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 2025

The AIH transcript for January 03, 2025

For more episodes of this podcast, please click this link.

STEPHANIE SKENDERIS: Hello, I'm Stephanie Skenderis, sitting in for Nil Köksal.

CH: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[theme]

CH: Tonight:

SS: Shots fired. The U.S. surgeon general wants alcoholic drinks to come with a cancer warning. Our guest applauds the move -- and hopes it encourages Canadians to think more -- and drink less.

CH: Heavy loss. Six years ago, an orca made headlines for carrying around the body of her dead calf for weeks. Now, she's lost a second newborn -- and she's repeating that act of public mourning.

SS: Meaning business. We’ll revisit Nil’s conversation with former As It Happens host Carol Off -- whose latest best-selling book is an examination of six words -- including truth and democracy.

CH: Conversation thwarters. She examines how their meaning has been hijacked -- and what steps we can take to reclaim them -- and how to get through to each other, in an age of rage.

SS: Feet accompli. Researchers in the U.K. are celebrating after finding the country's largest dinosaur footprint site -- all thanks to a quarry worker's accidental discovery.

CH: And…seat accompli. A Japanese company offers up a gentle scolding, telling bathroom users to wipe down toilet seats with a dampened cloth -- instead of abrasive toilet paper.

CH: As it Happens, the Friday edition… Radio that never just scratches the surface.

Part 1: Alcohol Cancer Warning, Orca In Mourning, U.K. Dinosaur Footprints

Alcohol Cancer Warning

Guest: Alexander Caudarella

CH: It's not a headline anyone wanted to wake up to after a holiday season where drinking was almost always on the menu -- often in excess. But today, the U.S. surgeon general warned that alcohol is the third-leading preventable cause of cancer in that country, after tobacco and obesity. And Vivek Murthy wasn't talking about excessive drinking -- he warned that as little as one drink a day can increase the risk of breast, mouth, and throat cancer. He now says alcohol should carry an updated label warning consumers of those risks. It's yet another example of what appears to be an effort to further regulate the industry. Last year, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction revamped its guidelines on alcohol consumption -- saying that no amount of alcohol is safe and recommending no more than two drinks a week for men and women. Dr. Alexander Caudarella is the centre's CEO. We reached him on vacation in Florida.

SS: Alexander, this warning from the U.S. surgeon general, it may cause a lot of people to cringe when they think about their consumption over the holidays. Was it music to your ears?

ALEXANDER CAUDARELLA: We, the things that are in this is the things we've known for for some time. And you're going to see it in Canada's guidance on alcohol and health, this connection between alcohol and cancer. And really, at the heart of it, it is good news because it's about helping people understand things better. It's about letting people know. And ultimately, they can do what is best for them. But it's really important that they know.

SS: Can you walk us through some of what Dr. Murthy is warning us about, specifically when it comes to cancer? What are the risks he's outlining?

AC: So, alcohol, we've been understanding more and more over the past 10 to 20 years and every year, even more, this link between alcohol and cancer and specifically seven types, at least seven types of cancer. Some of the ones that people think about a lot, including breast cancer and colon cancer, are on that list. The other part that he's highlighted, which I think is really, really important, is that these cancers aren't reserved for people who have significant problems or addictions with alcohol. It's actually, a lot of the cancers are in people who are drinking lower amounts. Just, and so this is again why it's important to understand that there are going to be different amounts of risk for different alcohol. It goes up. But that you can significantly reduce your alcohol, your your cancer risk related to alcohol by reducing your alcohol consumption.

SS: Do you think a label is the best way to get that message across or is there a better way?

AC: There are many things that are needed. And if you look at the Canada's guidance on alcohol and health that we, we put out, you're going to see that labeling can be a really important tool, but we also need it so that, you know, what you want is you want people talking around the dinner table. You want people learning about it, where they can learn about it. And then you want people going, for example, to their family doctors. That's something we're working on too is helping primary care practitioners be there with the answers. And again, people don't need to cut alcohol entirely out of their lives. Any reduction can make a significant difference. And the sooner we can get that information into the hands of people that are asked for those kinds of questions, the further it goes.

SS: Yeah. When the Canadian Centre for Substance, or on Substance Use and Addiction released those guidelines last year, I mean, that was, that became a huge conversation because they sounded pretty drastic. The recommendations had changed from 15 drinks, standard drinks, for men per week, 10 for women gone down to two for everybody, which, which sounded huge. And, of course, that message that really no amount of alcohol is safe. So, how do you get that message through to people who, who hear a guideline like that and might roll their eyes at it, might think it's too drastic?

AC: And this is one of the things that I think is really important for folks to understand. We actually didn't go and say it has to be two. What we said is you want to be in that low or almost no risk at two drinks per week or less. Now, in that more moderate risk, we have six drinks per week. So, these are rated, these are based on the risk of one in 1,000 and one in 100 risk of a premature death. So, what the guidance actually asks people to do isn't to hit the target CCSA is identifying. It's just to say, consider reducing your alcohol consumption. Find out what risk is acceptable to you. See, what we're saying is, and I think the surgeon general's really hitting on this, too, it's saying there's probably not a line under which there's a total free pass anymore. It used to be we said, if you drink less than X, we, we were telling you you were safe. Now, we're saying there's probably no completely safe amount. There's actually a lot of things in life, let's say driving a car, for example, that come with some risk. It doesn't mean that, that, you know, we we need to avoid all risk at all cost. It just means you need to be comfortable and be able to live with the amount of risk you're setting for yourself. And I think the second part that's really important is that risk goes up exponentially. So, no matter where you find yourself on that curve, and that is clearly in our messaging, any reduction is good. So like, for example, if you're drinking eight drinks a week and you even just switch from a six per cent beer to a four per cent beer, that's a, that's a 30 per cent reduction. So, this is where it's really, really important not to get overwhelmed with those numbers. What those numbers say is there's probably no free pass anymore.

SS: And what about for you personally? How has the work that, that you've done informed your own choices about alcohol consumption, particularly around this time of year?

AC: I'm glad you asked. So, as you put it, I mean, this sparked a conversation. I'm hoping the same thing for the U.S. surgeon general's report. I started talking about, I started talking about it to folks, people around me. And when I, when I go to have a drink now, either socially or in a different way or even just if if I'm going to do on my own, I always just kind of think, now, you know, am I doing this because the alcohol? Or am I doing it because I'm kind of used to it? When I go out with my friends, I'm going to grab a drink. And this is why all the reasons why things like Dry January are really popular. It gives you a month to kind of explore, you know, is it the alcohol I like, or is it the social circumstance? Do I need to be drinking as much or not? And this is really having, it's letting me have a conversation with myself and say, okay, when I was grabbing that glass of wine or beer with some friends, do I need it? Was it the beer? Was it the friends? What was the most important part for me? It's estimated that up to as much as 10 per cent of global cancers might be linked to alcohol in some way. This is not insignificant. Again, these aren't only the people who are, we might look at as heavy drinker, people of substance use disorders or addiction. So, I'm glad people are talking about it. I hear a lot from my patients and, and from even friends and family that they're at least thinking about it. And the more they think about it, the more they're inclined and think it's possible to reduce. And I think that's really, really exciting. So, if the only thing that can come out of it is something that happened, like for me, where I'm just talking about it more with people and myself and I try to reduce, well, that's a great success.

SS: Alexander, you've given us a lot of context around this, and I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

AC: Oh, of course. And thank you for covering it. I'm really glad we're having this conversation.

CH: Dr. Alexander Caudarella is the CEO of the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. We reached him on vacation in Florida.

[ambient]

Orca In Mourning

Guest: Brad Hanson

CH: Orca J-35 has been through some hard times. Faithful As It Happens listeners might remember the southern resident killer whale, which has also been called "Tahlequah". She made headlines in 2018 when her calf died, and she spent the next 17 days carrying its dead body. Well, this week, researchers went to check on the orca's most recent newborn. And they say they saw an all-too-familiar sight: not only had the calf died, but Tahlequah was nudging its carcass along once again. Brad Hanson is a wildlife biologist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Centre. We reached him in Seattle, Washington.

SS: Brad, you and your colleagues went out this week to see this orca pod. What made you realize something was wrong?

BRAD HANSON: Well, the first thing we noticed when we went to check on J-35 was we did not see a calf surfacing next to her. And upon further examination of, of her behavior and whatnot, she did appear to be pushing something on her head. And we didn't get a chance to spend a lot of time with her the first day. But then we went back out on New Year's Day and we were able to confirm that her calf died. And, in fact, she was pushing it around, much like she had done back in 2008 with that calf.

SS: And what went through your mind when you saw that?

BH: Oh, it was just one of tremendous letdown. You know, we're trying to work to recover the population and the, you know, calves are really the key to that. And in, in particular, when we had been out the prior week when the calf was first seen with her and it was still alive, we were able to get photos of its underside and determine that it was a female. And obviously, the females are extremely valuable in terms of the long-term recovery of the population, because we not only lose this particular animal out of the population, but also all of her reproductive potential, which is probably on the order of five or six calves in the future.

SS: And is there any indication right now about why this calf didn't make it?

BH: No, it's, it's very hard to understand exactly what, you know, went wrong. The calf did not appear to be behaving quite normally at the time that we initially saw it. It seemed like it was struggling a bit. It would, you know, sort of surface, kind of abnormally, kind of coming up sort of almost not quite straight, but it just seemed like it was kind of lunging at the surface. And then this calf just didn't seem to be as responsive as, as we've seen with some of the other calves. So, we were initially concerned. And I guess that this particular outcome was, did not come as a complete shock or surprise. But, nonetheless, it doesn't negate the disappointment that we felt. Yeah.

SS: So, so the mother was nudging this dead calf along, keeping it with her. And as we've heard, it's not even the first time she's done that. What do you think is behind that behavior?

BH: Well, you know, these animals are these social, you know, tooth whales have very, very strong social bonds. And, in particular, in these resident-type killer whales, the fish-eating ones, they essentially spend their entire lives together with their families. So, you know, there's, there's obviously a, you know, very strong bond there. And for some reason, J-35 seems to have probably more so of a strong bond. And it's a little surprising to see at this stage, given that at the time in 2018 when she lost the first calf, you know, she did have, you know, one offspring. Now she has two. And, you know, one of my concerns is just that, you know, that her prior calf was born only four years ago, and they usually calve about a five year interval. And so, you know, maybe she just physiologically, you know, wasn't quite ready to have this calf in terms of being in good physical condition.

SS: Some say it could be a sign that she is in mourning, that she's mourning her dead calf. What do you make of that interpretation?

BH: Well, I don't discount it. I mean, the, it's not an area of research that I've been engaged in much. But, you know, these animals do, as I mentioned, have very strong social bonds. And, and so, I wouldn't be surprised, you know, if the animals are experiencing that sort of particular emotion, if you will. But, yeah, like you say, there's just an extremely strong bond. And she in particular seems to bond with her, you know, offspring that don't survive in a very strong fashion.

SS: Well, whether or not you attach the emotion to it, it still sounds heartbreaking, but it's not just heartbreaking, right? It requires a lot of energy. Does that pose some kind of risk?

BH: Right. And that's, that's the part that were mostly focused on at this point is trying to understand, you know, what might be the impacts on her relative to this, because, you know, these animals are designed to be able to swim very efficiently and whatnot. And when, you know, she has, has to basically push a calf along, that's energy inefficient. And then, you know, it takes her away from potentially foraging. And so, we, you know, this is a time of year when fish are less available to the whales. We think just based on some of the research that we've done this time of year and Puget Sound and other areas. So, yeah, we're just a little concerned that, you know, that this behavior may adversely affect her down the road.

SS: You, you keep a close eye on these killer whales. What was it like for you to see a loss like this on a personal level?

BH: Well, it's, it's tragic. I, you know, it's just, it's hard not to be depressed about it because, you know, we, you know, this is what, you know, all of our work is toward is trying to see recovery in the population. And we just know that these new calves are so critical. And so, we were buoyed by the fact that there is another new calf in the population. We don't know what the sex of it is yet, but we're, we're obviously hoping for a female. But it's devastating. But, you know, we just have to continue to focus on working to address the risk factors that we've identified and, and, you know, try to try to move forward with population recovery. If you look, you know, way back in time when these different groups were formed, they were probably formed from very small groups, you know, just a couple of matrilines of, of killer whales. And the population grows from there. So, so, I keep, you know, thinking that, you know, we may see additional declines. But at some point, the population will potentially grow if the conditions are right in the environment for that.

SS: Okay. Brad, thanks so much.

BH: You bet. Thank you very much.

CH: Brad Hanson is a wildlife biologist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Centre. We reached him in Seattle, Washington.

[psychedelic rock]

U.K. Dinosaur Footprints

Guest: Richard Butler

CH: It began as a typical day at work at the Dewars Farm Quarry in Oxfordshire, England. Worker Gary Johnson was operating a digger when he hit something strange in the clay. And the strangenesses kept coming.

SOUNDCLIP

GARY JOHGNSON: So, I was doing backhoe, clearing the clay. And it was in a hump, and I thought, it's just an abnormality in the ground. But then it got to another about three metres long, it was hump again, and then about another three metres, hump again. And when I got out and examined it, it looks like footprints.

CH: Yeah, footprints. Very, very big footprints. So, the experts came in to take a look. Paleobiologist Richard Butler is one of those experts. We reached him in Birmingham, England.

SS: So, Richard, as it turns out, Gary Johnson found something quite abnormal in the ground that day. What exactly was he hitting with his digger?

RICHARD BUTLER: Well, it turned out that what Gary found was one of the largest dinosaur track sites anywhere in the world. So, each of those little bumps that he was feeling on the surface of the quarry was a dinosaur footprints. And it was a dinosaur footprint made by one of these gigantic long-necked, plant-eating dinosaurs called sauropods. Animals that you might be familiar with diplodocus or brontosaurus, something like that. And this is an animal that lived in Oxfordshire here in the U.K. 166 million years ago.

SS: Wow.

RB: So, he was just starting to discover one of these trackways. But actually, the whole area is covered by trackways.

SS: So, you first visited this site about a year ago, and what went through your mind when you saw these prints?

RB: Well, I had never seen anything quite like this anywhere. I've seen plenty of dinosaur track sites around the world. But it was clear even at this point when they were still quite covered with mud, that this was on a different scale to anything I'd seen previously and was probably going to be one of the biggest dinosaur track sites anywhere. So, it was incredibly exciting. And during that visit, we also discovered a different type of dinosaur tracks. And we discovered some of these classic three-toed, meat-eating dinosaur tracks, what we call tridactyl tracks. Another long track, we have those. And those hadn't been spotted previously by the quarry workers. So at that point, we really got excited and we thought, this is somewhere we should, we should go and take a proper look and do a full excavation.

SS: Wow. So all up, about 200 footprints have now been uncovered at the site. Can you tell us a bit more about what we know about the dinosaurs that made these prints?

RB: Yeah. So, there's 200-odd footprints forming five different trackways. Of those trackways, one of them is of this three-toed tridactyl type. And those individual tracks are about 60 centimetres, about two foot in length. And those are made by a large predatory dinosaur, something a little bit like T-Rex, but probably not as big, maybe eight or nine metres in length. We think those tracks are probably made by an animal called megalosaurus. And megalosaurus is famous as the first dinosaur ever to be discovered back in 1824, so exactly two centuries ago. And it was discovered in Oxfordshire not far from this site. The rest of the trackways at the site, so the other four trackways, are made by these gigantic long-necked, herbivorous dinosaurs called sauropods, possibly by a type of sauropod called cetiosaurus, although we can't say that for certain.

SS: So, you spent a week this summer studying these tracks with a team of 100 volunteers. What were you able to learn from analyzing them?

RB: So, a lot of the time when we work on dinosaurs, we are working with the bone fossil records, skeletons. And a skeleton is essentially the, it records the death of an animal. What we have when we have footprints is we have a snapshot, a moment, in the life of an animal. And we can see that animal walking across a surface. So, we can understand exactly what the environments in which that animal lived was like. We can also understand things like how it was walking, how fast it was walking. Potentially when we have somewhere like this site where we have lots of different trackways, we might start to understand something about behavior. So, were the sauropods forming herds? Was the theropod stalking or interacting or, you know, planning predation? So, those are the kind of insights that the footprints can give you to a much more difficult to get from the bone or skeleton fossil record.

SS: And you were saying that these dinosaurs were thought to have left these prints about 166 million years ago. Why, and how, were these prints preserved for so long?

RB: Yeah, I mean, it's remarkable, isn't it, really? Because you walk along a beach yourself today, and you leave footprints behind you, and they're going to be gone by the end of the day. I mean, footprints are ephemeral things. They should not preserve for 166 million years. But, of course, what happened in this case was something unusual. Probably, a large storm came and dumped a whole load of sediments over the top of the footprints soon after they formed and that buried them and that allowed them to be preserved.

SS: What's it like to stand next to something so ancient?

RB: Well, I think that's the really exciting and, you know, really awe-inspiring thing about footprints is, you know, you're walking on the same surface as, as a dinosaur walked 166 million years ago. You can literally step in the footprints of that dinosaur as it walked. I mean, it's incredible. It's, it's an experience I'm never kind of, you know, weary of have, having. It's, you know, a really, really remarkable sense all of deep time.

SS: And this is not even the first time that dinosaur prints have been found in this particular area, right? So, so, where does your work go from here?

RB: Yeah. So, there was another really large discovery made in the late '90s, just a half a kilometer or so to the north of where we've been working. And, unfortunately, those tracks were all covered up. They were they were reburied after discovery. So, they're no longer accessible. So, what we have done at this site is that we've taken a very large number of photographs using conventional and drone photography, more than 20,000 photographs. And we're turning those into really comprehensive 3D models of the site using photogrammetry. And those will allow us not only to study the site, how fast the animals are moving, exactly which types of animal made these tracks, but also create a kind of a permanent digital record of the site that other scientists will be able to use.

SS: Do you think there are more tracks to be found?

RB: Absolutely. I mean, I think on this surface where the quarry workers excavate down to the surface, and if we clean it well enough, so often it gets covered in a layer of mud, it makes it difficult to see the tracks, but you clean it well enough, I think there'll be many more tracks in that area.

SS: Wow! Richard, it's a fascinating story. Thank you for, well, walking us through it.

RB: Thank you very much.

CH: Richard Butler is a paleobiologist at the University of Birmingham, England.

[prog rock]

Toilet Seats

CH: And now, FYI, an AIH TP PSA.

[this is not a theme at all. Bright orchestra music and a toilet flushes]

CH: So you've gone and spilled maple syrup on your toilet seat. How are you going to -- pardon? What do you mean, how? Because you're eating pancakes over the toilet, obviously. Anyway -- what? Sure, okay, it can be a waffle. The point is the syrup, which you've spilled on the toilet seat. How to clean it up? Well, that's a no-brainer. You just use the absorbent paper right next to the toilet: the toilet paper. Except it turns out it's a some-brainer. Recently, social media users in Japan have been complaining that their toilet seats are scratched and discoloured. Not the kind of commodes you want to eat pancakes over. Or waffles. But it turns out they -- and we -- are to blame. First: because of our curvaceous hindquarters, which demand only the most artfully crafted toilet seats, which are most easily made out of plastic resin, which is sort of pliable and prone to scratching. And second: because we wipe our toilet seats with toilet paper, a product that isn't as gentle as it seems: it creates little gouges that gather dirt over time. That's according to Japanese toilet giant Toto. I mean that it's a giant Japanese toilet company, not a giant made out of toilets. In an interview last week, a Toto spokesperson said we should wipe our seats down with a soft cloth soaked in tap water or detergent. I think I speak for all of us when I say: thanks, but we're not going to do that. We're going to keep using the stuff that's right there. It's on a roll, and so are we.

[synth rock]

Part 2: Encore: Carol Off

Encore: Carol Off

CH: It's a new year and with it will come a new U.S. presidency. Or a new iteration of an old presidency. Later this month, Donald Trump will be inaugurated for a second time. His swearing-in will mark a major inflection point in an arc that's chronicled by the former co-host of this program, Carol Off -- in her 2024 book At a Loss For Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage. That journey began while Carol was sitting across from me in this studio -- listening to countless words from interviewees, and paying particular attention to how people used them. And something one As It Happens guest said to her about words really stuck with her. This is British author Robert Macfarlane talking to Carol in 2018 about The Lost Words: A Spell Book, which is about descriptors for plants and animals and birds going out of use...

SOUNDCLIP

ROBERT MACFARLANE: To name something -- I think -- is to, to know it a little better, to see it a little more clearly and maybe to care for it a bit more.

CH: Carol's own book about words is a lot less whimsical than Mr. MacFarlane's. But its basic premise is the same: that the words we use -- and how we use them -- matters. Now more than ever. She sat down with Nil in the As It Happens studio back in September to talk about it. And tonight, just a few short weeks from Donald Trump's second inauguration, we're bringing you an encore presentation of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

NK: Carol, welcome back.

CAROL OFF: This is so bizarre. I can't tell you. [chuckling] Thank you for the welcome. I'm still sort of getting used to being in this room again and on this side of the table.

NK: Well, I'm very glad you're here, but there was a moment for me watching you coming back into the studio, it's emotional.

CO: Did you see that I almost sat down in your chair?! [NK chuckles] And you thought --

NK: No --

CO: Hey, lady! Get over there!

NK: Never, never. You could stand here with me any time.

CO: Thank you.

NK: Any time. It's your home. It certainly feels like home to me now, but it will always be your home.

CO: It's your home. You own it, man. You own this.

NK: That's Very kind. This, this is about you and your, and your wonderful book. But in terms of the timing, I know this idea has been swirling in your mind for, for a long time -- these words in particular. So why did you feel this was the moment people needed to read it?

CO: It's taken two years to write the book. And it really, but it was incubating when I was here, when I was sitting in your chair. And realizing that there were so many things that were so alarming that were going on -- especially during the Trump era. But even before that. And so, what I found was that people were so angry with each other. This, we now are so, this rancour is so familiar, we don't even, even talk about it. But -- at the time -- that was just growing then. And what I found is that -- increasingly -- people couldn't have civilized conversations. They didn't just disagree with their opponents, they hated their opponents. And then I also became aware that people were giving up on some really important ideas of civil society. And then when we saw during the freedom -- so-called freedom convoy -- when freedom became a word about doing whatever you want and no longer having obligations to society. I realized that something seriously had gone wrong.

NK: But people have always tried to manipulate words. What's different now?

CO: These are specific words of civil society that have that go back to -- in some cases, like the words freedom and democracy -- go back to the Greeks and Romans. What had shifted in this case -- especially with the word freedom -- was that there was this word that meant -- like -- Robben Island and Martin Luther King Junior and being liberated from Auschwitz. Freedom was some, was the clarion call of people who were oppressed, people who didn't have what they needed. It was what Franklin Delano Roosevelt talked about in his speeches about we have to have, be free from want. People aren't free if they don't have enough to eat and don't have a roof over their heads during, during the depression. And so, this important word became the first one that I wrote about. And what I thought is that we need to reclaim this word from those who were in January 6th, storming the Capitol in Washington, saying that they're going to liberate their country. And we needed to take it back from those who were giving out this message of, of anger and rage and saying we don't have to care about others anymore. We don't need to wear a mask. We don't need to do things for others. And then wrapping that in a flag -- a Canadian flag -- and calling it patriotism. I thought, we're taking this word back, and I'm going to write about that.

NK: Freedom and democracy you've mentioned. Those are two of the six words that this book focuses on. The others are truth, woke, choice, and taxes. Those first two -- though, democracy and freedom, increasingly the latter -- is very central to Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. Beyonce and Kendrick Lamar's "Freedom" is the soundtrack for her campaign. In large part, it played at the, the DNC in Chicago. And that, that idea of freedom -- her take on it -- is, is certainly a theme in her advertising. We want to play a little bit of one of her ads for our listeners.

[sc].

[hip-hop beat]

ANNOUNCER: Fascism. We conquered it. [heartbeat monitor chirp] The moon.

HUSTON: Eagle has landed.

ANNOUNCER: Landed on it. The future. Building it. Freedom.

PEOPLE: Freedom!

ANNOUNCER: Nobody loves it more. [fireworks and cheering] And we fight for it. ["Freedom" by Beyonce and Kendrick Lamar/pop].

NK: What do you hear there, Carol? What kind of freedom is the Harris campaign pitching to Americans?

CO: Oh my God! I hear Beyonce. [NK chuckles] You know, this campaign, when Kamala came storming out of the shadows -- more or less -- of being the vice president and took the stage, and the first thing out of her mouth -- practically -- was freedom. We're taking this word back. I thought, oh my God! I, this was -- to me -- this was, this was extraordinary. Because my greatest concern writing this book is I thought -- well -- people are going to think I'm a Pollyanna. And suddenly, [chuckling] Kamala walked on stage, and weeks before the book came out, and I thought, I can't believe this. This is exactly what I was in my dreams was hoping might happen.

NK: It's been interesting as well -- though -- to see the shift -- and The Washington Post was reporting on this recently -- in the Democratic Party, specifically from when Biden was running from a focus on democracy -- that other word you focus on. He would mention freedom, but democracy was the focus. Why that shift?

CO: Democracy is -- and I write about this -- is a very elastic word that. I mean, Stalin said that he had authoritarian democracy. That you can, you can make it whatever you want. And I think it was too amorphous. Everybody gets freedom. And what's fascinating is that the few that the Republicans, Trump rarely mentions freedom. They did not use, they've lost that word. That was the, the word of republicanism. That was the word of conservatism in the United States, the central idea. And now, they've lost it because they don't seem to think we should be free to choose when and if we're going to have children. They don't seem to think we should be free to choose the library books we want to read. They don't seem to think we should be free to live in a society where you have health care, where you don't have to decide, your kids can go to school without being shot. Your kids can be who they want. That we can be -- as Walz said -- none of your damn business. We're going to live our lives as we want to. So you can be free to be who you want. This used to be the domain of the, of the, of republicanism, of conservatism. And to see it taken back, all of it, not just a part of it, not just their version of it, but the whole idea of freedom has been reclaimed by the left in this huge way.

NK: Choice is another word -- as we've mentioned -- you take a look at in this book. You write about the, the word in the context of abortion -- of course -- but also in terms of the choices the women in your own family have had available to them. And it's one of several personal anecdotes and really beautiful moments in the book. What did choice mean to your mother compared to you?

CO: My mother didn't have choices. Well, she had limited choices because she chose her husband, but, and she happened to get a really good husband. [NK chuckles] My father was a wonderful man for her. But beyond that, her era had so few choices. And she couldn't choose, she couldn't get credit if she wanted the credit. She couldn't have bought a house if she wanted. She couldn't do any of the things that you and I now just take for granted as women. Those things weren't available to her. She was also a Roman Catholic. And so, there were limits in her own religion as to what freedoms she had for reproductive rights. But no one had reproductive rights. It didn't even exist. I mean, it wasn't even, it was starting to -- when I was a teenager -- starting to develop in the United States, these ideas. But it was not until the late 1980s before we had reproductive choice in this country. It just, it's a defining thing in my, my development as a woman. And my development as a person was to see what it was to come from, what my mother had so limited in her choices, and to be where I am now, where I'm with women who have so many choices. And now, to see those choices threatened.

NK: You write about a protest -- a caravan in the '70s. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister. Many women were not pleased with what he was and was not doing in terms of access to abortion. And this is a story -- I mean -- even as journalists, even different age ranges in -- you know -- in, on our team -- as they were -- as we were -- reading this, were surprised how why do we not know more about this, this event. So it was really fascinating to read about it. So women get together, some of them in cars, many, many buses. They're angry, and they're making themselves known. They drive to Ottawa to press their case. There was a documentary here on CBC done by Karen Wells about the abortion caravan. It aired on Sunday Edition back in 2018. We'll play a little bit of it.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: In Ottawa today, the chant that closed the House of Commons.

WOMEN: Women are dying. Abortion laws kill.

REPORTER: Women demonstrators who favour free abortions forced a half-hour adjournment of the

Commons. Officials said they couldn't recall any similar incident in the history of the Canadian Parliament.

WOMAN: It's a women's right to control their own lives. It's a woman's right to control her own body. Every child should be a wanted child, and every mother should be a willing mother. Each of us must have that control over our own lives.

WOMAN #2: I don't want nobody else's responsibility...

[fades].

NK: I mean, they could, they couldn't get a meeting -- certainly -- or an answer from Trudeau, right? What is it like to hear that?

CO: I get weepy hearing that again. Just, it was -- well -- to the Canadian government under that of Pierre Elliot Trudeau were very, they were all, many of them in the cabinet were Roman Catholics. And John Turner said, I've written, I rewritten the law, which was not a rewrite. It was just the same law we'd had in Canada for 100 years. Which was, it criminalized abortion. It criminalized the right to choose. And so, these women, they started off -- I think -- a half-dozen of them in their, in their vans and cars and they started driving. They're going to go meet with Pierre Elliot Trudeau and tell him what they thought. And they're driving across the country, and then they get to Winnipeg. And then there's like 50 of them. They get to Toronto, there's 200 of them. And they get to Ottawa, and there's 500 of them. And they, and they say, we're going to meet the prime minister or somebody -- a cabinet minister. Nobody, nobody showed up to meet them. They would not meet them. And they got into the gallery and they chained themselves to chairs and started jumping up and demanding freedoms. It was extraordinary. And, but they shut down Parliament. But -- in the end, I mean -- the newspaper was, all the, all the newspapers, all the coverage was about hysterical women screaming what they want. And they finally got to meet Trudeau. They snagged him at a press conference, and they said, don't you understand -- Prime Minister -- women are dying. And he, he looked at them and he said, so? The arrogance just was gobsmacking.

NK: You also write about those who are concerned about the word choice in particular, whether that's the right word, whether it's still useful as this issue comes back. And then -- you know -- is reversed in many ways in the United States. So, is choice still the right word?

CO: No, no, I don't, I don't think choice is the right word. I think it's, and the person who convinced me of that was Margaret Atwood. I sat with her in her garden and said, I want to talk about choice because they're actually using, the handmaids are showing up at all these pro-reproductive rights, pro-abortion rallies. And so, how do you feel about the fact that you've obviously, you've really captured the zeitgeist, even if it's decades later? She said, I don't, I don't want to capture the zeitgeist. I wish they, this wasn't an important symbol. But she was the one who said this choice word is frivolous. It's a branding word. It's a marketing. So, and when it was first introduced, it was because they knew people would be so uncomfortable with words like abortion. I think what is, what's evolving, I'm seeing this all through the movement is that we're talking about reproductive rights, we're talking about reproductive justice and that choice is something a lot of women who are seeking abortions or need that, that care don't have choices. But -- at the same time -- I felt that when I was finally able to get access to birth control or when I was able to get access to all kinds of things that my mother didn't have access to, that I felt that it had given me choices, had given me options. So I think there's still a place for the word choice, but I don't think that that's the finding concept of that time.

NK: You likely recognize the voice that you're hearing. It is -- of course -- the voice of the journalist -- the author who sat behind the mic I now stand behind -- Carol Off. She is here in the As It Happens studio to tell us about her latest book, At a Loss for Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage. And -- you know, Carol -- whether it's, whether we're talking about the U.S. election or access to abortion -- the debate about abortion still -- or certainly another story that is -- I think -- without a doubt, a defining story of our time -- you know -- the, the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th, Israel's war in Gaza that has followed, the devastation that has followed. All of those stories, journalists -- obviously, as you well know -- play an essential role in helping to bring information and clarity at a time where words are weaponized. What do you see as the role of the journalist at this moment -- particularly when we talk about the war?

CO: I think the the role of the journalist is to cultivate a place where we listen to each other. And that we think other people have valid points of view. And I'm not talking about the fringe. People who, who are, don't want to be a part of the conversation, who just want to be part of the violence. People who are, who support Hamas, I don't consider them part of the conversation. So, it is the big group of people in the middle who are worn down, who are confused, who are tired of all this rancour, who want to have an opportunity to talk, who want to hear people actually listening to each other. And I think that that's the role of journalism now -- and As It Happens in specific -- is to cultivate those conversations. When I say that subtitle is Conversation in an Age of Rage is that conversation is, is the new radicalism. And so, that -- I think -- that's where we take this now. We just ignore those, those that noise on the outsides, those people who, I call them the agents of chaos -- the rage farmers -- and start focusing on what we want to do as societies, which is to start building bridges between each other.

NK: The ways we can come together. Those are the conversations that always speak to me as a, as a listener, as an interviewer as well. You close your book with a word that I think a lot of people can agree on -- in that they agree that they dislike it and what it means -- [chuckle] taxes. Why did you want to end there?

CO: Actually, taxes is -- to me -- the most important word in the book because it symbolises our commitment to our societies. And so, that citizen equals voter equals taxpayer. That's the formula. We are all three. And so, the demonizing of the word taxes by politicians to, to make us think that taxes is a dirty word and they're stealing your money, is part of that agenda of separating us from our sense of, of society, saying the government is a dirty word. These, these people are manipulating you. There's a deep state coming to get you. And so, taxes -- to me -- was something that it represents our obligation. It's, it's the price we pay to live in a civil society. We need to go back to this idea that we need to take care of everybody. And the way to do that is by talking to each other, conversations, but not being afraid to make your contribution to the society.

NK: You know, we talked about the, the, the personal accounts and the family connections to these words. And your father's life in particular -- and a result, as a result, yours -- was changed by an accident he had as a young man working in Winnipeg and what happened after. Just tell us a little bit about what happened.

CO: Well, he was working in a meat processing plant, and, and he was he was barely out of his teens and probably going to work there for the rest of his life, but he was working on a giant saw, and his hand got caught in the saw, and he lost the entirety of his right thumb. And so he was then rendered unemployable for work that required that. But was interesting because society was just changing. All the things I'm describing about how we moved into a society of a just society, a fair society, where people were taken care of by a social safety net. My father was able to get very good health care, and he also was at a time when there were unions just starting in Winnipeg. And they made sure that he was given a lump sum. But he was required to use a large part of it for an education. And he got a chartered accountancy degree, and he became a tax man. [both laugh] And so, I used to, all my growing up with him, I would look at that, that stump that was of his thumb, and I'd think, my God, that one little accident and everything we are -- all of our lives -- was because of an accident. And then, I realized, no, it wasn't. My father was able to take care of us. And my mother had healthy, seven healthy babies. And we all got an education, not because of something that was just a happenstance. It was because of this, this country of Canada that we live in that took care of us.

NK: When you talk about the weaponization of these words and others, and obviously you take hard right figures to task in this book, but is it really just a partisan problem? I mean, we talked about Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the criticisms there. There are those on the hard left that certainly manipulate words as well.

CO: No, I, I think that what's happened is the, in the shrinking political space of the left, they have pulled into, into a silo and said, no, we're not going to talk anymore. We're going to stay here. And so, I think it's, I would like to think we could persuade the left out back into the conversation. But I focus on the right in this because the amount of power and money and political office that's behind the right is extraordinary. These extremely powerful billionaires who are now manipulating the agendas, who are manipulating people and making money from it. And the other thing is, is that -- you know -- I know you did this wonderful special when Brian Mulroney died.

NK: Thank you.

CO: And, and so, we were sort of [chuckle] all of us nostalgic for that era of Progressive Conservatives when conservatism still was part of this kind of conversation of democracy and, and society and caring for each other and hadn't become what -- I think -- the right has now become, which is this us against them, this populism that says that, if you're either with me because I'm the, I'm the great person who's going to deliver everything for you. Or you with the elites, you're with the globalists, you're with the woke extremists. And I'm nostalgic for an era of the kind of conservatism that I grew up with. And maybe, maybe I'm naive about that, but I think we're still capable of having that.

NK: Ultimately -- you know -- this is, this is a warning, right? This book is a warning about the way language -- political language -- is being used. It's threats to civil society. What should we all do about it? Not just journalists, but all of our listeners -- anyone at home -- what can they do?

CO: We need to be extremely conscious of the language that's around us, how words are being used, how they're being used against us, how they're being weaponized. To be conscious of when people use terms like gatekeepers or globalists or deep state, or the woke mindset, or woke radicals. This, and woke is -- of course -- one of the words I use, which is that what's happening with this word is it's a, it's a vector to bring odious ideas into the public space. With us thinking that we're talking about wokeness, we're talking about racism. We're not talking about misogyny, we're not talking about genderphobia or Islamophobia. We're talking about woke. Well, if you pick woke apart, I'm talking about anti-woke. It's a code word for just allowing racist, misogynistic, phobic thoughts and ideas into the public space and they get away with it. So listen to how woke is being used. Listen to how democracy is being used. Listen to how freedom is being used. And own these words because they're your words. Don't let them have them.

NK: Carol Off, it's an honour to stand where you have stood, but it's certainly an honour and a pleasure to talk to you today. What a, what a treat to have you in the studio. Thank you, Carol.

CO: Thank you.

CH: That's my current As It Happens co-host Nil Köksal, talking to my former As It Happens co-host Carol Off about her 2024 book At a Loss for Words: Conversation in an Age of Rage. That interview first aired back in September.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

The AIH Transcript For January 03, 2025

More Stories Like This