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 June 13, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Tom Allen

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

TOM ALLEN: Good evening. I'm Tom Allen. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

TA: Tonight...

CO: Fingerpoint of no return. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says Iran is behind attacks on two oil tankers -- our guest says he's jumping to the conclusions most wanted by Trump administration hawks.

TA: Broken home. One of Malaysia's last Indigenous nomadic communities is hit with a mystery illness that's killed 14 people in a month -- and a doctor says the inhospitable environment may be to blame.

CO: Putting our money where his math is. In a new report, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer says we need to get serious about carbon pricing or miss goals set out by the Paris Agreement.

TA: Mumbo jumbotron. Raptors fans share the weird superstitions they think will help the team win tonight -- while Carol and I, more rationally, support the team by wearing matching Fred VanVleet beards.

CO: [Chuckles] Tom's is better than mine.

TA: Oh I don't know.

CO: Splendour in Degrassi. Fans descend on Toronto to meet the reunited '80s and '90s cast of that earnest, endless Canadian TV phenomenon -- and host Pat Mastroianni tells us about playing Joey.

TA: And...demanding no more pounds of flesh. At a recent conference, academics denounced dodgeball -- but the president of Dodgeball Canada disagrees with all the smack talk. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that guesses great academics and great dodgeball players have one thing in common: they both want to leave a mark.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Profs took aim at dodgeball. Now the head of Dodgeball Canada is fighting back

Oil Tanker Attacks

Guest: Ali Vaez

TA: The pictures from the Gulf of Oman were dramatic: a calm, blue ocean, and a massive tanker ship billowing black smoke and flames. It was the second tanker that was struck today. Both crews were forced to abandon ship. The finger-pointing started immediately -- and by this afternoon, the U.S. said it knew for sure who had attacked the ships. Here is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE POMPEO: This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests. And they should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom loving nations. Iran promised the world that it would interrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. It is now working to execute on that promise. These unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.

TA: That was U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, blaming Iran for the attacks on two tanker ships today in the Gulf of Oman. Ali Vaez is the Iran project director for the International Crisis Group. We reached him in Washington.

CO: Mr. Vaez we heard Mike Pompeo just there saying that Iran is clearly behind these attacks on the oil tankers. Do you think there is enough evidence to accept that as a conclusion?

ALI VAEZ: Well it's quite a stunning statement by Secretary Pompeo because there hasn't been any investigation in the past few hours since the incidents happened, and it's just too early to tell if Iran was in fact behind the attack. And if it was, it was certainly not unprovoked because the U.S. is trying to strangle the Iranian economy by trying to cut off Iranian oil exports. And so it is not entirely unexpected. And in fact it was quite predictable that at some stage the Iranians would start pushing back.

CO: But isn't that in part what Mr. Pompeo is saying is that it's the logical suspect in this because they are responding to what's going on? This is what is going on on the ground so it's likely that this is the group.

AV: Well it is a likely culprit. But again it's too soon to say that in a definitive and conclusive way. And again, even if that's the case I think the Trump administration itself is at blame for creating this climate in which Iran has taken actions that it has not taken in the past 40 years. The last time we had a tanker war in the Persian Gulf it was at the peak of the Iran-Iraq war.

CO: Now Mr. Pompeo is also saying that Iran is lashing out because it wants the -- what he believes -- the successful U.S. hard line policy of sanctions towards Iran to be lifted. That this is evidence that they are feeling the heat of what the United States is doing. So what does that say about the U.S. policy?

AV: Well again every action has a reaction. And if the U.S. is trying to strangle Iran, Iranians are likely to respond one way or another. So I don't think Secretary Pompeo is discovering anything unusual here. But you know there's also the possibility that given the fact that one of the attacks was on a tanker owned by a Japanese company and this came on a day that the Japanese prime minister was on a historic visit to Iran for the first time in 41 years -- meeting with the Iranian supreme leader -- it really doesn't make logical sense for the Iranians to target the Japanese vessel. And that might indicate that in fact there might be other spoilers in the region, either state actors or non-state actors, who are trying to frame Iran and put Iran and the United States on a collision course.

CO: That's exactly what Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was saying that suspicious doesn't begin to describe what likely transpired this morning. He points out to just what you said that right now Japanese prime minister is meeting with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and it doesn't seem likely that this is the tanker it would go after. So what does that say then about Mr. Zarif's possible theory?

AV: Look I don't think any of these theories could be rejected at this stage. There needs to be a proper and objective investigation conducted by the United Nations for us to get a better sense of what has happened here. But again I want to emphasize that if Secretary of State Pompeo is correct in blaming Iran for this then it's a clear indication that the maximum pressure strategy that the U.S. has put in place has neither tempered Iranian behavior nor encouraged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table but in fact has pushed them to become more not less aggressive.

CO: And so it strengthened the hardliners in Iran and undermine the moderates.

AV: It has clearly backfired without any doubt. And Iran has a parliamentary election coming up in seven months, and even at this stage it's not hard to predict that more moderate forces of Iranian politics are going to lose in that election and they are going to be sidelined in the run up to the presidential elections in 2021.

CO: But it's no secret that U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton has been spoiling for a fight -- a war possibly. So is this exactly fulfilling the script that some in the White House would like it to fulfill?

AV: I agree with that. I think John Bolton knew precisely what the maximum pressure policy would produce. Unlike the president who believes that by threatening and bullying Iran and subjecting it to draconian sanctions they would actually be mollified and will come back to the negotiating table. Bolton I think knew from the very beginning that this would only increase tensions in the region and create friction between the two sides and would eventually result in either deliberate or inadvertent clash between Iran and the US. And that's what he wants because he thinks that would cut Iran down to size and potentially result in either regime capitulation or regime collapse in Tehran.

CO: What do you think a war in that region would look like --if this is sort of laying the groundwork for pushing in that direction, what would happen?

AV: Look we're in many ways in a 1914 moment in the region when an incident basically put the entire European continent on fire and started the First World War. If Iran is attacked on its soil without any doubt, its allies in the region like the Lebanese Hezbollah will strike Israel, its Shia militia allies in Iraq are likely to go after U.S. assets in Iraq, and Houthi rebels in Yemen are likely to go after shipping in the Red Sea and through the Bab-el-Mandeb choke points. So overall there is nothing as a contained and limited confrontation that could happen between Iran and the US. You know the climate that the Trump administration has created as a result of its short-sighted policy which is entirely focused on corrosive of economic pressure and military threats against Iran has created an environment which is really ripe for an inadvertent conflict between the two sides.

CO: We will leave it there Mr. Vaez. Thank you.

AV: My pleasure.

TA: Ali Vaez is the Iran project director for the International Crisis Group. He's in Washington.

[Music]

Superstitions

TA: Tonight, the Toronto Raptors will take another shot at winning their first NBA Championship -- one win would seal the deal. But after Monday's loss to the Golden State Warriors, fans are not taking anything for granted. And they're pulling out the stops to coax luck over to their side. CBC Toronto spoke with fans about the rituals or superstitions they're following during the Raptors' playoff run.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: My daughter -- the only time she's worn a jersey, they lost. So she doesn't wear a jersey now.

VOICE 2: I got my Raptors shirt and I put it back down all the way, so say if I wear it we might lose so...

REPORTER: So do you do that every time? You pick it up and then you put it back?

VOICE 2: Yeah I do that. I pick it up and put it back down. I won't wear it.

VOICE 3: Watch it at home. It's the only way to do it. I feel like when I watch at home, they win.

REPORTER: Have they won every time you've watched at home?

VOICE 3: No. [Laughter]

REPORTER: So what are you doing?

VOICE 3: I don't know -- just superstition, I don't know.

VOICE 4: I went to the bathroom once and Raptors scored like 10 points in a row in like a minute. So all my friends said just stay in there. It seems to be working.

REPORTER: So you'll be in the washroom a lot.

VOICE 4: I think maybe that's where you'll find it. Go Raptors!

VOICE 5: So I'll take a piece of napkin and try to throw it in a garbage can. If it goes in, we win. If it doesn't, we lose. But it had zero accuracy so far.

REPORTER: It's had zero accuracy.

VOICE 5: Yeah. So when I missed they won. When I got it in, they lost. So I'm going to do that tomorrow.

VOICE 6: So for every Raptors game in the playoffs this season, I have to watch with my dad. If I don't, it just doesn't feel right. If I haven't, they've lost. So Thursday I'm watching with my dad because that means we're going to win.

VOICE 7: Okay so every time I watch the first quarter in the first round of the series, they lost. I'm not going to watch the first quarter. Basically I'm going to have the same beverage at the same time and watch it at home the same way I've watched it until now and I know they're going to win. I know they're going to win.

VOICE 8: My son has a great set of Raptors pajamas -- he's four and he loves them. He's not allowed to wear them tomorrow night because they only lost when he was wearing those Raptors pajamas. And so we're ready.

VOICE 9: I'm going to go get a haircut. As soon as I get a haircut [laughs] they win. Every time before a game I go for a nice fade.

REPORTER: So how many haircuts have you been getting?

VOICE 9: [Laughter] Tons. The barber knows me really well now.

VOICE 10: I haven't showered since the Raptors made the finals. So that's like what? Two weeks ago?

REPORTER: So you'll celebrate the win...

VOICE 10: By taking a shower.

TA: Raptors fans sharing their playoff superstitions with the CBC's Joana Draghici.

[Music]

Uganda Ebola

Guest: Marydale Oppert

TA: Ebola has jumped the border. The outbreak that has killed more than a thousand people after spreading uncontrolled for months in northeastern Congo has now claimed its first victims in Uganda. Three members of a family were diagnosed after attending a funeral in Congo. As we go to air, two are dead -- the third along with other members of the family are being treated at a health centre in Bwera, near the border. Marydale Oppert has just returned from Bwera. Ms. Oppert is a public health adviser for the International Rescue Committee. We reached her in Kampala, Uganda.

CO: Ms. Oppert what can you tell us about the three members of this family and how they have contracted Ebola?

MARYDALE OPPERT: From what we know, the three members of the family plus several others traveled from Uganda to the Democratic Republic of Congo to attend a burial of the grandfather who had died of Ebola. He lived in Mabalako area which is currently the hotspot of the outbreak right now in North Kivu province. And they participated in an unsafe burial, after which they traveled back through Uganda. And either during travel or soon thereafter, the young boy fell ill. He was taken to a health facility. They were soon transferred to the Ebola treatment unit in Kasese district at the Bwera hospital where the other two cases were also starting to present signs and symptoms. Their tests came back positive for Ebola. And there are three other contacts from the family currently under observation.

CO: So the boy -- he has died. His grandmother, she's now died. And the other members of the family -- are they in isolation?

MO: Yes there are currently in isolation at the health facility in Kasese district, and they're under observation.

CO: We know that health workers in Uganda have been very concerned that this disease would arrive since it is so -- well there are 1400 people in Democratic Republic of Congo who already died -- so they were very concerned that it would come over the border. Now that it appears that it has, what's the mood among the health care workers?

MO: Well I think that there is general concern, rightfully so, with an outbreak like Ebola coming to their backyard. Now I guess in their home. But there is also I think a feeling of preparedness and readiness to prevent any further spread of Ebola throughout Uganda. They're closely monitoring the situation. And the International Rescue Committee and other humanitarian partners will continue to support them in their efforts to contain the outbreak.

CO: But you're also dealing with what's going on in Congo, aren't you? Because there is fighting there, there's violence, people are trying to get out of that -- crossing the border logically as they would. And so how difficult is it going to be, with all the preparations, how difficult will it be for Uganda to resist this disease coming further into your territory?

MO: Well I think they have a few advantages. Both our partners and the humanitarian world has been working to combat this disease in North Kivu and Ituri in DRC since the outbreak was declared in August of last year. We have a lot of lessons learned already. And there is a very strong network of surveillance and health workers that have been responding. Uganda has a close relationship with that surveillance network and they will, I believe, continue to collaborate on the movements of the population back and forth across the border and also on the contact tracing and response efforts.

CO: But we know because of the fighting in Congo we know that the health care facilities have been attacked and you have colleagues there -- how difficult is it? What are they up against trying to deal with a disease there?

MO: The humanitarian conflict certainly has made it much more difficult for humanitarian workers to respond to this public health emergency. Some days we're able to go to the field. Some days we are hindered by the conflict in and around Ebola affected areas.

CO: But you know that people are actually nervous about this. They're afraid of the foreign involvement, they're suspicious of it -- that you lack trust, you lack a foundation of trust in those populations that would help you to deal with it, right?

MO: There is a lack of trust in the response in general and the responders both on the humanitarian side and as high as the U.N. And the most prudent thing we can do is continue to work with communities and key community leaders to better understand where they're coming from to engage them directly regarding rumors and mistrust in the Ebola response -- try to understand it better and address their needs.

CO: All right we'll leave it there, Ms. Oppert thank you.

MO: Thank you.

TA: Marydale Oppert is a public health adviser with the International Rescue Committee. We reached her in Kampala, Uganda.

[Music]

Dodgeball Defence

Guest: Duane Wysynski

TA: When I say the word "dodgeball" it might trigger painful childhood memories. Figuratively and literally painful. Memories of a ball hurtling toward you in slow motion and then bouncing off your cheek with an echoing smack. All this while your sadistic gym teacher looked on. Or maybe if you're lucky, it just makes you think of the 2004 non-Oscar-winning movie "Dodgeball." Let me refresh your memory.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: 1954: a simpler time.

VOICE 2: Dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion, and degradation.

VOICE 1: A more innocent time.

VOICE 2: Make sure you pick the bigger, stronger, kids for your team -- that way you can all gang up on the weaker ones.

[Ball hitting]

VOICE 3: Oh! You're out!

TA: A bit of the trailer for the Ben Stiller movie "Dodgeball." Some academics don't think much of the sport either. Last week at a conference in Vancouver, some of them denounced it. The headline in The National Post about their research read, quote, "Dodgeball isn't just problematic. It's an unethical tool of oppression." Now, the head of Dodgeball Canada is coming to the defense of the sport. We reached Duane Wysynski in Edmonton, Alberta.

CO: Duane we just heard that bit of the movie trailer saying, "Dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion, and degradation." How painful is it for you to hear those words?

DUANE WYSYNSKI: [Chuckles] Well it's kind of funny because the movie of course is a popular one and it gets referenced almost every time we bring up the sport. But I mean it just hasn't been our experience. You know it's a bit of a source of amusement in the community because our community is actually made up of a lot of people who have kind of moved into our sport and have come from more mainstream sports where they didn't necessarily feel included. Inclusion is a big part of our sport and how it appeals to a lot of the groups that we work with.

CO: But I mean the nature of the sport -- the game -- is to smash balls into your opponent's body, right?

DW: Well yes -- no -- I wouldn't say that that's the nature to smash balls. Yes, you do throw balls. And the object of the sport is to hit people and to get them out through hitting them with the ball. But it would be like saying that the nature of the sport of hockey is to you know lay someone out with a hard check or the nature of football is to hit a crushing tackle. Those things are part of the sport. The objective of the sport is to eliminate your opponent. There's lots of different ways to do that. Teams that rely on brute strength are not going to be successful because trying to overpower someone with a ball with a direct throw is almost always going to result in a catch. What our sport kind of focuses on is teamwork and strategy. And hitting someone in the toe or picking them off on the hand is always going to be a better way to get an out than it is to you know go at someone really hard with the ball. The balls that we use in competition right from youth and right to high performance competition, are foam balls so they are specifically designed to not cause a lot of pain.

CO: So not the old hard rubber balls that really did hurt.

DW: No -- and I mean those balls are still around. I mean it's like any other sport -- there are certain variance and there's certain different ways that different populations play the game. But for the World Dodgeball Federation and for Dodgeball Canada, our standard equipment is a seven-inch foam ball, and it's designed especially so that it can be played at all levels with all skill sets. And it's not based on you know the objective of causing pain or striking someone hard with the ball.

CO: Okay the reason why we're having this conversation is because The National Post did a story quoting academics who were very concerned that dodgeball sends kids the wrong message and one of them was quoted (saying) this is a moral problem with dodgeball -- it encourages students to aggressively single out others for dominance and to enjoy the exclusion and dominance as a victory. So that's the starting point in our conversation, where do you take it from there?

DW: Well I mean it's difficult to look at any sport and not say that part of the point of the sport is to win or to get better or to improve yourself. I think that's true of any sport at all. What we try to do with dodgeball is especially if we are introducing it to youth or into schools --we focus on the aspects of teamwork, of strategy, of fellowship within the game, of communication on the court. And winning becomes kind of secondary at that age. I compared a bit to when you start playing something like Tim Hortons soccer -- community soccer -- you don't even keep the score because the objective isn't to get the kids to be extremely complex on the field with their footwork and to score a lot of goals. But it's introducing them to the core mechanics of the sport. And that's exactly what we try to do with dodgeball. Because we play with six a side and six balls. The kids get active in it quite a bit. We found that in some sport kids can get hidden off to the side and they don't really participate if there's one ball or if there's a limited interaction that way. But with dodgeball, all the kids get to participate. And we can't structure the game so that it's not about getting hit and being off the court right away. You know you can sit down and have a teammate save you. There's ways to keep the kids involved. And that continuous involvement and that kind of expansive involvement is exactly what I think makes the sport appealing for young kids.

CO: I mean one of the things is not just that you get hit with the balls -- and of course they're not that painful anymore. But the concern is that it kind of picks on kids: that you're out if you get hit. And a lot of the complaints are about that the sort of weak kid in the school or some kid that gets bullied ends up being kind of victimized in this game. Is that the reality?

DW: No -- well I think, again, I think it depends on how any sport is taught. You know how is it introduced. I actually received an email after the rebuttal to The Post was printed, and the comment was from someone who was in her 50s and she said one of the things she liked about dodgeball was every little mistake wasn't put on display you know because there were six balls and there was lots going on, if she made a mistake it wasn't on display as opposed to when she played baseball and it was obvious you know when she was at the bat if she couldn't perform or could perform it was something that everyone was watching.

CO: I know you're training phys-ed teachers to modify the game -- make it safer and more about teamwork. But I'm just wondering if the teachers are following those rules, if that's actually happening?

DW: Well I think we've had some very good response from some schools that we've worked with and some boys and girls clubs that we worked with. But from our mandate is (that) we're still a young organization, and our reach right now is limited and we're seeking ways to expand our reach.

CO: Well maybe you need a sequel to "Dodgeball" where everybody's playing by rules and becoming better people.

DW: Well you know you could make a really good movie like that [laughs]. It doesn't necessarily have to be about the harsh nature of it. And you know I mean no one is going to say that there aren't times in dodgeball -- again -- or any sport where there is a big hit or a big catch or a dive or something that is very physically impressive and you look at it and you say "wow that's excellent or that caught my attention or I felt that" -- I mean that's always going to happen and we're not saying it's going to go away completely. But I think what we can do with the sport, again, is you build on that concept of fellowship. And when you've got lots of balls to throw and you've got lots of people on the court at once, you do have to work together -- you can't just do it by yourself. It's very rarely a case in dodgeball where it's all up to one person.

CO: All right. We will await the "Dodgeball 2: The Canadian Version." [Laughter] Duane's it is good to talk to you. Thank you.

DW: Okay. Thank you so much for your time.

TA: That's Duane Wysynski, the president of Dodgeball Canada. He was in Edmonton, Alberta. You can find more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih. And if you have something interesting to say about dodgeball share with us -- or -- throw it at us, but gently please. On Twitter: @CBCAsItHappens. Email: aih@cbc.ca. Or give us a call: 416-205-5687.

[Music]

Part 2: Mysterious, deadly illness plaguing one of Malaysia's last Indigenous nomadic tribes

Malaysia Tribe

Guest: Steven Chow

TA: They're known as Malaysia's "original people." And now the Batek tribe -- one of the country's last nomadic communities -- is at risk of disappearing. In the past month, there were 14 deaths in the village of 300. Dozens more are in hospital. Local officials still don't know what the culprit is but they're looking at everything from infectious diseases to pollution from a nearby mine. Dr. Steven Chow thinks there might not be just one smoking gun. He's the head of a federation of private doctors in Malaysia. And he was treating tribe members in April. We reached him in Milan, Italy.

CO: Dr. Chow how devastating is this wave of deaths for this tribe in Malaysia?

STEVEN CHOW: To me as a doctor, this is very very tragic. It should not occur. And I'm really devastated by what has happened to a community that has been very very sort of decimated by the changes around it -- the changes of the so-called development.

CO: Can you just tell us a bit about the Batek people and where they live and what their way of life is?

SC: They are a nomadic tribe. They move from place to place in the jungle, foraging from the land and transient cultivation. And this particular tribe is found in the northern part of Peninsula of Malaysia -- the corner state they call Kelantan. Occasionally they travel all the way up to the Kelantan Thai border. So these are one of the few nomadic Indigenous population of Malaysia.

CO: Their name means "original people" doesn't it?

SC: Yeah -- original people of the country.

CO: You say that they're really having a lot of problems, it's quite devastating, so what are the threats? What is threatening their existence at this point?

SC: Essentially it is -- homeland -- the jungle has been taken away for cultivation. They've been used for massive areas of plantations. And then they move gradually from one little corner of the forest to another. And they find it impossible for themselves to settle down. You can build a house for them but they will not stay in the house. They will still stay in that little bamboo like shed which they can build for themselves. And they have survived well in the jungle with that lifestyle.

CO: And what's threatening that lifestyle now? What are all the different things that they're dealing with?

SC: One is of course, overdevelopment. When you take away their forests, they can't live anymore. You can offer them a job in the plantations or whatnot, but that is not sustainable for them or the lifestyle they live.

CO: So this is all the things -- this is for some time now, they have been losing their land, losing their access to the way of life. Why do you think now that we're seeing so many people -- just in one month 14 people from one community who suddenly become ill and die. You've seen them -- what's causing that?

SC: I think there is a big picture behind it, and the big picture is the failure of the system that they're supposed to compensate for taking over their land to provide them with the kind of nutrition, a good supply of water -- portable water. And there's no water supply. How are they going to survive? They will gradually become a community with a weakened resistance, malnutrition, and inability to fight any infections. And they will just gradually die off.

CO: And it's infection that is attacking them, right? Chest infections, gastrointestinal infections, skin infections -- all at the same time. Is that what you see?

SC: Yes. When we went in the day in April this year, we found kids with multiple infections -- skin infections, gastrointestinal infections, upper respiratory infections, and some even lung infection -- lower respiratory infections. Now these kids won't survive because it's just a matter of time they will succumb. And this is exactly what happened.

CO: You haven't been able to identify any specific new disease -- this is just generally...

SC: No new disease. This is just a whole set has been incapacitated and who been compromised and it's just not able to withstand another assault on their system. There's a big picture behind it, and there's a small picture. The small picture essentially is that you see final event or the fatal event.

CO: There are discussions that it's possibly an iron ore mine that's nearby that is polluting their water. Is that something you are aware of?

SC: We are aware of that but we were are not able to confirm the existence of this mine because our mission there was merely to see and to treat. I hope the authorities will conduct a full scale multi-agency investigation, and then come to a conclusion. If indeed there was poisoning from a mineral or mining activity, that has to be addressed immediately. It can't go on.

CO: How likely is it that the government of Malaysia would investigate these deaths given that it might expose industries like mining or foresting industries to scrutiny? Do you think they are willing to do that kind of an investigation to get to the bottom of this?

SC: Well certainly with the new government we are hopeful that this will indeed be investigated properly and proper action be taken because we have made this commitment that we shall not leave anyone behind.

CO: Dr. Chow just finally for yourself when you tried to express to people, government or whatever, what you saw when you went to investigate these deaths, what were your own feelings and impressions about what you saw?

SC: I think we failed. As a nation we failed these people. Because this is not the only area that we have been through in Malaysia -- we have also been to a similar areas in eastern Malaysia. It does sound good on paper. A lot of these so-called governmental programs but when it's calling up implementation there are gaps that need to be addressed.

CO: But it must have been a very emotional experience for you.

SC: Absolutely. A few of our team members fell sick after this expedition. They had gut infections themselves. It was terrible. Let's hope that the investigations are done in the proper manner, in an open manner, and the findings of what needs to be addressed urgently and immediately.

CO: All right Dr. Chow we will follow and see what happens. I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

SC: Thank you. We'll keep in touch.

TA: Dr. Steven Chow is the head of a private doctors federation in Malaysia. We reached him in Milan, Italy.

[Music]

Chrystia Freeland

TA: One prime minister at a time. That seemed to be Chrystia Freeland's message today in Washington when she was asked about rumors that Jean Chretien might help free two Canadians who have been detained on spying charges in China. There are reports that the former prime minister was floating the idea of dismissing the case to extradite the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, to the U.S. which in turn might prompt China to free Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Reporters wanted the Foreign Affairs Minister's thoughts on that. And when they asked, Canada's top diplomat paused for a moment -- then she delivered what sounded like an ever so diplomatic request for everyone to please, stop stirring the pot.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Let me start by saying that Prime Minister Chretien is a really great Canadian. He is someone with whom I have spoken often. And as Foreign Minister, I have reflected a lot on what I think is one of his really great decisions -- truly great decisions -- which was the decision for Canada not to participate in the war in Iraq. And history has shown Prime Minister Chretien had been absolutely right. Having said that, on this particular issue my view -- our government's view -- continues to be as follows: we are a rule of law country and rule of law is not something you can pick and choose. Either you are a rule of law country or you are not. When it comes to Ms. Meng, there has been no political interference. Her case is now before the courts. That is where they should be. She has excellent lawyers and full access to Canada's due process which is also absolutely right and correct. Ms. Meng and her lawyers will have a chance to make their case. And I have complete confidence that the courts will make a right and fair decision. I'd also like to say on this particular issue, that as a country -- as a government -- we need to be very thoughtful and very mindful of precedents that our actions and our decisions set. And I think when we reflect on it, it will be clear to all of us that it would be a very dangerous precedent indeed for Canada to alter its behaviour when it comes to honouring an extradition treaty in response to external pressure. And I think when we think about the implications of setting such a precedent, we could easily find ourselves in a situation where by acting in a single specific case we could actually make all Canadians around the world less safe.

TA: That was Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland speaking to reporters this afternoon in Washington.

[Music]

Degrassi Palooza

Guest: Pat Mastroianni

SOUNDCLIP

[Degrassi High Theme]

TA: The original theme song for the Canadian TV classic "Degrassi High." Since it started in the 1970s, the show went through several different versions. From "The Kids of Degrassi Street" to "Degrassi: The Next Generation." But its stories about teens going through real problems always connected with young audiences no matter how many times someone did drugs and had a very very bad time. This weekend, the cast from the 80s and 90s is getting back together in Toronto for a "Degrassi Palooza." And its host is a man who wears many hats -- or the same hat many times, Pat Mastroianni. He played "Joey Jeremiah" -- and he's hosting the event. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Pat have you kept in touch with Degrassi members -- had reunions with the characters?

PAT MASTROIANNI: You know what? I would have to be honest with you to say, no. It's been about 25 years since I've seen the majority of the cast. Maybe a few of us have kept in touch over the years. But you know thank goodness for social media and Facebook, it really helped me pull this event together.

CO: What's it going to be like to actually see them?

PM: You know what we had a little pre-Degrassi Palooza party at my house a couple of weekends ago. I invited them all over for a barbecue just to dust off those friendship cobwebs and it was lovely. Everybody had a great time. It's like we picked up where we left off. Many of us haven't changed at all. I mean really we still feel 20 years old inside.

CO: And so why do you want them to come together? What's the importance of having a Degrassi Palooza?

PM: You know what, for me, you know at our age -- I'm almost 50 years old now -- and I think we're all nostalgic to a simpler time, we're all feeling you know the weight of the world sometimes on our shoulders, and it's nice to just escape for a weekend or a day. And for me at the very least I just wanted to celebrate my Degrassi, my cast member friends, and and my creative team that were part of a series that was an important part of my life when I was a teenager. And I think for many of our fans, this is a high school reunion for them as well. They grew up with us. They wanted to go to Degrassi. We were the people that they wished they were friends with or they could relate to in real life. So for us -- you know we're going to introduce ourselves to them and vice versa. And really it's just the coming together of people that have an affection and a love for a TV show that's been around for three decades.

CO: Can you give us some names of people -- I think the cast names would mean more for our listeners.

PM: Yeah absolutely. I mean you're going to recognize Caitlin, and Joey, and Snake, and the twins, and Spike, and Stephanie, Voula, Yick. I mean these are all classic characters that we all grew up with, and you know to you guys they're just characters from a show. To me, they're my friends.

CO: We are going to play a bit of Degrassi and this you, Joey Jeremiah. And you were known for a couple of things -- we think we have we captured it in this particular clip. We just wanted you and our listeners to hear this and you can respond.

SOUNDCLIP

JOEY JEREMIAH: Remember me? Joey Jeremiah. Playboy. At your service. Joey Jeremiah: President of the Stephanie K. Fan Club at your service. Stephanie -- Joey L. Jeremiah -- "L" for "Lover" at your service.

CO: [Laughs] What does that bring back for you?

PM: What a melodrama .[Laughter] You know we were kids just plucked out of regular schools across Toronto back in the 80s and you know we didn't have talent agents or any real experience being in front of a camera. So we were literally learning on the job. And you know God bless the folks that hired us because in reality I guess so to speak that would never happen. You know we were a small little non-union show airing on the CBC -- Sundays in the afternoon. I believe it was 4 o'clock in the afternoon back when we first started. And it was the show that grew. And as the show grew the storytelling became more and more relevant and the acting became a little bit better and the cast got more and more confident. And the fans became attached to these characters and their storylines and stuck with us over those years -- those awkward years -- to the point where we had this incredible two hour movie finale called "Schools Out" where one of my character friends dropped the f-bomb for the first time ever on CBC Television and it was one of those most memorable moments I think for the show's history.

CO: But I mean the hallmark of this show was that it dealt with very difficult issues for a teen audience and so it wasn't so simple, was it? I mean there was bullying and there was drug use and they dealt with child abuse. But you took it on, and that was I think what connected so many young people to the show, wasn't it?

PM: And you know Carol these are topics that are still prevalent today. You know we're still dealing with bullying, we're still dealing with drugs, and abuse, and all those things that were dealt with back then. So what I'm hoping with Degress Palooza, believe it or not, is that continue that conversation that we started 30 years ago on the show and talk to each other like adults now and how can we take this information that we've learned and talked about over the weekend back home to our kids because I know that when we were airing Degrassi on CBC back in the 80s parents were watching the show to figure out what was going on in their kids' schools and what their kids were going through. And I think that today you know parents are now looking at their kids going I don't even know how to relate to my kids anymore, I can't live in their world, I don't know what it's like to be bullied on social media and just what they must be going through -- the pressures.

CO: Your character, while complex plotlines sometimes or difficult ones -- Joey cheated on his girlfriend and got another girl pregnant. And he was quite a character, wasn't he?

PM: Well you know what, I think he was an amalgamation of many different kind of characters that you knew in high school. You know there are a lot of class clowns and there are a lot of troublemakers but I think Joey always came from an honesty that people related to that he didn't try to be the goof. He wasn't trying to be a jerk. He just made mistakes. But he had to pay the consequences for those mistakes.

CO: We just want to play another clip. This is from the "The Zits" -- you remember The Zits of course. And this is The Zit Remedy. This is a band -- and you had just one song. And we're going to play some of that.

SOUNDCLIP

[The Zit Remedy]

PM: Oh my goodness.

CO: Yeah. How tired are you of hearing that?

PM: You know what, it's a testament to youthful passion and drive. And you know I think everybody in high school remembered how they wanted to be a famous celebrity, a rock star, or someone that people would admire and look up to. And I think that The Zit Remedy embodied all that -- that you know you knew they were never going to make it but you appreciated their passion and how hard they wanted to make it. And I think we can all relate to wanting to be successful. And I think that's why The Zit Remedy has that kind of longevity. And you know what it's always flattering when I hear real bands, real musicians, do covers of that song because they really make it sound rather nice and you know we didn't know how to play instruments back then when we were doing the show. But boy oh boy. It's something that I will remember fondly. I do love the Zit Remedy, and I think it should be in the Canadian Music Hall of Fame -- this rock band I believe.

CO: All right. Well have a good one. Thanks Pat.

PM: Thank you so much.

TA: Pat Mastroianni played Joey Jeremiah on "Degrassi." We reached him in Toronto. And we have more on the Degrassi reunion on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Ryan O’Reilly

TA: Last night, the St. Louis Blues triumphed over the Boston Bruins to win their first Stanley Cup since joining the NHL in 1967. Ryan O'Reilly scored the first goal of Game 7. He'd later be named the winner of the Conn Smyth Trophy -- awarded to the Most Valuable Player in the Stanley Cup playoffs. After the 4 to 1 win, Mr. O'Reilly just couldn't keep a lid on his jubilation. And during an on-ice interview with Sportsnet, he dropped his guard...and an F-bomb.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Ryan a defensive clinic to win the Stanley Cup on the road. How will you remember this game?

RYAN O'REILLY: Oh my God. You know with the way Binner perform ther -- you know he was unbelievable. That first period, he made unbelievable saves that gave us a chance till we got a little mojo going. You know once we got that lead we knew we were going to [censor bleep]. Sorry. I'm so amped up. I'm so sorry. We just, we knew the boys...

REPORTER: I've heard that word in hockey before.

RYAN O'REILLY: I'm terribly sorry.

REPORTER: It's okay.

RYAN O'REILLY: It was unbelievable. We worked so hard. I don't know what to say. It's amazing.

REPORTER: Ryan there's a case to be made that if you're not traded from Buffalo last July there is no Stanley Cup celebration for the St. Louis Blues tonight. Such was your value to this team. You didn't like your hockey life last summer. But after the trade everything changed, how much do you like your hockey life tonight?

RYAN O'REILLY: Oh I can't explain what this means to win this and how hard guys work. You know winning is the greatest thing in the world. It is what you as a kid you grow up thinking about -- winning Stanley Cup -- and just working so hard for all these guys to do it. It's just incredible.

REPORTER: A family question. Growing up in Brucefield, Ontario, your parents Bonnie and Brian took in a total of 47 foster kids over the years. What lessons did you learn from that that helped you become a Stanley Cup champion tonight?

RYAN O'REILLY: I think growing up with all these kids in the house and you know kids come from tough backgrounds, I learned how to get along with everyone. And I think that's a lesson I learned many years down the road. But I think transfers to a team and being able to get along with everyone and know everyone -- where they come from -- and things like that, and I can't thank my parents enough for what they've did. I hope I can give my family the same thing.

REPORTER: Thank you Ryan. Congratulations.

RYAN O'REILLY: Again, sorry for swearing. I feel so bad.

REPORTER: [Laughs] It's okay. It's all about the emotion.

RYAN O'REILLY: Thank you. Sorry.

TA: That was St. Louis Blues center, and Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Ryan O'Reilly being very apologetic.

[Music]

Nancy Pelosi

TA: She may be appalled but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still isn't supporting impeachment. Earlier today the Democratic House Speaker responded to comments made by U.S. President Donald Trump in an interview with ABC News. George Stephanopoulos asked the president what he would do if a foreign operative approached him with information on his 2020 opponent. Here is Mr. Trump's response.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: I think you might want to listen. I don't -- there's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country -- Norway -- we have information on your opponent. Oh I think I'd want to hear it.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you want that kind of interference in our elections?

DONALD TRUMP: It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong.

TA: Nancy Pelosi has long resisted calls to impeach President Trump. Today, she refused to say what it would take to compel her to change her stance. But she did sharply criticized the president's comments.

SOUNDCLIP

NANCY PELOSI: Everybody in the country should be totally appalled by what the president said last night -- should be totally appalled. But he has a habit of making appalling statements. This one borders on so totally unethical that he doesn't even realize it. There is a sense of decency about fruit from the forbidden tree ill-gotten gain. This is so -- and just by dint of your question with all due respect you make it sound as if it could be a common thing. It is not. And what the president said last night shows clearly once again, over and over again, that he does not know the difference between right and wrong. And that's probably the nicest thing I can say about him because if he doesn't know the difference it could explain some of his ridiculous behavior. And now to invite further involvement of foreign governments into our election. There was an assault on our democracy -- an assault on our country by the Russians that has been clearly documented by the intelligence community and the President the United States instead coming to the defense of our democracy has said it's a hoax. This is beyond -- really, there is no sense of any ethical sense that informs his comments in his thinking.

TA: That's Democratic Congresswoman, and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi addressing the press earlier today.

[Music]

Part 3: PBO Carbon Pricing

PBO Carbon Pricing

Guest: Yves Giroux

TA: The threat of climate change is real. And according to Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer, it's going to take some major changes for us to meet our international climate change commitments. In a report out today, Yves Giroux says Canada needs to levy an additional carbon tax worth as much as 50 dollars a tonne on greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the targets set out in the Paris agreement. Here's Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna debating the report in the House of Commons.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: The honourable member for Carleton.

[Clapping]

PIERRE POILIEVRE: Well the Liberal carbon tax we now know is so ineffective it would have to rise by 400 percent -- or double what the Liberals have publicly projected in order to do what it promises. That's according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That would mean a painful 25-cent a litre new tax on gas. Will the government come clean before the election that it is planning indeed a 25 cent a litre tax on gas?

[Clapping]

SPEAKER:

The honourable Minister of Environment.

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Mr. Speaker once again the party opposite continues to mislead Canadians. I wonder if the member opposite -- if he cashed his climate action incentive rebate of 307 dollars --family of four, he may only have a family of three. But we need to take serious action on climate change. It's not as Jason Kenney says the flavor of month. We have Doug Ford --he's cutting flood management and forest fire management programs during a flood and forest fire. And we have the leader of the opposition who seems to doubt the link between climate change and extreme weather. He wants to make it free to pollute.

TA: Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre were reacting to a new report that says we're falling short of our climate change commitments in spite of the current carbon tax. Yves Giroux is Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Giroux what's it like for you to hear your report has set a new fire in a very hot debate in the House of Commons?

YVES GIROUX: Well it tells me that it is a report that was necessary because there was a lack of information regarding the steps that the government will need to take to get Canada to meet its commitments under the Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030.

CO: And so what Mr. Poilievre was saying is true?

YG: What he's saying is that in our report we indicate that if the government chooses to do additional carbon pricing to meet the Paris targets after 2022 that we would need to impose a price on carbon and that's an additional 52 dollars per tonne which would bring the total price on carbon for the four and soon to be five provinces that are into federal backstop to 102 dollars per tonne by 2030. And doing the math, knowing that a litre of gasoline emits 2.21 kilograms of CO2, that translates into 23 cents per litre of gasoline by 2030.

CO: Okay. And you know right now that is the hottest issue that people are looking at -- they want to do something about climate change, they want to fulfill their responsibility, they do not want to be paying that much for gas or large numbers of them don't want to. So what's the message you think your report sends?

YG: Well the report says that if the government was to focus exclusively or use only carbon pricing to meet the Paris targets with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, that's how much it would cost. That being said that's not the only policy instrument. There can be a cap and trade system. There can be regulations that forces certain sectors of the economy to be more efficient and produce fewer emissions of greenhouse gases. And there can also be subsidies to certain sectors so that they voluntarily reduce their emissions.

CO: But are you saying that the price of carbon is not a good strategy?

YG: Economic literature and the experience of other countries suggests quite the opposite -- that pricing carbon is relatively efficient. It has the obvious disadvantage of being evident. So when you buy something there is a price increase very visible. The opposite can be true of the other two. Regulation is less obvious -- it imposes costs but only on the sectors that are affected. For example if the government were to forbid power generators from using carbon emitting sources to generate electricity that would also have a price. Coal fired plants for example or gas fired plants would have to be converted to alternative sources and there is a price for that. Same with subsidies. Subsidies have an obvious cost but their efficiency is not always that great.

CO: If I am hearing you correctly what you're saying is that it's going to be extremely difficult to meet those targets.

YG: Well I'm not saying it's going to be extremely difficult. What the report assesses is how much it will cost. And the costs will be roughly speaking 52 dollars per tonne of greenhouse gases emitted in addition to what's already on the schedule. So currently it's 20 dollars a tonne rising to 50 in 2022. So it will have to be topped up by an additional 52 dollars per tonne. That being said it doesn't mean it's extremely difficult. Will it be free? No, it's not free. But extremely difficult. It depends in which sector you are and what are your personal habits in terms of driving around and heating your house and the type of fuels you use and the type of consumption you use.

CO: Okay. But these are difficult things to sell, aren't they, politically. Because you're talking about not just pricing carbon, you're talking about lifestyle changes, you're talking about a shift in society, you're talking about doing things differently and having to do that quite quickly if we're going to meet these targets.

YG: Indeed. There is only 11 years between now and 2030. And it seems like a long time especially if you're in politics. And thankfully I'm not in politics so it means that people will have to make choices. But making these types of decisions sooner rather than later allow people to make choices if they know that's the direction the country will be taking.

CO: You're saying that you're not a politician and you're glad you're not, but you sure have put yourself in the midst of a political debate. The National Post newspaper obtained it internal Conservative memo that says that the object for them is to, quote," increase media and public awareness that Justin Trudeau will miss the Paris Agreement targets" -- and that this is a way to discredit the Liberal carbon tax as an emissions reductions plan. Do you suspect that your report is going to be a political football in this election?

YG: Well I hope it serves as a way to have credible and unbiased information that's included in the debate as Canadians and politicians propose their way of tackling climate change. Whether it becomes a political football or not, that depends on how politicians want to characterize use and respond to the issue.

CO: Is it possible to meet the targets without a carbon tax?

YG: It's quite possible. For example if the economy was to slow down dramatically we would probably experience a decrease in carbon emissions. And we saw that in 2008 and 2009 when the economy tanked. It's not -- in my opinion -- it's not a desirable way, far from it. There could also be a technological breakthrough. For example somebody finds a cheap source of energy that can power our cars. In that case it would be fairly easy to meet the Paris targets without increasing the price on carbon. Conversely if the economy starts booming and oil prices lower then it will be more difficult to reach the Paris targets.

CO: Okay. The options are a deep recession or a technological miracle.

YG: Exactly. These are the two scenarios that would make Paris targets very easy to reach.

CO: All right Mr. Giroux it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

YG: My pleasure.

TA: Yves Giroux is Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music]

Anne Dowd

TA: Anne Dowd may not be a household name. But her face can inspire sheer terror in viewers of the TV show "The Handmaid's Tale." In the Hulu series adapted from Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel, the actress plays Aunt Lydia -- the lead educator of the sexual slaves called "Handmaid's." She is pious and brutal. And her job is to keep her charges in line in a country where women are not allowed any reproductive choice. So in a new interview, Anne Dowd was asked what she thought about the new raft of anti-abortion laws being passed in the United States.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNE DOWD: If you think it can't happen that women lose control of their lives think again. Open your eyes. Pay attention. Speak up. Put your phone down in protest. It's scarier than -- I don't know, I may have been tired when I saw in the paper -- Alabama. But for a minute, a second, I thought this isn't the present though. Where's this from? This must be a story from...The fact that it was current and the degree of absurd restrictions was so alarming. It is so alarming, and enraging. And something has to be done.

TA: That was actress Anne Dowd who portrays Aunt Lydia in the television adaptation of "The Handmaid's Tale" speaking to Beth Elderkin of Gizmodo.

[Music]

Frida Kahlo

TA: You'd know her face anywhere. But Frida Kahlo's voice is a mystery. For the people at Mexico's national audio archives, that's been an obsession. This week, Pavel Granados -- the head of those archives -- told a press conference, quote, "Frida's voice has always been a great enigma, a never-ending search." He didn't however call the press conference to say that, he called it to announce that maybe that search is over. In the archives of a Mexican radio host, they found a tape on which a woman reads an essay about artist Diego Rivera. We know Frida Kahlo wrote that essay and that Mr. Rivera was her husband. If it is her, it's the only recording of Frida Kahlo that exists. If it isn't, her voice may turn up on one of the 1300 other tapes in the late radio host's collection. For now here's what Mexico's national audio archives have revealed -- our Sound of the Day. I'll interpret afterwards.

SOUNDCLIP

[Woman speaking in Spanish]

TA: Possibly, the voice of the artist Frida Kahlo reading an essay about her husband Diego Rivera. She said, quote, "His high dark extremely intelligent and big eyes rarely hold still. They almost come out of their sockets because of their swollen and protuberant eyelids -- like a toads. They allow his gaze to take in a much wider visual field as if they were built especially for a painter of large spaces and crowds. And very rarely does the ironic and tender smile disappear from his boutique mouth, from his fleshy lips, the flower of his image."

[Music]

Royal Swans

Guest: Toon Dreessen

TA: For decades a flock of swans has gracefully paddled around on Ottawa's Rideau River. They were a gift from Queen Elizabeth herself to mark Canada's centennial. But of the dozen the Queen brought over in her customized Swan carrying luggage, only five remain. And now city staff are recommending that the descendants of that royal present take flight permanently for a zoo near Montreal. The snowy birds have been wintering in Parc Safari since 2015 after critics complained their cramped facility in Ottawa resembled a, quote, "Swantanamo Bay." And the city didn't want to shell out for a new local home. But not everyone is ready to say goodbye. Toon Dreessen is an Ottawa based architect and a past president of the Ontario Association of Architects. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Toon what do you make of this news that they're going to move the swans permanently to Montreal?

TOON DREESSEN: Well I think it's a bit sad. I think it's a wrong decision. They float down the river. They're quite lovely, people take pictures, you take your kids to feed the swans and the ducks. It's kind of a bit of our cultural makeup these swans. They're quite lovely and I think it would be quite sad to see them go.

CO: They've been there for about 50 years. Can you tell us a bit of the history?

TD: They were a gift from the Queen. And as swans do, they've produced swan progeny and those swans are with us today. They get taken away every winter and I guess put into swan storage of some sorts. And that's I think part of this conversation is that storage of swans has been a bit problematic. And so there's been some talk about saving some money and if that's really what's behind this that would be quite sad.

CO: But the numbers of swans are dwindling, are they not? I mean they have progeny but they're not exactly reproducing robustly so isn't that part of the problem?

TD: Well I suppose it is. I'm not a bird expert. But I read that there were at once 12 and then another year there were 11 and then 8. And I mean I think these things come and go. And I think with the right care and the right love and attention, they could thrive. And I know they're not native to Ottawa so they need some care and they need some protection. But you know I think that they are nice little feature that makes Ottawa a bit special and a bit unique. They're like our tulips. They're also you know a gift and they're part of what makes us lovely and a lovely city to be in.

CO: What has it mean for the past 50 odd years that those swans have been in the river?

TD: Well like I say I mean I care a lot about the built environment and these swans -- they're part of our surroundings and our cultural makeup and they're part of what we see when we take a picture and tourists come to town and they see the parliament buildings or they see the war museum and they see a flag flying and they take a picture and that goes around the world. In a bit in the same way you know they go down the river and they see these swans and they take pictures -- and to say that it doesn't matter and that this isn't worth keeping is I just think a little bit sad. I think that they're sort of a part of who we are and a part of our culture and I think they're worth keeping that way.

CO: Some have suggested that it's an insult to the Queen herself who gifted the original swans to Ottawa, would you agree with that?

TD: I would. The gifts of the Queen are something that's symbolic. They're something that should give us meaning and gives us a connection to our past and we can have all kinds of conversations about decolonizing and that the monarchy isn't appropriate and whatever but that's still a part of our cultural makeup and a part of our past.

CO: I think many agree with you (that) symbolically that this is what they represent. But those who care for the swans say that this move back and forth each winter is distressing and stressful for them and may be what's contributing to their low birth rate.

TD: And my response to that is that if we think that that's what's important then let's make the investment to give these swans the home that gives them less stress, that cares for them. There's talk that the swan resort is a 600-thousand dollar expenditure. You know I think we want to give these swans the right kind of care and that's worth an investment just like it's worth investing in homes for the aged or the infirm or the ill. We want to give people and give swans a nurturing caring environment that's good for them.

CO: Do you have much support for your position? I know the Mayor Jim Watson supports the permanent removal of the swans to Parc Safari. Do you have support?

TD: So I heard this on the news yesterday and I tweeted about it and I've gotten lots of retweets and likes and support. Many people sharing memories about their experience of the Swans either themselves or with their kids. I've gotten a few comments saying well they're not native so we should just let it go. And there's been definitely more positive support than the negative. That sort of speaks to both you know my own bubble of who I follow and people who follow me. But it's also a little bit about the idea that this is culturally important and that we should invest a little bit in the type of environments we create and recognize what that environment does for our tourism for our economy and for the care of animals.

CO: Do you think it's possible you could turn this decision around before they remove the swans?

TD: I'd like to think so. I mean I think that there's a growing public interest in swans but also in creating high quality environments for tourism, for culture, for people, for animals. And I think that if we can get enough public sentiment to support that idea that we could change people's minds. Hopefully we can persuade enough councillors to support that idea.

CO: All right we will be following. Toon it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

TD: Thank you.

TA: Toon Dreessen is an Ottawa based architect and a past president of the Ontario Association of Architects. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music]

Dateline: Bridgenorth, Shropshire, England

TA: Dateline: Bridgenorth, Shropshire, England.

[Music]

TA: In the late 19th century, if you wanted to build a railway up a cliff in England you went to George Croydon Marks -- a brilliant engineer who happened to look sort of like a British Colonel Sanders. So in 1891, when the town of Bridgenorth needed a train to go up its extremely steep cliffs, it turned to Mr. Marks. And he built a 61-metre long track that rose a staggering 33 metres, or 111 feet. To this day it is, as the website trumpets, "England's Oldest and Steepest inland electric funicular railway!" George Croydon Marks was a visionary. But he could not see the future. He did not foresee that while the cliffs would always stay the same size, passengers would not. Bridgenorth Cliff Railway recently finished three months of upgrades. Why? The excellently named railway director, Malvern Tipping" with great diplomacy put it thusly, quote, "Part of the problem we had was not only that some renewal of the support and springing was required but we are faced with people having become larger and heavier. Like others, I now have to try to watch my weight. It arises from us all eating too much and enjoying a more sedentary lifestyle." Well let's be clear, in the 19th century -- people were smaller, period. So it was wise if only for a brief period to take the train off the beaten track.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 13, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This