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 September 20, 2018

Hosts: Helen Mann and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

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

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

[Music: Theme]

Tonight…

HM: WADA crying shame. The World Anti-Doping Agency welcomes Russia back to athletics despite alleged state-sponsored doping. I'll speak with a weightlifter who strongly disagrees with that decision

JD: Out of the rough. After nearly 30 years, a man wrongfully convicted of murder is free. And he owes his unlikely Mulligan to a more unlikely defender — Golf Digest magazine.

HM: Cash on the barrels. While his former Conservative colleagues attack the carbon tax, Stephen Harper's former policy director says the numbers show it will leave most Canadians with more money in their pockets — not less.

JD: Gory details. In India, a flight takes off from Mumbai and returns 45 minutes later after dozens of passengers — including our guest — start bleeding from the nose.

HM: Bear down. In Wales, a statue of a grizzly at the roadside is declared a hazard to drivers. So while our guest seeks a new home for it it's lying prone out of sight — meaning, I guess, that it's anti-accident prone.

JD: And…Finishing what he never started. With his house straining under the weight of books, a British podcasters sets out to purge a thousand of them by cracking down on the ones he didn't even crack. As It Happens: The Thursday Edition. Radio that believes he is acting in shelf defence.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: WADA Russia ban lifted, Carbon tax study, Book purge

WADA Russia ban lifted

Guest: Ali Jawad

JD: The World Anti-Doping Agency has decided Russia has learned its lesson. Today, WADA made the controversial decision to reinstate Russia after a three-year suspension for an alleged massive program of state-sponsored athlete doping. In 2016, the agency's own report said that more than a thousand Russian athletes had benefited from doping. Today, the organization said it has been assured by the Russian Sports Ministry that the country had quote “sufficiently acknowledged its failures.” That does not convince Ali Jawad. He is a Paralympic powerlifter and a member of the U.K. Anti-Doping Athlete Commission. We reached him in London.

HM: Mr. Jawad, how did it hit you when you heard that WADA had reinstated Russia's membership?

AJ: To be honest, I was close to tears today. All my life I've had a big anti-doping advocate and I felt like today put anti-doping at jeopardy especially for the future of clean sport. I think that decision is totally wrong.

HM: You were one of many other athletes who signed a letter imploring WADA not to reinstate Russia. Why do you think the anti-doping agency chose to ignore this outcry from so many prominent athletes?

AJ: That's the thing that we probably don't get, they’ve not been very transparent with their reasoning. You know, it's an organisation that claims to protect clean athletes and today they failed us. And because of that I feel like the athlete voices unfortunately are just not going to be heard.

HM: Given how important this is to you, I'm just wondering are you speculating in your mind about what might be behind WADA’s actions?

AJ: Right now it's that raw that I probably need to kind of take some time and actually think why, I guess, kind of speculating is the wrong thing to do. I think we need to, you know, make sure that we kind of probe WADA into, you know, telling us how they came up with the decision today. I think speculating will probably make it worse.

HM: When you talk about getting answers from them, have they been transparent with you before?

AJ: Not at all. They seemed so kind of, one, not be transparent to the questions asked of them. They seem to —the answers that were given did not answer questions. And, you know, that for me is very frustrating because, you know, one, you don't know what's going on and two, have they got kind of our best interests at heart — and I don’t think they have.

HM: Canadian athlete Becky Scott quit her role with a WADA agency committee over this action. What do you think you as an athlete can do at this point to voice their opposition?

AJ: To be honest there should be more Becky Scotts in the world because the example she set is incredible — very brave of her to do it. I think she's kind of a type of person we can look up to as clean atheltes because she really did stand for us, you know, being the chair of the WADA Athlete Commission. I think as athletes ourselves we need to continue the fight. I think we are not going to give up. You know, we want a future of clean sport and I think that you're going to see a lot of athletes coming together and really pushing WADA now and we’re not going to stant for it.

HM: It's been three years since Russia was suspended. Is it possible that things have changed enough in Russian athletics the way WADA seems to be implying, that it's time to bring them back?

AJ: I think the Russia Anti-Doping Agency, there's been a lot of changes the last three years. I think WADA has to recognized that there is improvements and there have been improvements. Unfortunately, Russia still has not complied with the original roadmap set out three years ago by WADA itself. So for me, to compromise the country that purposely doped, to deny clean athletes the right to compete to their potential, for me, as an organization that claims to protect us, it was the completely wrong thing to do. There has to be the harshest of sanctions and Russia have not, you know, conform to that roadmap. So for me, right now they shouldn't be reinstated until the two conditions are met, there shouldn't even be just a discussion about reinstatement right now.

HM: Can you remind us what those conditions are?

AJ: Yes. The two outstanding conditions were they had to acknowledge the McLaren Report and they had to give access to WADA for their Moscow lab so that water can kind of obtain that data. And, you know, Russia have refused on both counts. So why should we kind of compromise and kind of let them back in when they've refused? I don't understand that.

HM: Accepting the findings that McLaren Report would do, you know, basically acknowledge a history of many years of cheating. Do you have any reason to think that Russia will ever do that, that they will ever come clean about what went on?

AJ: People kind of have accepted that Russia would never admit it. You know, in my opinion there's obviously a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. You know, it was going on and a lot of people were aware through government levels. So, for me, I'd keep them banned until they admit it because eventually Russia would want to compete. You know, why do we have to break first? Russia should, you know, eventually they do want to compete. So eventually, I think they would have admitted to it if we kept our — dug our heels in and not reinstated them.

HM: As a powerlifter, how does it feel for you to look back and think that you may have been working so hard all that time and ended up competing against doped athletes?

AJ: Unfortunately, you know, it's not just Russia, unfortunately, you know, my sport has had a lot of doping issues the last eight years. It's just powerlifting is a high-risk sport and I’ve had to accept that. Unfortunately, for me the decision today does affect me personally because Russia are one of the best in the world in my sport. I have to compete against them all the time and, you know, today it does affect me, as not just an athlete, but, you know, personally because, you know, I'm up against them and they are — they always seems to medal at the top events, that's why, you know, it's kind of angered me as well more than anything. Because if feels like you can get away with the biggest doping scandal in history without really having to face any sort of consequence. And for me it's very hard to accept.

HM: Mr. Jawad, thank you very much for talking with us about all of this, I appreciate it.

AJ: Thank you.

JD: Ali Jawad is a Paralympic powerlifter and a member of the U.K. Anti-Doping Athlete Commission. We reached him in London.

[Music: Ambient Drums]

Carbon tax study

Guest: Mark Cameron

JD: The fight over carbon pricing is getting a bit awkward. Andrew Scheer has promised that he would scrap the Liberal carbon tax. He has politely threatened Justin Trudeau that if that is the big issue in the next election then quote “Bring it on.” But an upcoming study is kind of undercutting Mr. Scheer’s warning that it is a tax that Canadians cannot afford. And the new numbers were crunched for a group led by a fellow policy director for Stephen Harper — Mr. Scheer’s former leader. Mark Cameron is now the executive director of Canadians for Clean Prosperity. We reached him in Ottawa.

HM: Mark Cameron, what does this study tell us, first of all, about what Canadians would pay for carbon tax over the years?

MARK CAMERON: Well, what it says is that yes, the Federal government brings in the carbon tax backstop in those provinces that don't have the carbon tax system of their own, that they would be paying 20 dollars rising to 50 dollars per tonne starting in 2018. That would mean about four-and-a-half cents a litre for gasoline. So for most households it would probably mean a couple hundred dollars per year.

HM: So how did those costs compare, in your understanding, to the rebate that individual taxpayers and households would receive under the policy?

MC: Well this is what was interesting about our paper because what it shows is if the federal government took all of the revenue collected in each province and refunded it as rebates on an equal per capita basis, almost all households would come out quite a bit ahead. Take the case of Ontario in 2020, an average household would get $517 back, but would only pay about $300 in carbon pricing. So they’d have about $200 more per year. And for lower income families the benefit is even greater.

HM: Why is there a discrepancy of money that goes out in the money that comes back?

MC: Because essentially the revenues are collected, not only from households, but also from business and industry. Heavy industry you will get some money back through what’s called the Federal Output-based Pricing System. But the rest of those revenues collected from businesses and from things like schools and hospitals all come into the central pot and then is distributed equally per capita. So citizens are getting more money back than they pay in.

HM: And you say lower income households would do better, why is that?

MC: Because they — essentially lower income households on average spend less on carbon pricing. They will likely live in apartments or smaller houses, they're more likely to use transit than own cars. So on average a lower income household is paying less but everyone is getting the same amount back per capita.

HM: Now your report is already being touted as good news for Justin Trudeau and bad news for your former colleagues in the Conservative Party. What should Andrew Scheer take from your study?

MC: Well, I think the lesson to Conservatives is charging a straight carbon tax and then refunding the money to citizens, whether it's through direct rebates or through tax cuts, is a smart conservative policy. And ironically the Liberals have been sort of backed into government in a very conservative you of climate policy, which is essentially the same policy that's been endorsed by senior officials from the Reagan administration like George Shultz and James Baker. So conservatives, I think, take a look at this and say, well, actually the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax, like Gordon Campbell brought in, is actually good, sound conservative policy.

HM: Why do you think then that Andrew Scheer is pushing back so hard right now?

MC: I think there's a lot of resistance to the idea of paying more on direct consumer goods — things like gasoline and home heating. And what people aren't seeing is that, you know, that money doesn't disappear. The government's going to decide what to do with that money and if they do send it back to people, most people actually come out ahead. So people are only looking at the cost and not looking at the benefits.

HM: Mr. Scheer has promised that he would be able to meet Canada's Paris commitments without imposing a carbon tax. Just thinking, you know, what kind of options he might have and what those options might mean for the pocketbooks of Canadians?

MC: Well, if you're not going to use carbon pricing then the other alternative is regulation. So the government could bring in industrial regulation saying that companies weren't allowed to emit more than a certain amount, putting a cap on the oil sands and things like saying people had to drive certain kinds of cars. But regulatory changes like that almost always cost more than using a pricing system.

HM: Now part of Mr. Shear's argument is that the Liberals are giving exemptions to what they call emissions intensive industrial corporations, something you've alluded to, something he calls lobbyists hiring corporate friends of the Liberal Party. Does he have a point?

MC: It’s important to protect industries that are export oriented. So if I'm a cement manufacturer or a steel manufacturer and I'm competing on an international market with places like China that don't have carbon pricing, or even the United States, then you have to take that into account and that's what the output-based pricing system that Alberta has put in place and that the federal government is going to put in place would address. So I think it's a legitimate way of using the revenues. There's always a debate about how much companies should get back. In fact, the Alberta system is more generous than the proposed federal system.

HM: Does that not potentially affect the bottom line and ultimately the outcome for the taxpayers that you say are going to benefit?

MC: Well, our calculations took into account the output-based allocations. So this is after those large companies have already output-based allocations.

HM: What message does it send though to a taxpaying Canadians that they're paying these carbon taxes and some of the big corporations that are the most heavily polluting are getting a break?

MC: Well, those corporations still have incentive to reduce their emissions because they still essentially pay the carbon price but then they get money back based on their emissions performance. So they still have an incentive to reduce emissions and all the calculations show that, in fact, most companies will respond and you actually see quite substantial reduction of emissions from industry with this system.

HM: It's early yet for your report. Are you getting any feedback from your former Conservative colleagues?

MC: I've heard a few calls and emails from Conservative colleagues. Some of them are quietly sympathetic and think this is good conservative policies. Some of them are upset about it, but I hope they'll read the report and take a look at it and they think that, both federally and in provinces like Saskatchewan and Ontario, they should reconsider the direction they're going. I think the Conservative policy that Patrick Brown proposed for instance would have solved many of these objections.

HM: Mark Cameron, it's going to get, I'm sure, lots of attention politically. Thank you very much for telling us about it.

JD: Mark Cameron is the executive director of Canadians for Clean Prosperity. He was also Stephen Harper's policy director. We reached Mr. Cameron in Ottawa. And you will find more on the study on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: 90’s Hip-Hop]

Book purge

Guest: Robin Ince

JD: We have all done it. We have all bought a shiny new important book believing with all our hearts that we will read it and be propelled to the next level of human goodness and wisdom. And then we put it aside for a while and after reading some of it — or more likely none of it — that while becomes forever. Robin Ince is an English comedian and a bibliophile who cohosts the podcast Book Shambles. Mr. Ince’s shelves are groaning with important works he has not finished — nor began. So out of fear that his house will collapse under the weight of unread literature he has vowed to purge 1000 books from his home. We reached Robin Ince in London.

HM: Robin, what is the first book you decided to check out of your life?

ROBIN INCE: The first hundred are easy because the first hundred are all the ones that you bought two three or four copies of because each time you've been to a bookshop you’ve gone I really like the look of that book, have I bought that before? I have eight different books by the French philosopher Michel Foucault, and I have not read any of them and so seven of them went because I have to realize that I've had them for ten years now. Much as I love the idea that I'm going to become tremendously erudite in mid to late 20th century French philosophy about crime and punishment, I have to realize I haven't put the effort in yet so I'm not going to start doing it now.

HM: So you're talking about a thousand books. I mean, it makes me wonder how many you've got in there?

RI: I don't know. But what I can tell you is that having managed to get rid of 1000 books and it's made no difference whatsoever to the image. I also started to worry about the fact that there was a wonderful British deejay called John Peel who was obsessed with records and music and he had such a large collection of vinyl that he had to have his basement reinforced because his house was going to sink into the ground. So I was beginning to think I'd end up like a kind of Edward Gorey cartoon of the house that was sunk by books.

HM: Yeah. So you got the duplicates out, that makes sense, that's the easy thing to get rid of. What about the other criteria you're using?

RI: If I found out that people who are unpleasant or have a track record of being mean-spirited. Sometimes I meet other authors or people who've been students to someone and I kind of go ‘You know what, they sound like they might be a bit of an ass.’ And I've really got other books about epigenetics or the Dutch Revolt or whatever it might be. So I lose the ones by people on — it’s a bit like for instance I have quite a few books about Morrissey, and Morrissey now said enough politically for me to feel that he's helped kind of grease the shelves which he was on and the books have been cleared out and placed in another box.

HM: Is there something really satisfying about that purging those particular kinds of books?

RI: It's satisfying when you see the stack of books but it's not — what you must never do is never go back. In the same way as, you know, you must never look back at the books you get rid of or you will turn into a pillar of salt because I still want all of them but there is a thing that the satisfaction in the fact that sometimes people can be so openly mean-spirited that they help me out. So thank you Morrissey.

HM: Are there some books that no matter what you could never bear to part with?

RI: Oh yeah. I mean, Kurt Vonnegut is one of those people, Ursula K. Le Guin, Margaret Atwood — and there’s people that you feel have shaped your life. I mean, even though I don't read much of him now, when I was 17 years old and I read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson, you know, the copy that I have of that, which I bought when I was 17, that can’t go. I mean, it's an enormous number of books that I — the work of Alan Moore would be another example. He wrote Watchmen, and V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen — things like that I won’t be getting rid of those.

HM: As part of this book purge you ran a competition for listeners in which they would win a book if they told you which titles had been on their must-read piles forever and just sat there. I know you've got the results. What was the one most unread book?

RI: Well, I think one of this particular time is still Ulysses. You know, James Joyce's Ulysses is a remarkable book. I know I’ve read the first hundred pages at least three times now and I think it's a book that people really feel that they should read. And I think they've read excerpts of it and they know bits of it and they know that it's fascinating and beautiful but then you actually start to feel the weight in your hand and that's when it becomes troublesome. And I think also there's a burden where sometimes when you're reading a work which you know has been told to you many times it is magnificent, you also wonder what if you completed and when you finished reading it you are not a changed human being. What if it's kind of it's talismanic quality, you know the magic of it, what if it doesn't actually work? So I think sometimes it's quite nice to have a book you always go ‘I will, I will read that.’ And I think the previous version of that the most obviously being Tolstoy's War and Peace — which I think 30 years ago would definitely be the book that would have been the one that many, many people had.

HM: I see A Brief History of Time on the list, which we know as is a great bestseller. I've never read it. Have you?

RI: Yes, I have. And did I comprehend it all? I think it's fair to say that I didn't comprehend it all and I will go back to it and read it again and again. I mean, it's not an easy book, but that's the thing about science books sometimes, people are told you're going to be able to understand this. Science books you have to sometimes read very slowly, and every time you get to the end of the paragraph you need to stop look up at the stars and go ‘Hang on a minute, this is beginning to change the universe I’m in.” So I think that's what happened there is everyone imagined they would read it in the same way they read a novel.

HM: The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy is on that list of books that people keep hanging on to. I loved that book in University and I've got it on the shelf because I just know one day I am going to reread that. Am I deluding myself?

RI: No, I think you will. I think Tristram Shandy you don't have to read it all. I think sometimes that's one of our problems is we think you have to read the book from cover to cover. Some you can just keep diving in and each time you can find, you know, a different pearl, a different jewel just a kind of shiny bottle top. That's what I do with a lot of my books. That's why I have too many. I kind of find something that I grab something I find an idea and then I rush off to the next thing. That's why I have no depth whatsoever. I’m very broad, shallow puzzle.

HM: Do you have those free little libraries in London? You know, they're like little cabinet you put outside on your lawn with books in them and they're free to a good home?

RI: No. They're all a few old phone boxes where they've done that. But I was out in Vancouver three weeks ago, which I loved. And the little area that I was staying just near the beach, there were four or five, and they were my favourite things — just on the corner a little glass cabinet and I hope that I’m going to be able to bring them to the U.K. I have seen occasional versions of that, but in Vancouver they were an absolute delight.

HM: You may need a very large cabinet on your lawn.

RI: Yeah. I mean, I think the trouble is I will have to buy a mobile library and park it up outside.

HM: Okay Robin Ince, thanks very much. That's the problem many of us face. In a way, you've actually inspired me.

RI: It is a benevolent problem. I mean, the thing is make sure you have so many books in your house that you won't even notice that you've got rid of a thousand. It's death by a thousand beautiful papercuts.

HM: My husband loves you now so I’m gonna go.

[LAUGHTER]

RI: Thank you so much.

HM: Nice to talk to you.

JD: Robin Ince is a comedian and cohost of the Book Shambles podcast. We reached him in London England. You can read more on this story and see what books are on that unread must-read list. Visit us at www.cbc.ca/aih. And we would love to hear the books that top your own unread must-read list. Call our Talkback Line at (416) 205-5687 or email us age at AIH@cbc.ca

[Music: Whimsical Strings]

Part 2: Golf digest prison illustrator, Welsh bear statue

Golf digest prison illustrator

Guest: Max Adler

JD: For 27 years Valentino Dixon sat in prison serving time for a murder he did not commit. Yesterday he walked free thanks to a magazine that does not usually help exonerate the wrongfully convicted — Golf Digest. Max Adler is the editorial director of Golf Digest. We reached him in New York City .

HM: Mr. Adler, how did you first come to know Valentino Dixon?

MA: It was six years ago. I got a letter in the mail from Attica Correctional Facility. I had no idea what it was or who it was from. And inside was a little tiny drawing that he had done of a golf course along with this handwritten letter in equally meticulous penmanship introducing himself telling me how the game of golf had been a great source of salvation for him as he would draw all these golf course pictures in his cell. And he had come across my article in Golf Digest, which was the magazine he was using for as reference material back when I wrote this column called ‘Golf Saved My Life’ and he thought that applied to him, and our communication and correspondence kind of took off from there.

HM: What did you think at the time?

MA: Back then, I mean, I was initially very impressed with his art, but I wasn't so sure about his conviction. And that took a lot deeper digging before I kind of put all the pieces together and thought ‘Wow this guy really did have a serious miscarriage of justice carried out against him. ‘

HM: Can you describe his art for us, what they look like and what you thought of them at the time?

MA: It's almost has a little bit of a surreal quality. You know, it's highly representational, it's the work of someone who has a lot of time in multiple layers of colored pencil built on top of each other. But it's surreal because he's never been on a golf course. And so it's got this kind of dreamy quality to it. It's always very tranquil very beautiful — and, of course, imbued with real weight when you think that it was made in a six-by-10 foot concrete.

HM: So how does a man who is in Attica prison, never been on a golf course, take up drawing golf courses as a hobby?

MA: Well, it was — the warden was a golfer and he noticed Valentino’s artistic ability because he had drawn in his cell. And so he brought in one day a little photograph of Augusta National — their famous twelfth hole and asked Valentino to draw form as a favour — and he did. And in doing so the kind of the the grass, the trees, the sky — it sort of spoke to him. And because golf holes have these endless permutations of bunkers and shapes and fairway greens and contours, it kind of became this subject matter that he could really play with without having to look at something. He could kind of dream up the holes in his mind. So I think that's really how he got into golf.

HM: Mr .Dixon was in prison for the murder of a 17-year-old named Toriano Jackson in Buffalo, New York back in 1991. You said you didn't really know what to think about him and his role in that murder. Tell me what made you start to think he might be innocent?

MA: Well, it was really just — I mean, obviously the big factor was there was another man who confessed to the crime. But his word couldn't be taken so credibly because he was also in jail, in fact, on the same block as Valentino in Attica. It was really just an accumulation of things. There was no physical evidence, there was conflicting testimony of many people, the more credible witnesses seemed to fall out on the balance of Valentino didn't do it. And then there was this is really, what to my eyes seemed like a horrible prosecution. I mean, they charged certain witnesses with perjury before the trial began because their story went against the preconceived notion of the police. And so there are all these things that — no one thing would make you think Valentino is innocent, but in their aggregate they sort of painted this picture of someone who certainly didn't get a fair trial.

HM: Golf Digest published this profile of Valentino Dixon in 2012. Yesterday he walked free. So what happened in the intervening time to overturn that conviction?

MA: There was just a cumulative effect of a lot of media coverage. After the Golf Digest article Golf Channel came out with a TV spot maybe about a year later. There was more national coverage from various outlets. I continued to advocate for Valentino, writing letters to various government officials in the Department of Corrections and up in Albany, New York. And that was the real sense that I got yesterday in Buffalo at his release where I met the students from the Georgetown University Prison Reform Project, it was just the great collaborative cumulative team effort of all these people. It made it so eventually the case really had to be reconsidered.

HM: And were you there then when the murder conviction was vacated?

MA: I was.

HM: What was that like for you?

MA: I mean, it was a powerful moment because Valentino’s family was there and they erupted in joy and applause. But when he actually walked out of the courthouse that was the more powerful moment. He came out of the courthouse, walked down the steps and he embraced his mother — who is a wonderful woman, Barbara Dixon, who stood by his side all these years. His family cheered. He had a smile from ear to ear. And then he did press for another 20 minutes or so.

HM: You spoke with him. What did he say to you?

MA: He thanked me. He said ‘Thank you Max.’ And he was surprised to see me there because I had spoke with him on the phone the day before just after he had learned that he would be freed. And after speaking with him I knew I had to go out there. So I kind of surprised him a little bit.

HM: Do you think he's finally going to play a round of golf?

MA: I think so. I think that's a thing we had mentioned, the two of us way back when, that when he got out I’d teach him how to play. And so I think that's something we'll get on the books sometime soon.

HM: Well, Max Adler, I'm pleased to hear it's worked out the way it has, and I appreciate it telling us the story. Thank you so much.

MA: Thank you for having me.

HM: Bye-bye.

MA: Bye-bye.

JD: Max Adler is the editorial director of Golf Digest. We reached him in New York City. If you'd like to see some of Valentino Dixon’s drawings of golf courses check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Davie Eggen: Residential School test question

JD: It was a multiple choice question with no correct answer. A student in Alberta’s St. Paul's School Division posted a question from an online social studies test that went viral. It asks students to answer this quote “A positive effect of residential schools was? A: children were away from home. B: Children learn to read. C: Children were taught manners. Or D: Children became civilized. This afternoon Alberta's education minister, a teacher himself, issued an apology to reporters.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID EGGEN: First of all, as the minister of education, I would like to apologize for this offensive material for being, appearing in an exam in curriculum material here in the province of Alberta. Certainly with the hard work that we're doing to around residential schools and Truth and Reconciliation, this sort of thing is just not tolerated anywhere in the province of Alberta. And certainly it underlines the importance of building new curriculum here in the province of Alberta and for every school board right across the province to take a hard look at the curriculum material they're using now and to ensure that the sort of thing doesn't happen again. As well we're reaching out to the student, who very thankfully and helpfully pointed this out to us, to apologize and to issue an invitation for that person to come to one of our curriculum roundtables next week.

REPORTER: We've heard from the ADLC that this paper has been around since 2010. So that's eight years that it somehow slipped through the cracks. How can you explain this?

DE: Well, again, it's unacceptable and it underlines the importance number one, of building new curriculum and making sure that it reflects the history of who we are and what we are as Albertans in 2018. But it also, I think, is an indication that we have still more work to do around education, not just for kids but for teachers and more senior officials as well, to not allow this kind of thing to slip through. Right. This is the sort of attitude that this is — it goes against the values of who we are as Albertans. And certainly it's not acceptable.

JD: That was Alberta's Education Minister David Eggen speaking to reporters this afternoon.

[Music: Guitar]

Welsh bear statue

Guest: Peter James

JD: Peter James is hoping to find his community's grizzly bear a new home. It will not be as hard as you think because this grizzly bear is inanimate — a statue that once greeted drivers as they entered his town in Wales. But after reports that it frightened a driver and caused an accident the Welsh government said it needed to be removed. Peter James is a town councillor in Llanwrtyd Wells in Wales and that is where we reached him.

HM: Mr. James, what does this bear a statue look like?

PETER JAMES: Well, he's roughly about ten-foot tall. He has got one arm raised and he's waving when he's in situ but at the moment he isn’t.

HM: Has anyone as far as you know besides this one driver ever mistaken it for a real bear?

PJ: No. This is the very first time it's happened. If I say that our town-folk can't bear the thought of losing our bear — you have to excuse the pun, but even the local children love him and at some occasions dress him up.

HM: Is it true it was a Canadian woman who got this fright when she had the accident?

PJ: Yeah. It was a lady that was holidaying in our — now we get a lot of international visitors. And she was actually on holiday from Canada. She mistook it for a real bear. The actual incident happened on the 9^th of May and the bear was removed by Welsh Assembly. So the whole of Wales Parliament Assembly removed on the 19th of June.

HM: So it's not waving at anybody. Now where is it?

PJ: We are looking quite forlorn actually, he’s been taken about 30 feet away from where he was in situ, and he's now been placed under a hedge row facing inwards to the hedge. So his back ‘s to the world and he's looking very forlorn and alone and not in a happy state as he usually is to greet people.

HM: Has the bears suffered enough damage while it's been lying there?

PJ: No, the actual driver actually hit a road sign, not the actual bear, but he is beloved by our community and we want to put him back somewhere in our community. Even if he can't be put on the by the road we have got a ball park area where the actual community are meeting on the 29^th of September to have a teddy bear’s picnic in the park.

HM: So why I can't just pick it up and take it to the teddy bear’s picnic?

PJ: The thing is it actually belongs to the Cambrian Factory Woollen Mill and it was placed there because at that time the Cambrian Wooden Mill was selling teddy bears in the in the mill and they were dressing them up in the tween which the mill actually made. We have to now approach the owners of the mill, considering it has closed down, and see if we can actually take on the bear. But it seems to be all of a bit of a Baloo, because we can't seem to move on. We would love to sort of take him on and but there's a cost to it. We don't know the lady that caused the problem, we're not going to put the cost to her but she seemed to come to the town and caused a problem and just left without leaving her calling card.

HM: So you've reached out to the people who used to operate the mill, is that right?

PJ: Yeah we had our town council meeting on Wednesday and we put forward to them that we were interested in actually re-siting the bear.

HM: Have you heard back from her former owner of the mill?

PJ: The actual letters were only drafted today, so they won't reach them until tomorrow or Saturday, and with a bit of luck we can move on. But like I say, at the moment, the whole town feeling a little bit, how can I say.

HM: It’s unbearable?

PJ: They feel a bit grizzly about it. It's been quite a sort of subject.

HM: I'd like to know where in Canada the woman is from. I mean, certainly there's lots of us who don't see bears regularly, but then again there are some who do.

PJ: I mean, that would be an interesting situation but I haven't even got a name of the lady that actually caused the problem. I mean, it would be lovely that if we do actually get in re-sited, you know, that we can actually get an invitation to the lady to come and unveil our new Standing Bear if she could put herself through not being scared.

HM: Well good luck, Mr. James. Thank you for talking to us.

PJ: I look forward to greeting anyone from Canada when they come over to our little town.

HM: As long as they drive carefully.

PJ: Well that would be something that we will put out. We'll have definitely there. Well we could actually put him on the left hand side and we can say a bear left. That would be a good thing.

HM: You just had to get one more in, didn't you?

[LAUGHTER]

HM: Thanks, Mr. James. Have a good evening.

PJ: Same to you. Thank you very much, indeed.

HM: Bye-bye.

PJ: Bye-bye, now.

JD: Peter James is a town councillor in Llanwrtyd Wells, Wales. That is where we reached him.

[Music: Trance Bass]

Talkback: Wasps

JD: Last night scrolling through the As It Happens Twitter feed was a bit of a buzzkill. Many of you had thoughts on our story that suggested we may need to change our negative attitude toward wasps. In our interview — and web post — a University College London researcher lamented that the public was much more concerned about the supposedly friendly bee than they are the stereo typically mean wasp.

HM: In a tweet Adam Ganong said of our web post “This was written by a wasp in a lab coat. Nice try. And Katie Nicholson — incidentally a CBC reporter who should not be taking sides wrote “Well then maybe they should stop stinging people for no reason.”

JD: Now on the other side of the coin, David Wyant noted on Twitter “They eat the caterpillars alive on my brassicas.” And Lancelot Bennett, who we dearly hope that is his real name said quote “I've always gotten on fine with wasps. If you’re careful around them they leave you alone. They're just trying to make a living — more bothered by the black fly.”

HM: And finally, Jean also came to the wasps defence. Jean emailed “Had nests all over the place this summer. No problem at all. Think they got used to me after a while. Amazing predators.”

JD: And if you have any opinions you would like to share about anything you hear on As It Happens to get in touch. We are on Twitter and Facebook. Both those accounts @CBCAsItHappens or you can e-mail us AIH@cbc.ca

[Music: Accordian]

Black Album

Part 3: Italian MEP, India flight, Reading: CBC Non-fiction prize winner

Italian MEP

Guest: Cecile Kyenge

JD: Matteo Salvini, Italy's interior minister, has been called all sorts of things since he was elected under the banner of his far-right party The League. He has been called euro-skeptic and a strong man. He has also been called divisive and hateful, a fascist, a xenophobe — and a racist. And that last one really got his back up. So much so that he is suing the woman who described him and his party with that word. And that woman, now facing a defamation suit is Cecile Kyenge. In 2013 Ms. Kyenge became Italy's first ever black minister. She now sits as a member of European Parliament. And if there is any Italian politician who knows what it feels like to face racist abuse it is Ms. Kyenge. We reached Cecile Kyenge in Paris.

HM: Ms. Kyenge, how did it feel for you when you found out that you were being sued for calling Italy's far-right party racist?

CECILE KYENGE: It was a surprise for me because I did not think that I had defamed their party. But with xenophobic parties we must expect everything.

HM: As I understand it, this is not the first time that the interior minister Matteo Salvini has tried to sue you. He's done this two previous times. Why was this attempt successful? Why is he able to sue you now?

CK: It's right, it's not the first time Matteo Salvini tried to go to the courts with these accusations. I don't know. The judges work according to logic. I think in previous times the judge has filed a complaint. This time they considered doing the process. I trust the judges and so I’m very calm. What we are seeing now in Italy with this process is incredible and I want to defend, not myself, but everybody.

HM: You say you trust the judges. Do you also stand by your claim despite being sued? Do you still agree with your original position that the League Party, a far-right movement in Italy, is racist?

CK: Many member of The League have already been condemned for racism. I remember, for example, when my colleague member of the European Parliament Borghezio, who was sentenced to have qualified me as a monkey. And the same must be said of [Sen. Roberto] Calderoli, ex-vice-president of the Italian Senate, who qualified me as a monkey. And he's on trial in another court with me. If many leaders in your political party attack with racist attacks the president of this political party must take sanction, must do something. It's evident that Salvini’s party works on no racial logic, his political slogan I “First the Italians” And many migrants has something negative.

HM: I just want to be clear here. What goes through your mind when elected politicians call you, a fellow elected politician, a monkey?

CK: It’s very, very sad because I think that when you are in a situation it's important to say that they chose me because they consider me that I have enough competencies to be in this institution. But when you see political leader who compares you to a monkey, for me it was very, very hard. I have a daughter, I have a family — and to see my daughter, my family to see all these members do this, it’s not correct. And the first institution who is supposed to protect me, it was the Italian government, but it's not the same. Because they give me only a bodyguard and until today I’m in a protection program. But it's not enough.

HM: What kind of threats are you getting? Why do you need bodyguards?

CK: When I was in the Italy government until today many people wait for me and want to attack me. Not only because I'm a black woman in the politics, but because I am a symbol for migration — and this is very dangerous for me. And on some occasions I received physical attacks.

HM: You were once at a public event where people threw bananas at you. How did the public at large react to that?

CK: Yes. You know, o many Italians were very shocked by this one.

HM: What does it tell you that The League party won a record amount of support at the polls last March?

CK: I think that it’s very dangerous because today in Italy we want a dialogue, but Matteo Salvini works only his slogan and against migration and migrants, and it's not a good thing because conflict in Italy today and racism, they are rising up.

HM: Why do you think that is? Why are so many Italians supporting this party with its policies?

CK: They are supporting Salvini because they don't have work. We have a crisis, economic crisis, in Europe and many people remain without work and we don't have good solutions about work, about employment without money. And this is very dangerous because people say if we don't support us, if we don't have a policy and employment we want to watch for another solution. And today in Italy the other solution is Salvini and Populism — and it is not a good solution.

HM: You mentioned that you have a daughter. She must be very proud that, you know, on the one hand you are Italy's first black minister and that you are speaking out about these things, but when she sees the attacks on you what do you say to her?

CK: It's difficult to explain them. But my daughters are very intelligent and they say everyday day to me that I must do my work and if I'm in the right way everybody one day can understand. They are strong. They are very strong. They encourage me because when I say to them it's important not to go to see what people are saying on my social networks to protect them. But they say to me and I know that they are very strong. They support me everything I do. They support me.

HM: Ms. Kyenge, I appreciate you taking time to talk with us about the situation. Thank you very much.

CK: Thank you. Thank you very much.

HM: Goodbye.

CK: Goodbye. Thank you.

JD: Cecile Kyenge is a member of European Parliament and served as Italy's first black cabinet minister in 2013. We reached Ms. Kyenge in Paris. And we have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient Beeps]

Maxime Bernier promo

JD: Tomorrow night on the program. We have a feature in a studio interview with Maxime Bernier. You will recall that Mr. Bernier ditched the Conservative Party of Canada to start his own political movement which he is calling the People's Party of Canada. And he has a lot to say about immigration, about refugees and Canadian values, so-called Canadian values. And Carol had a lot to ask. Here's an excerpt.

SOUNDCLIP

MAXIME BERNIER: A person that wants to come to our country must share our Canadian values. I'll give you an example. If you have two new Canadians who are coming to Canada and one want to kill gay people and the other one says ‘No, it's okay they can believe in what they want.’ Is it good to have two people having different points of view on that subject?

CO: Where does this come from? I mean ,you have an example of somebody who said ‘Oh, well, you know, you, you want to kill gay people you can come in, and you, you don't want to kill you can come in too?

MB: So it would be better to have people who share our values.

CO: But we're not going to move on before you tell me where this comes from? This idea that somehow we're letting in people who say ‘I'm coming here to kill gay people?’

MB: I’m not saying that. I don't want that example to happen.

CO: Well where is the evidence that's going to happen?

MB: I want to protect our Canadian values and our culture. Justin Trudeau is always saying diversity is our strength. It is not our strength if you have…

CO: Killing gay people isn't diversity, that's a crime.

MB: But that’s diversity of values.

JD: Ma xime Bernier in conversation with Carol during a wide-ranging in studio interview. You will hear the whole conversation on As It Happens tomorrow night.

[Music: Somber Guitar]

India flight

Guest: Satish Nair

JD: We have all had bad experiences on flights — but Satish Nair tweeted that the one he had on a Jet Airways flight this morning in India was the quote “worst incident in my life.” He and 165 other passengers were flying from Mumbai to Jaipur. But just 45 minutes after takeoff the plane was back in Mumbai. And that is where we reached him Mr. Nair.

HM: Satish Nair, when did you begin to feel like something might be wrong on this flight?

SATISH NAIR: Well, I guess it was, you know, immediately once we took off from Mumbai airport. I started getting this excruciating pain in my ear. And first I thought it might be some common cold issues. I was wrong because, I guess, within 10 minutes of that takeoff, I guess, when we started cruising to some bit of altitude, that's when suddenly I felt that something is wrong. My shoulders were heavy, I was kind of drooping in the seat, and suddenly I felt, I would say, blacking out in front of myself.

HM: Did you know any of your fellow passengers experiencing anything similar?

SN: It was an early morning flight. So most of my co-passengers, you know, there were asleep. You know, when I was experiencing this, immediately the oxygen mask and oxygen mask got deployed. And after that I could see that many of the passengers actually woke up from their sleep and they started complaining about excruciating ear pain. It was dark, I guess, we were left wondering what to do.

HM: Well when the oxygen masks pop down I have to wonder what goes through your mind because that would seem to be pretty scary?

SN: That's right. Because in my whole lifetime — I'm 37 years old — and I've been flying since I was quite young age I've never experienced this kind of an incident. So I was clueless, you know, we would have seen a million times the kind of demonstration the air crew gives on you what to do in case of emergency. But this was something that was really not natural.

HM: You said you had ear pain. There also have been reports that some of the passengers were bleeding from their noses. Did this happen to you?

SN: In my case the bleeding was very limited, in fact, very limited. There were fellow passengers, especially sitting at the back side of the aircraft, who were profusely bleeding through their ears and nose.

HM: Their ears as well?

SN: Their ears as well.

HM: Did the pilot say anything?

SN: The pilot never said even a word during the entire flight. In fact, he only spoke once we landed and we were parked in the emergency bay. That's when he just announced everyone that there was some technical issue because of that given the aircraft cabin depressurized. And that's why they had to make an emergency landing.

HM: What happened when you got back on the ground? Besides after the pilots telling you that there had been technical problems, did anybody else approach you when you were at the airport?

SN: Yes. Once we landed, those who were previously bleeding deplaned first, and then the rest of the passengers. And the bleeding passengers were shuttled by the carriage directly to the airport. They were given the first aid and the most serious ones were taken to the hospital.

HM: According to the Hindustan Times an official with the aviation regulator in India says the crew failed to select a switch that maintains cabin pressure. What is your reaction to that?

SN: There are no words which come to my mind. But it's complete apathy in my opinion. And if this is a real finding then, I guess, it requires a serious reaction from all the stakeholders. In my opinion they should take a step back and think what happened. If it’s a human error, then we need to really get to why that human error happened. Because doing something, you know, to pressurize the cabin, this is part of a normal standard operating procedure. For someone who’s daily job is this, to miss, there has to be some real reason for it. In fact, the airline itself is not doing great. They’re in bad financial health as well. So was under tremendous stress know psychologically which made them — or maybe they were being been hustled since it was a morning flight that they left in a hurry. So you need to first find out what is the real issue. If it is a human error, why it happened.

HM: Jet Airways issued a statement saying that they quote “Regret any inconvenience to our guests.” Is that response from the airline good enough for you?

SN: No, not really. I'm really waiting for the report to come and then I'll look for my legal options.

HM: I understand you had to take two more flights today after going through this. How difficult was that?

SN: Yeah, it just sunk in to me that I was returning back that actually something of this magnitude happened and I'm really kind of — I'm really tired now and I'm just looking forward to spend some time with my family.

HM: Well, I'm glad you're safe on the ground. And thank you very much for talking to us Mr. Nair.

SN: Sure. The pleasure is mine.

HM: Bye-bye.

JD: Satish Nair was one of the passengers on a Jet Airways flight Thursday morning. We reached him in Mumbai. In a statement today Jet Airways wrote that the flight's cockpit crew had been removed from scheduled duties pending an investigation.

[Music: Trance Bass]

Reading: CBC Non-fiction prize winner

JD: This story is a small treasure, a model of controlled narrative, irony and poignant surprise. That is how the jury of the 2018 CBC nonfiction prize described Sandra Murdock's Easy Family Dinners. More than 2000 works were submitted from across the country, and this week CBC Books announced that Ms. Murdock, who is from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is the winner of this year's prize. Easy Family Dinners gives readers a candid look into what it is like living with a loved one who is battling demons. Here is Sandra Murdock reading from her award winning essay.

SOUNDCLIP

SANDRA MURDOCK: He's making supper.

After putting our two-year-old down for his afternoon nap, I avoid the small windowless kitchen where Mike has been banging around. But after a while, the habitual urge for a cup of tea compels me in.

He cleans as he cooks. I've always liked that about him, that he's tidier than I am. A small kitchen isn't much of a challenge for him, whereas I end up stacking bowls and pots on the kitchen chairs when I run out of counter space.

He's been back with us for a couple of months now. It had been an adjustment. Carter and I had established a tight rhythm of our own, but Mike uncomplainingly tried to match it, like joining a line dance, his face held in a smile, watching for the perfect moment, always a half-beat behind.

"I'm cooking tonight," he announces as I enter. He beams. I shove my hands deeper into my grey hoodie's pockets and try to look pleased. "You deserve to relax, so I'm taking care of everything." I nod, glancing about.

That he was willing and able to make pad thai from scratch impressed the hell out of me in the early days of our dating.

I like it when he cooks. Sometimes he makes traditional looking meat-potato-veg combinations that make me kind of nostalgic — always neatly plated, his years in the service industry creating a habit of presentation for even the most mundane meals. Pot roast, steamed green beans, mashed potatoes, a perfect trio. I can never bother, so many years on my own made for too many meals either standing at the counter or sitting alongside piles of books and papers while I studied. It's a treat when he cooks. He's good at it and he has admirable patience for the process. That he was willing and able to make pad thai from scratch impressed the hell out of me in the early days of our dating.

Carter will sleep for at least an hour. I think about the reading I should do. Book towers of various heights populate the desk in the other room, ordered according to an upcoming major exam and a languishing funding proposal still lacking theoretical coherence. I'm struggling with focus.

He promised that his being here would help me concentrate on grad school. We were a family, he insisted, we were supposed to be together. I had relented and allowed him to move in again but in the back of my mind was the grim sense that if I had been reading this as another woman's story I'd have been shaking my head, cursing the character's either dumbass optimism or myopic fatality.

I make tea, sweet and milky, carefully moving around his preparations. There's a salad on the go, rice steaming in a pot on the stove. As I return the milk to the fridge, Mike checks the oven, giving me a glimpse inside of two foil-wrapped packets on a baking tray. Fish.

He had raved about the foil-wrapped fish technique when I first made it for him. Fish filet, oil, lemon juice, whatever spice mixture from wherever in the world caught your fancy. We made Mediterranean and Asian the most. He always loaded in extra vegetables. It was so important not to overcook the fish, he'd tell everyone. You wanted it a little flaky, but moist, and a pink fish should always be a little darker pink in the centre.

The smile of a child playing in the snow can get you through just about anything.

I glance around the kitchen one last time, stealing a look at him finely chopping red and orange peppers. He doesn't notice. I look at the stovetop controls and the red lines of the digital clock. It's January in St. John's and the peppers must have cost a fortune.

Back at my desk in the living room, I move a few pieces of paper around, wondering where to start. The snow outside the window glitters weakly in the afternoon light. To the left, a solid bank of snow grows, accumulating from the landlord plowing the driveway. It made a good hill for Carter to climb on, not too high, not too steep. He's a cautious child. I'm always encouraging him to jump and climb and tumble. Thanks to the double padding of snow and snowsuit, he's more adventurous now, grinning madly as he rolls down the hill. The smile of a child playing in the snow can get you through just about anything.

He doesn't want to say good night to his daddy anymore. I carry him, clean and jammie-wrapped, out to the living room where Mike lays on the couch. Looking up at us, Mike smiles blurrily and murmurs good night words as he labours to stand up. Increasingly, the boy looks away as we approach, tucking his face into my neck. It started almost innocuously and I could pass it off as the unpredictable toddler mood. Bouncing him a little in my arms I'd sing out, "Don't you have a good night for Daddy?" Face hidden, his smooshed mouth would mumble "no" into my neck. Those first few times I just whisked him off to his bedroom, brightly calling out "Night, night, Daddy!" in a pantomime of bedtime ritual.

Mike persisted though, wanted a good night kiss from his son. Yet, every night the boy refused to look at his father. One night, Mike got in real close, but Carter just cried and pushed him away with a chubby clenched fist, me still holding him, holding the middle ground. Drained, I raised my face to him that time. Mike turned away from me and went back to the sofa and I knew the look in his eyes, felt it.

I appreciate what he is doing, and he's not wrong — it could be so nice to have some time together, to savour a meal.

I listen now to the nimble clicks and clacks of utensils and cookware in the kitchen. CBC Radio plays quietly in the background but I can't make out the author's answers to the interview questions. The oven door opens and closes again. I glance over some notes from an ethnography of a small town in Northern Ireland describing the complex communicative processes required to navigate interactions between Protestants and Catholics. "They taught me... how to read situations and to know when to talk, when to keep silent, and when to extricate myself from social interaction." I silently hold my pen over the papers. So many notes. I don't know how to connect them all.

He calls from the kitchen, then. I appreciate what he is doing, and he's not wrong — it could be so nice to have some time together, to savour a meal. The salad will be good. Dressing from scratch, garlic and thyme suspended in lemon juice and olive oil, sitting ready beside our oversized glass salad bowl. I enter the kitchen to see the small table set for the two of us. And the salad is beautiful, a riot of colours defying the winter that has hunkered down and I know will not leave without taking everything. He grasps a portion of mixed greens with metal tongs, careful to scoop in the slivers of peppers, sets it on my plate as I sit down. "Thanks," I exhale, with a small smile. A neat mound of basmati is already on the plate, nudging up to the foil packet. I don't know what to say, so I say nothing as I slowly pull apart the foil.

He opens his packet, tense with anticipation, happy. The fish and the roasted beans and onions tumble out onto the rice. I poke at my fish, still hoping that I'm wrong, still hoping that everything will be OK. I truly can't decide if I should let him eat it and realize in his own time, or if I should warn him before he eats it that the fish isn't cooked, that the fish is raw, that he never even turned the oven on this whole time he's been in the kitchen preparing this amazing meal, that he's drunk, again, and I know it.

He puts a bite of fish in his mouth and begins chewing. I put my fork back on the table, stand up and slowly walk toward our child's bedroom.

JD: Sandra Murdock reading from her essay Easy Family Dinners. This week CBC Books declared it the winner of the 2018 CBC nonfiction prize. You can learn more about rather Ms. Murdock and find a published version of that essay on the CBC Books website: www.cbc.ca/books.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Sept. 20, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode