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 September 11, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Ali Hassan

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

ALI HASSAN: Good evening I'm Ali Hassan. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

AH: Tonight...

CO: Points of departure. Quebec's Superior Court says part of the law on medically assisted dying is unconstitutional -- and it allows the two residents who brought the case to court the right to die immediately.

AH: From open arms to closed borders. Turkey's President Erdogan was once seen as a champion for Syrian refugees but now he's decided to deport 1 million of them.

CO: Force of nature. The Minister of Health for the Bahamas says the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian is almost beyond description and the death toll will rise beyond current estimates.

AH: Drawing lines over a drawn line. It's more than just a story of the U.S. President showing a weather map altered with a sharpie -- to our guest it's also a story of a key agency giving in to political pressure.

CO: Blonde bombshells. Another explosive development today for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson -- a Scottish court rules that he didn't just break the law to suspend parliament, he misled the Queen.

AH: And maximum Maxime. The Rhinoceros Party gets a named candidate to run against Maxim Bernier a leader of the People's Party: Maxime Bernier. I mean Maxime Bernier is running against Maxime Bernier. We'll talk to Maxime Bernier about it. Not that one the other one. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that figures at least their politics are opposite -- in fact they are polar Berniers.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Dorian left 'apocalyptic devastation' in its wake, says Bahamas health minister

Quebec MAID ruling

Guest: Patrick Martin Menard

AH: Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon want to die. But neither of the Montreal residents was eligible for medical assistance in doing so -- until today. A Quebec court has ruled that parts of the provincial and federal laws limiting access to medically assisted death are unconstitutional. Specifically the restrictions that say natural death must be, quote, "reasonably foreseeable." The ruling gives the federal and Quebec governments six months to change those parts of the law. It also gives Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon an exemption that allows them to apply for medically assisted deaths immediately. Patrick Martin Menard is part of the legal team representing them both. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Mr. Martin Menard how are your clients feeling about this ruling today?

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: They are of course very satisfied. It's been a very long battle. I mean it has been more than two years since this action was filed. And today the court has decided that they will have the right to die with dignity and on their own terms.

CO: What does it actually mean for them -- for Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon?

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: What it means essentially -- what the court did in this judgment is it struck down the criteria that says that in order to have access to medical aid in dying a patient has to be in a situation in which her death is reasonably foreseeable. The court has said that this criterion is not constitutional, and has struck it down. So what that means for our two clients is that -- because both of them had conditions that were fulfilling all the other criteria. They had intolerable suffering and that could not be relieved by modern medicine and they were also capable of making medical decisions but their death was not reasonably foreseeable. Today with the judgment they will be able to have access to medical aid in dying.

CO: It's interesting what the tribunal said -- there is some very interesting language in this. And this is a rough translation from French but they said that the law recognizes the suffering, dignity, and ultimately the autonomy of people like them who are affected by serious and irreversible health problems and this is about the autonomy of persons. Isn't it? This is what they were arguing.

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: Yes exactly. And that was the argument that we have made since the beginning -- to let them make this decision was something very important for their autonomy and for their dignity. And the court also mentions that these patients -- our clients -- were often qualified as vulnerable by our opponents but in fact they say even though they have very severe physical conditions they are not vulnerable people they are entirely capable of making decisions. And it has recognized their right to make this decision.

CO: Of course that's the argument that we often hear into the reason why the medical assistance in dying was limited was because of the arguments people put forward that people who have problems, who are in great suffering-great pain but aren't terminally ill, they may be pressured into accepting this kind of an end and that they're vulnerable to these kinds of pressures. What do you say to that?

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: Our answer to that has always been the same that the main criteria to protect vulnerable people is the criteria of capacity that a person has to be capable of making a decision from a legal standpoint and that the capacity has to stay until the very end so the person is able to withdraw her consent until the very end. This to us is the main measure to protect vulnerable people. So in our case, part of the evidence that was filed was showing that our clients were fully capable and this capacity was not contested that they both testified very convincing that this was what they wanted.

CO: You know also that disability advocates are concerned about these decisions because they say that it sends a message that disabled lives are not worth living.

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: Yes this is not at all the message that we see in that. On the contrary what it shows is that disabled people like anyone else have the right to make their own decisions -- not that their lives are not worth living but that they should be the ones to decide for themselves instead of having a decision imposed on themselves by society or by other people.

CO: Where does this ruling go from here? Because in this case they have -- the tribunal has ruled in their favor and said they can immediately seek medical assistance in dying but it also at the same time is giving the federal and provincial governments six months to work on changing that to reflect that these people's rights who are not facing imminent death that their rights are not being respected. So does that affect your clients at all?

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: Our clients will will speak tomorrow at their press conference and they will say exactly what their intentions are from here. The broader point here is that essentially the court gave the government six months to either modify the law or remove certain aspects to make it compatible with the judgment. The government may also file an appeal in the meantime which would involve a further suspension probably longer than the six months that was decided. But the court also gave an exemption to both of our clients from the six month suspension meaning that both of our clients if they wanted tomorrow could request medical aid in dying and that they would probably be able to receive it because they fulfill all of the other criteria.

CO: I know this was -- I suspect this was very very difficult for your clients. And it's interesting the tribunal says it recognizes it and says -- it's really interesting language -- they say that this decision could not have existed without the courage and determination of these two exceptional individuals who carried this cause on their shoulders and the tribunal will be forever marked by their witness and they wish to convey the deepest respect. What does that mean for your clients to hear the tribunal say that?

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: I mean this is a very powerful statement. Anyone who saw the testimonies of our clients or saw immediately the very strong emotional aspect to this -- to have the tribunal recognize this in this way is something very good. It also points to a broader thing which is the fact that these two individuals had to take this case on their shoulder and bring it to court. And I think it's just something that they had to take this case on their shoulder and bring it there -- or the government could have had the opportunity to either ask for the court of appeal or the Supreme Court to look at this case directly without forcing individuals to take it on their back and bring it there. So hopefully as a result of this decision the government will change the law. But we will see how things go from here.

CO: Mr. Martin Menard I appreciate speaking with you thank you.

PATRICK MARTIN MENARD: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

AH: Patrick Martin Menard is one of the lawyers representing Nicole Gladu and Jean Truchon. Earlier today a Quebec court ruled both the Montreal residents have a right to seek medical assistance in dying.

[Music]

Dorian: Bahamas Minister of Health

Guest: Duane Sands

AH: It's been more than a week since Dorian left the Bahamas but the scale of the destruction from the Category 5 hurricane is still just being revealed. According to the latest numbers at least 70,000 people are homeless -- with some still waiting for basic supplies. 2,500 have been registered as missing. Dr. Duane Sands is the Bahamas Minister of Health. We reached him in Nassau.

CO: Dr. Sands I know you have been able to get into some of the hardest hit areas of the islands. Can you describe a bit of what you've seen?

DUANE SANDS: I don't think words could capture the apocalyptic devastation. I mean it is absolutely...it's unimaginable. It's almost surreal to see structures that you knew once existed that are just gone in some instances or reduced to just splinters, concrete steel, wood in places that previously had buildings. It is just unbelievable.

CO: And what are the people facing with whom you met?

DS: They range from some being totally unscathed to some who have lost everything. And in some of those instances they are basically more focused on basic needs like food, water, and shelter. The Bahamas has historically dealt with weather systems like hurricanes -- every year. Storms on a regular basis. We thought we were experts on this thing. But nobody -- certainly nobody alive has ever experienced anything like this.

CO: You have people who are in Nassau looking for homeless people, looking for for accommodations. What are people up against?

DS: After the storm passed the devastations and the damage not only took out homes and businesses but it also destroyed roads and harbors and airports. Many of the vehicles on the ground were destroyed. So in Grand Bahamas which is 100 miles long and the population of 50,000 we have one functioning ambulance in the entire island. One functioning ambulance. So meeting the need requires that you now have to drop in earth movers, automobiles, trucks to get to people. And then you have gaping holes that are impossible in the road where the road has been washed into the ocean. There are many areas you can only access by helicopter. Then you have bodies. And you have to go door-to-door in each island methodically deliberately making sure that you don't miss a home until you can retrieve from the rubble underneath concrete, steel, wood in flooded areas these bodies. I hope that gives you an understanding because when people say 'oh it's taken a long time to get to people.' Very few people on the face of the Earth have ever experienced a hurricane at 200 miles an hour -- sustained over an area for two days.

CO: Many people are wondering just what's happened to those that are missing. The official death toll is at this point 50 people. Are you expecting it to be much higher than that?

DS: We do. We believe that the death toll will be considerably higher. And yet you cannot count bodies that you do not have. Some of these bodies have probably been washed out to sea because we had a sea surge of 20 plus feet and so you literally have the ocean come in, people are swept away, the ocean recedes and it takes with it property, persons, animals etc.. Some of them have been retrieved. Some of them we're still searching for. But we know from reliable reports from family members that there is likely to be a significantly large number of persons who are now listed as missing who are probably dead.

CO: There's another post-problem that often happens when there is such devastation and that's that there are those who would actually take advantage of the state and engage in looting and robbing people. People in Abaco Islands told some BBC reporters that they didn't think the government was acting fast enough to help stop that looting. What do you say to those people?

DS: I say that looting is a pretty strong word. If you have somebody who has suffered through a storm raging at 180-200 miles an hour for two days, cut off from civilization with nothing to eat [and] nothing to drink, and they have to survive and they stumble on a building where there could be food or water -- what should they do? And I think words are powerful things and we have to be very very careful. Yes I admit that there have been opportunists who have violently seized goods -- stolen goods. But I believe that to be in the minority.

CO: You know that countries are wanting to help -- Canada among them. What do you need from us?

DS: We need goods. We need clothes. We need food. We need water. But most of all we hope that we can get assistance to rebuild and to once again regain our independence. Meaning that we help to get up off the ground, to get on our feet again to recover.

CO: Well Dr. Sands people would really like to see Bahamas and the people there get back on their feet as you say. And we're thinking of you and our sympathies are with your people. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

DS: Thank you. Do you mind if I just made one final comment? If I could.

CO: Yes. All right.

DS: So we recognize that this event lays bare the lie that climate change is not real. And so certainly for a small island -- developing state -- this type of weather event which was unprecedented certainly gives more power to the view that we have to -- around the world -- be environmentally conscious and look at what we're doing to our environment.

CO: And that's an important message and thank you for delivering it Dr. Sands. And thank you for speaking with us.

DS: Thank you. Bye bye.

AH: Dr. Duane Sands is the Bahamas Minister of Health. We reached him in Nassau.

[Music]

T. Boone Pickens

AH: Back in May 2012, Drake took a moment to reflect on his growing riches on Twitter. He wrote: "The first million is the hardest." Later that day he got an unexpected reply: "The first billion is a hell of a lot harder." That message came from T. Boone Pickens, the wealthy and quotable, Texas oil tycoon. Mr. Pickens rose to fame in the 1980s through corporate takeover bids that grew his fortune. But the fossil fuel titan later became an unlikely champion of renewable energy and a philanthropist. Mr. Pickens died today in Dallas. He was 91. A few years ago T. Boone Pickens was on this show talking about an apology letter that he'd written to Canadians. In his note he said he was sorry for then President Barack Obama's decision to veto the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Here's Mr. Pickens speaking to Carol about the pipeline and former President Obama back in March 2015.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: He has said that it's not the case -- that he's not saying that the pipeline will never happen. He says that there is an important principle at stake and he said that the State Department's administrative review is not finished and there is a court in Nebraska that is yet to rule on the pipeline's route. These are outstanding issues and he's going to veto it until such time as those issues are cleared up. Other than that he has not said that he opposes the pipeline per say.

T. BOONE PICKENS: You want me to respond that?

CO: Yes please.

T. BOONE PICKENS: I think he's dishonest. When he says State Department that's just silly. I mean this case --it says Nebraska. The last vote I saw by their legislature 44 to 1 to build [inaudible] -- there are 51 pipelines across Nebraska. There's not any issue here.

CO: There's also what the response was in this veto is that he didn't appreciate that the first order of business for a Republican Congress was to try and get the Keystone XL passed. And it seemed that there was a political thing and not an energy issue. Do you think that's the case?

T. BOONE PICKENS: No I don't think it's the case. I think a stupid answer to a simple question. I mean that is a political issues as a reason why he didn't want to do it. Gosh this man -- he is political 30 hours a day. Everything he does is political.

CO: You don't think it was a political act on the part of a GOP driven Congress that put him in the place where he was going to veto it. They knew he was going to veto it when they passed the legislation, didn't they?

T. BOONE PICKENS: I guess so I don't know. I mean it's nuts. The country wants the Keystone pipeline. We have a president that doesn't want the same things as the people do. And so you know there's your problem. I mean we've held up the Canadians for six-seven years. It needs to be acted upon. We consider -- I consider Canada to be friends of the United States. Our relationship could not be better with a neighbour than it is with Canada. And he tampers with it continually. He has destroyed relationships.

AH: That was oil magnate T. Boone Pickens talking with Carol in 2015. Mr. Pickens died today in Dallas, Texas. He was 91-years-old.

[Music]

Rhino Party Maxime Bernier

Guest: Maxime Bernier

AH: Voters in the Quebec riding of Beauce are being offered a double heaping of Maxime Bernier on election day. The long-time incumbent in the riding is Maxime Bernier -- the heir to a local dynasty who nearly became the leader of the Conservatives, before he upped the stakes to create his new People's Party of Canada. But Maxime Bernier isn't going to be the only Maxime Bernier on the ballot. The Rhinoceros Party of Canada has named another guy from the Beauce who is also named Maxime Bernier to be their candidate this October. We reach that Maxime Bernier in Montreal.

CO: Hello, is this Maxime Bernier?

MAXIME BERNIER: Yes it is.

CO: We just want to make sure we got the right Maxime Bernier. You're the Rhino Maxime Bernier, right?

MB: I am the proud representative of the Rhino Party absolutely for the Beauce.

CO: Well can you just first of all tell us -- I mean because I've interviewed the other Maxime Bernier. What makes you different from him?

MB: I'm nicer. I'm a great guy. I'm a family guy. And I really think that the Beauce actually need somebody to take care of them instead of going across Canada to try to start a new party.

CO: So you're talking about Maxine Bernier of the People's Party of Canada. Has he responded to you entering the ring in the same riding as him with the same name?

MB: I don't know. I am not able to tell you.

CO: Someone just got into your car I guess, right?

MB: Yes.

CO: Not the other Maxine Bernier I presume?

MB: Oh no it's my girlfriend. If I ever need help English and everything she's the one who's going to help me.

CO: [Laughs] All right. Good. Glad to have her there. What's her name?

MB: Stephanie.

CO: Hello Stephanie.

STEPHANIE: Hi.

CO: [Laughs] And now back to your candidacy. Are you getting any flack for some of the things that Maxime Bernier -- the other Maxime Bernier has been saying including he made some nasty tweets about a young girl -- a teenager -- Greta Thunberg who was coming to North America. Are you getting feedback on that?

MB: I mean getting feedback of whatever and all the time he could put his feet in his mouth --it's been 18 years now. Every time I could say my name or everything I always get like the little comment oh it's like Maxime Bernier. And yeah I basically saw the tweet because I'm following him just to keep me update on whatever he could say. But no -- I think the guy is just like from another century. Not forward, is backwards. Try to tell people's story. I mean I don't know what's the point to win on that if it's just to get friends in Alberta because of the oil or is just to try to find himself interesting. Well to be honest with you I don't mind because right now I'm just taking whatever light sunshine that he's giving me because I have the same name as him.

CO: So for all these years since Maxime Bernier became an MP and a cabinet minister you've been getting flak for things that he does?

MB: Every single week. Every single week. Oh is that you?! If he make something wrong sometimes -- are you like an idiot like him -- I don't want to say worse than that now.

CO: The Rhino Party is saying that this is a great opportunity for people who live in the Beauce because some of them want to vote Rhinos, some of them want to vote for Maxime Bernier, and now they'd be able to do both.

MB: Absolutely. They should not make any mistake.

CO: [Laughs] But do you think they will? Do you think people will vote for you or just get you confused with the other Maxime Bernier?

MB: What would you do if you would be on their situation? If you have somebody that would like to take care, listen to them, and do something for them instead of fighting with the other -- his old party that Maxime Bernier is smarter than Andrew Scheer and stuff like that. Like people in Beacue honestly they just don't care. Like they don't care about that. They're concerned about the milk -- what's going to happen with the new trade markets with the States, they worry about the job, or finding people to come and do the work. And you know what? Maxime Bernier talk about everything except what the people that actually going to vote for him want or would need. And that's why I think I'm taking the opportunity because that's what I'm going to do...offer something for them.

CO: Now you know that the Rhinoceros Party has some things it's offering on a national platform it says it's going to make "sorry" the official motto of Canada. It's going to nationalize bacon. And it's going to redraw the map of Canada to make every province square like Saskatchewan. Are you okay with all of that?

MB: Absolutely. Something need change and need amelioration. Why not?

CO: Right. I'll just move you on the environment program. Okay so the Rhinoceros Party has a green policy, it's going to make green cars like forest green and pale green and khaki green, neon green -- it's going to make more green cars in Canada. You're all for that.

MB: Yeah. And I am actually driving a green car too.

CO: Oh is it green?

MB: It is black. I didn't know -- but I bought it green. [Laughter] Just the wrong colour -- the dealer didn't know.

CO: Okay. So you are seriously into this campaign then?

MB: Absolutely. In life you start something only if you are planning on finishing and I would never start it if I wasn't not going to enjoy it.

CO: Now since you have your girlfriend in the car we should ask -- you wouldn't think of leaving very sensitive secret documents under the bed like the other Maxime Bernier did.

MB: No. See it is one of the thing I heard the most like people would like to say it that but now I don't let paper go around.

CO: And Stephanie you're on side with that?

STEPHANIE: Yes I am. [Laughs]

CO: Okay so you're not Julie Couillard?

STEPHANIE: I am not.

MB: She is a lot more beautiful and she doesn't have a backstory that go with it.

CO: [Laughs] Okay. All right Maxime Bernier we will talk to you later. Thanks a lot.

MB: Thank you very much.

AH: Maxime Bernier is the Rhinoceros Party candidate in the Quebec riding of Beauce. We reached Mr. Bernier in Montreal.

[Music]

Part 2: Former NOAA head calls Hurricane Dorian statement 'mealy mouthed' and 'disingenuous'

Turkey Syrian refugee

Guest: Rami Jarrah

AH: Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long been seen as a champion to Syrian refugees. His country has hosted more than any other country -- a whopping 3.6 million. But Turkey's leader has had a dramatic change of heart. He's proposed sending 1-million Syrian refugees back home. And if that fails, he's threatened to send a flood of Syrian refugees to Europe. Rami Jarrah is a Syrian journalist who until very recently lived in Turkey. He's been now granted political asylum in Germany, and we reached him in Berlin.

CO: Rami what are you hearing from Syrian refugees you know who are in Turkey what are they saying about President Erdogan's threat of deporting them?

RAMI JARRAH: What I'm hearing from even people that are very close to me -- relatives -- is that people are being arrested, they're being stopped at checkpoints, some of the time their papers are all in order but they still get arrested and deported. Over the past three months, we've had an estimate of around 6,000 people being deported each month. But this is sort of the beginning of a crackdown by the Turkish government to send that message that Syrians or refugees in general are not welcome in the country.

CO: And some are -- in order to stay ahead of what's coming and to not get arrested or harassed -- there's reports that there are refugees -- Syrians -- who are now escaping and to trying to get into Europe crossing from Istanbul trying to get into Greece. What are you hearing about that?

RJ: About a week ago I think it was a number of around 500 refugees were able to make it to Greece from Turkey. The Turkish government in one way or another allowed that to happen to apply pressure to Europe. But Syrians have been trying to make that trip to Europe all this time. It's been almost impossible because of the Turkish authorities. I think it happening now is significant as it's a message that coincides with Erdogan's public message of telling Europe that I'm going to open these gates and allow these refugees to come to Europe if everyone doesn't comply with what I want inside Syria. I mean I'm speaking to lots of people who are now applying directly to the French embassy, to the German embassy, and requesting asylum. And I know that the situation in those embassies is overwhelming because I've spoken with people that helped me get asylum in Germany and they've said that they're getting calls from everywhere and they're not able to help these people because of the mass numbers that are now applying. So I think what will end up happening is people will try going down the official route. If they're not able to, they're not going to accept the idea of going back to Syria. So going on a boat or trying to do the land route through Bulgaria is going to be the second option.

CO: President Erdogan -- one of the things he's proposing is that he send 1-million of the Syrian refugees who are in Turkey right now. -- he said that he wants to create a safe zone which is between Turkey and Syria and this is an area that we know is controlled by the United States and its Kurdish allies. So is he just floating that or is that a possibility?

RJ: I don't think it's realistic at this stage. But throughout these 8 years in Syria in particular. I've seen things that I wouldn't expect were possible to happen and they do end up happening. I think the question I asked myself now is if the Turkish government did actually push for this to send 1-million back to Syria who would stand in its way? I don't think Europe would because Europe is trying to avoid the idea of those refugees then travelling to Europe. The only obstruction by the United States I think it would be to protect their Kurdish allies from this Arab influx that could go into those areas. But they could end up going to other areas because at the moment those Syrians that are being deported back to Syria and not being sent back to these Kurdish areas, they're being sent to places like Idlib that are being bombed constantly by the Russians and by the Syrians. And one thing to take into consideration is the fact that some of the people that are being sent to these areas are just not even familiar with these areas. It's like sending someone to Afghanistan that used to live in Chicago for example. Someone that was in Damascus sending them to an area that they know nothing about and that's controlled by jihadist groups. So it's a very unethical process.

CO: We have been covering the story of Syrians -- Syrian refugees -- crossing into Turkey since the war began. And Turks were very generous. They took people in, they helped them. But now there's 3.6-million refugees, there's no exit sign on this that seems that this is going to continue. Can you understand that at some point that President Erdogan is getting a lot of pressure from Turks who say come on when is this going to end?

RJ: I can certainly understand that. And 3.6-million is a very large number. So I certainly understand it. But the issue is that the Turkish government has been very disorganized in distributing those numbers within Turkey. Unlike for example countries like Germany that have been very careful in distributing refugees, integrating them into society through these integration programs. Turkey has been paid a lot of money to integrate refugees. And they haven't taken that seriously at all. And that has caused local tensions where local Turks who see the unemployment rate going up, the inflation rate going up, they end up scapegoating. It becomes Syrians are the cause of that. Which is really not the case. So I can understand it. But the problem is when Turkey has taken this political responsibility in protecting Syrians what they've done is they filled the vacuum where the international community could have been more responsible towards protecting Syrians from annihilation by the Assad regime. But Turkey has taken on that responsibility and prevented anyone else from providing the solution. And what they end up doing is then sending these same refugees that they've protected for this period of time back to a war zone. It's like you're destroying the original pledge. And I don't see that as a sustainable or responsible decision.

CO: We're speaking with you in Germany where you have been accepted for political asylum there. If you were still in Turkey what would be your prospects? What do you think would be happening to you right now?

RJ: I mean I spent the past three years in Turkey in hiding. Maybe my situation is slightly exceptional. It's not very unique. But I did had issues with the Turkish government and it was because of as a journalist I do comply with the narrative that the Turkish government wanted to being provided to audiences within Turkey. A very good example of this is the fact that 177 journalists at the moment are imprisoned in Turkey. And that's the highest number in the world. And what worries me is that I had a lot of help because maybe my name's been in media and I can speak English where otherwise there are people that are really struggling to get out of the country. And what they end up doing is taking these very dangerous routes. And I didn't have to do that. But I think it's an almost impossible task for someone else.

CO: Desperate situation for those people. Rami I'm glad you're safe and good to talk to you again.

RJ: Thank you very much Carol. Thank you for having me.

AH: Rami Jarrah is a Syrian journalist who recently left Turkey for Germany where he was accepted on political asylum grounds. We reached him in Berlin.

[Music]

Bianca Andresscu

AH: It was a hero's welcome for Bianca Andresscu. Earlier today, Ms. Andreescu spoke with reporters in Toronto, days after her amazing victory at the U.S. Open. She talked about what it was like to go up against Serena Williams, her Olympic dreams, and her appearance on The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon. And then, at the end of the press conference, she dropped some breaking news.

SOUNDCLIP

BIANCA ANDREESCU: Oh Drake messaged me by the way. He's like...wait let me read it. I'm actually having a conversation with him. This is unreal. He's like: Here I am. Smiley face. Congrats. We are also proud of you. I've been liking every post with you in it. LOL. I thought you'd see. I didn't -- I was barely on social media. I was just posting things but yeah. That was cool. I don't even know what to reply to that. It's going to take me a while. He has the seen message [laughs]. Don't worry I'm going to answer. I'm going to answer. Yeah I can't r-bomb him. But yeah I just wanted to say that.

AH: That was Canadian tennis star Bianca Andreescu speaking with reporters in Toronto earlier today.

[Music]

Alabama NOAA

Guest: Kathy Sullivan

AH: Forecasting the weather is the job of professionals. Not politicians. That seems obvious to Kathy Sullivan, who used to head up the U.S. agency that oversees the National Weather Service. But the controversy over President Donald Trump's pronouncements about Hurricane Dorian shows that not everyone gets that. You'll probably remember the map Mr. Trump sat next to in the Oval Office which showed part of Alabama circled by what looked like sharpie marker. It came after the president tweeted incorrectly that Alabama would most likely be hit by Hurricane Dorian. Since then there's been a major storm over alleged political interference in the weather services reporting on the hurricane. Kathy Sullivan is the former administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She's in Columbus, Ohio.

CO: Dr. Sullivan we're hearing today that a U.S. congressional committee will open an inquiry into reports that the White House pressured people in NOAA to support Donald Trump's statements about where Hurricane Dorian was going to go. What do you make of that?

KATHY SULLIVAN: I make it as how science committee taking appropriate steps to look into whether the scientific integrity of an agency that the American public counts on every day was in any way breached or attempted to be breached by the White House. And it goes in parallel I would presume with reports that NOAA Acting Chief Scientist is invoking the agency's scientific integrity process and I believe also the agency's inspector general which is an independent investigatory authority appointed by the Congress. I don't know how many cooks we need looking into this particular pot of soup but I do think it's important that we get the facts more clearly on the table.

CO: All right. Can we just go back to what happened. For people -- maybe some in Canada who didn't follow it closely. Go back to September 1st when President Trump said that Alabama will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated. And then the National Weather Service in Birmingham said that Alabama will not see any impacts from Dorian. We repeat no impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama. What did you think when you saw those two statements come out?

KS: Well I learned that the president had I was looking at the weather charts -- the forecast maps of that day -- the data made it very clear on September 1st that the storm would not impact Alabama. Whatever earlier indications or possibilities might have arisen days prior when the data were not so clear, those were all moot at that point. So on that day it was clear from the data and the scientific evidence Alabama would not see any impacts. The forecasters -- by my understanding did not know what the president had tweeted. All they knew was that suddenly their switchboards lit up with worried citizens in Alabama calling in and their training and the long experience with the National Weather Service confirms that one of the most important things you want to do is always tamp down, squash quickly, any incorrect weather information. And you know a forecast that says you're in danger when you're not can be as dangerous as the reverse because it does not take many incidents of that sort to condition a population to just not bother and not respond to the warnings that come out. So it was not only instinctual but so scientifically sound and all according to policy for that weather forecast office in Birmingham to very rapidly quash what was clearly an utterly incorrect statement about the weather. Only later did they realize the source of it but again they were not concerned about the politics at all. There are -- I am absolutely certain -- no intent whatsoever for any sort of disrespect or a political gesture involved.

CO: By Friday NOAA issued a statement that the Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms and they were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time. In fact suggesting that Donald Trump was right about what he had to say. When you saw that what did you make of that at the time?

KS: That someone had been put under tremendous political pressure -- one of the higher ups at NOAA. That they had caved to that pressure rather than defending the scientific integrity of the agency's product and workforce. I found it disingenuous rather mealy mouthed. I've not gone back through and looked at every data product from September 1st but I do not believe it is correct that on September 1st any of the forecast products at that time justified the president's statement.

CO: So why do you think that NOAA issued that statement?

KS: Again I presume they were put under tremendous political pressure to try to -- the president is angry, the president wants people in what he considers to be his personal agency to defend him not contradict him. And someone was pressured to make NOAA fix it. You know the NOAA officials rather than stand up and defend the scientific integrity and their workforce apparently decided to try to craft some statement that you know that made the president happy.

CO: New York Times is reporting now that the secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross threatened to fire those political appointees at NOAA if they didn't fix this. And today the paper's reporting the White House told Mr. Ross to get NOAA to disavow its own forecasters. What do you make of that?

KS: I don't have much confidence that any of the reporting sources have the exact words that were spoken between the parties correct. And at a certain level it doesn't matter to me. I think the signs are clear that significant political pressure was brought from on high on -- on probably Neil Jacobs at NOAA. And the track record -- the statement that was issued makes clear that Mr. Jacobs decided to cave in and give in to his obligation to try to make the president happy rather than stand up to his constitutional obligation to support the scientific integrity of the agency.

CO: Neil Jacobs gave a speech Tuesday morning in which he said that the point was only to clarify technical aspects when they issued the clarification that he said there is no pressure to change the way you communicate forecast risk in the future. He's saying this to the employees of NOAA. And so he seems to be trying to find a way to patch things over. What do you make of that?

KS: I found the statements that were reported very unconvincing. The little sympathy for him is still being in probably an awkward position with a difficult line to tow. But I don't think you get it both ways. You're either standing on principle and really defending that principle or you're not. And in my view the statement of last week did not defend that principle. It was a caving in.

CO: He also said in the speech: This is hard for me. This is hard for my friends. It's hard for my family. I want to thank those who support me I'm the same Neil I was last Thursday. Do you feel sorry for him?

KS: You know I've had high level jobs -- his job and a job higher than that -- I understand what it's liked to be under pressure of various sorts when issues get tough and complex so I have a certain degree of sympathy. But you know he chose his course of action and courses of action and choices we make have consequences. I can imagine it would be hard having -- again -- failed to stand up for your people to then show up a few days later and try to stand in front of them and claim again to be their leader. The significant bond of trust was badly damaged. Common saying of mine you know trust is like flying glass it shatters in an instant with one blow and it is not rapidly repaired. Times were tough, things were difficult, stakes were high and you were not there for me. And then you show up on Tuesday and say I still love you and I'm the guy I was before. Pretty hollow.

CO: Dr. Sullivan I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KS: My pleasure Carol.

AH: Kathy Sullivan is a former NASA astronaut who used to be the administrator of NOAA. We reached her in Columbus, Ohio. For more on that story visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Job Titles

AH: The only good thing about a low level job is the clarity of your job title. When you're a dishwasher, you wash dishes. Baby sitter, you sit babies. Movie theater usher, you ush. But the loftier the job, the broader your responsibilities -- and the vaguer the job title. And sometimes you really need clarification. This week Ursula von der Leyen -- the president of the European Commission -- shared her nominees for jobs that will help her keep the European Union running smoothly. Big jobs with...weird titles. For example Ms. von der Leyen has one nominee in charge of "Economy" and another in charge of "Economy That Works For The People" which sounds like the same thing. Also another nominee will be responsible for, quote, "A Stronger Europe in the World." As opposed to on Jupiter I guess. But Ms. von der Leyen also lists a position with a creepier title "Protecting Our European Way of Life." About which one member of European Parliament said, quote, "The implication that Europeans need to be protected from external cultures is grotesque. And this narrative should be rejected." Well that job title does suggest a certain narrative with echoes of certain very bad past narratives. I mean sure it's vague but it's still vaguely disturbing.

[Music]

Manitoba MLAs

AH: In the 150 year history of Manitoba only three black candidates have ever been elected to the provincial legislature. And all three were elected yesterday. Last night while handing the Progressive Conservatives another majority government, voters also elected the province's first black MLAs. One of whom is the NDP's Uzoma Asagwara -- who is also the first queer identifying MLA in Manitoba. "Information Morning" host Marcy Markusa spoke to Uzoma Asagwara about the significance of last night's victory.

SOUNDCLIP

UZOMA ASAGWARA: I hope to make sure that you know the work that we do and my presence in the Manitoba legislature really reflects communities that have been in Manitoba a very very long time and have been under served due to the lack of representation of our communities in the Manitoba Legislature. And really my presence is just a reflection of communities that have every right to be at the decision making table and hopefully will normalise the presence of many communities being involved in politics so that kids now who are growing up in Winnipeg it will be their norm and their reality to see their politicians looking like them. And you know all kids and all communities will look at their elected officials and see all their communities represented and be excited to know they can aspire to that should they choose.

MARCY MARKUSA: It sounds like you're comfortable walking into a role model role.

UZOMA ASAGWARA: Absolutely. I'm fortunate. I had really great role models growing up in Manitoba. I was an athlete on every level and the importance of being a positive and constructive role model for young folks was not ever lost on me. And I'm fortunate to be in a position now where I mentor young athletes. I talk to school-aged kids. I've been doing that for a long time and this is just a new way of continuing to do that work and I look forward to doing that.

AH: That's Uzoma Asagwara, one of the first ever black MLAs elected in Manitoba -- along with Jamie Moses and Audrey Gordon.

[Music]

Part 3: Deepwater Horizon site still mostly bereft of life — except for parasite-covered crabs

Scottish court decision

Guest: Tommy Sheppard

AH: Prime Minister Boris Johnson has faced his fair share of punishing blows in the past week and he can add one more to the heap today. Scotland's highest civil court has ruled that the prime minister's decision last month to suspend parliament was unlawful and that he effectively misled the Queen in the process. The case was brought forward by more than 70 UK parliamentarians. Next week the UK Supreme Court will weigh in. Tommy Sheppard is an MP with the Scottish National Party and one of the petitioners who brought the case forward. We reached him in Edinburgh.

CO: Mr. Sheppard there are legal observers today saying that they have never seen a court ruling like this one. How does it strike you?

TOMMY SHEPPARD: Well it is unprecedented. But then so much of what's been happening in the UK is making history and breaking precedent. So you know it's unusual. It's a bit of a surprise. But it's still a delight that it has actually happened and that the court has agreed which many of us believe which is that Boris Johnson is just happy to break all the rules in pursuit of getting what he wants and disregard all criticism and accountability.

CO: Well it is more than rules -- these are laws and so three senior Scottish judges are unanimous that Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was unlawful and they're saying he effectively he misled the Queen. So this tell us a bit about how they reached that conclusion.

TS: The judges received evidence from the UK government and they were satisfied unanimously that the reasons for the prorogation, the reasons for the suspension of parliament, it wasn't convincing to say that it was justified on the basis of having to prepare a new legislative programme and I can only assume that they were convinced by the arguments by myself and the other appellants that in fact the reasons for the prorogation was to shut down debate in parliament and prevent parliament from constraining the actions of Boris Johnson. So you know his allowed to shut down parliament for a few days in order to clear the decks and bring a new legislative program in. He's not allowed to shut it down for five weeks to stop discussion on Brexit.

CO: And that's exactly -- this is what all three judges have said with different words...this is a quote: That the principal reason for prorogation was to prevent or impede parliament from having debates -- from looking into Brexit and discussing it. So in what ways do the judges say that he misled the Queen?

TS: He and his advisers went to the Queen and asked her to prorogue parliament on the grounds that they needed the prorogation for the new legislative programme. They did not say it was an order to prevent debate on Brexit. You know obviously we're not privy to exactly the conversations that took place between the premier and the head of state. But it's quite clear that he didn't come clean in terms of his reasons for the suspension of course with good reason because it's not a valid reasons to suspend parliament of course you know. If he had said that I'm pretty sure that the Queen would not have given her consent to the suspension.

CO: Would the Queen have been able to say "Come on Boris" -- well not quite these words from the Queen but would she have been able to challenge him in any way with something that did seem a bit preposterous?

TS: I mean I don't really know the answer to that but I presume that the Queen takes the advice from her ministers in good faith. But clearly the court does not believe Mr Johnson. You know the dogs in the street know that the reason why he suspended parliament is because he can't stand the heat you know and he has no majority in the parliament. He has no mandate in the parliament or the country. And rather than go and get one, he seems determined to avoid debate and criticism. He's got his comeuppance here because he's trying to play fast and loose with the law and with parliamentary procedure.

CO: This is not the conclusion that the High Court in London came to, is it? This is the other court decision that was on this prorogation. The view of the High Court in London was that well this is something that is political, that this is decided by government and not by the courts. So why is there a contradiction between the Scottish court and the High Court in London?

TS: Well because there's different personnel involved and they've come to a different conclusion. But of course I mean the conclusion the High Court came to in London wasn't so much that Boris Johnson's actions were legal or illegal, it's just that they didn't feel competent to get involved at all. And that of course has been appealed to the Supreme Court as well so we're going have a situation where next week in the U.K. Supreme Court all of these judgments will effectively meet up in the one room and there will be a final arbitration as to what the decision will be. But our view is in the meantime the Scottish court decision has equal validity with any other court in the United Kingdom and ought to be respected and that means that the decision if found unlawful should be changed unless and until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

CO: And so you believe that the House of Commons should get back into parliament to sit down and...

TS: Of course. I'm speaking to you from Edinburgh because I've been forced to go home. I would rather be at work in the House of Commons representing the people who elected me particularly at this time of you know very considerable political crisis in the United Kingdom. And it is shocking beyond belief that in the midst of the biggest constitutional and political upheaval the country has faced in decades that the prime minister of the day thinks he can get away with just suspending parliament and avoiding discussion.

CO: What is being missed? What are you not able to do because of the propagation...

TS: Well most of all we're not able to question on what his discussions are with the European Union because he claims that he is in pursuit of the deal with the European Union. He claims that he's put ideas forward to them. They are unaware of whatever these proposals are when we speak to the European Union. So it would be useful to actually have Boris Johnson come before parliament and table reports as to exactly what it is he is trying to do so that the parliament can have some say in it and it might well be depending on what it is -- it might well be he would get backing for what he's trying to do is in the parliament. But at the minute he is simply trying to suspend discussion which leads I think pretty much everyone to believe and to conclude that he hasn't got a clue about what he's doing and he is not really trying to get a deal at all.

CO: Just finally if the UK Supreme Court does agree with the Scottish courts including that he misled and lied to the Queen, what should happen to Boris Johnson? Should he resign?

TS: Yes of course he should resign. I mean the man would have lost all credibility. No question but he should resign if anyone with an ounce of integrity would do so.

CO: Mr. Sheppard we will continue to follow this extraordinary story in your country and I thank you for speaking with us tonight.

TS: No problem. It is a pleasure.

AH: Tommy Sheppard is an MP with the Scottish National Party and we reached him in Edinburgh.

[Music]

The Amazing Race Canada Winner

AH: "The Amazing Race Canada" has two new champions -- and they're not afraid to talk about the tough issues. James Makokis and Anthony Johnson are the first Indigenous two-spirit couple to compete on the reality show. Throughout the season, the married couple wore outfits that called attention to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada as well as the water crisis. Last night, the season's final episode aired in which they were crowned the winners. This afternoon the couple spoke with Calgary's afternoon show "The Homestretch" and here is James Makokis speaking about the most difficult part of the competition.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES MAKOKIS: The most difficult moment for me on this show was having to do the G7 summit for a number of reasons. One of them was you know thinking about the impact of historic trauma on Indigenous people. And I thought about my dad's story as he went to residential school and was forced to speak a different language and then as he went to an integrated school in a local French town how the Cree kids and the French kids fought each other at lunchtime because of racial tensions and how those memories came back to me while I was trying to learn that pretending to be the Prime Minister of Canada talking about these things and principles that the G7 organisation is supposed to represent like territorial integrity, the rule of law, human rights which have not been true for Indigenous peoples across this country. But at the same time knowing that we can persevere through things and keep going and I think having our ancestors behind us helped us through that challenge and speaks to the resilience of Indigenous people.

AH: That was one half of the "Amazing Race Canada" winners, James Makokis speaking to the CBC.

[Music]

Ontario insurance

Guest: Kyla Lee

AH: The government of Ontario is pitching it as a convenience for drivers in the province. Last week the provincial finance minister announced that instead of rummaging around in their glove box to find their vehicle insurance -- drivers who are stopped by police will now be able to present electronic proof on their phones. That policy is already in place in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. But Kyla Lee is warning drivers across the country that that small convenience could come at a significant cost. Ms. Lee is a criminal defense lawyer in Vancouver which is where we reached her.

CO: Ms. Lee tell us what your advice would be to Canadian drivers who could hand their phone over to a police officer to show that they have insurance?

KYLA LEE: My advice would be not to do it. It is incredibly foolish to give police access to as much personal information as you keep on your phone particularly if that information could in any way incriminate you or make an officer even just suspicious that you're involved in illegal activity.

CO: Now many people when they hear this say well I haven't done anything wrong, I'm not a suspect in anything, what could possibly go wrong if I handed them my phone.

KL: You don't know how a police officer is going to interpret information they see on your phone. And you don't know what a police officer is going to see on your phone. The reality is that any of us can receive a text message from anybody that we know or even from a wrong number at any point. And if the officer sees that message in plain view on your phone when you hand it over to them they can form an opinion based on their knowledge, training, and experience as well as what they observe about you that could lead them to detain you further or conduct further searches or even get a warrant for searching of your house or a wiretap.

CO: I guess it could also incriminate somebody else if they happen to send a message about something that they thought it was going to be privately sent to the person they were addressing.

KL: Oh absolutely. They might pull over associates of people they know to be involved in criminal activity to try and gain information from text message exchanges between those people even though the associates themselves might not be involved in criminal activity. We also know that the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized now the significant problems with over-policing of people in marginalized communities. And if you fit stereotypes that some police officers have about who's more likely to be involved in criminal activity it's more likely that the police are going to interpret even benign communication that you get as something nefarious.

CO: Is it possible if this is the situation and everyone has their insurance on a phone that the police would pull somebody over with the intention or the hope they could get hold of the phone?

KL: Absolutely. The police use these types of investigative tactics all the time. Police are already out there using their broad discretion to conduct traffic stops to stop people that they're interested in because they suspect they're involved in criminal activity just to see where they're going, what they're up to, engage them in conversation, see if they can see any signs of criminal activity in the vehicle and to document their interactions with those people.

CO: But how could the police use that information? I mean don't they have to have a warrant if they're going to search your phone and get access to information about you and anybody else. Is that legal? Is that admissible?

KL: The police don't have to have a warrant to search your phone. If you hand over your phone to the police officer you're giving them consent to look at your phone. And if something comes in on the phone while it's in the police custody -- you know if you get a text message and the contents of the text message are displayed on your screen like they are for my phone and for many people's phones, that's information that's considered to be in plain view.

CO: Right now the government of Ontario insists that drivers will use the lock function or could use a lock function to keep this private information secure. That won't do it?

KL: That insistence I think belies the real problem with this. First of all people are going to have to actually take the steps to use the lock function. And I would expect that if people don't take the steps to use the lock function and hand over their unlocked phone to a police officer then the Crown will take the position or the police will take the position in a warrant authorisation. That being given the unlocked phone was an authorization by the person, it was essentially consent for the police to go further and look in the phone. If the government says lock it and you don't lock it then the police can interpret that as giving them the authority to do a further search.

CO: I mean is this all hypothetical I mean because we know that the policy of electronic proof of insurance on phones is already a reality in Alberta, and Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. So have you seen any evidence of it being abused?

KL: I haven't seen evidence of it being abused yet. So this is at this point purely hypothetical. But it's not something that's unlikely to happen especially as more provinces shift towards doing this. You know anytime we have changes in technology it takes police and investigators a little bit of time to catch up to those changes in technology to use them in their investigations. We also may not have heard about this happening but that doesn't mean that it's not actually happening for people. People might not know that they're being surveilled because of something police have seen on their phones. They might not know that they are subject of a warrant for a wiretap because of something police have seen on their phones. So just because we haven't heard about it happening doesn't mean that it's not actively ongoing in this country as we speak.

CO: Well when Rod Phillips who is Ontario's finance minister -- when he made this announcement about this electronic proof of insurance last week he reminded everyone how inconvenient it can be to be having to search for that pink insurance slip in your glove compartment after you've been stopped by police and smart phone users have already given up so much of their privacy in exchange for convenience they don't seem to care too much about this. So how likely do you think it is that people will heed your warning?

KL: I think it's incredibly unlikely that people will heed my warning. And there's two reasons for that. First of all a lot of people feel compelled to adopt a particular technology as it comes out. I think you know the minister makes a good point about there being convenience associated with this because you know it's on your phone whereas if you know take your registration out of your car and forget it it's not there. But the other reason is we as Canadians by and large are very trusting towards police when we really shouldn't be because we give the police a lot of leeway in conducting searches of us you know in the implicit understanding that everything's going to be fine that we're not involved in something unlawful so we have nothing to hide and unfortunately that's just not how it plays out for people particularly from marginalized communities.

CO: All right. Cautionary advice there. Ms. Lee thank you.

KL: Thank you for having me.

AH: Kyla Lee is a criminal defense lawyer. We reached her in Vancouver.

[Music]

Deepwater Horizon crabs

Guest: Craig McClain

AH: Craig McClain and his team weren't even supposed to be studying the waters around Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But another project was ahead of schedule so they decided to check out how the marine life was faring nine years after the disaster off the coast of Louisiana. What they found and what they didn't shocked them. The research was recently published in the journal Royal Society Open Science. Craig McClain is a marine biologist and the executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. We reached him in Cocodrie, Louisiana.

CO: Craig can you just describe first of all what you saw on your underwater camera around the Deepwater Horizon site?

CRAIG MCCLAIN: So when the remote operated vehicle first hit the sea for the very first thing we saw was a worker's boot from one of the workers who presumably worked on the rig. So that was a sort of very somber way to start off the dive. And then over the course the dive I think it was sort of a lack of what we saw rather than what we saw itself. Most of the rich biodiversity and the amazing life that we've seen the deep sea was just absent at the Deepwater Horizon site. The wreckage of the rig itself should have had things growing on it like sea anemone and sponges and corals that would be typical of other spots of the deep sea and we saw none of that.

CO: I mean you say that you saw the boot. I mean there were 11 people who died in that disaster. But there was just a tremendous amount of oil released, right? I mean it was a 160 million gallons went into the Gulf of Mexico all those 87 days of uncontrolled release. And so how long has it been since anyone did what you did to take a look at what affect around the site has had on the wildlife?

CM: It's been more time than it should have been. The actual oil spill site itself -- the last known work on that was in 2014. And so when we went in 2017 it had been three years since anybody had been to the site and it was the first time that anybody had been to the site with remote operated vehicles since 2010 right after the oil spill.

CO: It's been nine years. Were you anticipating that you would see at least some of the life coming back in that site?

CM: I think we anticipated that there would be some recovery and what we saw was not much recovery since the actual oil spill itself. It always takes a long time for the deep sea to recover. But we were expecting to still see life there -- perhaps maybe in smaller numbers than we typically see but we expected to be a lot more than what we did see.

CO: What was it like for you as a marine biologist to go down there and see almost no life?

CM: Stark I guess. Shocking. The prior week we had done dives across the Gulf of Mexico and saw you know glass sponges and squids and fish and whip corals and giant isopods -- one of my favorite deep sea animals -- and none of those things occurred at that site. So it's the equivalent of walking around in a tropical rainforest the next day walking around on a cement parking lot. You know I mean the stark contrast. And you could feel it from the moment we hit the bottom. In the previous dives that we had done -- I don't know it felt for lack of a better term it felt warmer. The mud had warmer tones to it but then we get to the Deepwater Horizon and the oil spill site and the mud had a cooler look to it -- more blues, more grays. So the colour was already kind of one of the first things that we noticed.

CO: Did you see any marine life down there?

CM: We did see a few fish here and there. And we saw lots of crustaceans way more crustaceans than we expected to see. So crabs, shrimps, and things like that were far greater than what we saw at other sites.

CO: Why do you think they were there?

CM: We unfortunately weren't able to collect any so we don't know for sure. Our hypothesis is that in oil spills that have happened in the past to believe that the degrading hydrocarbons at the site sort of act as a hormone mimic. So the crustaceans sense that through chemical plumes and they essentially think that there is a mate at the site and are attracted into the site.

CO: Oh my gosh. And so what kind of condition are these crustaceans in?

CM: It didn't look like -- the crabs especially at the site were going through molts and several indications of that. One was that they had black shells, they had heavier loads of parasites on their outside shells, they were sometimes the missing legs and claws. There was a lot of shell deformities that we saw.

CO: You're mentioning that there has been so little research done -- you were there -- you weren't actually supposed to be doing research there at this time. And how concerned are you that there is something seriously wrong down there and the government's not paying much attention?

CM: I'm concerned there's not been an increased effort and continue monitoring of the recovery or the lack of recovery at this site. We can't begin to know what restoration of the deep sea looks like until we actually get a handle of how fast it's recovering in the first place. And so just to have there be a stop of funding and a stop of a scientific investigation because of that you know after just a few years is not the best path forward for us.

CO: This is all very disturbing news. When will you get back to do any more research?

CM: That's dependent upon if a funding line becomes available. Like I said we were in the area on another funded project which I was working ahead of schedule and so we had extra days to do work. And since we were near -- and overnight steam away from the Deepwater Horizon we had made the call -- do the dive on the Deepwater Horizon knowing that it had been a while since anybody had been there. And of course so none of this work has been funded. You know it was efforts on my and my research team to work up the samples and do the analysis without funding. So we sort of did the work pro bono because we thought it was important. We can't afford a ship, we can't afford a remote operated vehicle unless we have the funding to do that.

CO: All right Craig we'll leave it there. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CM: Thank you so much.

AH: Craig McClain is a marine biologist and the executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. We reached him in Cocodrie, Louisiana. To see some photos of the Deepwater Horizon and the crabs, head to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Western Chorus Frog

AH: Ted Quint says his situation is Kafka-esque. And the Montreal developer appears to have a point. Kafka-style, Mr. Quint finds himself in court and he's facing the faceless Kafka-like legal power of the federal government. But most Kafka-ishly of all, Ted Quinn says his real problem is that his multi-million dollar property has metamorphosed into a worthless green space all because of an itsy bitsy frog. The frog is the rare Western Chorus Frog. It's so small that it could fit on the tip of Mr. Quint's finger. But a few years ago the feds used their outsized power to protect one of the tree-dwellers' last remaining habitats by blocking Mr. Quint's plans to develop his land. He says that amounts to expropriation. And on Monday he'll be in court demanding compensation. We just hope this Gregpr Samsa doesn't suffer a further surreal development finding himself transformed Kafka-style into a Western Chorus Frog sized little bug. Here are some rather excited Western Chorus Frogs with our sound of the day.

SOUNDCLIP

[Western Chorus Frog sounds]

AH: I felt like they were inside my brain chewing up most of my head. That is our sound of the day: Western Chorus Frogs

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 11, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This