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 October 17, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and James Murray

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

JAMES MURRAY: Good evening. I'm James Murray. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JM: Tonight...

CO: Intermission accomplished. U.S. President Donald Trump says it's great for everybody that Turkey is calling off its offensive on the Kurds -- but Turkey stresses that the peace is only temporary.

JM: On the edge of however many seats. With pollsters predicting a minority government, politicians are providing various opinions about what that will mean, so we'll get a lesson on how Canada's democracy actually works.

CO: Blowing its stacks. Critics say the Toronto Public Library made a huge mistake by renting space to a Vancouver blogger critical of transgender rights -- but the head librarian says it's all about free speech.

JM: Agreeing to discuss the agreement. At last, British PM Boris Johnson is trumpeting a Brexit deal -- but our guest says it's nowhere near what voters imagined, so it's time for a second referendum.

CO: They've got a good thing goo-ing. Keepers at Paris Zoological Park proudly announce a new creature you won't see frolicking, yawning, or doing much of anything -- it's a slime mold they're calling "the blob."

JM: And chowing all the way down. Scientists exploring the ocean floor are related to discover all kinds of delightful and disgusting sea creatures at a sort of pop-up underwater eatery -- the skeleton of a whale. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that has a lot of bones to pick with you.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'I'm not going to reconsider': Toronto's top librarian refuses to bar speaker critical of transgender rights

Turkey ceasefire

Guests: Lindsey Hilsum

JM: It's being called a cease fire. But in northeastern Syria, it really depends on who you ask. Earlier today, U.S. President Donald Trump declared a five day pause in fighting between Turkey and Syrian Kurdish forces, followed by a permanent cease fire. Here's how President Trump described it.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: There's an incredible outcome that for many, many years, Turkey in all fairness, they've had a legitimate problem, whether they had terrorists, they had a lot of people in there that they couldn't have. They've suffered a lot of loss of lives also. And they had to have it cleaned out. So a process started and we started to negotiate. But I think it had to be an unconventional solution because a conventional solution is to sit down, negotiate, and they've done that for 15 years actually, more than that I understand. But when they saw the level of nastiness they said let's make a deal. This was a great thing for the Kurds. This was a great thing for Turkey. This is great for everybody.

JM: President Trump commenting on today's ceasefire in northeastern Syria. But ceasefire is not how Turkey would characterize it. They say it's just a five day pause in fighting, after which they'll conclude their military operation against Kurdish forces, who they view as terrorists. And for their part, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces say they'll accept a ceasefire, but not on Turkey's terms. Lindsey Hilsum is a Channel 4 International Editor who just returned from reporting in northeastern Syria. We reached her in London.

CO: Lindsey we just heard President Trump -- he has described this ceasefire as an unconventional solution. What would you call it?

LINDSEY HILSUM: Well certainly unconventional because a ceasefire is normally between two parties who are fighting each other. But this is a deal agreed between the Turks and the Americans. They're not fighting each other. The Turks are fighting the Kurdish-led forces in Syria who are now backed by President Bashar al-Assad and by extension, by the Russians. So this is just something which the Americans and the Turks are saying.

CO: What are the Kurdish forces in the region saying about this?

LH: Well General Mazlum who is the leader of the Kurdish led forces -- what he has said is that he would definitely agree to a cease fire. However, what the program which the Americans and the Turks have come up with says is basically that the Turks get everything that they want -- that there will be a complete surrender by the Kurdish-led forces. That the safe zone -- that's what the Turks are calling this territory that they want to control -- that the safe zone will be primarily enforced by the Turkish armed forces. Well, that means that the Turkish armed forces win this war but without having to fight, they just move in. And they say that in the next five days all of the Kurdish-led forces have to leave.

CO: Will they do that?

LH: I think it's unlikely. Why would they do that? What's in it for them? I mean you can argue that what's in it for them is that their people would not be killed. But then would their people be killed if the Turks were controlling the area? Because one of the things you have to remember is that Turkey has got with it the Syrian Arab militia. These are people who were previously fighting Bashar al-Assad, and they have been armed and trained by the Turks. They have a pretty bad reputation. And earlier this week, a group of these forces dragged some Kurdish political leader -- a woman -- out of her car and other people with her and shot them at the side of the road. So would those people be the ones who would be administering this area? Would they be pulling them out of their cars and shooting them? I mean it's very hard to see why the Kurds would want to do this.

CO: But given the language that Mr. Trump is using that this has been a great deal, this is a great solution. If it fails -- if the Kurdish forces of General Mazlum don't go along with that, have they to some extent been set up as that well if it fails it's your fault, you brought this on yourselves?

LH: Yeah. Absolutely. And you can also say -- you look at President Trump so you know the arsonist then says he's putting out the fire. Well, what do you know? There wasn't a fire in the first place, not before President Trump agreed to President Erdogan's demand that he should be allowed to attack this part of Syria and take this buffer zone. But it is very interesting that they're talking about a five day pause in hostilities. Now, in five days time President Erdogan is meeting President Putin. And really President Putin is the only person who could negotiate some kind of real cease fire in this area now.

CO: This discussion of ceasefire -- I'm sure you have seen them elsewhere around the world, that a ceasefire is usually a pause that allows everyone to reposition themselves. It's not peace. It doesn't end the fighting, does it?

LH: Absolutely not. So there are Russian forces apparently in the town of Kobani. That's one of the towns which the Turks wish to occupy. So this word of ceasefire would enable the Russians to get more forces in and to position themselves better if that's what they want to do. So I think that one should be extremely careful about seeing this declaration as any kind of cause for hope. What it is, is a declaration that the Turks will win, that they will get the buffer zone they want, that they would occupy that buffer zone and that Kurdish forces -- we don't know about Kurdish civilians -- that they will have to leave it.

CO: What do you think is likely to happen over these next days, not just these five days, but beyond it?

LH: Contrary to what President Trump said, I don't think that this is the end of it -- and now everything's fine and the Turks can go in and take this territory because I don't think that is what President Bashar al-Assad will want. I mean this is Syrian territory. And I don't think that it's what the Russians will want -- let alone the inhabitants of the territory, and the Kurds. And then you also have to remember that you have these prisons and prison camps which have a lot of jihadi ISIS prisoners. And I really do think these are the only people who can do anything to try and bring this to an end are presidents Putin and Erdogan -- not President Trump.

CO: We were talking about this larger geopolitical movement, this picture. But you've been on the ground. You've seen it. And you've been sending out tweets and messages about what people are going through. You've called it shameful. What have you seen on the ground? What's it like for people?

LH: It's terrible. There was a Turkish mortar which came into Qamishli -- town of Qamishli -- on the first day I was there. It just came in randomly into a neighbourhood. And it hit two children who were playing in the street. They happened to be Arab children, not Kurdish children -- so what? They were just children. And I went to see the little girl in hospital. She had to have her right leg amputated. And her left leg was full of shrapnel. She was 8-years-old. Her name was Sara. I didn't know if they had told her that her older brother Mohammed was killed as she lay there moaning. The other thing that won't leave me was that I joined a convoy of civilians who were heading to the frontline. Now, this was as brave and as foolish as you can get. These were Kurdish people who wanted to show support to their troops fighting the Turks. We did not travel with them all the way to the front line because I was very afraid that we would be bombed. And sure enough they were bombed. And about 11 people were killed. And these were women and men -- quite a lot of older people -- who went up to the front line in minibuses. And that was the result. These are the things you don't forget.

CO: Lindsey, I know that you're going back in as soon as you can. And we look forward to reading your reports, learning what you learned. I really appreciate you speaking with us tonight. Thank you.

LH: It was a pleasure.

JM: Lindsey Hilsum is International Editor for Channel 4 News. Yesterday, she returned from reporting in northeastern Syria. We reached her tonight in London.

[Music]

Toronto Public Library space dispute

Guest: Vickery Bowles

JM: This week, Canada's largest library system is rapidly losing support from some of its biggest champions: authors. A number of them have threatened to abstain from the Toronto Public Library and its events in the future because of the library's decision to rent out space for Meghan Murphy. Ms. Murphy is a Vancouver-based writer known for her opposition to legislation promoting transgender rights. Vickery Bowles is Toronto's City Librarian.

CO: Ms. Bowles did you know Meghan Murphy would be part of this event before you rented out the space?

VICKERY BOWLES: We did. Absolutely. We knew that. We have a rigorous process when we do our room bookings. And part of that process is establishing what the purpose of the meeting is. So we did review that before we allowed the booking to take place.

CO: And you knew that Ms. Murphy has argued that trans-women should not be allowed into women's locker rooms, their bathrooms or prisons, and that allowing people to self-declare their legal gender will nullify women's rights. You knew all of that?

VB: Yes. Yes, we did. We were well aware of the Vancouver Public Library controversy where Meghan Murphy was allowed to speak. And the room rental purpose was to have an educational and open discussion on the concept of gender identity and its legislation ramifications on women in Canada. So this is a feminist group that booked the room and their invited speaker is Meghan Murphy. And so we were aware of that.

CO: And she has said -- on CTV News -- she said that trans identified people really need services and programs specific to them. To say that people who identify as trans women are female is not true because they're not and you can't change biological sex. So the purpose of this to look at what does it mean for society, the law, and women -- it wasn't an educational session, was it? This is someone who says that these rights should not exist. Is that not the case?

VB: Well, this is a discussion that's happening at a branch of the Toronto Public Library, but it's also part of a much larger discussion that's happening in the larger community.

CO: What is that discussion? What are the two sides of that discussion?

VB: I am not here to talk about the two sides of that discussion. I am here to stand up for free speech. And you know as a public library and a public institution, we have an obligation to protect free speech. We have the same rules when we have for our collections, when we select books for our collection, when we have our programs. We apply the same rules to our room bookings. And we are a democratic institution and we are standing up for free speech. People in the community, on social media, have been describing this as hate speech. If there was something there that was being said that was illegal then there are larger authorities than us that would be responding to this. We've got the Canadian Civil Liberties Association speaking out in support of our decision. We have James Turk at the Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson University posting a blog post in support of our decision. And this has not been easy. But I for one am standing up for free speech and I will not back down.

CO: Sometimes what we call free speech is hurtful speech. And we have situations as you know -- the numbers are that about 20 percent of trans people have been physically or sexually assaulted due to their identity. Even more have been verbally threatened or harassed. So how do you safeguard them physically and their rights if you feel that it's within others rights to express ideas that deny those people their rights that actually go the distance of making them feel more isolated?

VB: Well, I am committed and the library is committed to offering safe and welcoming space for everyone, including members of the trans community. And we are aware that you know the upcoming room rental has caused anger and concern and hurt members of trans community and others. But as a public library and as a public institution, we have an obligation to stand up for our democratic values and principles.

CO: Are there any limits to who you would rent this space to? I mean would a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist be able to speak at one of our facilities?

VB: Well, you may recall we had a neo-Nazi group a few years ago rent one of our facilities and we allowed it. And that was for a memorial service. It is based on the purpose of the booking. If the purpose of the booking is going to result in hate speech or a discussion about hate speech, then no, we will not allow it. But it has to be based on that very high bar that is established by the criminal code of Canada.

CO: So as far as you're concerned, unless somebody is charged with hate speech, that's your standard -- that's your bar -- for when someone would not be allowed to speak at one your facilities?

VB: If it's going to be illegal. It's not just hate speech. If there is something that is illegal, something that would be a result of -- which is why we look very carefully at the purpose of the meeting.

CO: The library workers, the union workers -- they are very upset about this. They say that the staff has worked very hard to build trust in the community, to create a safe and inclusive space for the community. And they feel this is damaging to that.

VB: Well you know this is about free speech. And you know I think that it's important to understand that when you're defending free speech there are times when there are people in the community who are not happy with -- which is certainly the situation we find ourselves in right now -- with the decisions that we make. But nevertheless, we have to stand up for free speech. And when you protect free speech, you're also allowing civic discourse to happen. And it leads to, oftentimes, better understanding and greater acceptance and tolerance in society.

CO: There are limits to free speech. I'm sure you know that. And when free speech is hurtful or harmful to others it is something that is shutting down the free speech of others. I'm sure you've heard that argument before.

VB: Yes, I have.

CO: And you don't agree obviously.

VB: No I don't. I think that free speech is important, especially when marginalized groups are being -- people are trying to shut down marginalized group.

CO: The marginalized groups being those who deny the rights of those trans people who are feeling this is hurtful -- so what about those minority rights? What consideration are you giving to those minority rights?

VB: Well we're giving everyone consideration in this situation. And we strongly value our relationship with all members of our communities here in Toronto and elsewhere. If public institutions aren't going to stand up for free speech and allow civil discourse to happen then I don't know where that is going to happen.

CO: How do you think a trans person would feel sitting in the room during this event? Do you think they would feel safe?

VB: Well, I have to tell you we've heard from lots of people. But I have to tell you Carol, we've heard from trans people and other people who are very supportive of us. But they don't want their voices to be out there. They asked us to keep it in confidence and keep their communication to us in confidence, because they just don't want reprisal on social media. So I think that, you know to be honest, about two thirds of the comments we've heard are asking us to cancel the event, but about a third of them are supporting us in terms of believing in free speech.

CO: The Mayor of Toronto believes in free speech, but he has asked you to not hold this event. Will you reconsider?

VB: I'm not going to reconsider not supporting free speech. No, I'm standing up for free speech.

CO: We'll leave it there. Ms. Bowles thank you.

VB: Thank you so much.

JM: Vickery Bowles is Toronto's City Librarian. We reached her in Toronto. Meghan Murphy sent us a statement. It reads, in part, quote, "Many women...have very serious concerns about the impact of gender identity legislation on women and girls and deserve the chance to be heard. It is unconscionable that the Mayor of Toronto would attempt to pressure the TPL to cancel this event." For more on this story, visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Whale skeleton

Guest: Chad King

JM: It was jubilation 3,200 metres below sea level.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Well, well, well.

VOICE 2: Oh!

[People astonished]

VOICE 3: Here we go baby.

JM: A team of researchers on the ship "E/V Nautilus" were exploring the deep sea and live streaming the whole thing when they stumbled upon a rare and important find. Something dead that was crawling with life. Chad King is the lead scientist for the expedition. And we reached him on the ship, off the coast of California.

CO: Chad we can hear the excitement in people's voices as they see whatever it is that is at the bottom of the ocean. What exactly are you looking at?

CHAD KING: We were looking at a whale fall. And to be honest, that was the first time I've heard the reaction from the tape. It's been such a busy bee hive of activity. We were certainly not looking for it. It was a chance encounter and a very lucky one and glad we did so.

CO: So describe what you see. Well, first of all, what is the creature that's at the bottom of the ocean that is dead that you came across?

CK: We certainly do know it is a Baleen whale. They're still baleen which are these a broom or brush like appendages in the mouth. So it's not a toothed whale. And although none of us are necessarily marine mammal experts we've had a couple chime in from the Internet and people that we know -- and they think it's a Rorqual whale which isolates it down to a humpback, a fin, a blue, or a minke. It was about four to five metres long. So we did collect some tissue and bone and with more video analysis we'll hopefully identify the exact species.

CO: Actually seeing a dead whale at the bottom of the ocean would not make you excited. That could be quite a sad sight. But it's what you saw that was on the whale that was creating all those expressions. What was going on around that animal?

CK: The deep sea is relatively devoid of energy input. A lot of the animal down there, metabolize very slowly, grow very slowly. They rely on marine snow -- little bits of organic carbon that come down. So when a massive whale with tons of blubber and flesh falls on the bottom, it provides just a bounty, an oasis, for many of the animals down there. Up to 200 species utilize the energy from the whale. And it goes through a process of stages. The first stage is where scavengers come in and consume most of the flesh. The second stage is where the remaining scavengers get the rest. And then these fascinating bone eating worms will colonise the bones of the whale and use symbiotic bacteria and together they'll digest the fats or lipids in the bones for energy. So it's pretty remarkable.

CO: What we can see in the video and it's very very clear, isn't it? That there are all kinds of sea creatures, crustaceans, crabs, octopuses, crawling all over this carcass. There are lobsters and fish of all kinds. And it is just a giant smorgasbord, isn't it?

CK: It is. It reminds me almost like a Las Vegas buffet -- the dinner bell was rung. And of course there's no light down there. It's 3,200 metres under the surface of the ocean, which is more than 10,000 feet or 2 miles. There's absolutely zero light down there. So a lot of the animals have found this using you know chemo receptors, smell, those kind of receptors. And it was quite remarkable because it's hard to find a whale fall. You certainly can't look for them. It's a chance encounter. Most experts think that this has been down only for several months. Temporally it would be hard to find a whale that was relatively fresh. It gives us just an amazing view of all of the animals that break it down. But you're right -- to see fishs, crustaceans, octopus was a big surprise, and many other animals, it was just a flurry of activity. And seeing those beautiful bone worms -- the alfalfa sprouts of the Chia Pet coming off of the bones was quite remarkable.

CO: It's also interesting to hear all of you chatter about it because you see -- someone says well, what's on the bones? It looks like some kind of fuzz or fur. And then somebody identifies, what you've just said, which are these bone-eating worms. Had you ever seen those creatures before?

CK: I have not seen them close up or personally, but I certainly was aware of them. And none of us on the ship are experts. But with the wonderful technology that the Nautilus has, we were able to stream this live to the public. They discovered it with us. We had experts who heard about it, tuned in, and through chat, email, and text -- they were able to direct us. 'I would love this sample.' 'Can you get that sample?' 'I think it's this kind of whale.' 'I think it's that kind of worm.' So this technology allows us to bring in all of the experts virtually so we can do the best job we can as stewards to collect the samples to then further the science. So we processed those samples last night. And one of those scientists will be literally driving up to the port to pick them up and will be able to do a lot of analysis on them.

CO: When you said that it was unusual -- that you were surprised to see all those octopus crawling all over the whale carcass. Why is that? Was it known that they are scavengers?

CK: We don't know exactly why they were there quite yet. We don't know if they were consuming the flesh. They're not known to do that. And some of the bone-eating worm experts or the whale fall experts said that they had never seen that many octopus on a whale fall before. So we don't know exactly what their strategy was. Perhaps it was consuming the flesh. But also, and I think what may be more likely, is that they're there to then prey on the other creatures that come into consume the flesh -- the crustaceans, the crabs, the mollusks, you know the snails, kind of more of their typical prey.

CO: This whole thing, this whole movie, was shot with those cameras and the robots at 3,200 metres below sea level. Have you or scientists ever seen anything like that before?

CK: There have been several whale falls recorded at these depths, but no one on board had seen the one at that stage and that depth. So it was a truly one in a thousand, one in a million, find.

CO: Chad, it's really fascinating material. We're going to give links for our listeners to find it and watch it. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CK: Absolutely. Appreciate the time.

JM: Chad King is the lead scientist for the expedition on the ship "E/V Nautilus." We reached him on the ship off the coast of California. And we've tweeted out the video of their discovery @CBCAsItHappens.

[Music]

Part 2: Scheer 'seats' letter

Scheer ‘seats’ letter

Guest: Philippe Lagasse

JM: You know, the politicians are worried about a close election when they start debating the basic rules of Canadian democracy. Take Andrew Scheer. The Conservative leader was in Brampton, Ontario today where reporters wanted him to explain a claim he's been making about what would happen if nobody has a majority at the end of Monday night.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW SCHEER: It is quite clear that Justin Trudeau will try to do anything to stay onto power. But what I'm saying is that the party that wins the most seats should be able to form the government. And the other convention in modern Canadian politics is that a prime minister who enters into an election and comes out of that election with fewer seats than another party, resigns.

REPORTER: Even though the rules allow for it, do you see a government that is formed that might not have the most number seats -- do you see it as illegitimate?

ANDREW SCHEER: I believe that we have put forward a platform before Canadians -- and on Monday we'll find out what Canadians vote for. I am very optimistic that we will win Monday's election with a very strong mandate. We're asking Canadians for a majority mandate to prevent an NDP-Liberal coalition that will run massive deficits and raise their taxes. It is clear that in modern Canadian history, the party with the most seats forms the government and that a prime minister who comes out of an election with fewer seats than another party resigns. That is the convention in modern Canadian history.

JM: That was Conservative leader Andrew Scheer campaigning in Brampton, Ontario today. Philippe Lagasse is a professor of political science at Carleton University and an expert on how Canada's democracy works. We reached Professor Lagasse in Ottawa.

CO: Professor Lagasse you just heard Andrew Scheer. He says that if we Canadians give neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives a majority, then the party with the biggest minority, the one with the most seats, should govern. Is that right?

PHILIPPE LAGASSE: I would call that the custom that we've seen in Canada. But I wouldn't call it a binding convention. It reflects a sense of fair play and a certain degree of democratic propriety. But that custom can be set aside when the prime minister deems that he or she is better placed to govern the country with the cooperation of another opposition party. And the prime minister has the authority to meet parliament first -- and as long as they are able to secure confidence then that is the true test of who gets to govern.

CO: Okay. Just walk us through how this works. If there is -- let's say on Monday we learn, or on the wee hours of Tuesday probably, we learned that say Mr. Trudeau does not get a majority of seats, doesn't even get the most of the seats. It is a Conservative minority. What does Mr. Trudeau do at that point?

PL: Well we will know the answer on election night or shortly thereafter. Mr. Trudeau should declare and decide whether he intends to concede defeat at which point he would be signaling to the Governor-General his intention to resign as prime minister. The Governor-General would then commission Mr. Scheer to form a government, and we would have a short transition period, and thereafter Mr. Scheer would be prime minister. If on the other hand, Mr. Trudeau decides that the margin between the Liberals and the Conservatives is not that wide, and that he can stay in power and attempt to govern with one of the opposition parties, then he simply informs the Governor-General that he will stay on and attempt to secure confidence. He presumably assembles a new cabinet, puts together a throne speech, and meets parliament in hopes of securing its confidence of the House of Commons.

CO: Has anyone ever done that?

PL: Mackenzie King in 1925 is a good example at the federal level that we have. We also have just recently last year, Premier Brian Gallant in New Brunswick, who attempted to do just that to stay in power and then broker a deal with one of the opposition parties. Ultimately in Gallant's case it didn't work out.

CO: But the convention is as we saw say in 2006 when Paul Martin resigned and he passed it over to Stephen Harper. Pierre Elliott Trudeau promptly resigned when Joe Clark and his Progressive Conservatives got a plurality, but not a majority of seats in 1979. So when Mr. Scheer says that that is the sort of convention of modern Canada or modern Canadian convention, is he right about that? That it is a modern Canadian convention?

PL: Well, the word convention is fairly weighty. It means that it's a constitutionally binding rule. And therefore, I would simply point out that it's not a constitutionally binding rule. It may be a politically binding rule. It may be binding because of a sense of fair play, but it's not constitutionally binding and therefore, it's not a true constitutional convention. What I would describe it as is a custom. It's a tradition. But that custom is set aside when the prime minister chooses to remain in power because they feel that they can secure the confidence of the House. And that is the key convention at play here. The key constitutional convention in this case is which party is able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. The other custom that Mr. Scheer is referring to carries a lot of weight and it will certainly carry quite a bit of weight if there is a large margin between the Conservatives and the Liberals, but it is not binding.

CO: So basically on Tuesday morning if no party has won a majority, but the Conservatives have a slightly larger minority or have a minority, then Mr. Trudeau is still the prime minister. Right?

PL: Mr. Trudeau is prime minister until he resigns or is dismissed -- and the Governor-General has no grounds to dismiss him if he assures her that he will attempt to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

CO: But that doesn't mean he can just say, 'I'm not going, I'm going to run the country.' There are other conventions or I guess other codes that kick in at that point. Right? He's going to find out if he can actually get the confidence of the House. How does he go about doing that?

PL: Well, so he will tell the Governor-General that he intends to continue governing and that he will attempt to secure the confidence of the House. At that point, he will put together presumably a new cabinet and start putting together a throne speech. As part of putting together that throne speech, he will likely be consulting with one or two of the other opposition parties to just find out what they need to have included in that speech for them to support his government. And once parliament is recalled and a speaker is chosen, then the throne speech can be read. After that speech, there's a debate. And if the government wins the reply or the address in reply to that throne speech, they have demonstrated confidence. He then needs to secure the approval or at least the support of another party when he puts together his budget in the subsequent months.

CO: I'm wondering what happens if Mr. Scheer attempts to govern -- if he has a plurality, if he has a minority but he can't get the support of any other party like the Greens or the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois? What happens to him?

PL: So if Prime Minister Trudeau decides to concede defeat on election night and resign and Mr. Scheer is commissioned to form a government -- if he is unable to secure confidence within the next few months, he can request a dissolution from the Governor-General, and she will then need to determine whether to grant that dissolution or whether to call upon the leader of another party to form yet another government.

CO: So it could actually be months before we know who the government of Canada is?

PL: Well, we'll always know who the government is. We just won’t know whether they can last.

CO: But at this point, it does look so close. And so Canadians should not feel confident that they will know for sure Tuesday what the results are.

PL: Well, I think a lot hinges on what the prime minister says on election night if he has not won the most seats. I suspect we'll have our answer then.

CO: But when you say dissolution -- you mean that it might mean that there is yet another election in the not too distant future?

PL: It's possible, but I think we should all take with a very large grain of salt what all the parties are saying now. Once their coffers are emptied and election weariness sets in, it may be that parties who declare that they would never support another party may find themselves being a little bit more flexible.

CO: We will be watching. Professor Lagasse thank you.

PL: Thank you.

JM: Philippe Lagasse is a professor of political science at Carleton University. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music]

Brexit deal: Labour

Guest: Ian Murray

JM: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has a Brexit deal. Amazingly, that appears to be the easy part. Now that he and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker have agreed to a new deal, it goes to the UK Parliament for approval. But that's far from certain, especially after the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, the party propping up the governing Conservatives, has rejected the deal. But Tory Brexiteer Michael Gove simply won't entertain the idea that this deal will fail in Parliament. Here's the Conservative MP being interviewed by BBC host Andrew Neil today.

SOUNDCLIP

ANDREW NEIL: What would happen? Or how would the government respond? What would the government do if Labour succeeded in getting a referendum amendment attached to this deal? They said, all right, we're going to have this deal. We'll vote for it now, but only when there's a referendum amendment attached.

MICHAEL GOVE: That ain't going to happen.

ANDREW NEIL: Why is that?

MICHAEL GOVE: Ain't gonna be no second referendum.

ANDREW NEIL: Even with an American accent -- why wouldn't it happen?

MICHAEL GOVE: Because it just won't happen. There is no way that we are having a second referendum.

ANDREW NEIL: But what if the parliament votes for it?

MICHAEL GOVE: They're not going to.

ANDREW NEIL: But what if they do?

MICHAEL GOVE: They are not going to.

ANDREW NEIL: So you said that back in a British accent again so that will make it more believable on that.

JM: Ian Murray will be in parliament on Saturday voting on the new Brexit deal. We reached the Labour MP in London.

CO: Mr. Murray I am not a mind reader, but I'm guessing that you don't like this Brexit deal one little bit. Am I right?

IAN MURRAY: You're absolutely right. You've read my mind perfectly, even though you're not a mind reader. Yes. This is a worse deal than what was put to parliament three times previously. This is what we're calling 'the sellout' deal because it would be a decade of deregulation. It's a hard Brexit. It is much harder than we've been offered before. And really is just a fudge to get the prime minister through a parliamentary vote.

CO: The issue of the Irish backstop, as it's called, that appears to be gone from this agreement. What happens without that? Can you just describe what scenario this agreement lays out for dealing with Ireland and Northern Ireland?

IM: Absolutely. Well, this new agreement takes out the backstop completely. And don't forget, the backstop was actually a temporary arrangement in the event that the EU and the UK couldn't agree a future trading arrangement. So that backstop has been gone. But it's been replaced by a permanent set of arrangements. And those permanent set of arrangements say that Northern Ireland stays in the UK Customs Union unless the sender of any product or good that's sending something through Northern Ireland or to Northern Ireland from the UK mainland guarantees that it stays in Northern Ireland and isn't used for manufacturing. Now that's a very very narrowly drawn specification which essentially means that most things are going into Northern Ireland will have to be subject to EU customs checks and EU customs rules. So really what this is doing is cutting Northern Ireland off from the rest of United Kingdom and put a border checks in the Irish Sea.

CO: This is very key, isn't it? Because the whole effort has been with the backstop is to ensure that the Good Friday peace agreement is not violated or it is not damaged. That's what people have been trying to avoid. What do you suspect? What are the concerns as to what might happen to sectarian peace in the region if this was to happen, if this arrangement went through?

IM: Well, the one thing that every parliamentarian, both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland and in the EU have agreed on, which is quite unusual, is not to have any kind of hard border in the island of Ireland in order to protect that U.N. treaty, which is the Good Friday agreement. Now, what this does is essentially puts border checks at any points of entry into the EU and therefore, the border doesn't go across the island of Ireland. It goes down, in essence, the Irish Sea. And keeps Northern Ireland in the EU a customs arrangement. And therefore, what then this does in terms of the peace agreement is it reunified Ireland economically. And that's something that the Good Friday agreement specifically rules out. And whether or not this is compatible with the Good Friday agreement is yet to be determined but it's an even worst case scenario than having that backstop which was an insurance policy.

CO: We know that Boris Johnson was tending in this direction, but does it surprise you that that the European Commission's chief, Mr. Juncker, would go for this given that he said that the integrity of that agreement was paramount for him? Are you surprised that he agreed to this?

IM: Well, it's a political and practical solution that's required. The practical solution is that this doesn't have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. So that has been dealt with. However, the political solution hasn't been dealt with in the sense that it allows unionists to be very upset with the fact that the border is now in the Irish Sea. And it looks at the Democratic Unionist Party -- the 10 MPs which support the Conservative government, are going to vote against this, and it really doesn't satisfy nationalists either. So on both sides of the Brexit divide this doesn't really satisfy what they look for in terms of making sure that Good Friday agreement is protected.

CO: What are the chances that this deal will pass parliament in Britain?

IM: Well, I think without the support of the 10 Democratic Unionists Northern Irish MPs it's very difficult.

CO: And how will Labour likely vote?

IM: Well, as a party, we've already agreed that we would vote against any deal that was detrimental to the country. This deal is just one step removed, actually, from the damage that a no-deal Brexit would do. So the Labour Party will be voting against this deal and will be looking very clearly to try and get this deal back to the people in a confirmatory vote to allow the people after three and a half years to have a final say on whether or not this is the kind of deal they want to leaving the European Union.

CO: But all deals are about compromises, aren't they? I mean it's the politics that compromise -- actually get sides with different views to agree on something. And Prime Minister Boris Johnson has come back with a deal. People said that was not possible. He was not going to have anything -- any agreement with the European Union, there was going to be a no-deal scenario, it was the most likely. But he's done it. He's come back with something. So isn't that at least something to work with?

IM: Well, it may be something to work with if the prime minister and the previous prime minister were looking for that kind of consensus. But I think we've got a scenario here where the previous prime minister looked to get agreement with Europe, knowing that it was very difficult to get it through the UK parliament. And the current prime minister is looking to try and get an agreement through this parliament without looking towards whether or not he can get agreement with Europe. Now he's got agreement with Europe. But on a basis of a deal that is certainly worse for the UK economy. And now we are looking at a deal which neither satisfies leavers or remainers. I think Nigel Farage has come out against the deal today and he's the arch Brexiter who wants us to leave with no-deal. It's very difficult to see a way forward until the prime minister is willing to compromise with the members of the House of Commons.

CO: Meanwhile, on Saturday, I understand your party will call for a confirmatory public vote, which is essentially I guess to ask -- well -- to demand a second referendum on this Brexit deal. So what support are you likely to have on that?

IM: Well, there'll be a million people marching in the streets of London on Saturday. They will culminate later outside parliament when these decisions are being taken. And what we are essentially saying to the public is we fully understand and respect the fact that a small majority of the public voted to leave the European Union. This is the deal that has been put on the table by two prime ministers now in terms of the way we will leave. Here are the consequences of those deals that are on the table for when we leave. Is this what you wanted and what you were promised by Brexit? And if not, we should stick with the best deal that we have, which is currently a member of the European Union. And let the public decide if this is the way they want to go. All the analysis from the government shows that this deal, the previous deal, and indeed any kind of Brexit will harm people's livelihoods and jobs. And therefore, I think it's right on that basis for the public to have a final say for the future direction of this country.

CO: Mr. Murray, we will be watching and I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

IM: My pleasure.

JM: Ian Murray is a Labour MP. We reached him in London.

[Music]

The Blob

JM: Your first thought will be "Oh, my gosh, it's so adorable! I want one. Can I hug it?" And that'll be perfectly understandable. But like most creatures at the zoo, you should understand some important things about its care and feeding before you go out and get yourself a blob. There's no denying the rich luster and glutinous sheen of the slime mould known as Physarum polycephalum. You just want to give it a nice bowl of kibble and let it grow in your lap. But that bright yellow stuff is more complicated than it looks. Here's artist Heather Barnett introducing us to its complexities in a TED Talk from 2014.

SOUNDCLIP

HEATHER BARNETT: I'd like to introduce you to an organism, a slime mould: Physarum polycephalum. It's a mould with an identity crisis because it's not a mould. So let's get that straight to start with. It is one of 700 known slime moulds belonging to the kingdom of the amoeba. It is a single celled organism. A cell that joins together with other cells to form a mass -- super cell -- to maximize its resources. So within a slime mould, you might find thousands or millions of nuclei, all sharing the cell wall, all operating as one entity. In its natural habitat you might find the slime mould foraging and woodlands eating rotting vegetation. But you might equally find it in research laboratories, classrooms, and even artist studios.

JM: If you're having trouble picturing it, proceed immediately to the Paris Zoological Park. That's where this strange, hungry, mouthless, brainless thing or stuff is now on display. Billed for simplicity's sake as "the blob." It's a new attraction at the park. But don't expect to see it do much. It only moves about a centimetre an hour. It does have about 720 sexes, but you won't be able to watch any of them mating. And while its diet is varied, it prefers the dullest of treats: oats or oatmeal. Still, the blob is cute as a button. Well, millions of microscopic buttons that form branches can learn without thinking, find food without a nose or eyes, and eat without a mouth or stomach. If you see it in Paris, you might not immediately think of it as an ideal pet, but get up real close to it and I just know it'll grow on you.

[Music]

Part 3: After Nigerian painting fetches $1.8M, artist's son says: 'I hope it's coming back to Lagos'

Edmonton Green endorsement

Guest: Michael Kalmanovitch

JM: Michael Kalmanovitch is going to be on the ballot in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona as the Green Party candidate. There is one eleventh-hour problem, though. Yesterday the Greens kicked Mr. Kalmanovitch out of the party. They don't seem to have appreciated it when he told voters that they might want to consider voting NDP. We reached Michael Kalmanovitch at the shop he owns Earth's General Store in Edmonton.

CO: Mr. Kalmanovitch why would a Green candidate tell voters to vote NDP?

MICHAEL KALMANOVITCH: Well, you know, I'm all about the climate change issue and the crisis that is facing us. And being in this riding it looked like I was not going to win. In fact, I'm very far back in the polls and therefore I was not going to be able to carry the Green's policy past the goal line. And so I suggested the people to choose the second best climate action path.

CO: Right. That's why you got into politics, it is why you're running, it is because you want to be representing the needs of a climate change plan. Is that right?

MK: Yes. And the Greens have the best climate change plan out there in Canada.

CO: And the NDP, you're happy with their climate change plan?

MK: No, I'm not. It doesn't go far enough or fast enough. You can't include LPG natural gas in a climate plan. We need to move away from fossil fuels. And the Green Party plan doesn't support that. They realize it is going to be a transition period. But, you know, we need to move further and faster away from fossil fuels and the lifestyle that we are presently in.

CO: Okay. So you don't support the NDP's programs. So why are you telling people to vote for them?

MK: Because it is the second best. If I stayed in politics and ran as a candidate from here, I would not have been able to stay -- you know I wasn't going to win. So therefore, I wasn't able to take the climate action ball across the finish line. So therefore, I passed it off to somebody else that had a chance to take it across the line or closer to the line.

CO: How did the NDP candidate respond when you made that clear?

MK: Well, I tend to use the word gobsmacked. When she first heard it, I don't think she comprehended what I was saying. But then she realized what I said and she kind of was really shocked because we were at a forum at that time. So, yes, the idea was that, you know, we announced it.

CO: But so this is a lunch hour at a candidate’s forum in Edmonton. Did she know you were going to do that when you made this...

MK: No.

CO: What did you say?

MK: Well, basically, I said you know I wasn't able to successfully implement the climate plan by the Greens. In fact, I'll read out what I said. I said that is why, as of right now, I'm ceasing my campaign and asking my voter base to consider voting for the candidate with the next best climate plan. I believe the candidate is Heather McPherson of the NDP. The Liberals do not deserve another opportunity to delay action as they have for four years. Conservatives do not deserve consideration.

CO: All right. What happened in the room when you read this out?

MK: It was much like Heather McPherson's response -- you know, it doesn't happen. The room went quiet, kind of quiet, and then the people clapped that they liked the idea that I was suggesting to people to consider switching their votes from me to the next best climate action plan.

CO: Did you let the Green Party know that you were going to do this?

MK: No.

CO: How did it respond when people found out?

MK: Well, they weren't happy and rightly so. Unfortunately, they did try to get hold of me before I went on stage. And you know I was on my way to the stage -- I wasn't able to have a conversation about something that I've decided and they wouldn't have had enough time to try to convince me otherwise. So it was already set in motion. So I still consider myself a Green. I'm a green person. So you know I bicycle. I am a vegan. I'm a climate activists and things like that. So you know not being part or a member of the Green Party does not make me a non-green person. This is my lifestyle. And therefore I will continue to be who I am and what I believe in.

CO: But you've been booted out of the Green Party, right?

MK: Yeah. Yeah.

CO: Okay. And you're no longer a candidate -- on the ballot, I presume?

MK: Yeah. Yeah. They leave you on the ballot. Even though it'll say Michael Kalmanovitch, Green Party, on the ballot -- you know, I assume that's what it is --but I'm not actually representing the Green Party at this time.

CO: Did you think that they would say -- Elizabeth May and the gang -- would just say, 'okay, we get it?'

MK: Well, no -- you know, I didn't really think about that portion. Afterwards I thought that, you know, would it have been wiser of me to have tried to work with them to try to spin it? I think if I had talked with them or they thought about it for a little bit longer, there would have been some ways for them to figure out what they could spin it to work for them. I'm okay with them reacting the way they did.

CO: How close is the race in Edmonton Strathcona?

MK: Well, you know I was going on the 338 polls and I haven't looked at them today -- but yesterday it was like 31 percent for the Conservative, 28 percent for the NDP. And 25 for the Liberals.

CO: And how much for the Greens?

MK: Oh, something like 5 percent. So we're insignificant. I mean, if the polls were indicative of what the sense was across of Edmonton, we could not make up 35 percent in the next few days.

CO: But 5 percent -- if you have 5 percent and you throw it to the NDP, that could make the difference, right? For Heather McPherson?

MK: It might. I mean I have no control over those people. People's votes. So they might actually say, no, I want to vote for Green or a Green person and they can still vote for Michael Kalmanovitch.

CO: So they can still vote for you even though you'd rather they vote for another person?

MK: I would rather them vote for a climate action plan that might be able to be put on the action plan of the future government.

CO: So you're just back to running Earth's General Store in Edmonton.

MK: Yeah. Yeah. As well as my climate activism. So like tomorrow we're putting on a big rally with Greta Thunberg in town here. We do have strike every Friday and tomorrow we get to be blessed with the presence of Greta Thunberg.

CO: All right. We are going to leave it there. Mr. Kalmanovitch thank you.

MK: Thank you. You have a great day Carol. I appreciate the call.

CO: You bet.

JM: Michael Kalmanovitch will be on the ballot for the Green Party in Edmonton Strathcona. But he doesn't want you to vote for him and he's no longer a member of the party. We reached him in Edmonton.

[Music]

Elijah Cummings

JM: U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff described his colleague Elijah Cummings as, quote, "our moral and ethical North Star." Mr. Cummings died this morning after a longstanding health problems at the age of 68. He was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland -- the son of sharecroppers. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1996. And ever since, he was a vocal advocate for civil rights, equality and ethics in government. In recent years, he worried that those principles were under threat because of the presidency of Donald Trump. Back in February, he spoke about efforts to suppress voting rights among African-Americans in particular.

SOUNDCLIP

ELIJAH CUMMINGS: One year ago today on my mother's dying bed at 92-years-old, former sharecropper, her last words were 'Do not let them take our votes away from us.' They had fought. She had fought and seen people harmed (and) beaten trying to vote. Talk about inalienable rights. Voting is crucial. And I don't give a damn how you look at it. There are efforts to stop people from voting. That's not right. This is not Russia. This is the United States of America. And I will fight until the death to make sure every citizen, whether they are Green Party, whether they are Freedom Party, whether they are Democrat, whether they are Republican, whoever, has that right to vote.

JM: That was U.S. Congressman Elijah Cummings speaking in February to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Congressman Cummings died early this morning at the age of 68.

[Music]

Herb Black

JM: For people living near the American Iron and Metal scrap recycling yard in St. John, New Brunswick, life has been less than peaceful over the last few years. It's loud and it's dusty and they're tired of it. So last night at a public meeting, they tried to air their grievances with the company's president. They told him that they were having trouble sleeping, that their property values had gone down, and that multiple explosions were causing them stress. But the company's billionaire president wasn't apologetic. In fact, he was livid. Here's part of what Herb Black told those St. John residents at that tense public meeting last night.

SOUNDCLIP

HERB BLACK: I call the prime minister and he calls me back. But Mr. Quinn and the mayor, he can't call me back and neither can Minister Carr. And they could tell me my place is no good. Oh now, finally, after three months or six months, we don't have any explosions. That's all [censor bleep]. Seriously folks, wake up and see. And tell me what you really want. You don't want a scrap yard here, you don't want action, you don't want jobs, you don't want us to grow the business. I was going to grow this business. We were going to have hundreds of people work down there. I was going to put in a beautiful factory. I was going to put it in a retail operation. I was going to grow it. So they come back to me and they say, we don't want any noise in our town. Well do we want it as a retirement home? Or do we want the young kids to stay here and have where to go and what to do and to grow and to grow with an international company? We're in Poland. We're in England. We're in Canada. We're in the United States. We're in Mexico. We get along with everybody. And I come here and I am like persecuted and prosecuted and judgments are made with no knowledge, nothing, nothing whatsoever.

JM: That was American Iron and Metal president Herb Black speaking and swearing at a St. John public meeting last night about his scrap yard.

[Music]

Nigerian painter

Guest: Oliver Enwonwu

JM: He was one of Africa's most famous artists. But over the last few decades, Ben Enwonwu's name has been less well-known in the rest of the world. That is now changing. Even though Mr. Enwonwu died in 1994, last year one of his long lost paintings "Tutu" sold for more than 2-million dollars Canadian. And this week, a painting entitled "Christine" fetched nearly that same astronomical amount at a Sotheby's auction in New York. Oliver Enwonwu is Ben Enwonwu's son and an artist himself. We reached Oliver Enwonwu in Lagos, Nigeria.

CO: Oliver what do you think your father would say if he knew that this painting had sold for over a million pounds?

OLIVER ENWONWU: Well, I think he would be happy. But being the sort of man he was -- he was very proud of his work and I'd say he lived especially for his work. I remember when we were very young and people didn't know his name they would have told them well, if you haven't heard of Ben Enwonwu then you haven't been to school. That's how proud he was of his work. So I know while it's a good development that his work went for 1.1 million pounds the other day, I'm sure that he had have expected a bit more. But I feel that it's just the beginning.

CO: The beginning of recognition, wider, more international recognition for your father's work. Is that right?

OE: Well, I think that in the 1950s, it was already extremely well-known. I think that it was probably the most famous artists in the Commonwealth at that time -- that culminated in the sitting by the reigning monarch of the time and still Queen Elizabeth the second who sat for him in 1957. So the 1950s he was already very well known. And he was declared I think in 1949 by Times as Africa's greatest artist. But I think thereafter specially in the [inaudible] his famed begun to wane. And I think that the West wasn't quite ready to accept modernism.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about this painting. I'm looking at pictures of it in the paper. So it doesn't do justice. But even with that, it's quite beautiful. It's called "Christine." Can you describe it for people?

OE: Well, if you look closely, it's a portrait of a very beautiful woman. And she was of West Indian descent. And at the time my father met her it was late 1960s. And they became friends, was also friends with her husband who was a British missionary -- Elvis Davis. And it was a time just around the Biafran War -- the Nigerian Civil War. And then it was very important for Nigerians to reconcile after such a bitter war that left millions dead, especially on the Igbo side, you know. So that's one of the things that I find very important about his art, because his art wasn't just about being aesthetic. But I think that in his work, you know, imbibing a lot of Nigeria's new national consciousness and he brought together the country. It was very reconciliatory and that's what he sought to expose his students to. Here you have a West Indian woman living in Nigeria painted by Igbo an artist -- just the same way "Tutu" was about a Yoruba princes painted by an Igbo artist.

CO: It was painted in 1971, as you said -- just with the end of the war. And so where has it been all these years?

OE: Well, it was lost. It was lost -- and I think it was Christine's son who discovered it and decided that he will took it to the auction. It was lost for a long time. And the foundation was looking for it because we have a foundation in his honor and to preserve his legacy. It was established 10 years after he passed on to preserve his legacy and the contributions to art. For some time now, we've been trying to publish three volumes of all his works. It was work that we didn't know where it was. We didn't have a very clear image of it. So when it came out at Sothebys -- we were understandably very excited to see it.

CO: And who had it? Whose wall was it hanging on all these years?

OE: Apparently it was in Texas all this time since 1971, which we didn't know because we were making calls for the works for a long time so that we can curb the spate of forgeries of his works. That's one way to make sure that you don't have forgeries of a famous artist, you know, littering the market.

CO: Right. But was it taken out? Was it bought and sold? How did the painting end up in Texas?

OE: When the family relocated in to Texas in 1978 -- of course, we lost touch with them. My father lost touch with them. Around that period like I mentioned there was civil unrest because we had a lot of coups at that time. But instead of bringing so much wealth to the country, brought a lot of tension because there was a jostling for oil, which created a lot of civil unrest. I think the Davis family relocated -- and my father sort of lost touch with them and didn't know where they were or where the works were.

CO: And then it resurfaced. It must been quite a day when you learned that...actually, what was it like for you the first time you set eyes on this painting again after all those years?

OE: I was understandably very excited because for me it's sort of a precursor to "Tutu" a period I'd say that a lot of his masterpieces were painted.

CO: Now, when you say "Tutu" this the painting that sold at auction in the UK just last year also sold for more than a million pounds. And again, more awareness of your father's work. Where is Christine going to be now? Will people be able to see it?

OE: Well, I hope so. I have not found out yet. I mean, sometimes people don't want to stand on it anymore. But I hope a Nigerian bought it and I hope it is coming back to Lagos.

CO: It's just a beautiful painting. I wish many people could see it Oliver. And I do appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

OE: Thank you Carol.

JM: Oliver Enwonwu is an artist and the son of Ben Enwonwu. We reached him in Lagos, Nigeria. You can see a photo of "Christine" on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Jennifer Pound

JM: There's not much time left in this election. But Jennifer Pound is hoping she'll still be able to bring attention to an issue that personally affects her. The RCMP staff sergeant worked with Metro Vancouver's integrated homicide investigation team. But she's been on sick leave for about two years. She was diagnosed with PTSD. And she says the Mounties aren't getting the support they need when they need it in the case of that disorder. This morning, Jennifer Pound shared her story with CBC Vancouver. She told host Stephen Quinn about how she felt in 2017 before she was diagnosed.

SOUNDCLIP

JENNIFER POUND: I was getting migraines. I couldn't eat. I was losing weight. And I went to my own GP to figure out what I could do to figure out what those symptoms meant. I took two weeks off. And then during that two time period I really really what I call crashed. I couldn't do just normal simple tasks that I was able to do two weeks ago. And I really did just start to spiral health wise.

STEPHEN QUINN: And was looking for a treatment for PTSD any different as an RCMP officer?

JENNIFER POUND: Yes, it's extremely difficult to find specialised treatment in that area. I did seek out my own sort of community therapist at the time that were helpful, but not what I needed for the specialized treatment. And when we're talking about specialized treatment, it took me a year to seek the actual therapy from the operational stress injury clinic. Took me one whole year to get my intake meeting into there. And from that intake meeting, it took another 12 months of being on a wait-list to start my therapy.

STEPHEN QUINN: And do you know whether that's typical for RCMP officers who are looking for treatment?

JENNIFER POUND: It is typical. And here's the problem is the OSI clinic specializes in that. But they treat Canadian Armed Forces and veterans and RCMP. The other community therapists and psychologists are overrun with other first responders. This isn't just an RCMP issue. We've got the fire departments. We've got emergency personnel. This is far reaching beyond just police officers. So all of those people that are suffering with this injury are knocking on the same door.

STEPHEN QUINN: The Federal Ministry of Public Safety told us that 50 percent of clients referred to operational stress injury clinics, -- OSI as you said -- including RCMP members. They said they received an appointment with a psychiatrist in two months and that 90 percent of the clients receive an appointment within six months. Does that ring true to you?

JENNIFER POUND: Exactly what I'm talking about and that is not a positive statement as far as I'm concerned. That to me says you're failing. Two months is too long. And I bring it back to what I was just talking about with my own experience -- I had an intake meeting at that clinic a year after I was off sick. That intake meeting didn't mean therapy. That intake meeting meant I was now placed on a wait-list of 12 to 18 months to get my therapy.

JM: That was Jennifer Pound speaking with Stephen Quinn, host of CBC Vancouver's "Early Edition."

[Music]

Mussel die-off

Guest: Jordan Richard

JM: They don't have soft fur, cute little paws, or nice eyes. In fact, they don't have eyes at all. So when you think of creatures that are facing extinction, you may not think of freshwater mussels. But the little mollusks have been hit hard. More than 200 of the freshwater species found in North America are considered endangered, threatened or "of concern." And nearly two dozen are thought to be extinct in the U.S. southeast, alone. In the Clinch River that flows from Virginia to Tennessee, researchers are getting to the bottom of what's killing thousands of mussels -- a mystery that stumped them for the past few years. Jordan Richard is an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We reached him in Abingdon, Virginia.

CO: Mr. Richard, can you give us a sense of what you have seen along the Clinch River this fall?

JORDAN RICHARD: Yes, this fall we saw a pattern that we've actually been seeing each fall since 2016, which is a lot of fresh, dead and dying pheasantshell mussels. Normally, most of our freshwater mussels are buried down in the bottom of the river and you don't see them or you see just the little bit of them poking up. But when we have these die off they come up to the surface and they lay out on their sides and their shells come open and we'll see them laying out on the surface or over near the stream bank dying or we'll see just very clean shells that obviously we're living animals just a few weeks ago and we'll see those by the tens of thousands.

CO: Must be quite the smell.

JR: Yeah, it doesn't smell particularly great. Usually when they're under water, you don't notice it. But right now, we're in a period of low rainfall. So as they're dying and the river is falling down, they start to come up out of the banks and it really makes for a pretty bad smell.

CO: This die-off of the mussels, is it the same size -- is it tens of thousands every year?

JR: We have a long term monitoring network so we've been keeping track of how all these species are doing so it'll show throughout the river over the years. It really helps us pin down that we used to have you know 80 or 100-thousand mussels of a given species. And now we're down to maybe 20 or 30-thousand. Due to the fact that we're losing pheasantshells it's sort of exponentially trailing off, but what we're seeing is a consistent majority of the population dying off each year -- now we'll be seeing more like two or three-thousand dying. That's still a big chunk of the population.

CO: What do you think is causing this die off?

JR: It's really hard to say. But given the Clinch is one of the most diverse mussel assemblages in the entire world, and it really is mostly just one species -- the pheasantshell that's being affected by this. And based on that, we really suspect emerging infectious disease because if it was an issue of water quality or climate or drought then we would expect to see a lot more of the mussels and really the other fish, snails, crayfish and everything else that lives in the river affected as well.

CO: Have you been able to identify a pathogen or see if what kind of disease might be afflicting them?

JR: As far as this investigation goes, if you want to call it that, we have some suspects. The problem with these dying mussels is that as soon as they're actually dead, they become diagnostically almost useless because the bodies start to decay and break down. And since we don't know a whole lot about mussel health -- if we have a decomposing muscle body in the river, we don't know if the pathogens that we find that are there because they kill the mussel or they're just breaking it down. So we really have to hunt down and isolate mussels that are dying but haven't died yet. And that's been a real challenge even with these big numbers, to get a good sample size to isolate those has taken considerable effort. So we're starting to sort of turn the tide on this and pin down a list of suspects for closer investigation.

CO: And what can you do it once you do identify what infectious disease it might have?

JR: That's a big question. Right now, we're really focused on just figuring out if it is an infectious disease, because it really is a matter of if. Because even though we have this list of suspects, it's really tough to pin down whether dying mussels are susceptible to the bacteria or if the bacteria is what caused the mussels to be dying. And then only from there do we really start talking about what we might do. And that's really going to depend on what's causing it.

CO: You said that you are kind of ruling out some other possibilities because this is the only species -- specifically the pheasantshells -- are being affected. And so it can't be something like a general pollution or drought or climate change. But is it possible that these animals are stressed by any of those things? Is it possible that there's more than one reason why this is happening?

JR: Even if this is a disease, it's never just one thing -- in science and especially in ecology, everything is linked. And so even if it is a disease, the immediate question is once you confirm that if you do, are one: what do we do about it? And two: what caused this? And it's very likely that the answer to what caused this disease to show up is somehow connected back to the climate and river conditions in general. And at first, it seemed to be just the pheasantshell but some of the other numbers have started to slowly slip down too. And then just this year, we suddenly started finding a lot of our threatened endangered mussels down in the lower portion of the river in Tennessee dead and dying as well. So it's really difficult to figure out what's going on. And it's possible that it's more than one thing. It's possible. There is a pheashantshell disease and we're in a drought that's affecting our other mussels.

CO: And we know there are issues with freshwater mussels species all through North America. What role do they play in the ecosystem? If they're dying off what's not being contributed to the health of that river?

JR: A whole lot. We affectionately call mussels 'the livers of the rivers' because they are ecosystem engineers. What they do is they filter the water and they clean phytoplankton, bacteria, fungi and organic matter and just filth that's flowing in the river. And so what they do is they filter all that in and they use it to build their shell and build their bodies. And then what they don't use they deposit down in the bottom of the river and make it available for insects and bottom feeding fish species. So by doing that, they're actually cleaning all of the river water of all that stuff, and then helping all the other animals in the food chain to use that. But they also burrow down in the substrate, so their shells make for really great habitat for other animals. They also help stabilize the riverbeds during periods of high flow the mussels actually sort of hold the bottom of the river together and reduce erosion. So they really do a whole lot for us.

CO: What important little creatures they are.

JR: Absolutely.

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

JR: Thank you.

JM: Jordan Richard is an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We reached him in Abingdon, Virginia.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 17, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This