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 2020

The AIH Transcript for October 30, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Surge protector, a record number of COVID cases prompts Manitoba to announce stringent new restrictions. And one Winnipeg doctor says they're not overdone, but they are overdue.

CH: His bark is worse than her Biden. A Florida nurse says she's confident the Democrats will take back the White House — because there are so many people like her who are tired of Donald Trump.

CO: Unjust cause. The Bloc Québecois wants the prime minister to apologize for his father's decision to impose the War Measures Act 50 years ago. But a former Bloc MP says an apology is far too little, way too late.

CH: Caught in the activism, the main character of Shaena Lambert's new novel, “Petra”, is German Green Party co-founder Petra Kelly. And in a feature interview, Ms. Lambert explains the process of writing a real-life protagonist.

CO: Spring forward, fall flat. With our clocks set to go back, the co-founder of the B.C. group cal0led Stop the Time Change, says we have much to gain by losing our tradition of losing or gaining an hour.

CH: And... possession is nine-tenths of the ahhhh! Our guest won't guess what ghosts leave us aghast. He knows what horror movies scare us most, so we'll get him on the horn. Possibly an actual horn.

CO: “As It Happens”, the Friday edition. [said with a scared inflection] The call is coming from inside the radio.

Part one: Manitoba COVID surge, U.S. election: Florida Democrat, Scariest movies

Manitoba COVID surge

Guest: Philippe Lagace-Wiens

CH: Today, Manitoba's chief nursing officer acknowledged that the latest COVID-19 numbers will "strike fear in many Manitobans." Officials reported 480 new cases of COVID-19 in the province. That's a new record. And while it's partly due to backlogs, there's no doubt that the situation in Manitoba is seriously worrying. On Monday, the Winnipeg metro region will be moved to a critical red level of restrictions. The rest of the province will move to the orange level. Winnipeg's mayor, Brian Bowman, spoke about the new restrictions this afternoon.

BRIAN BOWMAN: With today's announcement by the province of Manitoba, now is the time for calm and for compliance. Today's alarming rise in cases is a stark reminder of the role we all have to play in limiting the spread of COVID-19 in our community. In light of today's numbers and added restrictions that have been announced by the province of Manitoba, I'm asking Winnipeggers to redouble your efforts at following those fundamentals. Stay home if you're sick, wash your hands, wear a mask and watch your distance.

CH: Philippe Lagace-Wiens is a medical microbiologist and physician at St. Boniface Hospital. He signed a letter that was released last night calling for even more restrictions in Manitoba. We reached him in Winnipeg.

COL Dr. Lagace-Wiens, you said in your letter that others signed as well, but that if Manitoba were to reach 200 to 250 cases today, the critical care surge capacity would be overwhelmed in a week or two, what goes through your mind when you hear the number is actually 480 today?

PHILIPPE LAGACE-WIENS: Well, certainly it's extremely worrying. While part of that large number is partly accounted for, recent backlogs and testing that all got counted today, it still suggested that we are getting extremely close to having a completely saturated health care system, particularly at the critical care level. It was partially reassuring today to hear that there is going to be some additional restrictions declared. You know, I would be lying to say that I didn't hope that it would come a little sooner. So it's good to hear that it's happened. But maybe a few days too late.

CO: So what does it actually mean in the numbers of those cases? What does it mean for the hospitals, for the intensive care units that are so crucial for those who get serious cases of COVID?

PLW: So it means that we have to be ready within the next three days to five days to have an influx of cases coming into the hospital. The nature of this disease is that typically the severity presents itself a few days after the diagnosis.

CO: You said in a posting that your greatest concern is that there are very few ICU beds that are available at this point in Winnipeg.

PLW: Yes. And that continues to be a very serious concern of mine. We heard in today's news announcement that only three out of our five ICUs are essentially full right now, that they're essentially only in contingency positions, meaning that you're scrambling to find a bed that has ICU capabilities by essentially borrowing from other areas that are maybe not as used to acute care and moving staff around that have the expertize. And while the physical infrastructure is available, really, it becomes a question of having available and competent staff to run these very acute care beds. And that's actually what worries me the most.

CO: You said in your posting that you're not trying to fear monger, but you warn that when you're down to only a half dozen beds in ICUs, that's one house fire, one bad car accident, five severe heart attacks or five septic patients or five severe cases of COVID-19. What's it like to work in these hospital systems where you know you're so close that if something should happen, you don't have the capacity?

PLW: It's extremely distressing. I myself am not an ICU physician, but I hear it from a lot of my colleagues that there comes a point when you literally do not have any beds, and you are looking at triaging individuals by their likelihood of survival. It's not a position that anybody wants to find themselves in. And it almost starts to feel like battlefield medicine. And I've had some colleagues compare it to the fear that that was coming.

CO: You know, when you say that I just go back to in the summer and this spring when we were hearing those stories, especially in Europe and Italy and Spain, where doctors, we spoke with, nurses would talk about that kind of triage, that kind of battlefield medicine where they had to start making extremely difficult decisions about who they would help. How close do you think Winnipeg is to that?

PLW: I wouldn't want to pass a specific amount of time or judgment on that. It's simply not really knowing how usable the plan that's just been announced today to most of us is going to be. So we've been hearing a lot about flex capacity and moving staff around and, you know, expecting a first phase of improved or increased capacity in the next three to five days. Unfortunately, these discussions haven't been happening at the level of those with the boots on the ground. So we're not even sure how well they'll work. Now, if they work well, and if they work as well as government officials have been hinting that they will, then it's not going to come for a while yet. And with the new restrictions that have been announced today, we could anticipate there will be a reduction in number of new cases within two weeks. It may be sufficient. But if they don't work, that's a whole other situation. And we may find ourselves to that point within a couple of weeks.

CO: In the letter that you and the others signed, you say, we urge you, you're speaking to the government here, we urge you to go to a full shut down immediately. This is the time. A couple of weeks from now, will be too late. What you heard today that bars, restaurants, theatres were closed, but most retail will be open to 25 per cent capacity. Gyms will have some capacity. Are you saying what your letter is saying has to happen? Is that actually going to take place?

PLW: I think it's falling a little bit short. And I mean, that's my professional opinion. I would have liked to have seen it perhaps a list of non-essential services, non-essential businesses that would be mandated to shut down. I would have probably like to have more of the province go under tighter restrictions, because as it stands, only the Winnipeg metropolitan area is under the tightest restrictions, while the others are still under the orange code, as we call it. I am happy in a way that schools aren’t shut down because I think that should be the last bastion of maintaining open structures or open social structures. So, you know, perhaps falling a bit short on some parts of it. And the thing is, I guess I realize that it has to be a balanced approach. I know that the economic constraints can be devastating to individuals. We know that levels of drug abuse and levels of depression, anxiety, suicide are going up, and they're largely related to pandemic anxiety and lockdowns. So I'm not an economist, and I'm not a sociologist, and I recognize that those are legitimate concerns. So I have to admit that there's a bias for public health, in my view. So I'm really cautiously hoping that this will work and spare some of the alternative consequences, the socioeconomic consequences.

CO: Dr. Lagace-Wiens, I know you're very busy. And so I appreciate that you would give us some time. Thank you.

PLW: My pleasure, Carol.

CO: Bye-bye.

PLW: Bye now.

CH: That was Dr. Philippe Lagace-Wiens in Winnipeg. Today, Manitoba announced 480 new cases of COVID-19.

[Music: Indie rock]

U.S. election: Florida Democrat

Guest: Leslie Wimes

CH: Leslie Wimes knows her party has flaws. The nurse from Florida is the founder of the Democratic African-American Women's Caucus. And for a while now, she's been pushing the Democrats to listen to progressive and minority voices. We spoke to Ms. Wimes in February 2017, in the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump. The party had just chosen establishment candidate Tom Perez as its new chair.

LESLIE WIMES: For people like myself and for Bernie Sanders supporters and Elizabeth Warren supporters, we have no place in the party. And the establishment people have made sure of that. There is no voice. That's why they want to place establishment candidates in control. When they are in power and in control, we have no voice. We have no room, no place to go to say, OK, this is what we want. Because that particular position can say no, and there's nothing that you can do about it.

CH: Leslie Wimes speaking on "As It Happens" in February 2017. Ms. Wimes lives in Boyton Beach, Florida — but she's currently working in El Paso, Texas. That's where we reached her.

CO: Leslie, what's your reaction to hearing yourself for almost four years ago?

LW: My first reaction is, my how things have changed. [both laughing]

CO: What has changed? Because you were very, very critical of your party, of the Democrats. What's changed for you?

LW: Oh, I'm still critical of the Democrats. That has not changed. But my support for Bernie Sanders changed. And hearing that, you know, it makes me chuckle because, you know, he didn't... or the situation didn't turn out to be the way that I thought it was going to be. And one of my big causes is how the Democratic Party treats African-Americans. And Bernie Sanders had four years to work on his African-American outreach, you know, how he comes across to African-Americans and he didn't do it.

CO: So you're now disappointed in Bernie Sanders, but are you going to vote Democrat? Do you support the Democrats in this election?

LW: I've already voted. And absolutely, I voted for Biden and Harris.

CO: Did you have to hold your nose and do that?

LW: I did not. You know, I like Joe Biden. Establishment Democrat aside, I like him. I liked him during the Obama administration. People try to use his time in office as a bad thing. I don't see it that way. As you know, there was a big deal during the primary with Harris and Biden with the bussing situation. And then people repeatedly brought up the crime bill. But I grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and we had bussing. And I can tell you that my family didn't want it. There are a lot of African-Americans who when people talk about this bussing thing, it's not an issue for them because they didn't want to be bussed.

CO: But you mentioned the crime bill, and that is still a big burning issue for a lot of Americans who can't support the Harris-Biden ticket because they remember that bill, it was a Clinton President Clinton bill that put so many Black people in prison. So doesn't that give you pause before you vote for Biden-Harris?

LW: You know, the crime bill didn't come to be as a means to incarcerate Black people. It turned out that way, but it didn't come about that way. I mean, it was during a time where crime was running rampant in our communities. And it was, you know, Black leaders who reached out and said, hey, you have to help us. The crime bill wasn't just Joe Biden saying, I'm getting ready to draft a bill to lock up Black people. That wasn't the way it was. And I don't know if you know this or not, but I was very critical of Hillary Clinton with regards to the crime bill. And the reason why, well there's a couple reasons why, her situation is different than Joe Biden's. One, Joe Biden is a more likable person. You know, I said back in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate because people didn't like her. Well, Joe doesn't come across that way. He has had a connection with the Black community for a very long time. So there are strong ties. And that was evident, you know, in the South Carolina, you know, primary. That's where everything turned around for him.

CO: Can I ask you, so how much of your vote for Joe Biden was because of Joe Biden? How much was because you want to get Donald Trump out of office?

LW: Well, I want Donald Trump out of office just as much as I like Joe Biden. And that's a lot. President Trump is in over his head. He should never have been elected. And I think a lot of people realize that now. Not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. The way that Trump has handled this COVID crisis, and I'm a first responder, I'm on the front lines, I was in New York City, was in Florida, I was in California, and now I'm in Texas. And what I'm seeing is devastating. I mean, completely devastating. And the fact that, you know, that the pandemic council or whatever that was established under Obama and Biden was dismantled, you know, is a shame. And the fact that Donald Trump is allowing people to continue to think that this is not a devastating situation, and it really is. And like I said, you know, I'm right there. I see the death and the destruction, and our president is supposed to care about everybody, regardless of whether we voted for him or not, regardless of whether, you know, we have money or not. And I don't feel like he does.

CO: You know, we spoke with a woman in Ohio yesterday who is a big Trump supporter. She is even more encouraged to vote for him now than she was in 2016, which she also did. And she says everything you're saying the exact opposite. She believes that he has delivered on his promises, that he has tried to take care of Americans during the COVID crisis, that he has delivered all his promises and that he made the economy stronger. And she is adamant that he is going to become the president again on Tuesday.

LW: I don't think so. I think he's going to lose. And my question for her would be, or for you regarding her, is she one of the first-line responders? Does she see what's actually happening out there, or does she tried to, you know, say that it's just fake news from the media? So I'm willing to go with my opinion as opposed to somebody who's not out there on the front line doing what I'm doing. And as far as the economy goes, President Trump was handed a pretty good economy. He springboarded on what was done by the Obama-Biden administration to get the United States back to where it needed to be.

CO: Leslie, we will leave it there. And, of course, we'll be watching on Tuesday. Thanks for speaking with us.

LW: You're so welcome. And thanks for talking with me.

CO: Bye.

LW: Bye-bye.

CH: Leslie Wimes is the founder of the Democratic African-American Women's Caucus. We reached her in El Paso, Texas.

[Music: Instrumental]

Alberta witch

CH: Lynnzee Jackson wants you to join her club of witches. You don't need a broom, or a bubbling cauldron, or a pointy hat. You just need a Facebook profile and some curiosity about magic, for a start. This morning, the CBC's David Gray asked Ms. Jackson, who lives in Taber, Alberta, what does magic mean to you?

LYNZEE JACKSON: Have you ever been out on a walk and you see a feather?

DAVID GRAY: Yes.

LJ: And you're like, Oh, that's pretty. That means something. That's magic. That's, you know, that's a conversation between you and the universe.

DG: I think it means a bird drops something.

LJ: Maybe. Maybe not. What are the chances that it was there for you?

DG: You're one of the founders of the Alberta Witches Association. And that's a Facebook group, isn't it? Can you tell me what that's all about?

LJ: We have topics on animals and familiars. Like, we have topics on the history. We have topics on angels and demons. You've got bell work. You've got kitchen recipes. You've got book club. We have a book club.

DG: What do you say to those who struggle to take witchcraft seriously?

LJ: I think all throughout history, we've kind of been taught that it's, you know, a little hocus pocus, if you will. If people just took the time to research, I think more people would believe in it.

DG: Given the date and the full moon, how important is Halloween to witches? I mean, what will you be doing on Halloween?

LJ: So, we actually have a different calendar. It's called the “Wheel of the Year”, and right now, we are going into what's known as Samhain. It is a time where the veil is at its thinnest between the spirit world. We are giving thanks to those who have passed and who are watching over us. We have something called dumb supper. So you create a beautiful dinner, and you set out an extra plate for somebody that has passed in your life, and you celebrate them. This moon that's coming is the blue moon, and it's literally on the best night of the year. Let's be realistic. [bubily laughter]

CH: That was David Gray, host of CBC Calgary's "The Eyeopener", speaking with Lynnzee Jackson this morning. Ms. Jackson is the founder of the Alberta Witches Association.

[Music: A very creepy theremin]

Scariest movies

Guest: Martyn John

CH: There's the supernatural, the psychological, and the slasher. There are home invasions — and alien invasions. There are the old classics, like "The Exorcist" — and the modern-day classics, like "Get Out". And then there's "Troll 2", which is only scary because somehow it got financed and made. But what all great horror movies have in common is they make you wonder why you are watching them, and whether you can finish watching them. And they also make your heart race. Recently, a group of horror aficionados set out to determine which movie makes your heart race fastest. An investigation people actually volunteered for — after they heard they wouldn't have to watch "Troll 2". Martyn John is a Director at Good Brothers Digital, the agency that spearheaded this horrifying venture on behalf of the British consumer website, Broadbandchoices. We reached him in Cardiff, Wales.

CO: Martyn, I suppose there are any number of ways you might go about determining the scariest movie ever. So how did you do this?

MARTYN JOHN: So we teamed up with a team of scientists, including people in biology, physicians over the course of about six months. And we really want to just measure what the impact of horror films have on your heart rate. Obviously, we know as you get scared or excited, you know, your heart starts beating faster. So we thought that was a good, quite clear metric that we could use to say, you know, if I'm watching a horror film, what does that do to my body?

CO: There is that way of knowing a scary moment because everyone's head is under a pillow or they leave the room shrieking. [both chuckling] But they had to stay and watch the movies, right?

MJ: Absolutely. So we initially thought of this campaign a year ago, and it was just sort of talking around the office and it kind of spiralled from there. And we were like, we should definitely do this because we were looking for horror films. So I was given the unenviable task of collecting the scariest movies in the world. Ultimately, we ended up screening about 120 hours of horror films to a panel of 50 people in a screening room. And yeah, we scoured the world for the scariest films from IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Reddit and the critics’ lists to find kind of films that were, you know, regarded as scary, regarded as good quality and really important for us was accessibility of these films. So, you know, films that people could watch rather than very, very difficult to find kind of b-movie classics.

CO: [chuckling] All right. So and then, of course, there was finding your volunteers who are actually going to sit through all these movies. Who did you get?

MJ: Volunteers is a good word. We've called them victims around the office. Yeah, so we actually put out a kind of a screening panel. So we wanted to make sure that our study was inclusive and diverse as well, because, you know, people are scared by different things. So we needed to make sure that we had a wide cross-section. And yeah, everything that you see in the study is kind of the average heart rates of all of them, sort of normalized. So it's not just one or two people or a selection.

CO: Based on that heart rate, what came out as the scariest movie ever?

MJ: So the scariest movie ever, scientifically, is “Sinister”. Which is a 2012 film directed by Scott Derrickson and written by C. Robert Cargill as part of Blumhouse. And it stars Ethan Hawke. Ethan Hawke plays a true-crime writer who's investigating a series of grisly murders, unwittingly putting his own family in danger.

CO: He moves into the home of one of the victims, right?

MJ: As you do, right? [CO laughs] You know, who wouldn’t do that? Totally normal, right? Who doesn't do that?

CO: What are some or the others then?

MJ: Yeah. So, I mean, rounding out the top ten for you here. Number two, “Insidious”. Number three was “The Conjuring”. Other ones listed then you have “Hereditary”, which is a modern horror classic. “Paranormal Activity”. “It” follows. “The Conjuring 2” “The Babadook”. “The Descent”. And “The Visit” rounded out the top ten.

CO: All right. Well, I haven't seen any of them because I won't because my heart would race watching Bambi. So I would be a horrible volunteer for you. So --

MJ: You sound perfect, Carol. I'll sign you up for the next one.

CO: [said in a scared voice] No, you won't. Did you watch them all?

MJ: [chuckling] Yeah. Over the past year, I've sort of seen about 130 horror films are in preparation for this because we wouldn't put anyone through anything we wouldn't go through ourselves. And also, just to screen them and kind of make sure there was a nice selection. So like I said, we tried to make sure films were, you know, kind of representative on kind of time periods, representative types of horrors. Some people are scared by clowns, others by ghosts, others by sort of slashers. So we really wanted to kind of make it an inclusive list. So, yeah, I've seen so many horror films. I never want to see another horror film again.

CO: OK. So you were doing this scientifically and not esthetically. But did you figure out what in general is the scariest thing? What makes the heart race more? What are the elements that actually will do that?

MJ: Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean, the key to, in our study anyway, which doesn't count the kind of, you know, six months later are you still thinking about it? Because that’s very hard to judge. But just in our study, we find that the scariest films are the ones that have a good mixture of kind of jump scares, but also keep tension all the way through the movie, so they never let you relax. So one of the reasons you'll see some of the kind of older films. So, you know, we're talking classics like maybe “The Exorcist” and “Halloween” is because those films tend to have quite large chunks of downtime in them, whereas kind of audiences responded better in the survey to something a bit high-pressure. I mean, in the top ten, you're mostly seeing supernatural films. But, you know, there's a good mixture here. You have a few psychological horrors in there to boot. So the real key is just keeping that pressure all the way through the movie, never letting you relax.

CO: So “Sinister” was the one that had consistently the highest heart rate for viewers, but there was one of the movies that actually had the biggest spike in freight? What was that?

MJ: Yeah, absolutely. So that sort of dubious honour belongs to “Insidious”, which had a heart rate spike of 133 beats per minute. So we're talking sort of double what your resting heart rate is. It's a very I won't spoil the point in the movie, but I think if you've seen it, you'll know what it is. “The Exorcist 3” had a very high jump scare, “The Conjuring” and “The Descent”.

CO: Did you have medics on standby, an ambulance waiting at the door?

MJ: We did have a physician as part of it just to make sure we're doing the heart rate Right. I definitely needed one.

CO: Now, you had a much larger undertaking in mind when you started this. Are you going to do... is there another project post-pandemic?

MJ: Well, I believe you just signed up for the next one, haven't you?

CO: [chuckling] No.

MJ: That's what I caught. Yeah, I think the plan is, hopefully, to do it. I mean, the feedback on the study has been phenomenal. So, you know, we're gonna take on board everyone's kind of critiques of the study, try and factor more in and make it bigger than before. So I think, you know, a larger, more diverse group would give us just stronger results. Again, see if “Sinister” can regain its crown.

CO: All right. We'll get our listeners to tell us their favourites since I can’t contribute. [both chuckling] Martyn, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

MJ: Thank you so much, Carol.

CO: Bye.

MJ: Bye-bye.

CH: Martyn John is the Director of PR and Corporate Affairs at Good Brothers Digital. He's also the project manager behind a recent search for the scariest scary movie, commissioned by Broadbandchoices. We reached him in Cardiff, Wales.

Daylight savings

Guest: Tara Holmes

CH: The times they are a-changin'. And also ... not. I mean: the time is literally changing this weekend — at least for most Canadians. But a growing number of people would like to see the time-change change. Tara Holmes is chief among them. She's the co-founder of the B.C.-based organization Stop the Time Change. And she says the pandemic is the perfect time to stop stopping the clocks. We reached Ms. Holmes in Kamloops.

CO: Tara, what time will the sun set after Sunday's time change where you are?

TARA HOLMES: Well, it'll be shortly after 4:00, 4:30 is when people will be shocked when darkness is upon them. [laughing]

CO: What does that mean for you? Why does that make such a difference?

TH: Well, in my life, personally, it doesn't. But when it comes down to it, we're messing with our circadian rhythms, we’re messing with our sleep, we’re messing with mental health, we're causing accidents, it's dangerous, there's heart attacks. There's so many statistics. And the economics of it all, in fact, we've learned so much in the last five years on this. So it's the emotion of messing with our sleep that is the real issue. So as long as the clocks stop, like more countries in the world actually don't observe the time change. So it's really becoming, you know, the European Union announced they're stopping the time change next year. And it's really happening more and more now, more people are talking about it because they realize, why do we do it? Like, when you really think about it, ask someone, why do we change the time?

CO: Of course, B.C. had said it was going to. I mean, the vast majority of people in British Columbia agree with you. [laughing] And so they said they're going to stop doing it. Why is it still going to go back this Sunday?

TH: Right. So over the past five years, we have really learned a lot and met with a lot of politicians. It's a nonpartizan issue, which is wonderful. We've met with everyone from Liberal to NDP and our local government. We've heard from people all over Canada that are really interested in this. And our premier of British Columbia said that he gets more correspondence on this issue than any other issue. So he really started sort of feeling the pressure, and he started looking into it. He started talking to the neighbours to the south. That's very important to Mr. Horgan to have Washington State, Oregon and California on board. They also had a vote. And it was, again, unanimous, everyone wanted to say on DSC. So they all agreed to do it. However, they need that extra permission from Congress. And of course, last year there was an impeachment. This year's an election. Washington state went on fire, and COVID happened. So a lot of things obviously put this on the backburner, no pun intended. And Mr. Horgan called a snap election as well in the middle of it all. But the ironic part of it all, last year he went up to the Yukon to talk to the premier there, Sandy Silver, to make sure that when he stops the time change here in B.C., that the Yukon would follow. And lo and behold, if you can believe it, Sandy Silver pulled a fast one, and the Yukon won't be falling back tomorrow night for the first time ever. I'm so excited for them.

CO: [laughing] Of course, in Saskatchewan, they wised up to this a long time ago. So now you have two places. Ontario and Quebec say they're open to dropping the time change. But again, coordinating with our neighbours to the south. And, as you point out, it's so complicated to try and get that to work out, especially in this particular time of life. So do you think that eventually, we will see Canada united in this idea that we should just not be dropping back?

TH: Yeah, absolutely. You know, as far as this time change tradition, so many people say, stop it, it's ridiculous. We don't need it anymore. And the ironic thing about this pandemic, and this is what really makes me wish, this would have been the ideal time to do it. The borders are closed. The airlines are flying way less. NHL teams aren't zipping around. More people are at home. And mental health right now is at an all-time low. This is not going to help. There are people who this really does affect. Some people might think, oh, what's the big deal? It's just an hour. Ask any parent who has babies and people who've got pets. And then, of course, the people with sleep disorders and with mental health issues. It can be really devastating.

CO: So we're heading into this dark, COVID winter that everyone is so very concerned about. And that extra hour of light outside, do you think that would make a difference?

TH: It really would. And one point I will make that's quite interesting. You know, there are a few experts out there, sleep experts, who think because standard time with our original time, that that's where we really should be staying. But in all honesty, in 2007, George Bush extended daylight. We are now on DSP for eight months of the year. So our bodies are already used to being on DSP. And as far as the economics of it goes, the tourism industry really would like that extra daylight later, people would stay out later golfing or going around town and grabbing a coffee and checking out some of the restaurants and some of the stories. You just don't feel the need to isolate when the darkness is pushed upon you. And it just really would have been the ideal time now. But, you know, I think that everyone's talking about it, but no one's doing any. So yes, the bills are tabled. Mr. Horgan put the bill in the legislature, which now gives him the power to enact it any time he wants. But I think that he's kind of like holding court and leaving it there. Well, we want action. And it's one thing to talk about it. But a lot of the rest of Canada says, come on, B.C, you start it. You've done all this work. And once you start it, we'll follow.

CO: Now, of course, B.C.’s legislation would permanently institute summertimes. So it would mean that there’s no falling back in November as opposed to leaping ahead in the spring. So that's where you are. But does it make a difference to you whether it gets frozen in the springtime or in the fall?

TH: Well, just because of seeing the substantial amount of British Columbians who want it on DSt, I would want it there because I wouldn't want to get everyone mad at me. [both laughing] There’s so many people that want the DST. When you get up in the morning, I mean, I'm a morning person. I was out for a run this morning at 6:00 a.m., pitch black, it doesn't bother me, I have a headlamp on. But I would really like that light later. And for kids playing after school, it's much more beneficial to have lighter towards the end of the day because you watch the statistics of the pedestrian incidence and accidents when darkness is thrown upon distracted drivers at the end of the workday, it's horrific.

CO: All right, Tara, we'll leave it there. And we'll see what happens. [chuckling] Thank you.

TH: Thank you very much. And much appreciated. Happy Halloween.

CO: Thank you. You too. Bye-bye.

TH: Bye.

CH: Tara Holmes is the co-founder of the B.C.-based organization Stop the Time Change. We reached her in Kamloops. And you can find more on this on our website at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Marc Miller Q&A

CH: Indigenous Affairs Minister Marc Miller speaking to reporters in Ottawa today.

[Music: Ambient]

War Measures Act apology

Guest: Daniel Turp

CH: On Monday, the House of Commons will vote on a motion demanding an apology from Justin Trudeau. The Bloc Quebecois wants him to apologize for his father, Pierre Trudeau's, decision to impose the War Measures Act, during the 1970 October Crisis. That decision followed the kidnapping of a Quebec cabinet minister and a British diplomat by the Front De La Liberation du Quebec, or FLQ. Before which the group had engaged in a multi-year bombing campaign in which six people died. The War Measures Act was used by police to conduct thousands of warrantless searches and to detain hundreds of people without laying charges. But Daniel Turp says an apology won't cut it. Professor Turp is a former Bloc Quebecois MP who now teaches constitutional law and the University of Montreal. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Professor Turp, what did police in Quebec start to do 50 years ago after Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act?

DANIEL TURP: Well, in the middle of the night on October 16, 1970, they arrested hundreds of people. They detained them. They sent them in this prison, this awful prison in Montreal and elsewhere. And they did it to people that had no link at all with the FLQ. And didn't even agree with what the FLQ had done. So it was shameful. And a lot of people still today suffer from what happened in 1970.

CO: There were nearly 500 people arrested in that way, without warrants. And how many were actually charged with anything?

DT: I think it's about 40 people that were charged, and only 18 people were condemned for having links or having done things as awful as killing Pierre Laporte. And, you know, people who today ask for an apology, you know, are in total agreement with the fact that what the FLQ did was totally unacceptable, and to promote violence, to suggest that Quebec needed those means to achieve independence is something that's still today is condemned by all Quebeckers or most Quebeckers.

CO: Those who were held before being released without being charged with anything. How long were they held?

DT: Some were held for five days or a week, some were held for several weeks. And even in some cases several months. And in Montreal, they were held in that big prison in the east end of Montreal. And some others were detained in other prisons in Quebec City and other places. And they were not treated properly as well. There were things that happened in those prisons that were totally unacceptable in terms of human rights. You know, there was some fake executions, and that is totally unacceptable. It’s even criminal.

CO: And this is under the War Measures Act, the rights of those people had been suspended. Is that right?

DT: That's right. Well, it started with this proclamation. And you know what we've discovered at this research institute? We’ve discovered that this proclamation was only adopted in English, and that means that everything that was done under that proclamation was unconstitutional. Everything that's happened in our view, and there's now a case in front of the Superior Court of Quebec. Everything that was done under that proclamation and the regulation was and still could be seen as illegal by a court.

CO: At the time though, the October Crisis was extremely alarming. That there was a fear of an insurrection. There had been two men kidnaped. There had before that been some years of bombings. We knew that there was threats of violence, a labour leader who said that more boys were ready to shoot members of parliament than there are police. Do you not think that if you go back to that time, there was a reason to take dramatic action on the part of the federal government?

DT: No. The fear was grossly exaggerated. There wasn't any apprehended insurrection. Even I think it's the RCMP said, no, we don't need this War Measures Act. But at one point, I think the prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, thought he could serve a good lesson to people that savoured independence, and not only to those people in the FLQ that need to be tried and were tried and were condemned because they did something terrible. You know, it's murder of Pierre Laporte, which has always been seen as unacceptable. But, you know, this was used by Pierre Elliot Trudeau to try to intimidate and to even break the sovereigntist movement.

CO: But also, was it not the case that Robert Bourassa, the premier, and the mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, they were asking for the federal government to invoke the War Measures Act. Is that not the case?

DT: Well, that's correct. But, you know, who brought them the letter that they signed in Montreal? The secretary of Mr. Trudeau. And Bourassa and Drapeau were anti-separatist, and they didn't like what was happening in Quebec. They used the situation for political purposes. And that's why in Quebec, even if it's 50 years ago, there's a lot of recrimination about what happened.

CO: Why is it only now, then, that this case of Mr. Dostie is before the superior court, why is it now that people are seeking some kind of legal reaction to what happened 50 years ago?

DT: Just to tell you what he told me, Mr. Dostie, told me he's been traumatized during the last 50 years, and he's not the only one. Maybe there's another case that I should mention, this woman, but that has you off so sovereigntist views that was brought to prison. She was asked to take her clothes off. So she was even given some kind of examination because she was pregnant. She was like humiliated before some police officers in the prison. But someone like herself and Mr. Dostie the and others still today would say they have terrible nightmares of what happened on that night where they were arrested. But at one point, they basically decided that they should go ahead and advised by some lawyers and constitutional lawyers. And he’s now decided to bring this to a court and ask a court to declare that everything that was did to him was illegal. And there might be many others that will join this case. But, you know, a lot of people were traumatized, and they didn't need to be because they were totally in disagreement with what the FLQ did. But they were people that, you know, supported the Parti Quebecois and were in favour of independence.

CO: We'll leave it there. Professor Turp, thank you.

DT: My pleasure.

CH: Daniel Turp is a former Bloc Quebecois MP. He now teaches law at the University of Montreal.

[Music: Indie rock]

Cadillac Fairview spying

CH: The real estate company Cadillac Fairview has popular malls across the country. You've probably been in one. Maybe it was the Pacific Centre in Vancouver, the Chinook Mall in Calgary, or the Toronto Eaton Centre. And if you spent time in browsing in one, you might have spent time being browsed as well. This week, privacy commissioners took aim at Cadillac Fairview for cameras it used in its digital directory kiosks in 12 malls in 2018. The commissioners say the company used facial recognition technology, without proper consent from customers. In response, Cadillac Fairview said in a statement that the technology has been removed — and when it was in use, it was not capable of recognizing individuals. It said the software was able to, quote, "detect the presence of a human face and, within milliseconds, assign the face to an approximate age and gender category." Unquote. The company also said it had decals at mall entries informing visitors about its privacy policy. But for Jill Clayton that doesn't cut it. She's Alberta's privacy commissioner and she spoke with the CBC about her concerns.

JILL CLAYTON: The problem with that is that I don't think that anybody going into a mall would have expected that when they were using these directories that this was happening, that their image was being taken, that their personal information was being collected in this way. So privacy laws require that organizations generally have someone's consent and that they explain the purposes for which personal information is being collected. And I think that, you know, this case sort of goes to the heart of privacy laws, where the important thing is that individuals understand what's happening with their personal information so they can decide whether or not they want to be part of that transaction or not. And in this case, without knowing what was going on, I think a lot of people rightly do feel creeped out that their privacy was breached.

DG: Haven't we already crossed that barrier, though? How is this different from security camera footage?

JC: Well, each case is different, right? Security camera footage, if the terms of the legislation are met, so if there is notice, if individuals understand what's going on and there's a reasonable purpose. People understand what that purpose is, then that's going to be compliant with the legislation. Again, people will see cameras, they will see notices. They'll understand what's taking place. Again, I think that the problem in this case is that none of that happened. There was no consent. There was no notice. In effect, it was covert. And that adds to the creepiness factor.

DG: What do we know about what Cadillac Fairview did with the information, how it was being used?

JC: Well, they said that they weren't trying to track individuals. In fact, they made the argument in the first case that this was not personal information. So I and my colleagues, we were all united in a finding that, yes, indeed, it is personal information, it's biometric information. So particularly sensitive information that is intrinsic to individuals and permanent. And what turned out was happening, they argued that they were deleting the information, creating this numerical representation. But it turned out that they were not deleting that information, that it had been stored on a decommissioned server. And so ostensibly with no purpose for that, they couldn't articulate a purpose that I don't think they intended to do it. I don't think they had a purpose for keeping it. So they did commit to deleting that information. And certainly, on a go-forward basis, they now know what the expectations are with respect to complying with the law.

CH: That was Alberta's privacy commissioner, Jill Clayton, speaking with David Gray the host of the CBC radio program "The Eyeopener."

Part three: Feature: Shaena Lambert

CO: Strange in what way?

SL: Well, he was kind of known to be to be her... they called him her baggage carrier. And it was strange because he had taken this big step to leave NATO because of the deployment of nuclear missiles on German soil. And yet, he kind of put himself in Petra’s sway very quickly, and he would sort of bring her bags with her or open doors for her or, you know, she'd gesture for something and he'd bring over the paper. So when I was with her in the lobby of the Orpheum, he looked around and it was raining very lightly and he went and got an umbrella. And then, you know, she gave him her bags and so forth. And then they crossed the road together. And that seemed to me as a, you know, very incipient novelist at this point, I don't think I knew I wasn't going to be a novelist, but it fell into me as a bit of a seed for something like why was this iconic, proud, outspoken feminist sort of letting this man do everything for her.

CO: [laughing] So that germinated over many decades inside you then, that seed.

SL: It germinated for a really, really long time. And in fact, it was about fifteen years later that I was at Checkpoint Charlie, and I saw her picture. And it was the same picture, sort of leaning against a tree, looking gorgeous and very different than the other pictures that people had sent to us for that peace festival. They'd all sent, you know, square little headshots. And there she was looking so wild, really, so alive.

CO: [chuckling] She was extraordinary, wasn't she? I mean, just her presence, as you point out. She electrified audiences. She could run circles around anybody in a debate. She pulled together all kinds of disparate political ideas. She was just the face, the voice of reason in the midst of all the madness of the mutually assured destruction of that era. And, yet so few people know about Petra Kelly. Why is that?

SL: I'm not sure. Like, I was surprised actually, as I started to dig into the novel and I would talk to people and I would say I'm writing a novel about Petra Kelly, and most people would say, who's that? And then some people would say, you know, boing! You're writing about Petra Kelly, how dare you? So some people, I think, felt like they knew her so intimately, they almost felt like she was a part of their spirit. And then other people would be completely not know who she was. And, you know, I've come to think that that's just what happens to women, right? I mean, it's coming out more now that, you know, women in science, women and arts, great renaissance painters are, you know, really famous in their time. It's not as though they sort of played second fiddle in their time. They were the huge names in Florence and Milan and Madrid and then were erased just a lifetime later. And also, with scientists and, you know, discoverers and so on and on it goes. So I think that she might be part of that sort of trend to erase women.

CO: But the effect she had of the Green Party, the creation of that. But not just that, it's just that she was of her time, wasn't she? I mean we're talking about the 1980s in Germany, where we were seeing the weapons of mass destruction being deployed, the ability in midst of the Cold War to have the world, everyone in it destroyed many times over. I mean, the weaponry that was being stockpiled, the daily threat that it posed. And, at the same time, there's growing awareness of the environmental movement of what was happening with acid rain and with the destruction of the environment. She pulled all that together. I mean, what was it about that time that made the perfect environment for someone like Petra Kelly to come along?

SL: Well, she, I mean, it's sort of interesting what you're describing, because, yes, there was this movement against the missiles that was very focused. And it was a worldwide movement. And she was part-German, part-American, and she quickly became the kind of face for that fight all over the world, actually, because, you know, I mean, this is when the encampments are happening and Greenham Common and then enormous demonstrations all over Canada. I mean, out here in Vancouver, we'd have 100, 125 thousand people on the streets. But the nexus point was Germany because the Russians had the SS20s on one side of the wall or the Iron Curtain and NATO wanted to deploy Pershing and cruise missiles on the other side. And so Germany was going to be the battlefield. And these young people who hadn't been part of the Nazi generation came together. And so it's a new generation, and they just absolutely said no. And the power of that sent out shudders all across the globe. And I remember being, you know, in a fish and chip shop in Penticton where I was working, and looking down and seeing that the German Green Party and the many organizations fighting against the nuclear missiles had formed a human chain 200 miles long, you know, from one German army base to another. And I just was electrified. So I think that was part of it. And then this other piece, which was the sort of birth of a web of politics, which was so colourful, intense, intelligent and really prescient, really so much ahead of its time. And so those two things were happening together. And she was amazingly the leader of both of them.

CO: And it was no exaggeration. They call it the Cold War. It was hot, wasn't it? I mean, it was an extremely scary time for so many people, which is why it was there to be gathered. But it took someone like her to do that, didn't it?

SL: Yes, I think so. I mean, of course, she was part of a movement, but she was a star. She was in many ways, the star in Germany at that time. She was so charismatic. And I think the fact that she was part-German, part-American, so she was, of course, fluent in both languages. And she was quick and razor-sharp and beautiful and sexy and volatile. And, you know, she had a lot of lovers and she was a fascinating woman. And so she kind of drew attention. But, you know, talking, Carol, about the time, it's interesting to think about how terrified we were then and how terrified we are now, you know? And we kind of tend to forget our past terrors. Like, I wake up in the morning and I think about, like many people do, I think about climate change and the worries, the terrors of the world. But when I was 21 years old, coming of age, I worried about the nuclear threat. And so I think that's another thing that we have that we have a bit of a problem. We have a bit of a societal amnesia about the stages that we go through as human beings. We quickly forget and then move on to the next problem, without learning from the past. And there's so much to be learned from that age.

CO: You're listening there “As It Happens”. And I'm speaking with Shaena Lambert, who is the author of “Petra”, a novel inspired by the real-life of German Green Party founder Petra Kelly. And Shaena, of course, you're trying to create fiction at the same time as document this woman. It must have been to try and crawl into her skin and to understand all of the things that were going on, because I mean, yes, she could she could galvanize a generation. But at the same time, the Green Party was full of different views. And so you try to tie this together as a character who is the narrator, Manfred Schwartz, who is trying to draft some party literature and trying to pull all this together? I just want you to read, if you would, a bit of what Manfred is saying about how formidable the task is.

SL: Yes, yeah, I'd be delighted to. Yes, so Manfred is sitting at his kitchen table with a couple of beers. And he is trying to meld a document that will bring together the very disparate views of the Greens.

SL: [reading] So I took a swig of beer. Let's go. It was like a potion. You had to get the mix of ingredients, right, or the thing would explode. First, a dose of feminism to satisfy Freya Fertig and her powerful group, because women — and I could almost hear her saying this — women must be the heart, Manfred. But wait. The nonviolent pacifists, a cranky bunch, if you ever saw one, wanted civil disobedience to be at the heart. Gandhi. Many of the influential citizens initiatives wanted the fight against nuclear power to be the focus for minds, for opinions, or 4,000 minds, 4,000 opinions. I added a small dose of anarchism for the sponties, spontaneous leftist politicos, the basement lovers, ex-squatters of Frankfurt and Berlin, like me, but not too much, or the mix could combust, causing infighting and narcissistic posturing. And I had to keep the Hamburg red greens happy, militant anticapitalists. They joined the Green Party because they saw it as the path to power. They could smell power the way worms smell rain. They often met in cadres, establishing their line and then voting as a group. Their politics were dogmatically left-wing Marxist stuff, many supported the Eastern Bloc, though they were too savvy to make it public. Then there were the farmers, the visionaries, the conservative ecologists. Jesus, this is difficult, I thought. I'd have to start again.

CO: And that's Manfred Schwartz. And, you know, you could change a few details, a few names, and you could be talking about the year 2020, couldn't you? In the left?

SL: Well, you really could be. That's right. I mean, I think it's always a challenge and a fascination to bring together disparate groups and try to forge a consensus. And I think one of the things about the Greens that was so special, though, is they wanted to keep each part alive. They wanted to create a colourful web, not a sort of gray web of consensual politics, dumbed down to the, you know, basic common unity. So, yeah, it makes for a really fascinating novel. And other political fights and what happens to them become one layer of the novel. But so does the personal, so I'm trying to keep both things going as the book progresses.

CO: It's interesting, I just interviewed recently Annamie Paul, who is the new leader of the Canadian Green Party. She'd call herself a moderate. But at the same time, I asked her how she will be able to include everyone, I said, including those on the fringe. And she paused for a moment, she said, but there is no fringe in the Green Party or something to that effect. Is that what Petra Kelly was faced with, is the idea that all ideas are included in this tent?

SL: I love that. I love that she said that. I think that's where we're going politically. I mean, I'm sort of fascinated by the fact that what seemed outlandish in the 80s is now almost pragmatic, you know? This idea that you cannot, for instance, talk about the environment without talking about Indigenous rights. People weren't saying that except for the Greens. And this idea that we have to kind of think in small boxes, I think is kind of killing us. You know, that we are at a point now where we need big, complex, disparate webs that actually mirror how the world works. I mean, an example in Canada is, you know, why do we have a Department of the Environment that is trying to meet its climate objectives and a Department of Energy that is building a pipeline? You know, we've got to get smart. And I think that allowing for all of the different kind of filaments that make up an intelligent approach have to be followed. You know, they have to be followed. But then I'm a fiction writer. That's what I do, right? I think that's what fiction writers do. That's what artists do is we try to understand those connections. And I think politically, that's what we need to do.

CO: You also, of course, show what happens when a party that has a conscience, a party that is pursuing these causes actually gets power. Because that's what happened in the 1980s, isn't it? Or at least enough influence with two dozen seats in German's election of 1983. And Petra Kelly is there now trying to make the transition from activism to politics, to electoral politics. And that's I think every party on the left has found that a difficult shift, haven't they?

SL: Yes. And I think that for the Greens particularly, I mean, there, through proportional representation, they were able to win three-and-a-half million votes and take 28 seats in the legislature, in the Bundestag, which was just absolutely shocking for everybody, including the Greens and all of their adversaries on both of the other parties. And in they went. And they were like a rainbow of colour because apparently they sat in the Bundestag, they sat for some reason, like a stripe of colour through the Bundestag. And there they were in their, you know, Birkenstocks and their sweaters. And it was really it was thrilling, but it was also shocking. And as they kind of went from talking about politics to attempting to do politics in Bonn, in these very cold buildings that one of the founders of the green, when I went and talked to him, said they they used to call them the refrigerators of the Rhine. And here were these Greens, these boisterous, fascinating, diverse group of people suddenly plugged into this cold, cold environment and trying to do politics. And so they broke very quickly into two very different factions. Quite famously, the Fundies and the Realos. And the Realos wanted to make compromises with the Social Democrats. And they wanted to gain power and they wanted to be effective within the political framework. But at the same time, the Fundies wanted to remain pure and they wanted to you know, as I said, they call themselves the anti-party party. They didn't even want to do politics as usual. And then on top of everything else, the Greens decided that they were going to throw their what is usually a very private caucus meeting open to the public. And so their fights were all recorded by the media. [both chuckling] So 4it was a wild time and people were all shouting at Petra. Petra, sit down. Petra, sit down. Petra, shut up. You know, they were terrible to her, just terrible. And so that quickly became an aspect of the novel as well is this sort of political trajectory, what happens to the Greens as they gain power? And the different factions that get involved. And how they treat Petra Kelly, who was the star that they, you know, they harness themselves to this amazing woman to get elected. And then as often happens, they turned on her.

CO: And then it all blew up for them later in the 80s, when they lost every seat?

SL: They did. Interestingly enough, when they lost every seat was just after the wall had fallen. The wall fell in ‘89. They ran a campaign with the Greens of East Germany. And they decided as a group that they were going to make their main campaign, actually not the unification of Germany. And all of the questions that were being posed then, which, you know, of course, most people were doing, they wanted to make it about global warming. And I find that so fascinating because it was indeed so prescient. And yet, they were so incredibly laughed at. And then they did, they lost every seat. And yet, we look at this now and we think, imagine if their agenda had been adopted in ‘92, you know?

CO: I'm speaking with Shaena Lambert, and you're listening to “As It Happens”. Shaena is the author of “Petra”, a novel based on the life of German Green Party founder Petra Kelly. And Shena, of course, again, it is a novel. You're trying to create a story. And you change the name of the general, but you kept Petra's name. But at the heart of it is a love affair, isn’t it? There’s a love story here between these two very different people, this general and this peace activist. How difficult was it for you to try and figure that out? Figure out the electricity between those two?

SL: Well, that was the constant fascination, I think. I mean, I took a course way back with... I was lucky enough to get into a workshop with Margaret Atwood. And she said during the course of that workshop that a novel should become more and more interesting as you work on it, not less and less interesting, which I suppose makes sense. But I think a lot of times, you end up kind of doggedly pursuing something that you've lost all faith in. But in this case, I think I kept... I mean, I did work on it and then I put it away and then I'd work on it. And one of the things, I think, that kept me going was my incredible sort of mounting love/frustration for Petra Kelly, and the complication of this relationship with the general, the fact that these two real opposites did get involved. I mean, he was a man of principle, and he did indeed leave NATO and leave the German army, resigning because of the deployment of nuclear missiles in Germany. And then he got involved with Petra Kelly and the Green Party. But people would say he was gray and she was green. He had one sort of political point, which was he was against the missiles, whereas Petra had a dance of a thousand political points that she was bringing together through her personality. And, you know, she could she would talk about Anna Akhmatova. She would talk about, you know, whatever sort of things she needed to weave in to make her argument. And here he was, well, very general, like, actually.

CO: But they also represent, in your novel and in life, a very important schism in Germany at that time, which is that Petra Kelley belonged to that first generation of Germans who were born after the war. And the general was a soldier in the war. He was part of the Nazis. He was... And you bring that story out, and his very, very dark secrets about what role he played in the war and what happened in the Ukraine and what his unit did. And so, again, you have that that that's that difficult split. Because you tried to show how they might have reconciled those differences. Is that possible at that time in Germany?

SL: Well, I think that that one of the things that in my fictional story, because let's don't forget, it's not a biography. I believe that the general came to the Green Party hoping in a way, to get away from his past. You know, he was in a marriage with a woman where they had both been through the war with a whole, you know, cartload of trauma that they were carrying with them. And I think that the general got involved partly with this new generation because he was hoping for a kind of renewal of his character. You know, the Greens, they were like a meadow he could run through. They were like a possibility of finally laying down this burden. And I think that on Petra’s side, she was attracted to him because he was older, because he was this general. And also, I kind of set up at the beginning of the book this idea that, you know, if she believes that there's a way to stop violence, stop war, change society. Can you change a General? Manford kind of taunts her and says, what are you going to do? Gentle this general and turn him into a man of peace in the most profound way? And she kind of... you kind of get the sense that, yeah, that's what she's going to try to do. So on a very personal level, they're kind of in a dance where they're trying. They each have their agenda before the other one. And they're also at the same time, really in love. But they're acting out these forces. And so at a certain point, like in the first part of the book, she doesn't even, I think, want to ask him what he did in the war. And I think she's in a pattern of avoidance. But it comes up. Manford brings it up. The press brings it up. People do bring this up with older people. You know, at a certain point in Germany, judges, politicians, and in this case, the general, they ask him, you know, what was your war? And he avoids it at first. And then eventually he has to say. And then, I think, they're into a place of coming to terms with the past, right? That it can't be a shallow coming to terms. It can't be a rote atonement. It can't be just going through the motions. You can't just come over to the Greens and say, I'm leaving the past behind. You can't shake it off. There has to be something physical and emotional that happens that people pass through. And, you know, and I so I think that's part of what the book is about, is can he do that?

CO: There's actually a German word that I wouldn't even try to pronounce it actually, it actually sums it up. Can you tell us that?

SL: I know that German word Vergangenheitsbewältigung, yes.

CO: One word.

SL: Coming to terms with the past, yes.

CO: Wow, we all need that!

SL: A beautiful, amazing German mouthful of a word that is, you know, is the sort of nexus point for endless study. And this idea that I think in the postwar milieu that so many people were saying, I've come to terms with the past. I've, you know, I've apologized, but that's not enough.

CO: We don't want to spoil the end. Of course, it's history. So we know, and so I’ll say a bit about this in that Petra Kelly and her lover, the general, both the fictitious one you have and the real one, Gert Bastian. They die violently, very young. Petra is only 44 when she dies. And if Petra Kelly were alive today, if she were involved with politics, what do you think she would be doing?

SL: I think she would be wearing a mask. [ both laughing]

CO: Good!

SL: But that's a wonderful, wonderful question. She would be at every demonstration. But I also believe I mean, she started to become one of her dear friends told me when I was in Berlin that she became more and more attracted to Buddhism. So I think she would be both very active, but also more subtle than she is in this particular book. I think she would be a figure of great guidance, but also of great passion. And I think that she would be continuing to fight because she never stopped. It's not so much fighting. I was thinking about this recently. It's also there was a belief in her that other great leaders have that what they do personally actually will change the world. And I think she would try to instill other people with that idea. Act, it will make a difference.

CO: And you don't think she'd be discouraged by the fact that all the things that she was championing in the 80s, whether it was the environment or the peace movement or feminism, social justice, Tibet, we have the Uyghurs as well now. I mean, all these things are still there. And in fact, even in many cases, much worse. And so do you think she would have been despairing?

SL: Well, if she woke from her death and came back, [laughing] I think she'd be shocked. Who wouldn't be? I mean, I'm shocked. I'm shocked going to sleep and then waking up in the morning and remembering where we are. But I think she would celebrate what's happening with Indigenous sovereignty. She would celebrate reconciliation. These are steps forward. She would celebrate Black Lives Matter. She would celebrate. #MeToo. These are massive global movements. She would be out there with the million people marching, you know, in the climate marches last year. So I think she'd be appalled by the politics, but she would celebrate the resilience of people.

CO: Shaena Lambert, thank you for this novel.

SL: Oh, thank you.

CO: And thank you for speaking with us.

SL: Oh, it's been such a pleasure, Carol. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

SL: Bye.

CH: Shaena Lambert is the author of "Petra" — a novel inspired by the life of the actual co-founder of Germany's Green Party, Petra Kelly. Ms. Lambert was in Vancouver. And her new book, "Petra", is published by Random House Canada.

October 30, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode