alan Arnette

JD: The Everest climbing season is almost over. But it's been the deadliest one in five years. Today, it was reported that an American had died on his descent — bringing the total number to 11 deaths in almost as many days. Photos of hundreds of climbers caught in a dangerous traffic jam near the summit are raising concerns over overcrowding. But over the weekend, the Nepali government said that climber congestion isn't the only problem. Alan Arnette is a mountaineering expert who climbed Everest in 2011, and now runs an Everest blog. We reached him in Fort Collins, Colorado.

CO: Allen, I'm sure you saw that mind-boggling photo of that snake of people trying to make the summit on Everest. What did you think when you saw that?

ALAN ARNETTE: You know Carol, when I saw that I was shocked. I've been on Everest four times. I've summited at once. And you know it's the world's mountain that people love to hate. And this gives people another reason not to like it.

CO: Why do you think that so many people were trying to get up at that particular time? Why was there such overcrowding at that particular moment?

AA: You know, it's a combination. This particular year while it was unusual it was not unheard of. And there were basically three factors that all came together, especially on May 23rd. The first is that the Jetstream — the winds that are above 120 miles an hour in the atmosphere — they sit on top of Mount Everest almost all year long. And the winds have to be under 30 miles an hour before people go to the top. Otherwise, it's really suicide. Last year, there were 11 straight days. This year, there were about five.

CO: But if there’s only less than half the number of days that are good, were the same number of permits issued from people to summit?

AA: Yeah, that's exactly the point is that the Nepal government has no limits on the number of permits that they issue. And this year, they issued a record 381 permits to foreigners, along with a rule that you have to hire a Sherpa guide to go with you. So that was close to 800 people that were on the mountain trying to squeeze into five days.

CO: Good heavens! And so okay, we've seen a record — at least the record in five years — eleven deaths on Everest this year. Is it exclusively because of the overcrowding?

AA: You know, that's what's being popularly talked about throughout the press and the media. But as I looked at the 11 deaths — and, by the way, every one of those as tragic — it’s a person that had a lifelong dream to do this. And they died on their attempt, but when I look at the eleven deaths, I only attribute four of the eleven to the crowds. So what happens is that when you're 8,000 metres, it’s called the Death Zone. And what that simply means is that your body is slowly degrading. And so you get into this deadly morbid game of trying to go from the high camp at 26,000 feet to the summit and back down as quickly as you can before your body gives out. And if you have this number of people all squeezing into the same day, and you run into the traffic jam as there was in this picture of the Hillary Step, then you have people jostling to go up and down at the same time. And this year, it resulted in a two to three hour delay. So you take somebody that really didn't have the experience, they've never climbed an 8,000 metre mountain before, you're with perhaps a guide that doesn't have a lot of experience or doesn't recognize the signs of altitude sickness, then you have this toxic combination of too many people, too short of a time, too little experience, and it all comes together to create this environment.

CO: Okay, now there are also talks about how the tours, the groups that are taking the sumitors up, don't have the right equipment or don't have equipment that's good enough for what they're doing. Is that true?

AA: Well, there's a new market force that's come in the last several years of operators that are offering Everest at let's say 30,000 dollars, instead of the traditional 45,000 to 60,000 dollars. And one of the ways that they are able to offer it for half price is that they pay their staff less and they buy second hand gear. These shortcuts all translate into a lower price, but it truly has become a buyer beware market of who you climb with on Everest.

CO: So if the price has come down, if there’s this sort of cut rate advantage that they're giving to some people, does that increase the numbers of people who think oh, that's not a bad price. I think I'm going to cross this one off my bucket list?

AA: Absolutely, it's the same phenomenon that we see in air travel. And what happens is that these individuals… and you know certainly is unfair to generalize to everyone. But you'll have people that say you know I can pull together 30,000 dollars to go climb Mt. Everest; it’s a lifelong dream. But they don't have enough money to have invested the years to gain the experience. So they don't know what they don't know. In many of these cases that have died this year from altitude-related issues independent of the crowds. Those individuals either should have had the personal responsibility to turn themselves around or they should have been with the proper support that would recognized that they needed to turn around, not go higher.

CO: But you know yourself, if people this is some lifelong dream, they're going to do it, they're going to reach the summit. I mean is it really something you can rely on individuals to do to make those choices? Shouldn't there be restrictions on who is even allowed to make these treks?

AA: There's a phenomenon called summit fever, where an individual is near the summit, and they may recognize that they're a trouble, but they also say you know, I've invested years and tens of thousands of dollars. I'm so close. What could go wrong? And the problem is at that altitude your judgment becomes impaired. So you're making bad decisions, bad choices. That's why it's imperative that you go with people that are better than you, that had the experience that can turn you around even as difficult as that may be. At this point, if you don't have that experience, you just simply don't know. And we saw a lot of that this year. And, unfortunately, that trend is increasing.

CO: Alan, it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

AA: Thank you.

JD: Alan Arnette summited Everest in 2011, and follows the climbing season on his blog. We reached Mr. Arnette in Fort Collins, Colorado.

[Music: Electronica]

Hawaii hiker

JD: It was supposed to be a short trail walk. Instead, Amanda Eller spent 17 days lost in a Hawaii forest reserve. The 35-year-old physical therapist and yoga instructor was rescued on Friday. She survived by drinking from streams, and eating wild plants and moths. At night, she covered herself in ferns, leaves, and mud. Although the official search ended after three days, Ms. Eller's family and friends raised funds to continue it, bolstered by volunteers. After a dramatic helicopter rescue, Amanda Eller thanked those volunteers from her hospital bed.

SOUNDCLIP

AMANDA ELLER: The last 17 days of my life have been the toughest in my life. [breaking down] And it's been a really significant spiritual journey that I was guided on. And there were times of total fear and loss and wanting to give up. And it did come down to life and death, and I had to choose. And I chose life. I wasn’t going to take the easy way out. Even though that meant more suffering and pain for myself. But this is just like a tiny little blip of my story and my life. And it serves a much, much bigger purpose. And seeing in the way that the community of Maui came together, people that know me, people that don't know me, all came together just under the idea of helping one person make it out of the woods alive, just warms my heart. And just seeing the power of prayer and the power of love, when everybody combined their efforts, is incredible. It can move mountains.

JD: Amanda Eller spent 17 days in the Hawaii wilderness, before being rescued last Friday.

[Music: World music]

Boring journal

Guest: Andrea Menclova

JD: As we most definitely hope you're aware, at As It Happens we work hard to tell you only about studies that are extremely fascinating and interesting. Obviously, If it wasn't fascinating and interesting, why would we waste your time with it? Well, a group of researchers thinks boring studies are not a waste of time. To prove it, they've just launched a new journal called The Series of Unsurprising Results in Economics, or SURE. And its mission is simple: to only publish research with findings that are very, very boring. Andrea Menclova is the editor of the Sure Journal, and an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury. We reached her in Christchurch, New Zealand.

CO: Andrea, why on earth would you want to put out a journal full of dull research?

ANDREA MENCLOVA: [laugh] Well, I think science has a problem. And it's a problem with publication bias. And so because we believe that a lot of the other journals are biased in the other direction towards publishing attractive, catchy, strong, statistically significant results, we kind of want to fill up the void and publish results that are the opposite of that, unsurprising, weaker, you know statistically insignificant, not conclusive, and so on.

CO: And so the research — the boring research — that you would have in your publication, which is the Series of Unsurprising Results in Economics or SURE, these are results that didn't prove anything sensational, nothing sexy, nothing unusual. And so what happens when people do that kind of important research? Why is it so difficult to get that published?

AM: So it's important to realize first that our careers can depend quite crucially on publishing papers and publishing them in good journals. And so oftentimes, after finding a research question, reading up on other people's work, thinking about the methods carefully, getting data, cleaning it, and so on. Months into the projects, people finally get results which are outside of their control — or should be outside of their control. And whoops! The results are not striking. And so oftentimes, people just give up at that point. And they move on, they move onto a different project, or if they are brave enough, and actually write this up and try sending it to a journal, they find that you know the chances of their publication are now much, much worse. And so what also happens often is that people think well, there is surely an attractive result hiding here somewhere. So if I just look long enough I'm going to find it. So maybe I should be looking at a subpopulation or slicing the data this way or that way. And very likely, just by sheer coincidence, they do find a statistically significant, strong reason eventually. And that's the one that gets published. And so as a result, what we see in journals typically it's the truth, but it's not the full truth.

CO: And so also is you mentioned, if getting grants and research money and jobs depends on being published, that's how you advance your career. If you're only getting published if you have sensational results, then the actual science itself starts to get skewed.

AM: Absolutely, absolutely. So if you then had a policymaker who wanted to implement an intervention, and wanted to have evidence-based policy, they might be finding a lot of studies that say well, the results are really powerful you know to this. Yet, for every such published study, there might be another study that didn't get published. And it just found no results.

CO: Can you give examples? What would you publish as an unsurprising result in your journal?

AM: Well, a good example is the inaugural publication I think that we had last week. So this is from Nick Huntington-Klein and Andrew Gill from California State University Fullerton. And they looked at the issue of quite a few of US college students not finishing their degree, not graduating within four years, taking longer to end it. And that’s very costly. And some recent papers show that the solution to this may be very straightforward and low cost. You just tell students you make it explicit to them of what the costs are and how to graduate in four years. And while Nick and Andrew did a similar experiment, they found no effects whatsoever. And so they sent this to a journal, and the response they got was well, you know you probably wouldn't expect an effect because this is a fairly novel information to the students. And so we are not going to publish this because it's not really surprising.

CO: But there’s a story last year, a very popular food researcher at Cornell University had 15 studies retracted after it was revealed that he had fudged the results to make them more interesting. Like he had the results that if you eat up smaller plates, it would make you eat less, and things like that. And so it actually ends that well that influences even behaviour at some point, doesn't it? I mean these things get picked up, they get published, we cover them on programs. It all ends up being wrong, doesn't it?

AM: And it does a lot of harm because evidence shows that even if he didn’t retract these results, they kind of had already stuck in people's minds. And people don't go back and check what has been retracted. So it can do lasting harm.

CO: Have you ever had one of your own papers rejected because it was too dull?

AM: I have, yes, already as a grad student with a senior colleague. And in that case, the editor initially really liked a paper and so did the reviewers. And then one of the reviewers had a very clever idea for a robustness check we could try. And we thought it was a great idea, and we did, and it weakened the results quite significantly. And so we went back, and honestly reported on that, and just wrote it up. And the editor said well, you know it's great, but I'm sorry. You know, it's no longer that interesting. And so we'll have to reject your paper. And I'm grateful to my senior co-author who went back and appealed the decision. And to the editor’s credit, he apologized, and said well, you're right. You know you did proper, diligent, correct research on an important topic, and that should be sufficient. And he did publish the paper eventually.

CO: Well now, people who have the same experiences will have a place where they can go with their results.

AM: Exactly. [slight laugh] Come to us!

CO: Andrea, it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

AM: Thank you. Thanks, Carol.

CO: Bye.

AM: Bye.

JD: Andrea Menclova is an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury, and the editor of a new research journal, The Series of Unsurprising Results in Economics. And you can find more unsurprising facts about that boring journal on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Instrumental]

Part three: Stuck ship, Stephen Curry coach

Stuck ship

Guest: Richard Thompson

JD: Richard Thompson is stuck. Mr. Thompson is the ship keeper on the M-V Ethan. Financial issues and maritime rules have kept the cargo ship in the Port of Quebec since 2017. Most of the crew have left. But a ship needs at least 2 crew members, to keep the government from declaring it abandoned, and seizing it for resale. So the M-V Ethan's former owners asked Mr. Thompson and the chief officer to stick around. The owners just didn't make sure that the men would continue to be paid. We reached Richard Thompson on board the M-V Ethan in the Port of Quebec.

CO: Mr. Thompson, how are things on board the M-V Ethan today?

RICHARD THOMPSON: Today, it's okay. It’s nice.

CO: But you're on that ship, you can't leave, right?

RT: We can leave, but we're here, waiting to see what's going to happen, if we're gonna get paid some monies or get all our monies or something.

CO: How much money do they owe you?

RT: It's like maybe $160,000. And with the chief mate, it’s like $104,000 US.

CO: And you helped the rest of the crew get home after they got stranded, is that right?

RT: That was in March, when a set of crews was going home. And there were no funds here at the time to pay them. And then another crew was coming in, and it was gonna be a problem with Transport Canada. So I paid that out of pocket with the hopes of getting them back. Well, the owners ran out of money. I mean because somebody ran out of money. They spent all the money here on the vessel. And what happened was they got a bill, and they couldn't pay it. So the people put them in a detention on the vessel. And the owners have been trying to borrow money to pay off the debt here ever since July 2017.

CO: And so meanwhile, you and the chief officer are stuck there, you can't go home, you can't leave, you can't do anything.

RT: Well, we going leave we were taking care of the ship, making sure the ship is not abandoned. And so far, it doesn't look like we're going to get much money or get any money. No people would board the ship. I mean they said as long as the ship is here, we have someplace to stay. If we leave, then we don't have any place to stay, and we don’t have any funds at the moment. The previous owners, they’re flat broke. All the cash is gone. It went in the ship. And now, they're just like us right now. Everybody has a total loss.

CO: And when you talk about you want to go home, I mean you have a wife and children back in the Bahamas, right?

RT: Yes.

CO: And when was the last time you saw them?

RT: Oh, a very long time ago. I can’t remember? July 2016?

CO: And they need you to get a paycheck, I would imagine?

RT: Yes, and a mortgage company, and a lot of other bills need me to get a paycheck.

CO: Meanwhile, you've been there for two years — that's two winters in the Port of Quebec, trying to keep that ship going, keep the pipes from freezing, keep all the instruments and the mechanics in tip top shape, and nobody's paying you to do any of that?

RT: No, we haven’t been paid, no. Because one of the owners, he would from time to time spend a few dollars to our families. And sometimes, you know he would send us something to help with it. But no, we have not been paid those salaries, no.

CO: So there's just the two of you, and you have some long nights. What do you do for amusement?

RT: Well, the TV goes online. I've learned to watch a lot of Russian movies.

[both laugh]

CO: So you're watching Russian movies, playing cards, whatever. But I mean doesn't sound like much of a life.

RT: No, I mean it's not much of a life. I mean we joke about it. We always say we're in prison, but we just don't have any bars and any guards.

[a laugh in the background]

CO: Is that is that the chief officer? Is that you mate in the background?

RT: Yeas, he’s right here with me.

CO: And how are the two of you getting along? I mean are there tense moments?

RT: We have some tense moments sometimes, but we normally get over it. I mean we realize we’re both stuck here. We both have the same hope, so we stick it out, and we try and make the best of it.

CO: Can you take turns leaving, going of to I don't know do something in town?

RT: Well, I mean normally we shouldn't be off the ship too long. And we shouldn't leave the ship together. So normally he goes because we have a bicycle. He goes into town, and he picks up the groceries, and fresh water, and stuff like that. And then he comes back to the ship. But I must say one thing. The port has always supplied us with electricity, fresh water. If the power goes off, they make sure it comes back on. So we can't complain and say that we were treated poorly. Some ports might shut off electricity and don’t give you water. But that's never happened here. The power went off one time, and they made sure we had a generator running to keep us warm in the winter. They offered us facilities to bathe while they were repairing the generator. So the port was good to us. I must say that.

OTHER SHIPMATE: One security officer brought us coffee.

CO: Some coffee, how about something a bit stronger than that?

[everyone laughs]

RT: No, no, no, they don’t want us on anything stronger than coffee.

CO: Just for both of you, your wives, must be pretty fed up with all of this back home.

RT: Yes, that is true. But I know his wife and my wife they both said the same thing. Try and get some money you know because it's desperately needed.

CO: And what if you don't? I mean at some point, do you have to just cut your losses and go home?

RT: I guess that looks like a strong possibility too. We have no other choice. We're not Canadians, so we can’t say we can leave here and go get another job. He'll go back to the Ukraine. I'll probably go to the Bahamas. And I guess life won't be nice.

CO: Well, Mr. Thompson, I wish both of you good luck. And thank you for taking my call.

RT: Thank you very much.

JD: Richard Thompson is the ship keeper on the M-V Ethan. We reached him onboard, in the Port of Quebec.

[Music: Sombre]

House fire

JD: When Amber Dyck awoke in the early morning hours and saw a flicker of light, she thought it was coming from the street. Then she realized it was coming from inside: her home in Morinville, Alberta was on fire. And she and her 7-month-old son Daemon were in grave danger. After spending nearly 15 minutes on the phone 911, she decided her only chance was to jump from her second-storey bedroom window. Amber Dyck spoke with CBC Edmonton, while recovering in the hospital from a broken lumbar vertebra.

SOUNDCLIP

AMBER DYCK: Every breath that I took, it just felt like I was breathing in fire. I pushed the screen through the window, and I kind of held Daemon outside the window, so he could at least get some fresh air because he started struggling. And I just started screaming. I think help, help, like my baby, my baby. And I just heard someone say jump. And so I put one leg out. I kind of tucked Daemon into me, and I jumped. There was barbecue; we had a barbecue on the deck right below the bedroom. I'm 99 per cent sure I hit the barbecue first, and then I hit the deck. I immediately knew that I had done damage to something. I couldn't move. I could move my toes and my feet, so I knew I wasn't paralyzed. But I was trying to scooch back because the heat and the flames were starting to come to the back of the house. And when I looked up, the curtain from our bedroom was on fire. And I knew that it was going to drop at any second. And it would have dropped right on to us. So I just kept screaming. And I just felt arms come under me, and pull me off the deck. And it was the same person who had yelled jump. [crying] I knew that if I put my left leg out first, and I just put him here, and my intent was to land on my back, so that I could cushion his fall. And that's what I did.

JD: That was Amber Dyck speaking with CBC Edmonton about jumping from her second-storey bedroom window with her baby, when her house caught on fire.

[Music: Jazz]

QP: Media fund

JD: There are few places more partisan that the House of Commons — particularly in the lead-up to an election. And, fittingly, partisanship was the theme today in Question Period. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer kicked things off by targeting the Liberals for selecting a union that actively campaigned against the Conservatives to sit on an advisory panel for its new media support fund. Here's his exchange with two cabinet ministers — where partisanship was mentioned six times.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: Mr. Speaker, the prime minister's decision to appoint Unifor on his panel to determine eligibility for a half-billion dollar media bailout package has destroyed this process’s credibility. Unifor is a highly partisan group, with very aggressive and partisan goals. They have made it clear that their objective is to help the Liberals win the next election. And yet, the prime minister has decided to appoint this group to the panel. Will the prime minister just openly admit that he's stacking the deck in his favour?

[applause]

GEOFF REGAN: The Honourable Minister of Heritage

PABLO RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing a very dangerous game here. We know that the newspaper industry has been suffering for 10 years. We know that 41 dailies have closed their door. We know that they've lost about 10,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker. Now, The Conservative think that our journalists can be bought. Mr. Speaker, we totally disagree with that. We trust professional journalism, and we're there to support them.

GR: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

AS: The only dangerous game being played is by this prime minister putting partisan groups on a panel to hand out government money. That is what undermines the credibility of this process, and threatens the independence of the media. Now, this isn't the first time that the Prime Minister has abused the power of his office. He's limited the amounts political parties can spend in the run up to a federal election, while no limits have been placed on government spending announcements or travel in advance of the writ period. Will the prime minister finally admit that he is abusing the power of his office to rig the system?

GR: The Honourable Minister of Democratic Institutions.

KARINA GOULD: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were fed up with their tax dollars being wasted on blatantly partisan ads by the Harper Conservatives. That's why we moved quickly in 2016 to ban partisan government ads and establish third-party oversight. We also banned government advertising in the 90 days that precede a fixed date election, and for any government program that has yet to be approved by parliament. By focusing government advertising on Canadians needs, instead of a partisan objectives, we've been able to cut the government's advertising budget by half. Thank you.

JD: Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould, and Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, answering questions from Conservative leader Andrew Scheer today, in the House of Commons.

[Music: Electronica]

Stephen Curry coach

Guest: James Lackey

JD: You can feel it in the air: the excitement, the anticipation, and yes, the nerves for this Thursday. That's when the Toronto Raptors meet the Golden State Warriors for the first game of the NBA Finals. For the Raptors, of course, it will be a moment 24 years in the making. The team's historic win over the Milwaukee Bucks on Saturday sent Toronto to its first Finals in franchise history. Jubilation swept not just Toronto, but all of Canada. As for the Warriors: you probably know their star player is two-time NBA MVP, Steph Curry. What you may not know is that Mr. Curry lived — and played — in Toronto for two years as a child, when his father, Dell Curry, played for the Raps. James Lackey was a history teacher at Queensway Christian College in 2001 — where he was the basketball coach when a young Steph Curry was in Grade 8. We reached Mr. Lackey in Brampton, Ontario.

CO: James, you must have had some mixed emotions on Saturday night, when you realized the Raptors are going to face the Warriors in the NBA finals?

JAMES LACKEY: Yes, I don't know if mixed emotions would be how I put it. I am certainly excited that the Raptors are there. They certainly have suffered for many years, and I think they deserve it finally to be in the in the championships.

CO: But you've seen the Raptors square off with the Golden State Warriors and their star player, Steph Curry, someone with whom you have history. Tell us about how you know Steph?

JL: Well, back in 2001-2002, Stephan was the son of Dell Curry, who was you know sort of the star for the Raptors, or one of the stars for the Raptors back then. And Dell brought his family up for the year to go to school and just sort of experience Canadian Life. And Stephen ended up coming to the school that I was coaching basketball at. So I had the pleasure of coaching Stephen for a year while he played here in Toronto.

CO: Do you remember that day when you were told that there's a new student and his dad was there? Tell us about that?

JL: Yeah. Oh, I remember it like it was yesterday. It's a once in a lifetime moment. The school secretary called down to the phys-ed office, and she said you have to come down right away. Dell Curry is here, and he's enrolling his children in the school. And we were such a tiny, little school, I couldn't believe that someone like Dell Curry would choose our school to put his kids in. So I ran down to the gym office, and got to meet Dell, and got to meet Stephen for the first time.

CO: Okay, but you were the basketball coach, and you were expecting you're gonna see some tall and promising-looking character who was going to be on your team. What did you see?

JL: Yeah, that's right. I mean Dell Curry was maybe 6,6 or 6,7 — so I figured when I heard that his son was in grade eight, you know in my mind I was imagining maybe someone's 6,2 or 6,3. And when I met Stephen here he was this tiny little guy — maybe 5-foot-3 or 5-foot-4 at the tallest. So I was, to be honest, a little disappointed. But that disappointment soon went away as soon as I saw him playing.

CO: And what did you see when he was playing?

JL: Oh, he was just unbelievable. I had never seen a kid that age with such knowledge of the game. I mean he could shoot, even back then, from just about anywhere on the court. If you left him open, even for a second, you knew it was going to be going in. He was just an incredible player, great passer, all the things that you see even today he was already doing that back 15-20 years ago.

CO: Do you see those moves when you see Steph Curry on the floor, do you see him making the same moves he made in the court in Grade eight?

JL: Yeah, I mean they're much more slick and perfected now.

CO: [laughs] I’d hope so.

JL: But he really working on them back then. Yeah.

CO: Do you remember there's one particular game you have mentioned elsewhere, where you had to tell the boys that they weren't going to do it. And what happened?

JL: Yeah, we had an undefeated season, and we were playing against this really good Toronto team. We were down by maybe six or seven points with a minute left to go. So I just called a timeout as a learning experience just to prepare the boys you know they hadn't lost yet. And just to say hey, let's be good sports whether we win or lose, and shake hands, and keep your heads up. And Stephen just stopped me right in the middle of my speech, and he said we are not going to lose this game. And he said give me the ball, and we will win. So I said all right guys, that's the play. Anytime you get the ball, pass it to Stephen. And the next 60 seconds where something I don't think I'll ever see again. He was shooting from everywhere; I don't think he missed a single shot. And we were down by six or seven points, and we ended up winning by six or seven points. And it was the most dramatic turnaround I had ever seen.

CO: That was in one minute he did that?

JL: Yeah, just about one minute, one-and-a-half minutes. And he just took over.

CO: What was that like for the boys at that moment?

JL: I think they were all just standing there in awe, even myself as a coach, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There was quite a large crowd there. And the frenzy that was taking place was unbelievable because I don't think anyone in the gym had ever seen something like that before.

CO: All right. So lots has happened since then for Stephen Curry. And now, you're going to be watching him I'm sure on Thursday.

JL: Yeah.

CO: But to go back to the first question about mixed emotions, I mean hear you have this strong relationship, this strong support for Stephen Curry. And yet, how do you feel about seeing the Raptors square off against him?

JL: [laugh] I mean being from Toronto, I am certainly glad that the Raptors are there. But boy, I have been cheering for Stephen, of course, ever since he was 14 years old, and on to Charlotte Christian, and then he went to Davidson, where we were cheering for him, and then for the Warriors. So I don't think I want to tell too many people this, but I think I'll be cheering for Stephen and the Warriors this time around.

CO: Ah really? How can you do that? I mean you'll have to be alone in your living room or your wherever watching TV.

JL: That’s right. I keep that information sort of quiet, and I hope you don't give out my home address. But yeah, I'm a diehard Warriors fan right now. But boy, you know the city of Toronto certainly has waited a long time for something like this. And the buzz that is going on they don't think… well, maybe since the Blue Jays back in ‘93 and ‘94 has the city really enjoyed something like this. And so I think Toronto certainly deserves to have a team in the finals. They've waited long enough.

CO: James, it's good to talk to you. Thanks for telling us the story.

JL: Absolutely, thank you.

JD: Your secret is safe with us, Coach Lackey. That was James Lackey, Steph Curry’s grade eight basketball coach. We reached him in Brampton, Ontario. And tomorrow on the program, we will be chatting with Kawhi Leonard's high school basketball coach, Tim Sweeney Junior.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 27, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This