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 2018

The AIH Transcript for August 31, 2018

Hosts: Helen Mann and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello, I'm Helen Mann filling in for Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight…

HM: No big deal. On a tumultuous day of NAFTA talks Canada and the U.S. failed to reach an agreement. But with more negotiations to come our guest says the sticking points can be unstuck.

JD: Lost at sea. Twenty years ago this week Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed near Peggy’s Cove Nova Scotia. Tonight fisherman Bob Conrad remembers that night — when he desperately searched the waves for survivors.

HM: Retractions speak louder than words. After the Trans-Mountain pipeline is put on hold Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her province will pull out at the national climate plan.

JD: Affirmative Distraction. The U.S. Justice Department throws its support behind a group suing Harvard on behalf of Asian American students. Our guest however, says it's got nothing to do with real concerns about discrimination.

HM: Back because of the drawing board. A team of experts makes it official. Yes, that is an authentic sketch by a great British artist, and yes, it can go on display at a German museum because it was not looted by Nazis.

JD: And…The long goodbye. No one wants to say farewell to Aretha Franklin. And as the ongoing speeches, performances and music show — no one wants the Queen of Soul's funeral to end either. As It Happens: The Friday Edition. Radio that knows it takes a little longer to pay your R-e-s-p-e-c-t-s.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: NAFTA Negotiations, Trans-Mountain Pipeline, Henry Moore Watercolour Sketch

NAFTA Negotiations

Guest: Andrei Sulzenko

JD: They were racing desperately, full-tilt to meet today's NAFTA deadline — until suddenly they weren't. Talks stalled today, blowing through a Friday deadline that the Americans had imposed on Canada but they will resume next week. The Trump Administration told Congress that it intends to enter into an after deal with Mexico and will keep working to get Canada on board. Here's Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland speaking at the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. today.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: We're continuing to work very hard and we're making progress. We're not there yet. This is a very complex agreement and we are going to continue working at it. As we've said from the outset, our objective in these talks is to update and modernize NAFTA in a way that is good for Canadians, good for Americans and good for Mexicans. I’m paid in Canadian dollars and my job is to ensure that this agreement works for Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian business. The government of Canada will not sign an agreement unless it's good for Canada and good for Canadians.

JD: Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland speaking earlier today in Washington, D.C. The decision caps off a Friday that began with a bombshell. President Trump, in an off the record comments leaked to The Toronto Star, admitted to the U.S. was not planning on compromising with Canada at all at these trade talks. Later on in the day President Trump confirmed these comments in Charlotte, North Carolina.

SOUNDCLIP

PRESIENT DONALD TRUMP: I love Canada but they've taken advantage of our country for many years. They have tremendous trade barriers and they have tremendous tariffs. Nobody talks about that. Nobody says that. They say ‘Canada, we love Canada.’ I do too. I even love their national anthem. It's called, very appropriately, O Canada. Would you like me to sing it? But I gave a totally off-the-record, you saw it, it said off-the-record and I said something strong. But it’s my belief and they violated it.

JD: Donald Trump offering to sing Canada's national anthem in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier today. Andrei Sulzenko has been watching the day’s and the week’s rollercoaster NAFTA talks very closely. And the situation feels very familiar. Mr. Sulzenko was a Canadian trade negotiator during the original NAFTA talks in 1988. We reached him in Ottawa.

HM: Mr. Sulzenko, Canadian negotiators were pulling all-nighters the last few nights to try to meet this deadline. It wasn't enough. What should we make of the fact that no deal was reached today?

ANDREI SULZENKO: Well, I think we should not be surprised whatsoever. First of all, the deadline wasn't real. I think most folks knew that the real deadline is probably some months out. So it was an artificial one designed I think to maximize pressure on Canada.

HM: Did it work?

AS: I don't think so. I mean, this is right out of the American playbook. In fact, as a famous baseball player once said ‘It's deja vu all over again.’ 31 years ago we faced almost identical situation with the Americans. They bobbed and weaved for months and months and months and didn't want to come to any agreement except until the clock started running out and then they maximized the pressure. We ended up with a deal but it was that ten minutes to midnight — the real deadline. So this will play out until there's a real deadline.

HM: So how much do you think today's negotiations were complicated by the fact that some off-the-record comment by President Trump made it to Bloomberg Business was actually leaked and made public?

AS: It was, in my view, and this is of course speculative on my part, this was a deliberate leak by — who do you think interests are served by leaking this?

HM: Who do you think?

AS: Well, I think the negotiator in chief for the Americans, the deal closer leaked it himself.

HM: So you're saying the president himself leaked this?

AS: Well, it's totally speculative on my part. But you have to ask yourself: In whose interest was it to have that leak? And I think it was in the American's interest to have that leak.

HM: The fact that he copped to it so quickly on Twitter is that one of the reasons you think that?

AS: If I were a reporter at Bloomberg News I certainly would not have leaked it because if it was a genuine leak by Bloomberg that kind of cuts their own throat.

HM: So how does it benefit President Trump though to have that get out there?

AS: It's part of the shakedown. This is good old fashioned closed the deal shakedown. And I say that because, I mean, I was one of the Canadians who lived through this same sort of scenario 30 years ago. And it was pressure tactics. It was saying here else we're going home, but Canadians stayed at the table and the Americans blinked. You know, the fact that Americans have sent this over into next week and who knows how many weeks after that, is an indicator that they actually want a deal and frankly, they need the deal as much as we do because a bilateral deal with Mexico doesn't do much. The Congress may not even accept it because it's outside the existing authority, but it doesn't make sense either even for auto trade which is integrated. You can't have a bilateral deal on autos and have somebody outside of it. It's preposterous.

HM: As a negotiator I'm just wondering if you were there at the table again and you heard that kind of comment from the president getting out the way it did and the way he framed it, how infuriating or frustrating that might be? How would you feel and think about that?

AS: Well frankly, I wouldn't blink and I don't think the Canadian side blinked. This is not unsurprising from this president. And he's said many, many outrageous things on many, many issues. And I think we just take it in stride. If he had been a different person and this came out of the blue, let's say this was a President Obama who said something like this, well then we really you know stand up and take notice. But this is just an everyday kind of occurrence from this president and I think the negotiators rightly said ‘OK what's the next issue we want to deal with?’

HM: Let's talk a little bit about the sticking points that still exist as we understand them of course. We've talked a lot this week about dairy, about the dispute resolution clause. How do we work through those to try and resume negotiations in a constructive way on Wednesday?

AS: Well, big, big question because at the end of the day there isn't necessarily some magic trade-off between Canada doing more on supply management and the Americans doing something more on the dispute resolution. It's not necessarily one against one is the issues but there are many issues in play and as the Minister herself said it's a very complex negotiation. So I think it's been clear for some time now that Canada has some bottom lines. It's not obvious to me what the American bottom lines are. It's really hard at this point to say well this is how it might play out especially since she repeated many times during her press conference that she refuses to discuss, in public, any of the issues on the table and how they're playing. I think that is the right way to go but I think there will be a deal because it is in both parties interests to have a deal. And it may not be the deal that we would ideally want and it also won't be the deal the Americans ideally want.

HM: Yesterday we had a former Mexican deputy minister on and he told us that he on the one hand blames Mexico for leaving us out of the more recent talks with the U.S. — basically throwing us under the bus — but that he also was surprised that Canada didn't more aggressively try to get to these talks earlier in this last round. Do you think the government could have, should have worked harder to get a seat at the table in recent weeks?

AS: It's a very difficult question. I guess, what I would say is going back many months cozying up to the Mexicans by Canada almost a dos amigos approach against the U.S., I thought was not good optics and not good tactics because it surely didn't please the Americans. Bear in mind countries have their own interests. They don't have friends. And the fact that we tactically misplayed it with Mexico in the early days it came back to haunt us because Mexico went their way because it was in their interest. So it's — but it's easy to say this in hindsight.

HM: Mr. Sulzenko, thank you for sharing your experience and your thoughts on all of this with us.

AS: Okay, look forward. Bye.

HM: Bye.

JD: Andrei Sulzenko is a former Canadian trade negotiator. He was one of the negotiators during the original 1980 NAFTA talks. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Trans Mountain Pipeline: Rachel Notley

Guest: Rachel Notley

JD: If there is no Trans Mountain pipeline extension then Alberta is saying no to the national climate plan. That was the message from Alberta Premier Rachel Notley last night. She and her fellow Albertans are none too pleased to see the Trans Mountain Project interrupted by the courts. So until the pipeline is built, Alberta will not raise carbon prices as it was set to do in 2021 under the current national plan. In the meantime she is urging the Federal Government to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and call an emergency session of parliament. We reached Premier Rachel Notley in Edmonton.

HM: Premier Notley, you have said that you are angry, that Albertans are angry. Who are you angry with?

PREMIER RACHEL NOTLEY: Well, we're basically just frustrated with the whole process. I mean, here we are with probably Canada's most valuable commodity. We can't get it between provinces and we can't get it to a Canadian port, and we are insisting that apparently the only way we can develop our energy infrastructure is to ship through the United States. It just makes no sense. This cost the economy over $10 billion a year for every year that we don't get this done. And, you know, everyone has been doing everything they can and we're caught in this morass that never seems to end.

HM: You are calling for an emergency session of parliament for the federal government to assert their authority. How?

RN: Well, I'm not going to sit down and write the legislation but we believe — I mean, there's two elements to the Federal Court of Appeal concerns that they identified. One is with respect to the constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate in a meaningful way and that's, of course, a constitutional thing and so that trust has to be done. So that's the first thing. But the other piece is the NEB and the process with respect to the NEB and the scope. And we think that there is a legislative fix that would stop us from having to restart at the beginning, which is effectively the result of what the Federal Court of Appeals decision suggests. And that to us, it's just too much, it's too long, it's too uncertain and we need to do better.

HM: Who are you trying to punish by pulling out of the national climate plan?

RN: It's not really a question of punishing. I believe very strongly in the need to take responsible and focused action on combating climate change. That's why we have our own Climate Leadership Plan. But what we were very clear with the prime minister on, and which he knows fully accepts, is that if we're going to move to the additional cost of climate action that is included in the federal plan, we need to pair it with the kind of action that ensures economic stability and job creation in order to facilitate that. And yes, there's no question the Federal Government's decision to buy the pipeline, we celebrated that here it was the right decision to deal with the uncertainty created by the government of B.C. But we now have additional regulatory problems and we need to deal with this in a timely way because we can't afford to move on with the Federal Government's climate plan without the additional economic strength provided to all of Canada through the successful completion of the pipeline.

HM: Now you're also urging the Government to appeal. Why not just address the concerns that were laid out in the ruling and consult First Nations that are affected further and also examine the impact of the pipeline on the marine environment?

RN: Well, the first thing we are saying that have to happen. So we're not objecting to ensuring that there is a better job done on consultation and accommodation with Indigenous people. On the second piece though, the way it was laid out in the Federal Court of Appeal, there's no clarity in terms of how long that will go on. It sounds as though we're going to have to start the whole process over and ignore the fact that the issue of marine safety has already been addressed and is being addressed in separate forums. And meanwhile, I will point out, you know, the tankers that that would come out of Burrard Inlet as a result of this pipeline's construction would represent at most five, six, seven, per cent of the amount of traffic coming in and out of that harbour every day. And the other types of products that are shipped out of their other boats don't require six to eight years of endless hearings in order to be there. And the fact of the matter is, is that our energy industry supports the economy of this whole country and we need to be smarter about how we grow it and how we create jobs for Canadians.

HM: We spoke to a representative from the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation yesterday who said that if and when an appropriate consultation is done, the pipeline will not receive approval. What is your response to that?

RN: Well, I think what we all know is that consultation does not mean consent and it does not give a veto. Consultation, meaningful consultation, responsive consultation leads to reasonable accommodation. And I think what we heard from the courts was they didn't see adequate back and forth and so therefore they didn't see reasonable accommodations. But reasonable accommodation does not stop at veto.

HM: If the consultations though, don't go in your favour, will you then say the process should be overridden or discarded altogether?

RN: Well, I think the issue is it's not a question of going in one's favour. I think that it's a question of doing it in a meaningful way and finding the right accommodation. And that is something that I think we can do and we can still come to a productive and successful outcome.

HM: So you're calling for an appeal to the Supreme Court and for Parliament to fix the National Energy Board, for an amended consultation process with Indigenous people. All of this with the goal of having construction restart by 2019. Is it possible? I mean, how is it possible to get all of this done before the next Alberta election, which is in less than a year?

RN: Well, you know, it's not really about the timing of the Alberta election, what it's really about is ensuring that at some point in this process fairly soon, we have a clear path to getting this project built on behalf of working people across this country.

HM: It is pretty clear though, the timing of this is not good for you. Will you get re-elected without it?

RN: You know, right now my focus now, as it has been since when I was first elected, has been about helping Alberta recover from the massive recession that we went into as a result in a drop in oil prices. We're about creating jobs. And we're about setting our economy on a more stable footing. Turns out that in the process of doing that work it’s really about setting old Canada in a more stable economic footing. Either way that's my focus. I’m not too much worried about the rest of the stuff.

HM: Premier Notley, thank you for taking time to talk with us.

RN: Thank you.

JD: Rachel Notley is the premier of Alberta. We reached her in Edmonton

Aretha Franklin Tribute

JD: That’s of one of just many musical tributes to the great Aretha Franklin in Detroit today. Hundreds of people filled the city's Greater Grace Temple for a celebration of the life of the Queen of Soul who died, of course, earlier this month at the age of 76. The day began early when Ms. Franklin's body arrived at the church, and then later in the morning the service began. In fact, as we went to air tonight it was still going on. Family, fellow musicians, politicians spoke to the crowd — including the Reverend Al Sharpton, her lifelong friend Smokey Robinson and former U.S. President Bill Clinton. And Aretha Franklin's granddaughter also gave a speech. Here's some of what Victory Franklin had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

VICTORY FRANKLIN: I remember when I was a kid people used to always ask me: ‘What does it feel like to be Aretha Franklin's granddaughter?’ And I'd always shrugged my shoulders and go ‘I don't know that’s just my grandma.’ And at that young I didn't really understand what that really meant. I knew she was someone special. I knew she was someone important, but I didn't really understand how big it was. As a kid I've seen some of the greatest things, I've met some of the greatest people and it was crazy because these amazing people were excited to meet me. And when I would go to her shows and watch her sing it would be the best feeling in the world. Nothing sounded better to me than the way my grandma sings. Her voice made you feel something. You felt every word, every note, every emotion in the songs she sang. Her voice brought peace. And watching her on stage from a young age to the last performance I saw her at, I knew that performing was something I was born to do. As a kid I couldn't understand what it was like to be Aretha Franklin's granddaughter. But I didn’t know what that meant, but now I know what it feels like. It feels amazing to see a woman so fierce, so courageous, gifted, so respected and to be able to call that my grandmother, to know that I have that running through my blood and that she's a part of who I am — there's nothing like that.

JD: Aretha Franklin's granddaughter, Victory Franklin, speaking at Aretha Franklin's funeral earlier today in Detroit.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Henry Moore Watercolour Sketch

Guest: Philip Mould

JD: It's a sketch — and until recently its history was sketchy. The artwork was one of 1,500 that were uncovered in 2012 in a hoard of art looted by the Nazis. It is a watercolour sketch that strongly resembles the work of celebrated British sculptor Henry Moore. It is housed at the Museum of Fine Art in Bern, which has not displayed it to the public because of concerns about its provenance. Well, thanks to the BBC programme Fake or Fortune we know two things now. First, the sketch itself was not looted by the Nazis. And second, it resembles Henry Moore's work because it is Henry Moore's work. Philip Mould is an art expert and the co presenter of Fake or Fortune. We reached Mr. Mould in Madrid.

HM: Philip Mould, what were your first thoughts when you set eyes on this watercolor sketch by Henry Moore?

PHILIP MOULD: Well, the question I always ask on the program and also my life, in my real life as an art dealer is: Is it the real thing or was it just another one of these imitators? So doubt, followed by excitement and then the pursuit began.

HM: And so how do you determine that it is authentic?

PM: This drawing was one of a number of works that being seized at a flat in Munich about two or three years ago from a dealer called Gurlitt, and his father was one of the four dealers who worked very closely with the Nazis collecting pictures, which were then subsequently to be used by the Nazis themselves for their museums and collections or sold. And it was really as a result of an investigation in to the tax affairs of Gurlitt that they were discovered in his apartment. And what watch where they came from. When Gurlitt Junior died, he'd left them to the Bern museum, and they said we would love to show them with many major works of art but first we’ve got to discover whether they’re really the works of art by the artists that we think they are. And secondly, and as important, we've got to establish that they weren't a Nazi plunder, that actually we have the right to shoot them but we don't need to return them to the families from which they might have come.

HM: Was it known that a Henry Moore was included in the collection before you saw it?

PM: No it wasn't. This was the only British work in the collection of about 150 works.

HM: So how did you go about proving that it was acquired not through plunder?

PM: Well, what we do on our program is basically we hit every painting, every drawing as you would a case — it's a sort of who done it. We did it with forensics first, work out whether it is actually the date that it should be. And that requires looking at the paper, holding it to the light, putting various scientific techniques to bear upon it. Then we need to find out — in this case this is terribly important — it's provenance, it’s history. We needed to establish pretty well every day where it had been, why it might have left England. What we began to discover as we looked into it was that Henry Moore being sort of cutting-edge abstract sculptor had more of a reception, a better reception actually, in places like Germany than he did in Britain who's quite conservative about art. And the before the Nazis came to power, Germany in the 1920s was a pretty right on place if you wanted to be the artist and show art. And so what we began to establish was that this picture was almost certainly a drawing that ended up in Germany purchased by a museum. The question was: How did it get to Gurlitt? Had it then gone via private collection and then been seized. And I think what we were able to establish by the end was that as far as anything the existed in those terrible times of Germany during the 30s, this was something that had been established as degenerate or had been deemed degenerate art and Gurlitt managed to get hold of it and put it away in his collection.

HM: So given your determination, what are the implications for the work itself? It is as you said in the Museum of Fine Art in Bern, Switzerland. Does it get to stay there?

PM: It does. So the great news is as a result of the investigation it has proved two things: that this is a work by Henry Moore. It's a collage watercolour drawing. Secondly, we've proved that this was a degenerate work, one of those works that was deemed inappropriate for the culture of Nazi Germany. It wasn't seized from a Jewish family, which is very often the case, or force-sold from a Jewish family. So cleansed and established thus, it is now going to be on display to the public.

HM: Is artistically important, this collage?

PM: It's a rather intriguing drawing. It consists of actually eight or nine or 10 distinct images upside down and around about. It's a work from the 1920s, very early on. It's appealing to book. But what it marks is very important, pivotal years when Henry Moore terms from a British artist into an international artist. It both looks interesting, it's an appealing, attractive image — but it's also a historically significant one. It’s probably worth about seventy thousand pounds, but it is terrible exciting in a way, to bring out from there that the cupboard history, particularly the dark corner that this was given the Nazi associations — a drawing from the early years of an artist who was so significant and whose work can be seen again.

HM: Well Philip Mould, thank you for taking us through the story.

JD: Philip Mould is an art expert and the co-presenter of the BBC TV show Fake or Fortune. We reached Mr. Mould in Madrid.

Part 2: Swissair Flight 111: 20 Years, Australian Child Abuse Inquiry, Harvard Affirmative Action Lawsuit

Swissair Anniversary

Guest: Bob Conrad

JD: According to an official report at 9:31 P.M. on September 2nd of 1998 quote “several observers heard a sound described as a loud clap” unquote. That was the sound of Swiss Air Flight 111 hitting the water near Peggy’s Cove Nova Scotia at an estimated speed of 555 kilometres per hour. The airplane disintegrated — all 215 passengers and 14 crew members were killed. The day after the catastrophe As It Happens I spoke with Bob Conrad, a local fisherman who sped out of his house and into his boat to help as soon as he heard the news. Here's part of his conversation with guest host Costas Halavrezos in September of 1998.

SOUNDCLIP

BOB CONRAD: I found myself saying as a fellow human being if I can just find one person and give them the dignity of being near them in death — because I had concluded that no one could survive what had happened there. And with that in mind I just proceeded to where I saw the rest of my fellow fisherman and the rescue craft, the preserver and so on.

COSTAS HALAVREZOS: What kind of instructions did you get as to what to do out there?

BC: There weren't really any instructions. I was just following what was happening. As I neared the accident scene I could hear my fellow fisherman talking with the preserver and being instructed as to what to do. And that's one thing I was very, very pleased and proud, is of the professionalism of the people who were conducting that search and rescue activity. It was it was hard to deal with but you know we knew that there are only basics that we could provide, and that is scan the seas that we knew and report what we found — and hopefully find a survivor — that was the ultimate reason for being there. That wasn't to be though, of course.

CH: As the night went on how did the mood change out there on the water?

BC: If you traveled through that water, of course we're moving very slowly and carefully with our spotlights, and to view the absolute destruction that had taken place, the disintegration — the impact must've been incredible. So you just moved gently, gingerly about watching the other craft and scanning the water to see what possible assistance you could give or recover in terms of the victims.

JD: That was a local fisherman Bob Conrad speaking with guest host Costas Halavrezos about trying to help in the immediate wake of Swissair Flight 111’s crash off Peggy’s Cove ,which happened 20 years ago this Sunday. We reached Bob Conrad again today in Fox Point, Nova Scotia.

HM: Bob as the 20th anniversary of the Swissair crash nears how are you feeling?

BC: Well, reflective, of course, but really in a pretty good state because it's a long time from that and the pain has diminished considerably.

HM: We heard some of the emotion from that time in the interview that you gave us the day after the crash. How much do you think about what happened that day and the things that you saw?

BC: There are triggers, of course, which cause the reflection. This far down the road, there are so many good memories associated with it that they tend to diminish the sense of pain and tragedy that was the real story back then.

HM: Is there one image or moment that stays with you from that time?

BC: Well, there are several. One has always stood out and, you know, the broadcast had been heard by a lady up in Ontario. I can't remember her last name. It seemed like it was Laura…But anyway she says she was impressed by the broadcast and took to writing a letter and sending it off, but she didn't know my address, she didn't know much about me other than what had been revealed during the broadcast. And so she sent off a letter to a fisherman in St. Margaret’s Bay, and Peggy’s Cove something like that and with no address. And the powers that be in the post office seemed to have a good sense of who she might be referring to. And that letter got to me without incident, and it was most remarkable and her thoughts at the time were very touching. And I've ever been reflective of who that woman might have been. Would I ever like to meet her someday?

HM: Do you remember what she said that touched you so much or was it just the act of sending the letter and reaching out?

BC: It was essentially the act of sending the letter and reaching out because I had no thought of any such thing occurring. And she was just such a tender-hearted person that it just stuck with me. And I may never meet her but she will always be precious in my memory.

HM: I find it difficult to even read about what you and some of the others who were involved in the recovery encountered and even the longer term effects it had on some people in your community. How have you been able to process what happened, what you witnessed, and how things evolved for you in the time after that?

BC: Well, some things you just don't understand and you can't really deal with them in a professional and successful manner. But you just, you know it’s just part of you, part of your life from that point on. But in fact, the professional people were made available to the fishermen and the people working in the Canadian Forces and so on to help them deal with what they weren't really expecting when they went out that night. And, of course, I wasn't either, and yet I got the necessary help because it was available and I thought because things were going crazy in the way I was behaving shortly after coming ashore.

HM: Are you able to share those actions with us?

BC: Probably my wife would be more suitable than I was, but it was such things as finishing up a meal and putting your dishes where they didn't belong and just doing things that you wanted to do but you didn't do them correctly anymore.

HM: Right.

BC: I had difficulties with the way my system was working as well. My digestive system was failing and there was just a physical upset as well as the emotional turmoil that that came about it at that time.

HM: Can you tell me about some of the lasting friendships you yourself have developed or at that time? I mean, I know there are there are parents who lost children who came to the community to sort of see what had happened to meet the people like you who had tried to help.

BC: Well, we've had some very lasting relationships with some of the families particularly. There was a young fellow that I recovered that night Robert Millais, an 18-month-old and when his grandparents came up here to visit with us and spend some time with us we came to appreciate what a fantastic family that was. And the thing that they said that meant so much to me was that the reason they wanted more than anything to come here was simply to hold the hands of the last person to hold their grandson. And we have other families, the Wilkins family, they're here actually with us, arrived by plane and with some friends yesterday.

HM: Who are they? How are you connected to them?

BC: That was an interesting connection which has proved to be so lasting and wonderful. My wife has a cousin in Washington state who is a retired college professor who taught a young man years ago down in Southern California, David Wilkins. And when this accident happened David Wilkins said lost his son. So Dr. West was killed my wife and told her about the connection and then a few days following the crash when they were able to get here they accepted the invitation came out to spend some time with us and that was like nothing I had ever imagined and it was the beginning of a lasting friendship that is still ongoing.

HM: So why is it so important to them to keep coming back?

BC: Well, you see their son Monty, who was 19 and going to Cologne in France to further his education, which was a family tradition. Monty is buried in Blandford and with a proper headstone and the picture of the young fellow engraved and so on and. So you have those kinds of connections that cause people to remember and want to be near, you know, even the sight of the tragedy that has taken their loved one from them — but that has been the case with so many.

HM: How will you be commemorating the people who lost their lives in that crash this weekend?

BC: There is a planned memorial on Sunday morning. We have not been party to it. We'll be there. Others would like to be there. We've been contact with some of them that will not be able to because of increasing age and so on. You know, 20 years is quite a spell — things happen.

HM: Bob Conrad, it is a pleasure to talk with you. I really appreciate you sharing your memories and what's evolved since that time.

BC: Well thank you so very much.

HM: All right. Bye-bye.

JD: Bob Conrad is one of the local fishermen who raced through the water to help with the rescue and recovery efforts after the 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111 in Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia. We reached him in Fox Point. Sunday marks 20 years since the disaster.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Australian Child Abuse Inquiry

JD: The Australian government called it what it is — a national tragedy. It has been eight months since Australia's landmark inquiry into child abuse was brought to a close. The five-year long investigation looked into abuse at several institutions, including the country's Catholic church, and gave recommendations. One of those recommendations was a law that would require priests to report cases of abuse heard in confessional. Today at a press conference in Australia the Catholic Church responded to the inquiry. Here is some of what Sister Monica Cavanaugh, president of Catholic Religious Australia had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

MONICA CAVANAUGH: In the years that the Royal Commission the societal epidemic of child sexual abuse and institutional failures to respond to these abhorrent crimes were laid bare before our nation. The Catholic Church's shameful history and the crimes of hundreds of priests, brothers, sisters and lay people were exposed — as were the cover ups, the obstinate behaviour, the stonewalling and the attempts to avoid responsibility and justice. To the survivors of child sexual abuse, their families and loved ones, and to those who support them — often against an unresponsive or even obstructionist Catholic Church — we are profoundly sorry. We as a church have said sorry before. And we will continue to say that we are sorry, but we know that sorrow and contrition are not enough. Visible actions now required.

JD: Sister Monica Kavanagh's speaking. Archbishop Mark Coleridge sat beside sister Cavanaugh at that press conference. He is the president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference. He said the church accepted 98 per cent of the recommendations, but would not support a proposed law requiring priests to report abuse heard in confessional. Here is some of what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

MARK COLERIDGE: This isn't because we regard ourselves as being above the law or because we don't think the safety of children is supremely important — we do. But we don't accept that safeguarding and the seal are mutually exclusive. Nor do we believe that abolishing the seal will make children any safer. In fact, in some circumstances it may even make them less safe. We believe that legislation abolishing priest penitent privilege is based, in fact, on a lack of understanding of what actually happens in confession and therefore tends to move in a purely hypothetical world. It's difficult therefore to see how the law will work in practice. The bishops and religious leaders have the utmost respect for the rule of law. But we believe that this proposed law is ill-conceived and impracticable. It won't make children safer and it will most likely undermine religious freedom. That's why we think it's bad public policy.

JD: That was the president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, speaking on Friday.

[Music: Somber Electric Guitar]

Harvard Affirmative Action Lawsuit

Guest: Jennifer Lee

JD: In 2014 a lawsuit was filed against Harvard University over affirmative action. It was filed on behalf of Asian-American students who claimed that schools admission policies discriminated against them. A trial for that case has been scheduled for October. And this week the Trump administration gave the students a boost when the U.S. Justice Department lent its support. Jennifer Lee has been watching this case closely. She is a professor of sociology at Columbia University and a principal investigator behind the National Asian-American Survey — the largest academic survey of Asian-Americans in the United States. We reached Ms. Lee in New York.

HM: Professor Lee, let's begin with the lawsuit itself. What exactly does it claim?

PROFESSOR JENNIFER LEE: The lawsuit was filed by the Students for Fair Admission, which is headed by Edward Blum. And he claims that Harvard unfairly caps the number of Asian-American applicants by using a racial quota and by using racial balancing. And so what he has argued is that Asian-American students are at a disadvantage because of their race — which is not true at all.

HM: Yeah. Well, how is it that a lawsuit that's filed on behalf of Asian-American students is arguing against a program that is actually supposed to help minority groups?

JL: That's an excellent question. And let me just step back a little bit and tell you a little bit about Edward Blum because the context here is very important. So a lot of the media has framed the lawsuit as started by Asian-American plaintiffs. But it's actually orchestrated by Edward Blum, who is a self-described legal entrepreneur and a former stockbroker who has been a long-time crusader against affirmative action. And before he started this case he actually orchestrated the case against affirmative action at the University of Texas at Austin using Abigail Fisher, a white woman, as the plaintiff. The Asian-American students on average Blum argues, achieve higher test scores and higher grades, yet are admitted at a lower rate.

HM: So basically, this is a suit that is designed to attack affirmative action?

JL: It is absolutely that. Edward Blum has had no interest in supporting Asian-Americans or Asian-American concerns or issues prior to this. He actively sought Asian American plaintiffs when he lost with Abigail Fisher, a white woman, in the last challenge to affirmative action. So this has very little to do with Asian-Americans. Asian-Americans are being used as pawns in a wedge in his fight against affirmative action — and that's a very important point to underscore.

HM: Do you know who these plaintiffs are?

JL: Most of the plaintiffs are applicants who have been rejected by Harvard. And they typically, from what I've seen, are of Chinese descent, Chinese-American. And I should also add that as a group Chinese-Americans are the least supportive of affirmative action of all Asian ethnic groups. So just to give you an example, the majority of Asian-Americans — about 65 per cent — actually support affirmative action. But what's interesting in our data is that we find that actually the support among Chinese Americans has dropped. And what we've learned is that there is a very highly mobilized and conservative and very vocal group of Chinese-Americans who is driving the narrative for all Asian-Americans, even though they are in the minority.

HM: But you described these particular plaintiffs as pawns, implying that they don't know what they're doing here. Is it possible they feel they have a legitimate claim here given that they were rejected by Harvard?

JL: Well, when I say pawns I mean no disrespect to the plaintiffs themselves or those who are a part of the case. I used that to refer to Edward Blum in the sense that he has actively sought to use Asian-Americans for his cause.

HM: The lawsuit makes some pretty bold claims, among them that Asian-American students at Harvard face the kind of challenges that Jewish applicants faced back in the 1920s and 30s. Is there any truth to the idea that Asian-Americans students or Asian students who are applying to Harvard are facing some kind of barriers?

JL: That is an excellent question and I think that framing is particularly incendiary because no group wants to feel that they are being excluded or discriminated against or are experiencing any kind of bias. But the data is much more complex and doesn't point out that Asian-Americans on average are experiencing the kind of discrimination bias that the students for Fair Admissions claim and Edward Blum claim.

HM: Why do you think the Justice Department has thrown its support behind the case?

JL: Oh, my goodness, that is a loaded question and I think it's quite obvious that Trump and the Department of Justice has taken a number of steps to disenfranchise minority groups and immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and now, even citizens. And so their involvement is not a surprise. They're doing everything they can to take away rights that have actually boosted the diversity of our country and boosted opportunities for all Americans.

HM: More than 500 academics with expertise in Asian-American studies, race and education access have submitted an amicus brief. They are supporting Harvard in its fight here. What are the broader implications if the plaintiffs recruited by Mr. Blum were to win their case against the university?

JL: That amicus brief was filed by several of my colleagues and a number of us signed on because we understand the importance of considering a number of different factors when we create a class and when we create access to higher education. If you were to take out race all together, the group that would actually benefit most are white Americans, and particularly groups like legacy's, who are six times more likely to get into Harvard than non-legacy's. And Legacy's I mean students whose parents attended Harvard or had one parent attend Harvard. And so one of the things that Blum has argued is that when you take race out of the equation Asian-American students would benefit. But all the research actually shows that it's white Americans who would benefit most because they're scoring higher on other kinds of indicators like extracurricular, athletic and legacy.

HM: Well, Professor Lee I appreciate you explaining the nuances of all of this to us. Thanks for joining us.

JL: Thank you so much for having me.

HM: All right. Goodbye.

JL: Bye.

JD: Jennifer Lee is a professor of sociology at Columbia University. We reached her in New York.

[Music: Jazz]

Red Delicious Feedback

JD: It had a good run, but as you may have heard on this program this week, the Red Delicious is no longer the apple of American's eyes. According to the U.S. Apple Association the Gala variety long-rumored to be making a run for the throne, has finally put an end to the decades-long reign of the long-time champ and most of you were more than fine with that.

HM: Janet Clendenning got the goodbye party started on Facebook proclaiming “The worst variety for sure. Good riddance.” Dave Swier asked “Was red delicious genetically modified to have a skin as thick as a baseball?”

JD: But not everyone was anti-Red Delicious. On Facebook Marleen Burton courageously admitted quote “I had a beautiful sweet one yesterday. It's a wonderful apple.” And Heather Sandilands emailed to say “The Gala is only the best-selling for the same reasons as the delicious. It's cheap. It travels well in lunch boxes and it's sweet — bet it won't top the charts for 50 years.”

HM: But we’ll let Twitter user @Pallibro have the last word. They shared their distaste in haiku form tweeting quote “Far from delicious. My least favorite Apple. Big mealy and gross.

JD: Hmm something to chew on. Thank you to everyone who wrote. You can find out more about this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

August 31, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode