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 2016

The AIH Transcript for June 1, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CO: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

JD: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: There's no "U.S." in team. While announcing he was joining just two other countries on the planet in rejecting the Paris climate accord, President Donald Trump made a case against the deal -- but our guest says his case was neither accurate nor true.

JD: Stormy weather. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna says the U.S. departure from the international agreement is "deeply disappointing" -- but that the rest of the world, especially Canada, will fill the gap.

CO: Confession is not always good for the soul. A former Ontario nurse pleads guilty to killing eight of her patients, and the daughter of one of her victims says Elizabeth Wettlaufer's admissions don't change the anger she feels.

JD: Struggling to carry a tune. After our contentious interview with Conservative Senator Don Plett about changing the words to "O Canada", his colleague Frances Lankin voices her concerns.

CO: Deeply disturbing. Four kilometres down, in waters off the coast of Australia, scientists discover a fish that hasn't been seen since 1873 -- and seeing it will make you want to weld Davy Jones' locker shut.

JD: And...love nest. Two male vultures at an Amsterdam zoo have been a couple for years -- and now they're raising a baby vulture together, proving they'll carry on, and consume carrion -- no matter what.

JD: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that guesses, when it comes to birds' hearts, the chick is in the males'.

Part 1: Paris Climate: Deese, Paris Climate: McKenna, anthem follow

Paris Climate

Guest: Brian Deese, Catherine McKenna

JEFF DOUGLAS: Today. U.S. President Donald Trump announced his plan to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: As president I can put no other consideration before the well-being of American citizens. The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries leaving American workers who I love and taxpayers to absorb the cost, in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production. Thus as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

JD: United States join Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries in the world who are not party to the climate accord.
In a moment we will speak with Canada's environment minister Catherine McKenna about how Canada plans to respond to the Americans’ exit. But first: Brian Deese was a senior advisor to President Obama when the Paris climate agreement was signed, and his point person on the negotiations. We reached Mr. Deese in Portland, Maine.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Deese, we have just heard President Trump describing the Paris climate agreement as not an environmental accord but a conspiracy of foreign countries to gain wealth at the expense of the United States. How do you respond?

BRIAN DEESE: Well unfortunately, I think virtually none of what you heard of the president was accurate or true. I think what we're seeing today is that the world is moving forward and America is moving backward. The Paris Agreement is a voluntary and non-binding agreement. It does not impose any costs or economic harm on the United States. In fact it creates an economic framework for the United States to benefit with that jobs and the economic activity that comes from cleaner energy.

CO: But he says, he's describing, he says that if they complied with the commitment that they've made, and you say it's non-binding but if the United States actually followed through, he describes massive job losses, he describes three trillion dollar loss to the GDP over the next couple of decades, six and a half million jobs lost. And with a minimum of $7000 per family less income and that is just the beginning. So is he wrong about that?

BD: Yes. Yes he is. All of those statistics come from a study which has been thoroughly debunked. It was paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and it doesn't actually reflect the policy trajectory of the United States. But the reality is, if you look over the last 10 years, the U.S. has seen the strongest economic growth of any industrialized economy while for doing its emissions more than any other economy. The truth is you can do both. You can move toward cleaner energy and have a strong and thriving economy.

CO: He's also is citing the fund that countries like the United States contribute to in order to help developing countries with their goals and describes this is a massive redistribution of U.S. wealth from Americans to other countries. How much is the United States contributing to that fund?

BD: The irony here is that China has actually made a greater contribution than the United States. You would think from listening to the president that somehow the United States was sparing outsize burden. But China already committed more than three billion dollars in climate assistance for poorer countries. And as a share of our economy the U.S. contribution of $3 billion was actually much more modest than almost every industrialized economy.

CO: He has made a statement that we actually heard in our country. Stephen Harper, former prime minister, made the same argument with say the Paris accord negotiations that other countries like India and China don't have to do as much. that they get all the advantages but that's at the disadvantage of countries like the United States, and Mr. Harper said ay Canada's expense as well. That India and China don't have to do anything. That's a quote from Mr. Trump today. How much is India and China are those countries pulling their weight in this accord?

BD: Look this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Paris agreement is. The Paris agreement is or is based on voluntary national contributions. So every country steps forward and says this is what we can accomplish. And that together reflects global collective action. So this idea that somehow whether it's in Canada or the United States, there are draconian impositions on those economies while other economies are set to do whatever they want is just a fundamental misrepresentation of what the Paris agreement is.

CO: What we're hearing from Mr. Trump is his assertion that President Obama sold out U.S. sovereignty by signing on to this accord because then you are were a key part of getting United States signed onto the Paris agreement. Just what went into actually making the U.S. contribution, making the United States able to sign onto that agreement.

BD: The idea that somehow the Paris agreement impedes on American sovereignty is just simply a false statement. The United States made a voluntary commitment based on our national interest. Look, the world is moving toward lower carbon energy. Coal is becoming less economically viable, and that's because the market is driving lower cost solutions. So the idea that somehow Donald Trump or anybody can stop that momentum is just sort of outdated and narrow way of looking at the world.

CO: President Trump though is saying that by pulling out of the accord, that it's part of his plan to bring jobs back to the U.S. particularly in the coal industry, that his plan is to not only bring those jobs back but to do so environmentally with respect for the environment. He says he's a great champion of the environment. What can he possibly do to bring those jobs back and respect the environment as he claims he's going to?

BD: Just step back and look at facts. Every major company in the United States, every major employer in the United States, the people who actually create the jobs, was urging President Trump to stay in the Paris agreement. So the idea that by accident the agreement, we're somehow doing something that's in the interest of U.S. jobs is belied by the explicit public position of every major employer in the country. So politicians can't go around saying that they love jobs but then ignore the actual institutions that create the jobs in this country.

CO: Aside from the fact that this will have on greenhouse gas emissions, what does it mean politically for the United States to pull out?

BD: Well I think there's a lot of people around the world who want to write the story of America in decline right now. And unfortunately, I think that this announcement plays right into their hands. I think you're going to see China and other countries eagerly taking up the mantle of a global leader on climate, and doing it in a way that positions the United States as a country in decline, and a country in retreat. And I think that that is that's not the kind of position that you want to be in as a country. And I think this is an unforced error that makes rebutting that argument much more difficult.

CO: What do you think Canada's role in the agreement should be now the United States has left?

BD: Well I think Canada has played an extraordinarily important role in both the lead up to negotiating the Paris agreement and in implementing it and getting it entered into force. And I think that in the wake of this announcement, the position of leaders like a candidate is only going to become more important to signal that the world is indeed moving forward with Paris and to signal that doing so can create enormous economic opportunities as well.

CO: Mr. Deese, Thank you.

BD: Thank you.

JD: Brian Deese was a senior advisor to President Obama. Mr. Deese helped negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement. We reached him in Portland, Maine. Today, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would pull out of that agreement.
Canada though, remains a signatory to the deal. We reached Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in Ottawa.

CO: Minister McKenna, we just heard President Trump say that the Paris climate accord is not a good deal for the United States, is not a good deal for the environment, and he wants to renegotiate to get a better deal. Is it possible to renegotiate that agreement?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well first of all, as I said that we're deeply disappointed by the president's announcement. We believe the Paris agreement is actually good for Canada and for the world and there's a huge economic opportunity and if the U.S. is going to step back we're going to step up. But I mean, in terms of what was said, it's not it's not entirely clear. The Paris agreement is in force. 90 percent of the rules remain to be negotiated, but that's negotiated by those who are at the table. I have a G7 environment minister’s meeting next week in Italy where I will be asking the administrator Pruitt exactly what the U.S. position is.

CO: Well he is saying his view is it’s a conspiracy of foreign countries to gain wealth at the expense of the U.S. and it's not good for U.S. sovereignty or to make America great again. And he wants a new deal. Is that possible is it possible to go back to the drawing board on this deal at all?

CM : Well the Paris agreement is in force, we're all moving forward. And there's an economic opportunity, and I think you know as I said if the U.S. isn’t going to step up, Canada's there. And in terms of the exact U.S. position, I think, that you know, I'm waiting to hear from my American counterparts in Italy next week. But certainly we're moving forward and I was excited to announce today that Canada will host with the European Union and China a ministerial meeting here in Canada in September to advance action on a Paris agreement.

CO: What we just heard from a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, Brian Deese, who said that Canada must become the leader now because Canada has been a leader but it must take up an even larger job in the absence of the United States. And so you think Canada is going to do that?

CM: Canada is absolutely committed to leading, not just because it's the right thing to do for our kids and grandkids, but also because there's a huge opportunity. And we've already shown leadership at the Paris agreement. We negotiated our Canadian framework on climate change with the provinces and territories last year and we're stepping up now. And I'm excited to do that because there's a huge economic opportunity. The world is moving towards a cleaner future and we're going to be part of it.

CO: But your government supports pipelines: the Enbridge Line 3, the Trans Mountain pipeline, Keystone XL, you’re a supporter of Liquefied Natural Gas project in the Pacific Northwest. How does that square with being an international environmental leader?

CM: Well because we're in a transition right now. We recognize we're not moving to a carbon free future overnight, but we've been very clear that we need to be taking serious climate action and it's not inconsistent. As the prime minister said, we wouldn't be able to get a serious climate plan without getting our resources to market, and we wouldn't be able to get our resources to market without a serious climate plan. But let's be very clear, we are moving to a lower carbon future and we're doing, we're taking measures and policies that are very smart, they’re very practical that will reduce our emissions and also grow a cleane economy.

CO: What happens without the United States is being part of this agreement? This is the US is the world's biggest economy, it's the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. And so what can what happens without the United States being part of this agreement?

CM: Well so the administration isn't the entire United States. In fact I was in the United States in California just recently where I met with the governor. California is the world's sixth largest economy. They are all in on climate action. I met with businesses and that were investors who were very excited about investing in Canada and the innovations and solutions that we have. So I'm going after them as hard as I can because we are going to create good jobs here. And this is a huge opportunity for candidates to take a leadership role. And also, you know, be the country that provides the solution, that creates good jobs, that innovates.

CO: But the Conservative opposition has warned that Canada, if it goes through its policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it’s not in lockstep with the policies of the United States, that it's, Canada becomes economically disadvantaged and industrially and we just saw conservative leader Andrew Scheer take his job. He's saying that the carbon tax that you are championing, is he calls it “a cold hearted attack on Canadian workers.” So how much does this move on behalf of the United States how much does what Mr. Trump did today bolster the conservatives here in Canada?

CM: Look I mean I think everyone around the world recognizes we're moving to a low carbon future. And so this is a huge economic opportunity. It's unfortunate if the opposition doesn't understand tha, and we're going to bring in smart policies that are going to position us well. They’re going to reduce our emissions but they’re going to move our economy. And we have always worked with industry and business. We have the support of businesses from the oil from the oil patch, the five major banks, consumer goods, companies. Why. Because they recognize that not only is it the right thing to do to take climate action, but it's going to create jobs and it’s good for business.

CO: But if you're not in lockstep with the United States policies what happens? I mean is that not putting Canadian industry at a disadvantage?

CM: Well certainly we are working very hard with industry, and we listen to industry and we develop smart and practical policies. But the opposition has yet to show any real commitment to taking action on climate change or recognizing that we're moving for a clean growth future. They would miss the opportunity. We're positioning ourselves well to create opportunities, to create good jobs, to grow our economy. And it's been great to see how in the first quarter this year, our economy is growing extremely quickly, three times as fast as the U.S. economy. We're going to continue moving forward on policies that make sense for Canadians, that create good jobs, that create wealth, because that's what we need to be doing as a government. And also, I have three kids, I am hell-bent that we are going to make sure that we protect our planet. We have one planet and we owe it to them.

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

CM: Thanks.

CO: That was environment minister, Catherine McKenna. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

Don Plett and anthem follow-up

Guest: Frances Lankin

JD: On this program last night, there were some words exchanged about the words of the national anthem after which you chimed in with some sharp words of your own.
You may have heard Carol's interview with Conservative Senator Don Plett. In case you missed it, it's up on our website: cbc.ca/aih. They were discussing a bill before the Senate that would replace the line in the anthem "in all thy sons command" with "in all of us command." Now Senator Plett would like to change the change to "thou dost in us command." But, because of a procedural rule, that might mean the bill would not pass.
Now Carol asked Senator Plett whether the Upper Chamber should hold up proposed legislation that has already passed in the House of Commons. Here's how that went:

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Well, you're not elected.

DP: Well, but you tell me where the Constitution says that the unelected Senate isn't part of parliament. We’re the chamber of sober second thought. So are you are you suggesting to me, ma'am that we as a Senate do not have an obligation? What are we here for? We may as well all go home if we don't have the right and indeed the obligation to debate this thoroughly we shouldn't be here. Don't use that with me please, ma'am. I have an obligation as a senator.

JD: And then a little later on there was this exchange:

SOUNDCLIP

CO: And so you want your amendment to be put to a vote?

DP: Well, of course I do. Like I want any other amendment to be put to a vote. It could be put to a vote tomorrow.

CO: And the chances are that it will pass in the Senate. Is that what your understanding is?

DP: No, I suspect that the people that want the bill to pass will likely not vote for my amendment if, in fact, the bill dies then. Come on, even you at CBC need to be able to put these things together.

JD: Conservative senator Don Plett speaking to Carol last night. There was an immediate reaction to that on Twitter. A lot of reaction. And overwhelmingly people were not pleased. Here are some of the labels that the Twitterverse applied to Senator Plett “an insolent child” quote, “a very rude and boorish man” quote, “a condescending jerk” quote, “dork” quote, “princess” and a quote “disrespectful childish bully.” And then there were other things that no, we probably shouldn't repeat on the radio.
Listeners also chimed in on our Talk Back line.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Voicemail beep]

GRAHAM DUNN: Hello, it’s Graham Dunn from Waterford. I just listened to Carol’s interview with Senator Plett, a gentleman who seemed to be of limited outlook. He did say one intelligent thing however, he suggested that all the senators should pick up the bag and go home. I am with him 100 percent.

[Sound: Voicemail beep]

ANNE SOLOMON: My name is Anne Solomon. Carol Off, I am very impressed with your maneuvering with that bombastic presenter. Shame shame shame on that senator.

JD: Those are just a couple of the calls we got last night after our conversation with Senator Don Platt. Some of you dropped us a bit a line rather by email.
Connie Gerwing in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan asks: "Is he always this grumpy?"
And this came from Peter Carver in Rockwood, Ontario:
"The national anthem is not his property, but that of every Canadian. It is not presumptuous of Carol to question his motives, it is her duty as a public broadcaster."
That's from Peter Carver in Rockwood, Ontario.
And, yes, at the heart of all this is the national anthem. Senator Plett's proposal is that we return the lyric to "thou dost in us command" -- which is the way Judge Robert Stanley Weir first wrote the line back in 1908.
Independent Senator Frances Lankin however, says that Senator Plett's amendment could kill the bill entirely.
We reached Senator Lankin in Ottawa.

CO: Senator Lankin, what did you make of the interview with Senator Plett last night?

FRANCES LANKIN: It was interesting. I think you poked the bear a bit. He seemed to be quite upset. So I listened to it. I have a slightly different take on what's happened than he does, but in general he's described the situation that he moved an amendment, we found out the amendment would have the practical effect of killing the bill. And we're at a point in time now where the question is, will this bill get voted on before the Parliament rises or will it be delayed by a few people in the conservative caucus in hopes that if there is a provocation over the summer the bill will die for good and have to be reintroduced and started all over again.

CO: OK we'll get to that in a moment. Let's just talk about what he is proposing because the bill says that we would change this line “in all of thy son's command” to read “in all of us command.” And what Senator Plett is suggesting, that return to the original wording of the, of the poem, as it was written in 1908, and to turn it to “true patriot love, thou dost in us command.”

FL: Yes.

CO: What's wrong with that?

FL: There's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I agree with Senator Platt. I like the heritage language. There are a number of people who don't, who want to see the modernization of the language for a number of reasons. I won't go into the arguments. But his amendment from his perspective improves it. And it is not an amendment that would be out of order because it seeks to implement the same intent of the legislation which is gender neutrality. The problem is, that it will never get through the process of the rules of the House of Commons if it's sent back because the sponsor is unfortunately has passed away and is no longer there. They would have to replace the sponsor and that takes unanimous consent. And when that was even tried in the House of Commons a year ago, when the sponsor MP Bélanger, people, was too sick to come to speak to it at third reading, the conservative caucus denied unanimous consent.

CO: OK. And you’re speaking of the late liberal member of parliament Marie Bélanger who was the one who came up with this language and wanted to see it passed by Canada day for the 150^th. And it passed in the House of Commons last June by 225 to 74 votes.
OK so now it's in the Senate, and this is where Senator Plett is challenging this “In all of us command” and wants it changed. He says it's not going to kill the bill, it might delay it. But he’s saying well why don't we take the time to get it right even if it's not ready in time, why not get the language that works best.

FL: Well I think he may have come to that point of view laterally in this process, or belatedly, maybe is what I should have said. But that's fine that's his prerogative to move an amendment. The problem is that the amendment will kill the bill. And so even though I like the language, I can't support the amendment. And quite frankly I have been told directly by a number of members of the conservative caucus, that a small group has stated in their caucus meeting that they are going to take this as far as they can with every rule they can use to stop a vote happening.
So an amendment gives more time to start talking all over again. That might have been the original reason for the amendment, I don't know. I'll take Senator Plett on his face value of what he said, that he likes this amendment so good. And I'm very amused by him saying of course he wants it voted on and we could vote tomorrow. I would ask him can we vote tomorrow on the overall bill as well. Because you know quite frankly, it has had a lot of debate. This same bill has been before the Senate for 15 years and never had a vote. And I think that that's an abuse of the role of the Senate.

CO: You’re quoting actually from the interview when he says “You can vote on this tomorrow.” But you know for whatever it started as a motive, he said he takes exception to the suggestion that that's what he's attempting to do. That he is trying to sabotage this. Is it not possible that he genuinely wants to see the language improved and that he could be a good champion of seeing this bill and stick handling it through the conservative Senate and just getting it to this language that seems to be even acceptable to you?

FL: I suppose it's possible. I asked him after I pointed out what the effect of this would be whether he would withdraw the amendments so that we could move the bill forward. And he said “Of course not Frances, because you know I don't support the bill anyways.” So I would encourage people to defeat the amendment because it would kill the bill, and I would encourage us to get to a vote.

CO: But you would encourage people to defeat the amendment even though you think it's a good amendment.

FL: Because it would kill the bill. Now if this bill dies, I think there's a great debate to be had about which words are used. I will point out historically, at one point in time Senator Nancy Ruth who was the original sponsor in the Senate of this bill who retired in December, did convince Prime Minister Harper to make a commitment introduce this legislation and to restore the language to the words “thou dost in us command.” That commitment is made. There was such a pushback from inside the conservative caucus, that the commitment was withdrawn. So Senator Plett's amendment will kill the bill. Therefore I can't support it.

CO: OK. Now there are those who say this language, in all of us command it doesn’t even scan properly, it's not even grammatical and even people like Joan Fraser who would certainly describe herself as a feminist and wants to see the gender neutral language, she says it's ungrammatical and it tries to make the song reflect today's values. That I mean a lot of people are pretty passionate about the idea that we should get the anthem right. This is Canada's national anthem and whoever might have contributed to it or wherever the rules of procedure are, is that not the most important thing is to have the right words to the song that are actually grammatical?

FL: I think so. And personally I like the heritage language but that's about a personal preference. And there are people who believe the language should be modernized. My biggest concern is to get to gender neutrality and to achieve this, by the way, after 30 years of bills attempting to get to Jupiter neutrality with various variations on these words. But 15 years with these exact words, I just think it's time to have a vote. And if people feel strongly that those words aren't right vote it down, if they feel strongly that these words are right vote for it. Just vote. We're ready to vote we will leave it there.

CO: Senator Lankin Thank you.

FL: Thanks Carol. Bye-bye.

JD: Frances Lankin is an Independent Senator appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau. We reached her in Ottawa.

Part 2: Wettlaufer guilty, vulture baby

Wettlaufer guilty

Guest: Susan Horvath

JEFF DOUGLAS: She can now be counted among the worst serial killers in Canadian history. Today, former Ontario nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer pleaded guilty to killing eight of her nursing home patients by injecting them with insulin. She also pleaded guilty to attempting to kill four others and two counts of aggravated assault. Ms. Wettlauffer said that she was angry about her job and her life. She described feeling a quote “red surge” before she killed. Susan Horvath is the daughter of our Arpad Horvath was murdered by Elizabeth Wettlauffer in 2014. We reached Ms. Horvath earlier today outside the courthouse in Woodstock, Ontario.

CO: Ms. Horvath, how did it feel today when you heard Elizabeth Wettlaufer friend plead guilty to murdering your father?

SUSAN HORVATH: How did it feel? It was very shocking. And I was very happy that she admitted, admitted to be guilty.

CO: Are you any closer to understanding why she did this?

SH: Well, she’s telling everybody in the court why. She's got a bad temper about anger. She was playing God. She would determine whether or not she felt that person's time was to die and then she’d inject them. Total serial killer mentality.

CO: She described a red surging feelings she would get when she chose her victims.

SH: Yeah well, a red surging feeling, I wouldn't even know what that is because I'm not her. But red surging feeling, I don't know. I couldn't figure that one out. I guess that's what she experienced before she took somebody's life.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about your father?

SH: My father was a very strong man, my dad. Loving, caring worked very hard. His family was very important to him. And he loved to travel, always learning things. Yup. And if he was here today, we would be very happy. But he's not because she decided to end his life. So now we don't have him anymore.

CO: What was your father's health before he died?

SH: Dad struggled with some strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes runs in the family. But other than that, he was pretty strong. He kicked through his house all the time. You know, like he just kept on barreling through life with his health. You know, he never let too much stop him, you know.

CO: And did you think for the most part he was getting good care at the nursing home before?

SH: No I didn't like that place from the beginning. He wasn't getting good care. No, not a chance.

CO: What we've heard today is that Elizabeth Wettlaufer actually admitted to a number of people that she had this urge to kill. She even told some that she had done it. Why do you think those people didn't act on that?

SH: Because it's hard to believ. Because normally if, I mean I'm assuming normally if there's murders and killings and generally the common personality trait from what I'm reading and learning is a murderer doesn't really say what he does, he just does it. In her case because she has Bible school behind her and she's got, she's religious, she felt guilty and her conscience got to her basically and she ended up spilling the beans.

CO: Do you think that if she had been reported, if some people had taken that more seriously and reported her to the police that your father would still be alive?

SH: Want to know something? This is why we have a lawsuit and this is why we have a lawyer. Right there. What you said. Because number, one the nursing home my dad was in was a private-owned home. An owner owns it. And he's a private owner and in private nursing homes, there's different rules. The county and government homes also have different rules.
So they didn't really check. If a nurse if a nurse comes in and says “I'm a nurse and I've got good education, no criminal record.” Right off the bat, they hire them. That's not the case. They should have a psychological evaluation of each and every nurse that comes in there.

CO: This afternoon you're going to watch the video of Ms. Wettlaufer’s confession to police.

SH: Yup, we’re watching the video. Yup.

CO: What might you learn from that?

SH: I won't be learning anything. So there's nothing for me to learn. I don't trust people. I never did. And I know a lot of people family members who are super trusting. I'm not.

CO: Do you have any forgiveness for her?

SH: No forgiveness for her whatsoever. Not a chance. Other people here have said I will forgive her but not forget. No, I'm sorry I'm too tough-hearted for that. I'm not going to forgive her for nothing. She knew what she was doing. Totally 100 percent. She's not, you know she can't use the psychological line that I thought she was going to use you know. But she admitted to all her guilt which was the way to go.

CO: How will you remember your father?

SH: How I remember my dad? Is he's a fighter he's a fighter and I'm glad like my dad. But he was a fighter. And even till the end he fought, because she had mentioned that even when she injected my father, he didn't react. He was still going. And so she had to do another injection to kill him.
So he fought. He was strong all the time regardless what health issues he had. He was strong and I'm very happy that I resemble him a lot in the family because that's what's been pulling me through all this. I got to tell you. So I'm going to go now, OK?

CO: OK. Ms. Horvath. I just want to say I'm sorry for your loss but I thank you for speaking with us.

SH: Thank you very much. Bye.

JD: Susan Horvath’s father was one of the victims of former Ontario nurse Elizabeth Wettlaufer. We reached Ms. Horvath in Woodstock, Ontario. Again, today Elizabeth Wettlaufer pleaded guilty to killing eight of her elderly patients. There's more on this story on our website, cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Lebron James

JD: Today is the first day of the NBA finals but at a press conference yesterday evening with the Cleveland Cavaliers star Lebron James, the first question had nothing to do with his health or the competition. Instead Mr. James addressed an incident at his home in L.A. Police are investigating after someone spray painted a racial slur on his front gate. Here's part of what LeBron James had to say about what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

LEBRON JAMES: It just goes to show that racism will always be a part of the world, a part of America. And you know hate, you know in America especially for African-Americans, is living every day. And even though that it's concealed most of the time, you know people hide their faces and will say things about you and they see you they smile in your face. It's alive every single day.
And I think back to Emmett Till's mom actually, was kind of one of the first thing I thought of. And the reason that she had an open casket is because she wanted to show the world what her son went through as far as a hate crime. And you know being black in America.
So it's like it doesn't, no matter how much money you have, no matter how famous you are, no matter how many people admire you, you know, being black in America is tough. And we've got a long way to go. You know for us as a society and for us as African-Americans until we until we feel equal in America and you know but my family is safe and you know that's what's important.

JD: LeBron James speaking yesterday.

[Music]

Vulture baby

Guest: Job van Tol

JD: For years now, the Artis Amsterdam Royal Zoo has been home to a monogomous couple of male vultures. They live together and nest together. But, since they're a same-sex couple, they've never been able to have vulture babies. That is, until zookeepers found an abandoned egg.
Job van Tol is a zookeeper at the Artis Zoo. We reached him in Amsterdam.

CO: Job, let's start with the egg. So where did you find this abandoned vulture egg?

JOB VAN TOL: Yeah. Well normally you have just a couple of vultures and vultures are really close to one another. They're monogamous animals. So normally they build a nest first and then they lay an egg and they’ll breed it. But this one I found on the floor of the aviary. That was a little different. And I found it and there was no vulture breeding it.
So then for safety reasons we put it in the incubator and we were of course of course also curious on whether we would be fertile or not. And it was. So that was kind of like a big surprise for us that there was a little vulture chick growing inside that egg.

CO: And so you determined there was a little chick inside the egg and so how did you find some parents who might be willing to nurse that chick and bring it into and bring it to being hatched.

JVT: Well that's the beautiful story we have several strong couples in our aviary. We've had them for years. And also for years we've had a male couple in our aviary. And that happens a lot in the bird world but also in the animal kingdom. Same sex couples are really quite normal. And every year you would really see that they chose for each other. Again they're monogamous so they have to bond. They have to trust each other. And these two males did that with each other. And every January they would start building nests and they would mate. And of course unfortunately, being two guys, they weren't able to produce an egg. Knowing this we thought immediately this is the perfect opportunity for these male vultures to actually give them a fertile real eye and give them the opportunity to maybe hatch and raise a chick. So that's kind of unique. That never happened before.

CO: How did they respond. How did these two fellows respond when you gave them the egg?

JVT: Well it wasn't a surprise. We've bailed up, you know, we wanted to know are they good enough? Are they good breeders? They have to breed for two months. So that's quite a long time. Of course they do it together. But still it's a long time, and therefore we especially designed an artificial egg for them and we gave it to them and we've been doing that for a couple of years. And also gave us the opportunity to see whether they would be able to complete the circle, you know to complete the breeding period.

CO: So if I understand you gave them this fake egg for all these years and you determined from that that they were nurturing, that they would care for this egg.

JVT: Yeah. And they took it very seriously. We've let them build up experience in breeding. We know that they did perfectly all the time. We replaced it and we gave them the real egg. And then, after a couple of days you know, we were curious and a little bit nervous. We climbed up the rock take a little peek and see what happens. And then we saw this little chick moving underneath these brave guys and it was an unbelievable sight.

CO: What are they doing as parents? Are they, have they divided their roles? Are they both taking care of the chick? Describe that if you would?

JVT: Absolutely. It's for both species. They really have to work together. That's why they're monogamous. Monogamous animals really have a big task and they need each other otherwise they won't be successful. So what's the task for these vultures. One of them is staying on the nest keeping the cheek warm, protecting it for other vultures, protecting it. And the other one goes out to forage for food, and when it comes back they can alternate their tasks. And that's also why two males are capable of raising a chick. There's no difference between a female role in a male role for example. So that's why it's not that weird, you know. The DNA in the male Griffon vulture is built in to raise a chick. So two males are perfectly capable to do so.

CO: And the chicks are doing well?

JVT: The chick’s doing fantastically. You know it's unbelievable to see how fast these chicks are growing, you know. And when they're three months old, they're about as big as their parent and they fledge and they flee. And it's a wonderful sight to see.

CO: So this one chick though has two dads. And so do you, is that common? I mean have you seen same-sex couples male or female adopting an egg and raising a chick?

JVT: Well, they're capable to do so you know. And besides, homosexual homosexuality or same sex couples is very common in the animal kingdom you know. Homosexuality is a natural thing. I'm a penguin keeper for instance also. And in penguin species, homosexuality is very common and so there are many other species. The only unique thing, is that you don't really get a chance to for them to actually give them a fertile egg because they don't produce them themselves. So that's what makes this event absolutely unique. But the behavior for these animals and the fact that they chose for each other is actually quite normal for them if you could be able to ask them, they would say “What do you think. Well this is perfectly normal to us.”

CO: Job, it's great to speak with you, thank you.

JVT: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

JD: Job van Tol is a zookeeper at the Artis Zoo. We reached him in Amsterdam. And you can see some photographs of the vulture chick and one of its proud dads. Visit our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Faceless fish

JD: In the waters off Jervis Bay in Australia -- in what is called the "eastern abyss" -- there are creatures whose mystery is matched only by their majesty. In particular, one deep-sea dweller whose appearance is as astonishing as it is rare.
Only once before has a sighting of this species of cusk eel been recorded: in 1873, by the crew of HMS Challenger. But now, this secretive, spellbinding, scaly citizen of the stygian sphere has been spotted by scientists for the second time in more than a century. And to witness its noble visage is to oh my gosh, no, no. Is that it? Pull the plug on the ocean, drain it, drain it. And then dig a hole in the dry ocean floor and bury that eel-monster, and then pave the place where it's buried.
Rather this utterly… I should say, this fascinating singular creature was recently rediscovered at a depth of four kilometres in the eastern abyss. It has adapted to its habitat in the most sickening, horrible– I mean, intriguing way: it has no face.
The head scientist on the Australian expedition told the Guardian: "...the mouth is actually situated at the bottom of the animal so, when you look side-on, you can't see any eyes, you can't see any nose or gills or mouth. It looks like two rear-ends on a fish, really."
And it does look like that. It also looks like the thing that burst out of John Hurt's chest in "Alien" crossed with an uncooked pork tenderloin that's been at the back of your freezer for three years -- but significantly less appealing than that description suggests.
Truly, another example of the sometimes unfathomable fathomage of the murky marine, um, stuff that -- I'm sorry, I can't even pretend that I’m not afraid of the ocean right now.

Part 3: Quebec constitution, opioid letter

Missing and murdered indigenous women in Whitehorse

JD: The national inquiry hearings, or the hearings for the national inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls continues in Whitehorse. And today, a 52-year-old man from Ross River, Yukon -- whose mother, Jane Dick, was killed in 1970, spoke for the first time about his loss.
Ms. Dick was beaten and knocked unconscious by a violent partner. She never woke up. Jane Dick's five children had been taken from her. Some were sent to residential school, others were sent to foster care.
Terry Ladue is one of them. Here's part of what he told the inquiry.

SOUNDCLIP

TERRY LADUE: I haven't talked about this for 52 years. I had no sense into talking about it. What happened, it’s over, there’s nothing we can do to change it. The effects it had on me is very simple. I don't know how to love. I was never taught that. We, my brother together, we're not together. We might be here talking together but we live in the same community and we can’t even visit each other.
My whole family says that, because they took my mom away from me. The thing I lost is to be able to show compassionate love to my own boys. I've got three beautiful boys out there and I can't even tell them I love them because I don't know what the heck that word means.
I’ve got beautiful grandchildren and I’m scared to go and see them because I don't know how to love them. That's what happened, what was taken from me when he took my mom, when my mom died away. Look at those people up there up on that screen.
I lost my two older siblings. There’s only three of us left.
The effect it had on me was it drove me down to Vancouver and stuck a needle up my arm for 13 years trying to kill the pain, drinking trying to kill the pain. Wondering why nobody wanted me. Why I felt like I’d be nothing. Like I was a piece of whatever. My mom wasn’t there to hold me or hug me. To give me strength, to give me the encouragement to stand up and fight.

JD: That's Terry Ladue from Ross River Yukon speaking today at the national inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls in Whitehorse. Mr. Ladue’s mother was killed by her abusive partner in 1970. This was the first time that Mr. Ladue has spoken publicly about the impact of his mother's death.

[Music]

Quebec constitution

Guest: Jean Marc Fournier

JD: Jean Marc Fournier and his boss have an exciting summer planned.
Mr. Fournier is Quebec's Minister for Canadian Relations. And this afternoon, he and Premier Phillippe Couillard announced plans for coast-to-coast consultations on how to make the Canadian constitution something their province could finally sign.
Now if that doesn't sound like fun to you, then you probably remember the turmoil that followed the last big attempt to edit this country's most fundamental law. That was of course the Meech Lake Accord.
We reached Minister Fournier in Quebec City.

CO: Minister, why on earth would you want to reopen what some people think of as Canada's most problematic can of worms?

JEAN MARC FOURNIER: Well they were talking about that before knowing what we were doing so I guess anytime we talk about our Canadian relation, it seems that for people it's like meaning constitutional table and [unintelligible] that is not what we're talking about. What we are saying is well it's is our 150 year anniversary. It's a good time to see where we are from, where we are now, and where we want to go in the future. And we want to open a dialogue with all Canadians, not just government to government. In fact, more citizen to citizen and groups to groups to go... well let’s say. There are still solitude between Quebec and the rest of Canada. But there are many solidarity and we think that the future will, would be better if there were more solidarity. So the dialogue and the conversation is in fact a way to bring people closer together, knowing more each other. And by that, at some point, by knowing others, we will be able to recognize them and then–

CO: OK. All right, let’s just picking this apart because I mean you say that this is just a conversation, it's not going to create a constitutional conference, it’s not Meech Lake. But here you are asking, you're looking for recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, limits on federal spending power, a constitutional veto guaranteed Quebec representation on the Supreme Court, increased control over immigration. Sounds a lot like the Meech Lake accord to me.

JMF: Well for many people, they can think that it's like Meech Lake discussion but it's the opposite. We don't want to bring 13 premier and one prime minister in a room for three days trying to understand some things together. We want that to be a common understanding before bringing them in. And we want to think the population understanding that we've got more things in common that they think they have. That’s the same point that we are making in Quebec. And certainly the same point that we make outside of Quebec.
We continue to believe that Quebec is on one part and the rest of the countries in other parts. That's not true. We sell more things to other provinces in Canada than we do with United States with ten times bigger. We sell more to New Brunswick than in France. More to B.C. then to China. That means that we've got solidarity, and there are many other examples like that. So why don't we look at our future as being closer, going in a direction of solidarity more than in solitude. That is what we are talking about.

CO: OK, but you remember, Brian Mulroney thought that he had that solidarity too. He thought that the conversations had produced enough common ground to go into those Meech Lake talks and it created a tremendous amount of emotion, and we remember Elijah Harper with his eagle feather. Clyde Wells, you remember, Pierre Trudeau.

JMF: Of course I was there that time, I know that. At that time. I know that. At the same time you will remember that there were eight provinces who voted and ratified the deal. There was a large consensus for that. There were all yes. Two provinces who said no, they were Mr. Harper yes, I remember all that.
But you say that Mr. Mulroney was at the same point, not at all. It was a discussion between governments and what we are proposing, I understand, people are saying, you know Mr. Trudeau said, “We don't want constitutional table.” We don't want that leader for this moment. We think that's the best thing is to have a common conversation about what is the future. Who are we?
I think the question is no more. What does Quebec want? The question is look at who Quebec is. What are the vision and the dreams of Quebec. And you will find that many of those vision and dreams are shared by many Canadians, shared by our Aboriginal. And so why decided that we always repeat the past. This is not what we intend to do. We intend to have a large conversation more proximity between Quebeckers and all Canadians, and at some point if we know each other more, well, we’ll be able to recognize each other more.

CO: I understand what you are saying but the objective is to get to that constitutional table, is it not? To get your signature, to have Quebec part of the Constitution because it, maybe Canadians. And just to remind people, Quebec never signed the Constitution. This is the sticking point isn't it?

JMF: Yeah of course. And there's a reason for that. And there's a reason why, we explain it in the book why it should happen at some point. But it's not the unique destination. That's very important to say. It's not the unique destination. And if ever that part of the destination is achieved, it’s because people will be aware of it, understand it, now ask their politicians and government to do it because they want it. So it's the opposite of what Meech was. And I'm pretty sure when we look at what's happened since then, what was expressing that on the city's society is distinct society recognition, it's recognised by many judgments of the Supreme Court. There is no problem with that recognising what Quebec is as Aboriginal are. It's not, it's just a way to help them closer in Canada so that they have a sense, a common sense of belonging to all Canadians. So why would it be a problem to have more Canadians feeling 100 percent member of Canada? It's just a way to be stronger and this is what we are proposing. Having a large conversation so that there is a place for everyone to have a better Canada.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Mr. Fournier, thank you.

JMF: Thank you to you. Have a good day.

CO: Bye-bye.

JMF: Bye bye.

JD: Jean Mark Fournier is Quebec's Minister of Canadian Relations. We reached him in Quebec City.

[Music]

FOA: Maternity Hospital

JD: It wasn't how he wanted to end his career, but this week, Dr. Peter Boylan was vindicated.
In April, we spoke to Dr. Boylan, one of Ireland's most revered obstetricians. He had just resigned his position on the board of the National Maternity Hospital. He made the move in protest of the proposed transfer of ownership of the hospital to the Sisters of Charity. That is Catholic order of nuns helped run the infamous Magdalene Laundries -- an institution investigated for abuse and enslavement of unwed mothers and children.
Well, on Monday, the Sisters of Charity released a statement saying they will now transfer ownership to another charity, and cease any involvement with the hospital.
From our archives, here is Dr. Boylan speaking to Carol in April, the day after his resignation.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER BOYLAN: Even though the nuns won't have an active role in the day to day running of the hospital, by the very fact that they will own the land, on the hospital itself, and own the company that's vested to run the hospital on a day-to-day basis, makes it impossible that there should not be ethical conflict. With you know a lot of the day to day activities in a modern maternity services are anathema to Catholic teaching, in this regard. And so it's kind of delusional to think that you know that you can have a Catholic Church, hospital that will be happy to allow IVF abortion, sterilization et cetera. There's no hospital around the world that does these things that's owned by the Catholic Church. So to think that Ireland is going to be unique and have a hospital owned by a religious order where these things are going to be allowed is really I think to stretch your imagination to breaking point.

CAROL OFF: As a doctor you retired from the hospital last year and yesterday you resigned from the hospital board. What has the hospital lost with your resignation, with your voice no longer at those board meetings? Was that really the right decision to make?

PB: I couldn't possibly remain part of a board which was so blind to the consequences of the actions they're taking, and so deaf to the concerns of the public. And women in particular in Ireland about what has happened. So I felt that I was, had a much better chance of being able to speak freely if I wasn't a member of the board anymore. So that's why I resigned.

CO: But don't those women and don't those hospital staff, don't they need you on that board to be contributing that voice if the Sisters of Charity are able to influence the course of...

PB: Unfortunately there's no toleration for an alternative point of view on that board. So I'm much better to be outside the board speaking, because inside the board speaking it wasn't making any difference.

JD: From April that was Carol in conversation with Dr. Peter Boylan after he resigned his position on the board of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin. He had stepped down in protest against the hospital's transfer of ownership to the Sisters of Charity, and on Monday the Sisters of Charity released a statement saying that they will end their involvement with the hospital and that they will transfer ownership to another charity.

[Music]

Opoid paper

Guest: David Juurlink

JD: It was a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980. It was just a paragraph long.
The authors conclude, quote, "that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction." Unquote.
You might think a short letter in a medical journal, decades ago, would have been pretty much forgotten. But in a new letter, published in the same journal, researchers say that that original letter helped fuel the opioid crisis in North America.
We reached the senior author David Juurlink in Toronto.

CAROL OFF: Doctor Juurlink, how did you come across this letter from 1980?

DAVID JUURLINK: Well we've known for a long time that it was out there and that it was heavily cited. But what's not been shown before is exactly how it was cited. That's what we did. We went into more than 600 citing articles and asked, how did they portray this five sentence letter to the editor from 1980?

CO: So 600 times it has been cited. Is that unusual?

DJ: Oh it's extraordinary. I mean it's very unusual for a full medical study to be cited more than 100 times. So for a letter to the editor to be cited 600 times is almost unheard of I think.

CO: And what does that lead you to believe? Do you think this, it had a great deal of influence?

DJ: Oh I think this letter was critical to the genesis and propagation of the crisis that we now face today. You know in 1990, if you went to the doctor with chronic pain, it would have been quite unlikely that he or she would have put you on a drug like morphine to treat it. But in the 1990s there came this push to use opioids more aggressively for chronic pain. You know, back pain, arthritis and so on, very common conditions. And that push came from individual pain docs and national organizations. And in many instances, those groups were bankrolled by opioid manufacturers. I think that really has a lot to do with how this paper was cited.

CO: And now, so this just, we mentioned in the introduction, and it is basically is saying that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction. So what was this based on, what was the science behind the claims in this letter?

DJ: It's very hard to say because they don't describe it in any detail. You know, you can only say so much in 100 words. So when you look at this study critically, it's clear that it really doesn't support the title. It almost doesn't matter what it says. I mean, the title is very clear. It's addiction rare in patients treated with narcotics and it was published in the most prestigious journal in clinical medicine. And so I think those two things together were what allowed it to be leveraged in the way that it was.

CO: But it does give some numbers, some statistics. And it says although there were 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic preparation, there were only four cases of reasonably well documented addiction in patients with no history of addiction. So what does that tell you?

DJ: Well again, not very much. I mean the problem with the letter as written is that you know you can't really assess the veracity of the claim. The assessment of addiction is not something that is easily done just by looking at a hospital chart. It's a detailed assessment of an individual patient. And even more importantly these are hospitalized patients. This is not about patients who were put on opioids for months or years at a time as outpatients. So to generalize from a letter like this, to you know, tens of millions of patients is just not appropriate.

CO: Well this letter in the New England Journal of Medicine says it's from was signed by two people who were part of the Boston collaborative drug surveillance program. One of them is Dr. Hershel Jick and the other is Jane Porter. Has anyone reached out to them? Do you know what their view of the influence of their letter is?

DJ: Yes. In fact AP did a story yesterday. They contacted Dr. Jick who's now a very senior. He must be in his 80s I think. And it's quite clear that he's aghast at how his letter has been used to effectively help push opioids for chronic pain. He himself says very clearly that it's not intended to be used in that way.

CO: Well what was the intention of his letter?

DJ: I think it was just a project by a graduate student that they submitted to New England on a whim and got published as a letter. You know, it's not it's not clear how he wants it or wanted it to be used. It's clear though that he does not like how it has been used.

CO: Now we reached out to the New England Journal of Medicine to get a reaction to what you've been saying and there's been we haven't had a response from them yet. But the Journal's editor told the National Post and this is a quote “It's impossible to know what role this had in the opioid epidemic. It's a very multifaceted thing.” So how can you be so sure that this letter helped fuel the opioid crisis we see today?

DJ: In the late 1990s, as I was just finishing my internal medicine training, I remember being told that that these drugs that I have historically avoided for chronic pain were not just effective, they were safe. And there are many many doctors who will tell you that the primary concern that we have it was the risk of addiction. And so to be told that we have access to a whole class of drugs that we’d historically avoided. And they were in fact safe. And the New England Journal of Medicine said so, went a very long way. And so it is indeed a multifaceted problem but it really has its roots in the increased prescribing of opioids that we've seen over the past 20 years. And the de-stigmatization of opioids by this paper and it's and the way in which it was cited I think was critical.

CO: But if it's been cited 600 times and it had this influence, is it really just the lead or is it that people wanted to believe this? That they were disposed to believe this information because it was convenient to the medical profession?

DJ: I think you make a very good point. I think there are two things here. It’a not the letter itself. I mean the letter itself has no informative value. It is how it was cited, so by people who were perhaps ideologues or perhaps they were agents of the pharmaceutical industry that made billions of dollars from selling drugs with Oxycontin. But there's also I think, on the part of physicians, you know because we are so invested in relieving suffering, I think it was almost a message that we wanted to hear to hear from an articulate well-meaning pain doctor that we could use these drugs safely and we didn't have to rely on the other drugs that we'd been so disappointed in or so afraid to use, like anti-inflammatories, I think was a message that we ourselves were happy to hear. And you know, if we had a time machine it would be nice to go back and be a bit more critical and to actually look at this paper, this 1980 paper a little more closely than we did.

CO: Well it sounds like even you yourself, you were disposed to believe it, you wanted to believe it because it was going to be helpful to your patients.

DJ: Oh I did believe it. In fact I prescribe opiates myself quite liberally in the early 2000s, and it really wasn't until I became invested in this issue as a researcher that I came to realize how wrong we were and how much we'd been misled about the safety of opioids.

CO: Alright, well very interesting to hear all this. Dr. Juurlink, thank you.

DJ: My pleasure.

JD: Dr. David Juurlink is the head of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Toronto. We reached him in Toronto.
As Carol mentioned in there, we reached out to the New England Journal of Medicine for comment, but did not hear back before our deadline.
On the journal's website where this 1980 letter is posted – there is now an editor's note that says, quote: "For reasons of public health, readers should be aware that this letter has been 'heavily and uncritically cited' as evidence that addiction is rare with opioid therapy." Unquote. Then there's a link to Mr. Juurlink's piece.

[Music]

From Our Archives: Three Mile Island

JD: The Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvannia is finally shutting down.
The announcement comes almost forty years after an accident caused by a meltdown led to the release of radioactive materials. Schools were closed, residents were told to stay indoors, farmers were told to keep animals sheltered. And within days, close to 150-thousand people had left the area. To this day, medical researchers continue investigating links between radiation from Three Mile Island incident and cancers in people living near it.
One month after the meltdown, the U.S. nuclear regulator announced the shutting down of eight similar plants across the country.
At that time, As It Happens host Barbara Frum spoke with Dan Ford of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is part of their conversation, from our archives:

SOUNDCLIP

BARBARA FRUM: Are you gratified by this decision?

DAN FORD: Well I think that it certainly represents some type of forward progress. Obviously it took a rather traumatic event to stimulate the nuclear regulatory commission to start doing its job and I guess it is quite gratifying. We have a number of reservations about the substance of what they've done but at least there’s some type of religious conversion going on that’s sort of helpful.

BF: The NRC is saying it's only going to take a month to do all that they want the industry to do. Are you worried that that's too short a time, that somehow they may have settled for the minimum?

DF: Well I think from a technical point of view a lot of what they're talking about doing is simply silly. They do not have an adequate technical understanding yet of the design problems in these plants nor what to do about them. And the notion that it can all be quickly done and everything repaired some and quick and convenient fix put on the plants. I just think it's technically rather preposterous.

BF: One of the recommendations involves staff response to emergency. What does that tell us of how the training level, the skill level of the people working in the nuclear industry?

DF: Well I think what it tells you is that the operators are basically trained to operate the plant under normal conditions for producing electric power. They are not very adequately trained on what to do when a serious problem happens.

BF: How did unsafe equipment and procedures get into these plans in the first place? Is that question not to be asked as well?

DF: Well the fact of the matter is that the atomic energy commission was very eager to get large numbers of large plants online very quickly, and they allowed the company to take all sorts of shortcuts. And it is really no surprise at all that accidents like this have happened. And the fact is, that unless something very substantial is done to correct these problems that the degree of seriousness will continue.

JD: From our archives that was Dan Ford of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in conversation with As It Happens host Barbara Frum on April 27th of 1979. That was one month after the meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania this week the owners of three mile announced they intend to shut it down by 2019.

[Music]

Mets Mascot

JD: If I put five things in a line and tell you to show me the middle one, it's easy: you lift the third one, you don’t hesitate, you put it in my face. But what if there are only four things? Then which one do you select?
Last night, an employee of the New York Mets faced that confusing challenge -- and made a quick and decisive choice. And yet, that employee is facing widespread criticism for that bold gesture.
At the time, the employee was inside a costume: the grinning, giant-baseball-headed Mets mascot, "Mr. Met". Who, I'll point out, has only four fingers on each hand.
Now, the Mets had a bad night last night. They lost 7 to 1 to the Brewers. And it was a bad night in a series of bad nights: the team was expected to be a contender for the National League pennant, but instead has a record of 23 and 29.
So there's frustration in the organization. And that frustration apparently extends to the human inside Mr. Met.
A very short video posted on Twitter shows the mascot walking into the tunnel after his team's loss. Now the fan who took that video says he and his friends were just asking for a friendly high-five. Instead, Mr. Met, he made a fateful choice: he turned back to the fans, instantly decided which of his quartet of fingers was the middle one, and he raised it in their direction.
Now despite this impressively quick solution to the problem of which of four things is the middle one, the Mets have apologized. The team said in a statement, "We do not condone this type of behaviour." "We are dealing with this matter internally."
Okay, yes, yes. If we all agree that the chosen finger was the middle one, then I guess it was inappropriate. But we hope that Mr. Met doesn't get fired. Instead, he should just be given a day off to consider how his choice of bird got everyone so flipping angry. He should maybe get a drink or two. He has the right number of fingers for it.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 1, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode