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 2023

The Current Transcript for August 16, 2023

Host: Anthony Germain

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

This isn't an issue of privacy. It's an issue of like life or death. Honestly, like trans children are the highest rates of suicide in our children. And if this bill gets changed or it gets demolished, like there's lives at risk here.

CATHERINE CULLEN: New Brunswick has become a front line in the debate over how trans students are treated. The province's youth advocate says a recent policy change by the government violates kids rights. He'll join us in a moment to explain why and what it means for students headed back to school. Then, in 30 minutes, as a huge fire creeps closer to Yellowknife. We'll get the latest from the mayor. Also.

SOUNDCLIP

We have global problems on this planet right now and global solutions. And this is going to be a shining example of how we could do better as a human race.

CC: The quest to return to the moon can sound pretty inspirational, but it is not all global harmony. Russia and India have lunar landing craft hurtling toward the moon right now. We'll look at why once again, the international space race is heating up. And in an hour, a trip into a different kind of uncharted territory. We bring you the next episode of The Outlaw Ocean, a CBC podcast about one journalist's quest to find out what happens beyond the reach of international law. But first, trans children who say they don't want to be outed and a government that says parents have a right to know what's happening in their child's life. I'm Catherine Cullen in for Matt Galloway. And this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Advocate report finds N.B. gender policy changes violate children’s rights

Guests: Kelly Lamrock, Shawn Rouse

CC: Changes to the gender identity policy for New Brunswick schools violate provincial law and the charter rights of children. That's the conclusion of a report released yesterday by New Brunswick's Advocate for Children and Youth. Kelly Lamrock laid out detailed concerns and recommendations to change what's known as Policy 713. He joins me now from Fredericton. Good morning.

Speaker 3: Good morning.

CC: To start Kelly Lamrock this policy, these changes, rather two policy 713. They went into effect July 1st. Can you explain to people across the country what has changed under the moves the government has made for a student who wants to use a different name or pronouns?

KELLY RAMROCK: Right. The previous policy was that children could only change the name on the official record, which is a bigger legal step at age 16 without parental consent. But in day to day interactions with teachers and students, they could determine what they wanted people to call them, just just as you and I do. The government change in the area of student self-identification was that teachers would be banned from using anything but was on the official record. If a child made a request that was perceived as linked to gender identity purposes and instead would, as the policy said, refer them to psychologists or social workers in order to get the students consent to talk to the parents. And so that that is where things got a little bit as you said in your introduction, heated in New Brunswick, the legislature voted by a majority to ask me to take a look and review this. And then we looked at the law, talked to experts and tried to put politics aside, but interviewed a lot of queer and trans youth and Arendt and tried to come up with a very balanced approach.

CC: So the government said, the Premier specifically said, parents are wondering how there could be a policy that is hiding information from them. Talked about not alienating children from their parents. You looked at what amongst many things, because it is almost a hundred page long report. You looked at what the law says about the rights of children and youth. Tell us how you came to this conclusion that these changes violated child and youth rights.

KELLY RAMROCK: As a father of four. I have tremendous sympathy for the statement that the state doesn't own their children. But of course, parents don't own their children either. And what the law says is that you have to consider the evolving capacity of children. You can't treat a 15 year old as if they're a three year old. And for instance, in areas of medical and educational decisions, you know, when my baby daughter is very young, my partner and I have to make choices for her and short of harm the state should respect that. As she gets older, she begins to claim some ability. And here the law says, Look, as parents, you have an absolute right to pass your values on to your child in the home. What you don't have a right to - and where the premier and I part ways is you don't have the right to a big government apparatus that follows your child around forcing them to live by your values when they're out in the community and your child doesn't have to share your values when they get old enough to make their own decisions. I may teach my child any number of things that I think are important for me. I don't have a right to say, but the state has to make sure they never do anything I don't like if they disagree with me. And really that basic sign of respect saying to somebody, I will not call you a name you don't want to be called, I will respect your choice in daily interactions as to what I call you, isn't only something that all of us have the right to expect others to do. It's a sign of autonomy and respect. But as well, the privacy laws in New Brunswick, the education that they all say, look, you can't just go around saying to somebody, I'm going to go take the name and your official record or your gender in your official record and throw that out you publicly, because that's personal information. You have a right to control and you have the capacity to do it.

CC: So you have proposed a path forward and you make a distinction in your recommendations around age, basically grade six, sort of as being a dividing line. So can you walk us through how would you fix this? Basically, what are you proposing?

KELLY RAMROCK: Sure. In looking at the Supreme Court decisions, for example, on blood transfusions and refusals, you see cases where, you know, children in their teens begin to have the capacity to say, look, I, I want to have a voice. And what happens to me And in general, that line of when you start hitting middle school, can you make a decision informed? What about look, here's what I want people to call me when I talk to them. Yes. You should be presumed to have that capacity when you hit middle school age or around age 12. We went with middle school just because it's easier operationally for a school to be under the same policy, not have that weird little six month thing where you have to check the exact birthday. So, you know, in that case, it makes sense to presume a child can for informal interactions without changing the official record. Say, look, call me this. And psychologists and doctors and social workers all said, look, you should do that. Because truthfully, if a child with that age and capacity wants to talk to me, I would certainly start by exploring how we can get them to connect to their parents, to talk to them. But I would start that conversation by calling them what they want to be called, because, as one veteran psychologist put it to me, psychologists who doesn't do that would have their professional competence checked.

CC: Okay. Let's talk about the path forward here. So you've made your recommendations. We did invite the premier of New Brunswick, Blaine Higgs, to speak with us today. He said he was reviewing your report and not available. New Brunswick's education minister was also not available. But let's listen to what Blaine Higgs told one of our reporters yesterday about policy. 713.

SOUNDCLIP

Well, I mean, I think that parents have to be included in raising their kids. I mean, it's a pretty fundamental, basic right that has to be respected for parents and for children. And I'm sure we can find a path to do that, because at the end of the day, our society has been built on parents playing a strong role in the family and the region of their kids. And I know there are difficulties. You know, there are areas where that's difficult at home. And we have to understand that and we have to be able to manage that.

CC: What do you say to that?

KELLY RAMROCK: Well, look, I think the premier is has every right to have this process respected. He's going to look at the report. And I you know, I think there's some common ground. Parents are extremely important. They're the most important one in a child's life. Often what we heard when we interviewed a lot of young people was, in fact, the reason I need to have some space to talk to trusted adults and be treated with respect is I want to talk to other people before I talk to my parents. That is the biggest conversation. And sometimes these things can, you know, really alter the relationship or the dynamic within the home. And you want to be sure. I get that. I mean, if adults empathise for a minute, say you're a single parent and you've started a new serious relationship, it's time to tell your kids. You sometimes talk to friends about how to talk to your kids. Yeah. That's because your kids aren't the most important person? No. It's because it is the most important person. If you're offered a job out of town, you might well talk to a friend about how to approach your spouse. So I think we what you the difference here and I think upon reflection the Premier may come to see that is that you can't necessarily create a big government apparatus to overregulate how children go through their process when they're older teenagers. I you know, I think I say in the report this idea that you can say to a teenager, well, I'm going to call you a name you don't want to be called, I'm not going to respect your wishes, but what to call you. Now, I'd like you to come with me and talk to somebody about how to talk to your parents. If you think teenagers just go, Oh, cool, now I'll totally talk to more adults. You must never have actually met a real human teenager. At least not the ones I raise. So we've got to consider that maybe what we need to do is actually have some of the- give space for children when they're older and some of the trusted adults to guide them in the policy, I suggest, does say that encouraging parental conversation should be an outcome and teachers should be given permission [unintelligilbe].

CC: I want to jump in here, Keli, Lamarck, because you are talking about what you have concluded ought to happen. I appreciate that you're not a political figure, but this has become a quite a fierce political debate. It's caused the premier problems within his own caucus. What do you think is going to happen? What do you expect is the likely outcome now? Do you expect that the government is going to adopt these recommendations? I mean, we're only a few weeks from school starting.

KELLY RAMROCK: I think. Ms. Cullen If I can treat it like the old choose your own adventure books that we used to have when we were kids. I think there are two outcomes. The government could double down and say we'll push on. Even though it violates the Privacy Act, it violates the Human Rights Act, will face court challenges. Districts may find some of the vague areas of the policy and refuse to implement it. The teachers will go to school saying, Well, I don't know. Now I'm told I'm breaking the law. If I [unintelliglbe] kids by the I'm being threatened by the minister that I might face professional development if I don't. Experts are saying I don't know whether follow my code of ethics or follow this policy because they're all saying their code of ethics doesn't allow them to name older children with capacity. So we can go down that road and we'll go into the school year with a whole bunch of chaos, teachers not knowing what to do, and children who are very vulnerable who say, well, I don't know what the process is. If I say, could you please call me this, I'm not going to be outed publicly or am I going to be met with compassion so we can go the chaos route or we can take a balanced policy? That's why I took the pains, because the timeline I didn't choose. The politicians did, but the timeline is short.

CC: Yeah.

KELLY RAMROCK: You know, we can have a policy that respects children's capacity, puts parents back into the mix, has a extra layer of protection for younger children, and has a process where everyone is clear and I hope they choose option B.

CC: I do want to ask you about one other thing you raised in your report. Quickly. You note that this issue has drawn significant interest nationally and internationally. Much of it organised, you say, and well-funded, to intervene in multiple jurisdictions. How do you think those campaigns are influencing this debate?

KELLY RAMROCK: Well, I. I know I certainly saw a lot of them. And I get people saying, we want to talk to you. The church. Just what school district you're yet. And then somebody would go dark. You know or get happy to meet with your New Brunswick member as well. We don't have. You know there's a lot of groups going around saying we're very concerned about parental rights and go, okay, have you got any briefs on literacy scores? And the parents write to school information, anything on school safety, anything on math scores, anything on educational achievement. And I think what they said in the report is if you only discover parental rights not to help your own child learn, but to block other children from being called what they want to be called, maybe you're driven by something other than parental rights. So, yeah, I guess that's where we stand today.

CC: Okay. Well, listen, we appreciate your time today, Kelly Lamrock. As you note in your report, it is a discussion that is animating a lot of people. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us about it today.

KELLY RAMROCK: Appreciate your interest in New Brunswick this call. And have a good day. You too.

CC: Kelly Lamrock is child and youth advocate for New Brunswick. Well, Shawn Rouse is the parent of a trans teen. Both he and his teens spoke to Mr. Lamrock as part of consultations ahead of this report. Shawn joins me now from Chris, Pam CIS in New Brunswick. Good morning.

SHAWN ROUSE: Hi, Catherine.

CC: So you heard the conversation with Mr. Glam rock. I know you've been following all of this closely. The report came out yesterday. How are you feeling right now?

SHAWN ROUSE: Well, it was great to see the thorough report done by Mr. Lamrock. When this review was announced suddenly about 100 days ago and, you know, no real harms had been demonstrated. We asked to see, you know, why is this being reviewed? What is the what is the foundation? You know, I have a trans kids, so this got my attention. And, you know, we've really focussed closely on it saying, you know, okay, if you want to revise this policy or parts of this policy that my child depends on every day at school, what what's actually the foundation of your concern? What harms can you show? And you know, what we got back from the Premier was, you know, rhetoric about drag queen story time and stories about trans health care that have nothing to do with education policy and, you know, tropes from the Minister of Education about, you know, kids maybe not being safe in the bathroom. So, you know, nothing really with with trans people, which we didn't really understand. You know, that's not a foundation for view. So.

CC: So, Shawn, I want to ask you specifically about your family's experience in a moment. But you talk about, you know, where this conversation is happening and the level it's happening at. One of the arguments that Kelly Lamrock talks about in his report does have to deal with the relationship between parents and students. He talks about a submission from a group called Our Duty Canada. That group argues that gender and social transition is a big decision and that if kids were able to use different names and pronouns at school without telling parents, it would, quote, teach vulnerable children that keeping secrets from parents is okay. That is very much an argument about this conversation between parents and youth. How do you, what do you make of it?

SHAWN ROUSE: Yeah, no. And I'm a parent of three. I always want to know what's everything that's going on with my children. And as they get older, it is hard to, you know, and they begin to gain the capacity for their own decisions. Particularly, I have one trans child, one LGBTQ child and a cisgender child. So I think I've seen this from a number of perspectives. And, you know, you see the kids go through the process of figuring themselves out and, you know, needing that zone of privacy to do that. And then when they were ready, they came to us and said, you know, this is this is who I think I am. And we said, okay, that, I get that. So of course, parents need to be involved. Course, every parent should be involved. And your policy before Mr. Higgins changes did include parents throughout it. It was only the premiers rhetoric that said the parents were being excluded or deleted. To formally transition at school, parents permission was always required for under 16 and over 16- sorry for under 16 and then over 16 they could choose for themselves how they wanted to transition. And formal transition was always a really good way, the most desirable way for a child to transition at school socially because it allowed for their need to be changed in every system. In those cases where a child didn't feel safe, you know, they were really left out in the cold by the Premier's changes and didn't really feel that there was any avenue except tell your parents and get your parents to support you. And if they don't. Tough luck. And you know, there are a lot of parents who don't support kids.

CC: So I guess I wonder, Shawn, I mean, it's clear that you are unimpressed with the way the provincial government has handled this, but do you fundamentally see the point of sympathy for the point that is being raised about the difficulty of trying to manage keeping parents on the same page as their children in this discussion.

SHAWN ROUSE: Yes. And I think as Mr. Lamrock says in his reports, you know, parents are often the most important conversation a child has when they're coming out. And I know my own child talked to their friends and other trusted people before they came out to us. And I think that's normal. And I think prescribing, you know, that they must come out to the parents and can't do any social transitioning with their friends and at school before they tell their parents is something that's going to keep kids in the closet. And when they're in the closet, they're suffering.

CC: As we discussed with Mr. Lamrock. The government doesn't have to follow his report. What do you think is is likely to happen in the next few weeks?

SHAWN ROUSE: Well, I would say the premier doesn't have an excuse anymore. He's you know, he did, in my opinion, a sloppy, rushed review on a policy that was carefully crafted. And now we've heard from, you know, parents, teachers, doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, the Premier's own caucus and cabinet school districts and the kids themselves, that this was not a good path forward. And we've also heard from Mr. Lamrock careful research that the path the Premier's chosen is [unintelliglbe]and won't survive a court challenge. So. The Premier, who I don't think carefully considered this and did a good faith effort to review it, now has all the information he needs to move forward and he has a set of recommendations from the Child and Youth Advocate, which I think are reasonable. Does it go as far as the old policy? But it's reasonable? I think it does accommodate for a lot of the concerns that that some parents who might have been worried about this. It does provide for some of those concerns.

CC: So you're hopeful.

SHAWN ROUSE: That based on that, I think he should accept it. I don't think he really has a reason not to. Based on what he said in the past.

CC: Okay. Well, listen, Shawnn, thank you very much for taking the time to talk about your family's experience today.

SHAWN ROUSE: Great. Thanks, Catherine.

CC: Shawn Rouse is the parent of a trans teen in New Brunswick. The CBC news is next. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

The next step to getting to Mars is to go learn how to work around the moon, get to deep space, get away from Earth, learn how to work on another celestial body. Once we have that nailed down, then we are going to Mars.

CC: The race is on in the next steps in space exploration. And while the final destination might be Mars first, humanity is going back to the moon. When we return, why the moon is so important and what going back there means for political power down here on earth. And Catherine Cullen. You are listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Why the international space race is heating up again

Guests: Cassandra Marion, Benjamin L Schmitt

CC: I'm Catherine Cullen and you are listening to The Current. The space race is back on.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Noise]

CC: That is the sound of Russia launching its first lunar mission since 1976. But last Friday's launch is not unique.

SOUNDCLIP

India's Chandrayaan three spacecraft has completed three for the duration of its voyage. The craft has spent more than one month in space, and there's barely nine days to go for the lunar soft landing.

CC: India launched its lunar lander back in July. Both India and Russia spacecraft are projected to land next week, maybe even on the same day. And they're not the only countries with eyes on the moon's surface. China, the U.S. and Canada all have their own plans for lunar landings. Cassandra Marion is a science adviser with the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa and a planetary scientist. Cassandra, hello.

CASSANDRA MARION: Good morning.

CC: So what's up with the moon? Why are so many countries so excited to get back there?

CASSANDRA MARION: Well, depending on who you ask. You know, as scientists, we never we never wanted to leave the moon. Their point, you know, the moon has always been interesting. It's not that we you know, we wanted to end it. So I guess I'll start by saying. The Apollo era ended. You know, 12 people walked on the moon. We learned a lot. We have, you know, 382 kilograms of moon rocks returned within at the time that space race was over. Their objective is really to, you know, land a man on the moon, collect some rocks and come back. And, you know, once that box was checked, the goal was completed. Enthusiasm and support was sort of lost. It became reasonably expensive and political decisions or focus went elsewhere. But now what's changed is the objective. So we want to go back to the moon for a bunch of different reasons. But one of the main things is to establish a permanent and sustainable presence in the moon's orbit and on the surface.

CC: And so why? Why now? Why is that suddenly become this shared objective?

CASSANDRA MARION: Exactly. So the main reason is in the last few years, we've identified the presence of water ice on the moon. Now, this changes sort of the way we can do exploration of the moon and beyond, because our end objective is really to use the moon as a stepping point to get to Mars. And so this water ice that we found in permanently shadowed regions near the moon's poles, particularly in the South Pole region where everyone seems to be aiming to land, is to get to that to that water ice. And because we can use water, so H2O, we can use it both for, you know, astronauts to drink on the surface, but also we can convert it into breathable air and oxygen and hydrogen and oxygen in its liquid form can be used for rocket fuel, which is a huge resource that we can use not only to continue operations on the lunar surface and in orbit, but also to get us to Mars eventually. It's a lot cheaper to use fuel from the moon than it is from the Earth because it's a lot more and it's a lot more expensive, a lot harder to get it off of the earth and into space.

CC: I have never heard anyone say cheaper when talking about space travel in my entire life.

CASSANDRA MARION: So relatively. Yeah.

CC: Fair enough. So help me understand this, then. Does it matter who gets there first? We're waiting to see what happens with Russia and India. Obviously, Canada, the United States have their eyes back on the moon. Does it matter who gets their mitts on this water ice first?

CASSANDRA MARION: I don't really think so. To be honest, we'll all be there within, you know, plus or minus a few years of each other. And in general, I mean, there's there's there's still a lot of ground to cover on the moon. And there are a lot of regions which are rich in water ice. And so I'd say at least in the early years of this, there's there's enough to share. But that's not to say that sort of in the political environment that there is a little bit you know, but there's certainly some. Some drive to get there first. Yeah, I guess that's sort of a little bit outside of my my area.

CC: Ah, I appreciate that. I wonder, though, if you're surprised that we're back in this era once again where there's there's a sense of competition about international space travel.

CASSANDRA MARION: No, not at all. I mean, I think, I think it's a healthy competition. You know, when everyone is excited and believes in space exploration and the value of space exploration.

CC: And so that's what I want to tap into. I mean, we were sort of joking a moment ago about cheaper and space travel, but if we take stock of things, I mean, we are at a time where there is record food bank usage in Canada, people are worried about being able to afford their homes. What would you say to Canadians about why it's worthwhile for the government to be investing in the moon once again, sending a Canadian to orbit the moon?

CASSANDRA MARION: Okay, well, I'll start by saying that there are huge benefits to Canadians back on Earth by participating in this space exploration. And so a couple of areas of focus for for Canadian space exploration are Canada's participation. The space agency is specifically to develop innovative health care, health care technologies and food technologies that we can use both for space exploration or deep space, whether it's, you know, in orbit or on the moon or Mars. These are currently being developed technologies that we can use both in space and for communities, people living in remote communities that are in need that that, you know, can can benefit people on Earth for years and years to come. And this is not a new thing. I mean, there are thousands of technologies that were developed for space that are in use today that are part of our modern, you know, way of living, way of life that people don't even realise that they're using space technologies.

CC: So so if water, ice or other resources are found on the moon, what kind of limitations or rules are in place about how countries use what they find up there? Sort of finders keepers.

CASSANDRA MARION: That's a really good question. Right now, there's there's a few agreements. You know, a peaceful exploration of the moon. Essentially, people have have signed or nations have signed on the dotted line to do this in a peaceful way. Most nations. And so so hopefully that continues to be the case. But there are very few rules in place where, you know. To decide all of those things. And so I think right now space law is a very popular topic and they're trying to get things more things on paper now and see how what's the best approach to go about this, as I said. So in these early years, there's enough place to you know, there's enough room to share and the moon is very large. But going forward, yeah, we're going to need to put more rules in place.

CC: I want to ask you very quickly about something pretty cool that you did, which is you help train astronauts in a remote part of Labrador in 2021. What? It was just like a taste of what that was like.

CASSANDRA MARION: Sure. So there were we had two astronauts go. It was led by Dr. Gordon Aziz at Western University. And that was part of the training team. And it's at a site called the Session Lake Impact Crater. And we brought Canadian astronaut Joshua Cotric and NASA astronaut Matthew Dominic up there. And the site itself is an impact crater that was set in rocks very similar to the rocks on the south pole of the moon. So when you're looking up at the moon, you see like the dark rocks and the lighter coloured rocks, the darker coloured rocks, those are sort of basaltic ancient, basaltic lava flows, filling these big giant basins. And the lighter rocks are the ancient lunar highlands made up of a rock called the North site. And that's the same rocks that were impacted in this crater and creating this crater in northern Labrador.

CC: Did it did it feel moon, like. Moon adjacent to while you were in there?

CASSANDRA MARION: The rocks are most certainly moon like. There's still vegetation there and there's there is a lake. And so the terrain is not as moon like as it could be, for example. Well, we also have trained I've been on expeditions with Jeremy Hanson in the Arctic where the terrain is very lacking in vegetation. And so that made more sense. But the rocks themselves, you know, you'd see cliff faces of just this white broken up rock that looks exactly like, you know, rocks on the moon.

CC: I want to squeeze in one last question, Cassandra, because she is saying that Artemis to it's going to do this flyby of the moon in hopefully November 2024. Then the agency hopes that the following year astronauts will go back on the surface of the moon. In closing, what are you most excited about when it comes to this prospect of humanity returning to the moon?

CASSANDRA MARION: Oh, my gosh. I mean, all the things. Yeah, I know.

CC: Just one thing. One thing that pops into your mind when you think about it. What's what gets you pumped?

CASSANDRA MARION: I'm just crazy inspired to know that Canada is going to be, you know, really a huge contributor to this to this return to the moon, because we have, you know, a lot to give Canadian expertise. And I'm just excited to be a part of the to be on the train, you know?

CC: Right on. Well, listen, thank you so much for taking the time to tell us about it this morning.

CASSANDRA MARION: My pleasure.

CC: Cassandra Marion is science advisor with the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa and a planetary scientist. We reached her in Toronto. Well, the drive for scientific discovery is key in space exploration. Scientists don't write the budgets for space programs. That is, of course, politicians. So why the renewed desire to invest in lunar launches and spacecraft? Benjamin L Schmitt is co-founder of Duke University's Space Diplomacy Lab. He's in Philadelphia. Hello, Benjamin.

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: Hi. Great to be on CBC.

CC: Happy to have you. Listen, I want to dig into the geopolitics of this because, of course, Russia is in the middle of its war on Ukraine. The country is facing Western sanctions against their economy. Why do you think they've gone ahead with launching a rocket to the moon?

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: Well, look, first first of all, I just want to caveat for the audience that this this is a mission that's been in train in development for for some time. This is not something that they've put together in the past six months or or even 18 months since the large scale invasion of Ukraine on February 20, 22. There's been a lot of setbacks and things like that over the years for the 25, which is this mission that's currently enroute to the moon. But going ahead with it right now, I think it's just a position that it's in a, you know, a foot race with with India for its mission, which also has been in development for some time, that that's a little bit kind of happenstance or coincidence that that is going on. But certainly there's a geopolitical race on for yet lunar lunar activity. But I think the biggest reason that, you know, from a geopolitical lens that that Russia is trying to go ahead with this right now and and have this be a successful mission is that it wants to basically continue its own level of of propaganda messaging, which, you know, the Putin regime has been absolutely focussed on for years and in particular since its large scale invasion of Ukraine and Western sanctions and technology export controls really aren't having an impact. They should be lifted, but they are hurting the West more than they're hurting Russia. And all these sort of narratives which are, you know, patently untrue. But by landing, if they are successful, you know, Putin, I'm sure in his high ranking official, will come out and make that point that technology export controls aren't having an impact on the Russian aerospace and space industries, even though the last in particular, the Biden administration said that, you know, the the the sanctions in in March 2022 that that were were set up right after the invasion happened, were targeting the aerospace military and in particular space sectors in order to degrade them. So, you know, it's going to be a question of that. And conversely, if it fails, I think it's going to be more messaging for the West to show that these technology export controls are working, that Russia is being limited.

CC: We can't talk about this topic for me without thinking of John F Kennedy, his famous speech right where we are going to the moon and thinking about how the idea of space exploration is linked to nationhood and ambition and a country's place in the world. Interestingly, though, the United States has partnered with Russia for more than a decade on space travel. What happens with that relationship now?

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: Well, look, I think that, you know, we're seeing the last chapter of of US-Russian space cooperation, at least at the level of, you know, hand in glove cooperation between NASA, the U.S. space agency and Russia's allegedly civil space agency, Roscosmos, that has a lot of ties to the Russian military, of course. And it also has a you know, it's started basically a militia to, you know, get its own employees and send them to Ukraine to fight. So, I mean, this idea that it's a totally benign entity itself is is pretty laughable on the face of it. But I think that really, you know, we've we saw during the the Soviet era, these are the Apollo-Soyuz missions, you know, basically to say that even in the coldest times of the Cold War, the United States in in Russia could at least get along in space. And we certainly saw that between Roscosmos and NASA over the past several decades, especially through cooperation on the International Space Station. And although Russia's previous head of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, came out, made some pretty outrageous statements, to say the least, this is pretty par for the course for this individual at the start of of the war, saying that if the sanctions aren't lifted, that Russia's going to basically give up on the space station, allow it to crash into Earth and who knows where it might fall, could fall on the United States. That didn't happen. I think part of the reason is that Russia is, you know, concerned about its potential loss of prestige. And the thing changing right now, and I keep pointing out to people is that the science community, astronomers like myself, etc., and and also astronauts in public statements have increasingly begun to shift to this understanding that there probably is no return to business as usual with, you know, Putin's Russia, at least in the coming years in space. And so we're seeing this split. I think the last final chapters through, it's cooperation between the U.S. and Russia on the International Space Station. So I think that's it after that.

CC: So are you concerned I mean, we talked about the fact that this isn't just about Russia and the United States. There are the countries involved, you know, India sending a lunar craft up there. We know China is expressing interest. Is this going to be sort of the new territory for these geopolitical tensions and conflict? Do should we expect. I mean, it sounds like something out of science fiction to say a battle over the moon. I don't know if that's overstating it a bit, but is this a new space where we are really going to see these tensions play out?

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: Well, this is something that I'm focussed on with my colleagues and university space diplomacy lab and also here at the University of Pennsylvania, where I'm a senior fellow. I really, you know, am focussed on trying to, you know, look at diplomatic solutions, regulatory norms and build out those sort of rules of the road, as your previous guest was pointing out, so that we don't have geopolitical competition to the greatest extent in in certainly not a weaponization of space. But but you know, let's let's face it, that's what we're seeing. So we're seeing a geopolitical competition. We're in a new era right now, especially in the past five to 10 years. But but especially in the last five years, where there is an unprecedented number of state actors, non-state actors, commercial entities that are accessing low-Earth orbit and beyond for the first time. And we, you know, are really in an era where it is kind of, you know, akin to how we saw early air travel about about a century ago. What were the rules of flying from one country to another or one city to another, etc.? And those basically were set up and built out, you know, in real time. And so that's what we're going to see. We're definitely going to see that for the moon. And, you know, is the geopolitical competition right now, I think on the lunar surface is is going to be more symbolic, I think, in the future with the lack of a, you know, a full legal regime in the in the in the case of the 1967 outer space treaty from the U.N. Lunar Agreement that was not signed by a lot of countries. Those need to be built out so we can avoid that sort of [cross talking].

CC: So that's what I want to ask you. I mean, we heard Cassandra being optimistic about countries getting along when it comes to potential resources on the moon. You you sound like you're much more on the cautious side of- cautiously optimistic.

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: I'm optimistic. Yeah. But I think that we have a lot of homework to do. I certainly would have to say that I'm cautious, as you said, because, you know, we have a future where there will be questions about sovereignty. Right. And right now, if a spacecraft lands on the moon, it's kind of similar to how you see the, you know, the U.N. law of the Sea treating a ship at sea. Racist ship itself is sovereign. But no one would say that the out of the international waters that if a ship is, you know, sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, that somehow some area around that ship. It's sovereign territory. Very similar to the moon, Right. That spacecraft itself is sovereign. But if it lands on the moon, you know, there's there's no rights to sovereignty of the land that's around it, to regulate, that's around it. So that's going to have all sorts of questions and look forward to kind of a science fiction future. You know, you have a helium three in the lunar regolith that's been generated over millions of years through the interactions with solar wind, that helium three is a potential huge fuel source for future fusion energy systems, you know, decades from now. And that could be a scramble kind of akin to how we've seen hydrocarbons be fuel politicised over the past, you know, hundreds of years.

CC: Is just such a fascinating topic and I hope your cautious optimism is the right path forward. Thank you so much for taking the time up.

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: We always keep looking up.

CC: There we go. I love it. I love it. Listen, so nice to meet you. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today.

BENJAMIN L SCHMITT: Appreciate it. Thanks.

CC: Benjamin L Schmitt is a senior fellow in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania and co-founder of Duke University's Space Diplomacy Lab. We reached him in Philadelphia. Well, in the spirit of the romanticism of lunar travel, here are the Waterboys with the whole of the moon.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

CC: Coming up in about 90 seconds after your regional update, we continue the CBC podcast, The Outlaw Ocean. I'm Catherine Cullen. And you are listening to the Current.

Back To Top »

The Outlaw Ocean – Ep. 5

CC: I'm Catherine Cullen and you're listening to The Current. This summer we are bringing you some of the best CBC podcasts.Today we continue The Outlaw Ocean with host Ian Urbina. Here's episode three. And a note: This episode talks about sea slavery and violence which some listeners might find disturbing.

The Outlaw Ocean Episode 3 Transcript

CC: Tune in tomorrow for episode four of The Outlaw Ocean. And if you're looking for more from CBC podcasts - you can find this series and many more on the CBC listen app or wherever you get your podcasts. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q. I'm Catherine Cullen. Thanks for listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Wednesday August 16, 2023 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This