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 May 10, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I’m Jeff Douglas. This is “As It Happens”

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Tug of war. After the U.S. withdraws from the Iranian nuclear deal, Israel and Iran exchange military strikes. We'll ask Israel's Ambassador to Canada whether today's back-and-forth is a prelude to war.

JD: Begging his pardon. A Chilean abuse survivor tells us about his emotional meeting with Pope Francis, and the apology the pontiff delivered for his previous dismissals and denials.

CO: No rain, and then too much. In Kenya, a drought ends with rains so torrential that a dam bursts. Now, people downstream are struggling to escape from deadly mudslides that have already killed dozens.

JD: Soak up the sun — or else. The question is how to get more people to embrace solar power, and California's answer is to make solar panels mandatory on all new homes.

CO: We're gonna need a bigger...upright bass solo. In a study that suggests you should not whistle Miles Davis while surfing, Australian scientists determine sharks can be trained to be attracted to jazz.

JD: And...the grazing greys. In the UK, invasive grey squirrels are adorable, but incorrigible. And a new study shows they're fattening themselves on millions of kilos of bird seed, at the expense of the birds themselves.

JD: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that points out some antisocial climbers.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Israel: Iran tensions, Kenya mudslide, grey squirrels

Israel: Iran tensions

Guest: Nimrod Barkan

JD: Israel and Iran appeared to lurch even closer to open conflict today. Israel pummeled Iranian targets with its heaviest air strikes since the civil war in Syria began. They were a response to what Israel says was a rocket attack by Iran's national guards on military installations in the occupied Golan Heights. The exchange of deadly force comes as the power balance shifts — in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to ditch the deal that held Iran's nuclear program in check. Nimrod Barkan is the Israeli Ambassador to Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Ambassador Barkan, is Israel preparing for war with Iran.

NIMROD BARKAN: Not at all. The problem is that Iran attacked Israel yesterday, and sent 20 rockets from Iranian rocket bases in Syria against Israel. And Israel reacted to interdict and prevent the continuation of those attacks by Iran. This is the second time that Iran is trying to attack Israel. The first time was about a month ago with an armed drone. And we've seen Iran building a whole lot of missile bases in Syria using the time where there is quiet on the diplomatic front because the agreement was in force. And encircling Israel in Syria in Lebanon, and encircling Saudi Arabia in Yemen in the Red Sea.

CO: Ok, but is it not true that Israel has launched a number of strikes before this into Syria, striking Iran sites including Israel look back at the T-4 airbase that killed 14 military personnel, including seven members of Iran's Republican Guard. Is that not something that they may want to seek retaliation for themselves?

NB: Well, what I wonder about is the question that assumes that Iran is allowed to build rocket bases in Lebanon, and drone bases in Syria, and rocket bases in Syria in order to attack Israel as if this was their God -given rights. Iran is abusing its standing in Syria in order to create a threat to Israel. Israel will not accept that Iran will become the new dominant force in Syria and make it a haven for their nefarious attacks on Israel after Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and said that Israel will disappear from the map in 25 years. Why should we agree to let them build their force there?

CO: I can understand why Israel would say this is an existential threat to see Iran building up in the north in that regard. But just for a moment let's look at this perhaps from Iran's point of view that it does see itself as being surrounded — encircled — by well Israel, Saudi Arabia, which they call the axis of resistance. They also say the agreement has been counselled by Mr. Trump, a president who seems unpredictable, and is now surrounded by advisers who are Iran hawks. Is that not some reason for Iran to feel a bit nervous?

NB: Well, Iran should feel nervous because of its nefarious intentions. The moment the agreement was signed, Iran could join the family of nations and become a responsible partner in all positive things in the Middle East. But what did Iran choose to do? It chose to build an encirclement of Israel and Saudi Arabia. We did not do anything to Iran. We have never threatened Iran. Iran threatened us with the construction of a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. They make daily statements almost about the need to destroy the Zionist entity — they will never say Israel. So we are being threatened by them. First of all, the agreement was not canceled. Mr. Trump withdrew from the agreement. And so now, we have sanctions re-imposed on Iran — and for the first time in a long time, we have some leverage on Iran to stop its outrageous behavior in the region.

CO: How is there leverage? Tell me how you see this?

NB: Because the secondary sanctions that Mr. Trump imposed will prevent any trading and dealing with Iran by anyone who wants to trade and work with the American market. So Iran, who is now in a huge socioeconomic earthquake, its own people are rebelling against Iranian expenditure of money in its adventurous policies in Syria. And now, when the sanctions will apply, and Iran's economic situation will worsen — I’ts already worsening from day to day. The likelihood is that Iran will have to negotiate and Mr. Trump has actually called for negotiations with the Iranians in order to change their policy.

CO: And what if you’re wrong? What if what you're saying in these past few days and Tehran's belief that it feels threatened by forces, including Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, and an unpredictable U.S. president, and now this escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran. Do not see that as something that they may say no, we're not in a position, we're not in a frame of mind to bring peace. We're going to follow through with more threats. Do you not see that that's not possible as well?

NB: Well, I don't think the Iranians will take the risk of fighting the United States when they don't have any internal support for it. And I don't think that they will really dare challenge Israel. And we've seen some statements today that indicate in that direction. But I completely disagree and beg to differ strongly with your assertion that Iran feels threatened. This is completely the other way around. If anybody is threatening anyone it's the Iranians who try to eliminate the state of Israel from the map.

CO: I'm saying they say that they feel threatened. So this is their position.

NB: Well, it’s a lie. How can they seriously say that they feel threatened when they say that in 25 years, Israel will not exist and we will take care of them?

CO: Just finally, we saw last week a senior Israeli intelligence officer was in Ottawa talking to the media. We had a phone call from your office to come on this program, which we've never had before. And we're welcoming to this show today. What's going on? What is the message Israel is trying to bring to Canada? What is it that you want Canada to do?

NB: Well, first of all, we thank Canada for its support for Israel's right for self-defence, and its condemnation of the Iranian attack yesterday. And Canada made it very clear in its statement that it objects to the Iranian development of missiles, and the Iranian regional behaviour, and would like to see the sunset issues resolved. So I think that what we are trying to do is to expose the true reality because if you ask me whether Iran is the threatened element here? I'm sure that I should have called you even before we did.

CO: But you know that Mr. Trudeau has said that he regrets the withdrawal from the Iran deal?

NB: Yeah, we do not dictate foreign policy to Canada. And neither does the United States as the prime minister made very clear. But it is our responsibility to expose the reality, and then Canada will make its own decisions.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. And we will await the phone call from Iran. Thank you Ambassador.

NB: Thank you very much. Bye bye.

JD: Nimrod Barkan is Israel's Ambassador to Canada. We reached Ambassador Barkan in Ottawa.

[Music: World music]

Kenya mudslide

Guest: Lee Kinyanjui

JD: Witnesses say they heard a loud bang. And then came a tsunami of mud. Last night, a dam in the Kenyan town of Solai burst, and the resulting flood swept away homes, people, livestock, even whole villages. Local police officials say at least 47 people are dead. That number, sadly, could rise as rescue efforts continue. The dam breach is just the latest in a series of deadly mudslides in Kenya. After a severe drought, weeks of torrential rain have so far left nearly 200 people dead. Lee Kinyanjui is the Governor of Nakuru County, where the town of Solai is located. We reached MR. Kenyanjui in Nakuru Town, Kenya.

CO: Governor Kinyanjui, I know you have just returned from the site of this dam breach in Solai. Can you describe for us the devastation that you saw there?

LEE KINYANJUI: Well, last night around 8:30, we had this dam that is up on a hill. And below the dam, the communities that have settled there many families — approximately 400. And it has been raining for the last two-three weeks, so the dam was full, and it broke one of the walls. And the water just ran through those villages, and swept out many of the families that had returned from work and were settling for dinner. These communities that are involved in this tragedy are largely what you may call low-income earners that work in the farms around there. And therefore, financially I would say they are a vulnerable group. So when this tragedy comes it adds to an already difficult situation. So we will be appealing for help. We've been focusing on the rescue, but the search is ongoing.

CO: Can you tell me some of the stories you heard today about how people were able to escape the mudslide? What how quickly it came, and how difficult it was to get out of its way?

LK: There is a school nearby, they were not affected, but they heard the huge bang as the water came breaking everything on its way from electricity poles, to houses, to trees, huge rocks. And they made the first alarm to say something bad is happening. The few who heard it were able to probably make a dash. But the gap between when that warning came and when the water came was less than a minute. So really not too much could be done, and nobody really could have anticipated this. But I think also more importantly, we have a particular lady, shall I call her a volunteer? She’s not a medic, but she was able to help us to resuscitate over 30 people. And many of them have actually now fully recovered. She is not a medic. She's not a nurse, but she did a wonderful job in very exceptional times where most of us even the clinicians had actually ran away for their lives.

CO: Well, running away from your life is sometimes a good idea. Where there a lot of people who haven't been accounted for? Who maybe escaped, or maybe were still lost in the mud?

LK: Yeah, we will still believe quite a number are lost in the mud. And that's why I say tomorrow we're resuming the search and rescue operations.

CO: Are there people still looking for their loved ones who believe that they might be in that mud?

LK: Definitely, definitely. What you are able to do today is see what you can do at the surface, but I think we may need to do much more like digging in to the whole place and ensuring that nobody is left unaccounted.

CO: I want to ask you about the dam itself. This is as we understand it a privately-owned dam. This is a very, very large estate farm, where they’re growing flowers and had other purposes for this irrigation. This is one of several dams owned by this estate. Can you tell us why it burst? What was wrong with it?

LK: Well, immediately this tragedy came, we constituted a technical team to be able to assess the structural integrity of that particular dam together with others. But the initial indications we have is that there's also another dam that has some structural weaknesses. And we are currently trying to reduce the water holding so that we can reduce the risk of bursting. And probably is also an eye opener to all the dams that we have across the country, especially now that the rains have arrived in ways we’ve never seen in many, many years.

CO: But have you had a chance to speak with the family that owns this farm? I mean people are saying that they haven't even offered a statement of condolence to all these people who have lost their lives and their homes and their livelihoods — many of whom work on this farm. What responsibility does this farm owner have?

LK: I think it is important to note that this particular farm has been there for many years, and it employs over 2,000 people from this same community. So they've lived together for many years, and when this tragedy has come as much as it has it hit the community that has actually lost even the owners of this farm are equally caught up in this shock situation. Maybe what has not happened is them to come out and talk, but my conversations with them, I am convinced they are also in a state of shock and trying to get to terms with what has happened.

CO: But there are people in this town who said that they had noticed that there were problems with the dam — there were cracks. They had already been trying to send out an alert that they felt that this dam was not secure. So why didn't the family heed any of those concerns?

LK: I heard those claims myself. Remember it is only maybe 20 hours since it happened, so a lot of these things will unfold as we move on. But we’ve asked members of the public who may have made these complaints to also come forward so that we can be able to make a good report.

CO: Just finally sir, where will people stay tonight? If it's still raining, their homes have been wiped out, they've lost everything. Where are they going to be staying tonight?

LK: We have a school that we have converted for temporary shelter, and it will be used for purposes of the children, the mothers, and everybody else to sleep there. And food will be provided.

CO: All right. We will be following this story, Governor Kinyanjui. I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

LK: Thank you indeed.

JD: Lee Kinyanjui is the Governor of Nakuru County in Kenya, where a dam breach has left at least 47 people dead. We reached Governor Kinyanjui in Nakuru Town. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Grey squirrels

Guest: Mark Fellowes

JD: In the harsh winter months, almost half of all households in the UK put out nuts and seeds for birds, to help them survive. It's a kind gesture, of course, but it's also kind of disastrous. A new study says these Good Samaritans are actually supporting an invasive species. According to the research, grey squirrels have been stealing millions of pounds of bird seed from feeders every year. And that's bad news for the bird population. Mark Fellowes was a senior researcher on the study. He's a professor of ecology at the University of Reading.

CO: Professor Fellowes, a lot of people who think grey squirrels are cute. Are they're wrong to think so?

MARK FELLOWES: They are. I think great squirrels are cute. I think there's a definite charm to them. They're comfortable around people. They're one of the few mammals — certainly here in the U.K. — that if you live in a town or an urban area that you come across frequently that that isn't a pet dog or a pet cat. There's a real charm to them, and they become part of you know certainly English culture and society I suppose in southern parts, where people are so used to seeing them that they're just one of these species that is part of their life.

CO: So how did you do your study of their behaviour, and what they're doing especially with bird feeders?

MF: Well, it was exceptionally simple. It wasn't complicated work at all. So the observation really was that squirrels were on feeders all the time. So it was just a simple question of how much food a squirrel is taking? Are they having an effect on the birds that are there? In a way, how much resource and how much money are people spending on supporting squirrels? So we simply put feeders out in gardens. We put automated camera traps up to record all the visitors to the feeders. The feeders either had seed in them or they had peanuts. They either had a cage around them or they didn't. And we just let those run for weeks and weeks, so we captured years’ worth of data.

CO: So the squirrels are eating, the birds are eating, but what affect do the grey squirrels have when they show up on the bird feeding?

MF: Well, there's sort of two sides to this. That's the direct effect, and that is that if a squirrel is on a feeder, no birds will visit effectively. You know it's such an insignificant number will ever risk it. Now squirrels compared to the birds most people having that in their gardens around here are pretty big and relatively feisty animals. What we also found is that some birds change their behaviour. They visit us a bit later, for example. They reduce their reliance on the feeders, and tend to forage elsewhere. So that's part of the problem. The second bit, of course, is that people are spending here in excess of hundreds of millions of pounds on bird food. What we're seeing is a very large proportion of that is going to squirrels. And you know if squirrel is dominating the feeders — and our study saw it almost half the time that we recorded that the feeders were being used it was by squirrels. So if people are spending a lot of money on that, they're spending a lot of money essentially helping make baby squirrels.

CO: And what's wrong with that? I mean if people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on bird feed, but they also liked watching the squirrels come and go from those feeders. So what's wrong with feeding the squirrels?

MF: And that's very true. And there are many people who will deliberately feed squirrels. The difficulty we have here is that the grey squirrel was introduced from North America 100-150 years ago or so. And it was introduced by a rather wealthy landowner who thought it would make his park look pretty. He’d liked seeing these animals when he’d been on his travels. They’ve spread throughout the country. They’re charming, but at the same time, native red squirrels have been completely wiped out for most of England. And the second thing is that the squirrels will raid birds nest and eggs. So our previous work has shown that — certainly in urban areas — they’re one of the most important nest predators. So it's this sort of unfortunate thing that you're trying to help birds usually when you're putting out food. If you don't protect your feeders to stop squirrels getting access, what you're doing is providing a great resource for a species that then may go to predate nests and eggs of birds you're actually trying to help.

CO: Do you think that people are aware that these bird feeders they’re putting up because they love the birds — and they like watching the squirrels every now and then — that the squirrels are actually the predators on the birds and their eggs?

MF: My suspicion is that members of the general public are not aware of that. They are aware of the interaction with red squirrels because that is in the media. It's widely reported, and people are aware of the problem with red squirrels.

CO: In addition to having run the red squirrels out of Reading, are they also rather destructive on the trees?

MF: They are. Foresters and people who own orchards are not huge fans in the UK of grey squirrels. They will eat growing saplings and buds and so on. They’ll eat fruit, and they can cause quite a lot of damage in that way. But I think the real issue is that the grey squirrels are in gardens much more than they're affecting the wider economics.

CO: So what's the solution? You're not telling people to stop feeding the birds?

MF: Oh, not at all. And I would never for a moment suggest that because I think throughout much of the world we've seen that as we've become increasingly urbanized as a society what we've done is we've withdrawn from nature in many parts. You know many children growing up in towns and cities their contact with wildlife is what's in that in their backyard. And it's hugely important that people maintain that contact. So it's more about developing the right techniques to allow us to have that feeding happen without the sort of downsides of it. So in this case, it's really simple, just use the feeders that have cages, or baffles, or barriers. Or if you are feeling a little bit wealthy, you can buy these slightly more expensive spring-loaded ones where if an animal over a certain weight sits on the on the feeder, it simply shuts off the food. And that's what I use in my garden. So you can still feed the birds, but I think it's just making sure that rather than using these open access feeders that everything can get to that you restrict access to the species that you really want to help.

CO: All right. Good advice. Professor Fellowes, thank you.

MF: Thank you.

JD: Mark Fellowes is the professor of Ecology at the University of Reading. And we reached him in Reading, UK. Incidentally, you'd need 122,916 grey squirrels to lie down nose-to-tail in an easterly direction to reach London from Reading.

[Music: Electronic]

Sharks like jazz

JD: Do sharks like jazz? That sounds like a rhetorical question — like "Does a bear poop in the woods?", or "Is a frog's butt watertight?" But "do sharks like jazz?" is different — because we can make educated guesses about where bears defecate, and the seal on a frog’s bum. But when it comes to sharks and jazz, we have only unanswered questions. Also one un-asked question, which until now, was, "do sharks like jazz?" And then researchers at MacQuarrie University in Australia asked it. They were wondering how quickly sharks learn to associate certain sonic stimuli with certain activities. For example: it seems like sharks recognize that the sounds of boat engines might signal the arrival of food — because tourist boats chuck stuff in the water to attract them. SO could sharks, then, be trained to recognize other sounds such as music? How about jazz music? And would sharks like the jazz? Great question! And the answer is yes... sort of. "Yes" in the sense that five of eight sharks learned to respond to jazz. "Sort of" in the sense that the jazz was associated with a food reward. So I'm assuming they were super-into the food, and interested in the jazz only insofar as it signaled the arrival of the food. Kind of how most of us feel about jazz brunch. Head researcher Catarina Vila-Pouca says, quote, "Sharks are generally underestimated when it comes to learning abilities... most people see them as mindless, instinctive animals. However, they have really big brains and are obviously much smarter than we give them credit for." If you say so

Part two: Pope apology, solar panel law

Pope apology

Guest: Juan Carlos Cruz

JD: It's not often that the Pope asks you for forgiveness. But that's what happened to Chilean abuse survivor Juan Carlos Cruz. Just over ten days ago, Mr. Cruz sat down with Pope Francis for more than three hours. As a young person, Mr. Cruz and others were abused by a notorious Chilean priest. But just months ago, the Pope dismissed allegations that top clerics in the church were aware of the abuse and did nothing. We reached Juan Carlos Cruz in Philadelphia.

CO: Mr. Cruz, what is the first thing that Pope Francis said to you when you walked in the room to meet him?

JAUN CARLOS CRUZ: Well, after saying hello, he said to me when we sat down, he said let me start by saying that I apologize to you on behalf of the pope, and on behalf of the universal church. And, of course, I said oh, Ok. But he said no, no, no. I want to tell you that you know in your case I was part of this problem. And I caused a lot of pain. And I want you to know that it hurts and that I apologize.

CO: At that moment — that beginning of this apology and this intense moment at the beginning — what was that like for you?

JCC: His first words broke the ice. It was like it was the pope, of course, I couldn't get out of my head that I was sitting in front of the pope. But, at the same time, he was president, he was there, it was all about me at that time. And it really went in very deep in me.

CO: He gave you permission to be emotional. You said elsewhere he gave you permission to cry.

JCC: Yeah, yeah. So I mean you know you bottle up all these emotions. And if I had to cry a bit, I don't care. I did it, and he put you know his hand on my shoulder. I mean we're sitting next to each other. And he told me you know he respected me when the words wouldn't come out really.

CO: The last time you and I spoke, it was very painful because you had wanted Pope Francis to apologize. You and others wanted him to acknowledge the pain that priests had caused you and others who had been molested as boys. And he essentially told you that it wasn't the truth. He essentially called you a liar. Did you confront him about that?

JCC: Oh yes, I did. I mean I mean I told him I said Holy Father, you have to know how painful it is for someone who is trying to tell the truth, who has gone through such trauma, and then you call them a liar. And those are very harsh words. And, of course, he was contrite. And you know now he knows the truth. But I wanted to reflect a bit with him what survivors are experiencing around the world. How painful it is for people who are trying to tell the truth. You know people need to be believed. People need to be respected. People need to be understood. People need to be looked after. And that's not happening. There's a culture of cover-up by bishops that needs to stop. And I told him all that.

CO: That was the other thing you and I talked about, and that was so important to you because what we saw was that a particular man Juan Barros had been made Bishop of Osorno, Chile in 2015, someone you had made clear was part of the cover-up. You have pointed out that there are other senior church people in Chile who are part of covering up what was happening to these children. And you felt that the pope was not paying attention to that, and was not dealing with those people who were still there. Did you bring that up with him?

JCC: Oh, I brought everything up with him. You know I didn't mince words. There were no euphemisms or anything. It was heart-to-heart blunt.

CO: Did you name names?

JCC: Oh, absolutely. I told them how he had toxic people by him right now. The case of Cardinal Errazuriz, who is the Chalayan Cardinal who is in G9 — you know the group that that helps him reform the Curia. He is one of his biggest misinformers if you will. He is responsible of the decay and the destruction of the church in Chile and of the image of the pope. But yet he's in his council. I told him all that.

CO: You know the amount of time you had — the access you had — to the pope is extraordinary. But there are those who are saying well wait a second here, is this a public relations exercise? I mean you have all that time. And is this just a way for the pope to make the appearance he’s doing something. What will be the evidence for you that he has actually changed his mind, and not just perhaps even used you?

JCC: Yeah, so for me when I received the call from the pope that he wanted to invite me to the Vatican and two others, and I said well, tell the Holy Father that this cannot be a PR stunt. So I made that very clear through our conversations. And right now, he has summoned the whole Bishops Conference of Chile who arrived this weekend, and he's going to be with them Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I expect that some bishops are going to be held accountable and lose their jobs. I told him that everything that we have talked about would be in vain if it wasn't accompanied by concrete action. If there is concrete action, it will be a message to the world that this is not going to be tolerated anymore. And, hopefully, it's the beginning of the end of this bishops culture of cover-up.

CO: Mr. Cruz, it's really good to talk to you. It's just an extraordinary experience you're describing. And I thank you so much for sharing it with us.

JCC: Thank you so much for calling me. I really appreciate it. Bye bye.

CO: Take care. Bye.

JD: We reached Juan Carlos Cruz in Philadelphia.

[Music: Rock]

TTC crabs

JD: If you are here in Toronto, and you take the subway every day, you know you see some weird stuff. Commuters so dead-eyed it's surprising they move. People openly reading inappropriate stuff. Some guy playing "Despacito" on the accordion. TTC riders have seen it all. So that's probably why it took so long for someone to do something when someone released four live crabs on the subway on Monday. Kristine Hughes was on the train when it happened. She spoke to CBC Toronto's Gill Deacon earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

KRISTINE HUGHES: So it was just like Monday evening during rush hour. The TTC is packed going southbound. All of a sudden, my friend and I see that there's you know a bunch of random seats that are open. And as we got closer, we realized there's crabs on each of the seats, and there's a man sitting there who’s put them all there. I think there was about four actually.

GILL DEACON: Four crabs just taking up prime seats in rush hour.

KH: That’s it. Everyone else is just sort of standing around, staring, kind of taking pictures, but not really saying anything — just sort of watching the show. But then like a lot of people were walking by, and they would be like startled that there's crabs like obviously on the subway seats, but would just kind of keep walking. But then one woman came by, was also startled, kept walking, but then came rushing back to basically scold the guy.

GD: Oh, I was wondering where people not giving him grief?

KH: No, I think you're not quite sure of what's going to happen when there's somebody who's kind of just casually put crabs all over the seats of the TTC. I gather there was a woman who nearly sat on them, and then she smacked them off, and then they landed on someone's lap, is that right? Pretty much, yeah, the woman came back, and she was scolding him, and asking you know kind of how dare you put crabs on the seats during rush hour. All these people are coming home from work. They're tired, and they just want to sit down, and you put crabs on seats. So she just kind of had enough, and she just smacked them off of every seat. And a couple went flying, and one landed in someone's lap, and one landed on someone's feet, and it was just total chaos.

GD: Oh my goodness! Was there ever an explanation given? Did the gentleman whose crabs they seemed to be did he have a sort of a smirk on his face? Was it a prank? What was your sense of why this was happening?

KH: I think it was like a bit of a prank. He was definitely having a laugh at everyone's reactions initially to the crabs being on the seat. He was definitely upset when they got smacked off. Kind of calling out, “That's crab assault, man.” He did pick them up, and eventually just put them right back on the seats they were knocked off.

JD: That was Toronto subway rider Kristine Hughes speaking to Gill Deacon, host of CBC Toronto's "Here and Now", earlier today. When the CBC asked for more information about this incident, TTC spokesperson Brad Ross said quote, "People have complained that they've gotten or seen crabs on the subway before, but not the crustacean type," and that, quote, "The owner of the crabs may claim they're 'service crabs,' or that they're 'emotional support crabs' or 'therapy crabs,' but we wouldn't accept that as a reason to allow them to occupy seats." Unquote. So, if you ride the subway in Toronto, keep that in mind, please. We do all expect some crabbiness from our fellow commuters, but that was too much crabbiness.

[Music: Indie rock]

Solar panel law

Guest: Andrew McAllister

JD: Soon, houses in California will also be their own power stations. Under a new plan, all new homes built in the state will have to include roof-top solar panels. Now, that will add, obviously, tens of thousands of bucks to the cost of home construction, but proponents say it will save people money in the long term. Andrew McAllister is a member of California's Energy Commission. We reached him in Sacramento.

CO: Mr. McAllister, what made you think this was the right time to make home solar panels mandatory for new house construction in California?

ANDREW MCALLISTER: Well, California has been doing solar energy for decades and finding different ways to support that industry and develop that market. And we are at a moment where costs have come down tremendously. It's a mature industry. Builders have gotten used to putting solar on a large percentage of their new constructions already. And local governments are increasingly mandating solar energy themselves. So it's the time to incorporate it into the state wide minimum code.

CO: Well, why can't people choose to do this voluntarily? They have no choice, right? New homes in California will have to have these solar systems. They don't have a choice in that, right?

AM: Well, many people do already choose to do this voluntarily, and that's how we know there's a mature market. Volume gets prices down, and much of that has already happened. We think it will continue to happen, so prices will still keep going down, and the technology will continue to improve. As state officials, we have the obligation to balance the public good with private benefits. And I think here there's a very clear public benefit to reducing greenhouse gases and cleaning up our air. So we feel comfortable making this part of the way that business is done because it benefits both the private consumer and the public good.

CO: But people who buy a new house in California will pay maybe as much as ten thousand dollars more for it because of the solar system. Or they can go out and buy a system of they already have a house. What does that mean for people who can't afford that? I mean do they end up being the people to subsidize the rest of the system? People who can't take advantage of solar system and reduce their electricity rates?

AM: In terms of just access to solar, we have a number of programs that focus on disadvantaged communities and low-income populations to help them avail themselves of the clean energy economy. There's a bill that went through a couple of years ago, and the implementation is now happening that dedicates roughly a billion dollars to the multi-family solar sector. And over the next eight years or so, for example, and we have a number of programs that focus on low-income consumers, low-income residents of California. So it's certainly an issue. We have a broad strategy to focus on equity in California in our energy sphere. And so local government certainly in the state are taking this seriously, But I think the cost effectiveness of solar generally if we have the right financing tools, if we have the right ways of bringing capital to driving new installations, then there's really no reason why low-income populations cannot avail themselves of those benefits as well.

CO: You mentioned the solar cells are getting cheaper, and that's why this can be viable. Here, one of the reasons for that is because of a great deal of solar panels and solar systems coming out of China being manufactured. And locally produced stuff is more expensive. Is it the same issue there? Are you going to see a lot of Chinese imports in these Californian solar panels?

AM: Look, that's already the case. I mean we live in a global economy. And Chinese modules do tend to be the cheapest. I think you know North American modules do tend to focus on the high-quality market place, and they tend to be somewhat more expensive. You know we have the issue here in the United States of having new tariffs that have been imposed by the Trump administration which doesn't really help anybody. Most of the economic resilience or the economic benefit of growing solar sector is about the installation jobs associated with it. I mean these are good, local jobs. They cannot be exported because you have to be at the premises. And so that economy is driven by volume. And so to the extent volume goes down that's a bad thing for our economy in California, and anywhere you want to grow the solar industry. But regardless, even with those tariffs, it's very cost-effective. We've done the analysis upside down and sideways, and it's clear that the benefit is there for the customer. And that the greenhouse gas benefits are worth it for the state.

CO: The big reason for doing this in California is because you're combating climate change. It's part of your policy to switch to non-carbon sources. But do you feel in California swimming against the tide in the U.S. I mean the president has repeatedly denied even the existence of it. And he's saying drill, mine coal, go in the other direction. Do you feel like you're in a bit of an uphill battle in California?

AM: Well, you know the news was a couple of weeks ago that we passed Britain in terms of the size of our economy, and we're now the fifth largest economy in the world.

CO: You mean California?

AM: California, yes, we're the fifth largest economy in the world now. And certainly the federal government position on these issues is something that's unfortunate. But frankly, in California, we are doing what we do. We know actually that climate change is real. And we know that our population wants us to deal with it. So we had a very clear process, and you can go check it out. All the documents that were submitted in the summation of the process is that this is the right thing to do and we made the right decision.

CO: And you have an abundance of sunshine.

AM: And we're lucky we have a geography that favours a lot of different renewables, and in particular, solar. We have almost half of the nation's solar installations in California, and it's growing even more.

CO: You’ve got half of our sunshine too.

AM: We do have a lot of sunshine.

CO: You share that! You know you have too much of that. Anyway, enjoy. And it's good to talk to you, Mr. McAllister. Thank you.

AM: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

CO: Bye.

AM: Bye bye.

JD: Andrew McAllister is a member of California's Energy Commission. We reached him in Sacramento.

[Music: Ambient]

Wombat love bites

JD: For southern hairy-nosed wombats, foreplay is a real pain in the butt. If you guessed it's the males who feel that way, well, no surprise there. But it's not because they find it exhausting or superfluous. It's because when female southern hairy-nosed wombats are most fertile — and ready to get it on — they bite the males' bums. I'm not talking about a cute little hickey; I mean they rip tufts of hair out of their would-be mates' behinds. This is one of the discoveries detailed in a new study on how southern hairy-nosed wombats breed in captivity. And the bum-biting bit is especially interesting because, in the wild, it's reversed. As the study's co-author told the Brisbane Times newspaper, quote, "It is a classical pattern in wombats that, when they are sexually receptive, the male will chase the female, and ....." "... essentially they run in figure of eights, and he catches her every now and again and he bites her on the bottom." Unquote. The idea of the study is to help the southern hairy-nosed wombats, a species that's considered vulnerable. So far, they're not great at procreating in captivity. And while monitoring their behaviour when their hormone levels peaked, the scientists learned that the female wombats peed less, paced around more, and — as mentioned — bit butts. Now, maybe the researchers can use this info to help those wombats — and gently pass on a piece of advice that applies to wombat behinds as much as it does to human feelings: once bitten, twice shy.

Part three: Lab brains, Burpee record

QP: Liberal answers

JD: Normally, in question period, there is a form. It works like this: Opposition asks question, government answers evasively. A heckle here, a heckle there, voila, c'est tout. But today, things kicked off a little differently — thanks to one of yesterday's heckles. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government would defend a woman's right to have an abortion, Conservative MP Ted Falk yelled: "It's not a right!" And so, today, when Conservative MP Alain Rayes asked about marijuana, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna responded with a question of her own.

SOUNDCLIP

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Yesterday, the Conservative member from Provencher stated that a woman's right to choose is not a right. The Supreme Court upheld this right more than 30 years ago today. These comments served to take women's rights backwards. Well the leader of the opposition pleased to announce the Commons from his caucus, and clearly voice his support right now for a woman's right to choose?

JD: That was Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, responding to a question about marijuana with a question about abortion. Again, the Conservative MP tried to ask his question. And again, Minister McKenna had no answer, only a question of her own.

SOUNDCLIP

KM: It’s very disappointing that the party opposite still believes that women's rights are not human rights. Yesterday, this belief was on display when a member from Provencher claimed that the woman's right to choose is not a right. Will the member opposite please stand up for woman everywhere, and make it clear that women's right to choose is clearly a right?

JD: That was Minister Catherine McKenna, asking questions instead of answering them during Question Period today.

[Music: Guitar]

Lab brains

Guest: Nita Farahany

JD: When scientists experiment with pieces of human brain tissue in the lab, the brains are dead — for the time being. But science is getting increasingly sophisticated. And as it does, it's raising some difficult questions in the world of neuroscience. Questions that a group of concerned researchers feel can no longer be ignored. Writing in the journal Nature last month, 17 scientists, ethicists and philosophers asked one of the biggest questions: do brains have rights? Nita Farahany is a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University, one of the co-authors of the article. We reached her in Durham, North Carolina.

CO: Professor Farahany, why did you feel it was important to start this conversation about the ethics of brain research?

NITA FARAHANY: It became clear that there are a lot of really exciting advances that are happening in the broader field of brain surrogates. and with significant advances on the horizon, I think the scientists, ethicists, and philosophers all agreed now is the time to really delve into some of the ethical issues that are raised by that research.

CO: And what are those ethical issues?

NF: There's a few of them. And you know of most fundamentally I think the way to frame it is to think that the better the surrogate — that is the closer it approximates the human brain — the sharper the ethical dilemmas become. Because the closer it is to the human brain, the more it starts to seem like doing research in human subjects rather than doing research on human tissue. Traditionally, we have treated human tissue quite differently than we've treated human subjects. And so the question is really whether or not some of those protections apply? And so you know to think about it broadly, if in the remote future we thought that brain tissue could be in some way reactivated. That you could have some traces of human memory still there. Or you know even the possibility of something like sentient-like capabilities — the ability to experience pain, or something akin to consciousness. Then fundamentally, we have to look at these as potentially different kinds of research than we have today.

CO: And when you talk about a brain or brain tissue having consciousness, has there been any experience that scientists have had when they start to suspect or wonder if the brain tissue they're working on is conscious?

NF: No, not now. And we think the likelihood of experiencing or seeing any kind of sentience-like capabilities in these brain surrogates is a ways off still. So I don't think we would expect to see that in the current kind of research. Instead, scientists kind of look ahead and say look, it may be theoretically possible to have much bigger pieces of brain tissue that are studied. Whether it's by growing a brain organoid considerably larger once it's given a blood vessel supply, or by being able to take much bigger chunks of an animal brain for example after it has died and being able to in some ways give it functionality back. At that point, you would start to wonder whether or not some of the sentience capabilities that we humans have might be approximated in those surrogates.

CO: It goes beyond ethics, doesn't it? Into law and into rights, and if you have in the future a situation where you have brain tissue that has consciousness, or there is human brain tissue put into an animal to see how it reacts. What rights do the animal or the actual tissue have? At some point, do you have to actually consider that they might have rights?

NF: I think that's exactly right. No pun intended, which is you know as we think about these ethical issues and think about whether or not there may be welfare interests at stake for brain surrogates in the future. What that would mean is policy and legal changes that might need to be made. So, for example, if we learned that through this cutting-edge brain surrogate research, it may be possible to restore brain activities in ways that we thought were impossible, right? When somebody suffers a major stroke, or traumatic brain injury, we have until now assumed that a lot of loss of brain function is unrecoverable. And you know we also have pegged definitions of death to the irreversible loss of brain function, and the capacity for consciousness. And if it turns out that it may be, in fact, reversible based on this research over time, then that definition of death — that legal concept of death — would change as well. So there's a lot at stake here both ethically and legally.

CO: And what about privacy rights? Because you mentioned that it's possible perhaps in the future that pieces of brain that they're looking at will have information and it, will have a memory, will have knowledge recorded in it. What about the privacy rights? Who owns that information that's in that brain tissue?

NF: Yeah, that's right. That's one of the issues that we raised, which is you know it's at least theoretically possible today with a cooperating person to be able to decode some information that's in their brain. And the question is as that research advances, would it be possible to do that from a brain post-mortem after a person has died? And if so, you know how do we think about the private thoughts that might be stored there in, or the private memories that might be stored there in. Whether or not we're going to need to recognize some kind of brain privacy, not just because of this research in brain surrogates, but because a lot of exciting research that's happening across neuroscience.

CO: Your article was published in Nature on Wednesday. And you mentioned how scientists are doing a lot of very exciting work. I'm sure that they're very, very keen on what they're discovering. Is there any concern in the scientific community that these ideas might start to put limits on their research?

NF: You know I think there's a concern that's poorly understood. You know this this kind of research could lead to a public concern that could halt research or interfere with the progress of research. And I think you know recognizing that these issues are not with us today. Most of them are issues that could emerge in the future as this research progresses. The hope of all of us who publish this paper is really to join together to say this is critically important research. How do we figure out what limits are appropriate, and how to sequence this research, and how to do so in the most responsible way possible? So I think scientists recognize there may be some limits that are appropriate in this context, and they invite that conversation.

CO: We will leave it there. It's fascinating, Professor Farahany. Thank you.

NF: Thank you for having me.

JD: Nita Farahany is a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University. We reached her in Durham, North Carolina.

[Music: Hip-hop]

David Goodall

JD: Last month, David Goodall turned 104. He said if he could be granted one birthday wish, it would be to die. Today, he got that wish. David Goodall was Australia's oldest scientist. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his work in ecology and botany. Two years ago, when he was 102, Mr. Goodall made international headlines: the university where he worked as an honorary research associate ordered him to resign, because he was a safety risk to himself. He challenged the decision and it was reversed. But in recent years, Mr. Goodall said his physical condition has deteriorated. He wanted to end his life, but assisted suicide is illegal in Australia, so he traveled to Basel, Switzerland to die. Yesterday, wearing a sweater that said "Ageing Disgracefully," Mr. Goodall shared some of his final thoughts at a press conference.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID GOODALL: At my age, and even less than my age, one wants to be free to choose their death. And when their death is the appropriate time. My abilities have been declining over the past year or two — my eyesight the past five or six years. I no longer want to continue life. I am happy to have the chance tomorrow to end it.

REPORTER: Have you chosen any particular song or music you want played tomorrow in your final moments?

DG: No, I haven't. If I had to choose something, I think it’d be the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.

[Sound: David Goodall singing, and audience clapping]

JD: That was David Goodall singing and speaking to reporters in Basel Switzerland, yesterday. Today, surrounded by his family, and listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, Mr. Goodall ended his life.

[Music: Ambient]

Samantha Bee

JD: On November 8th, the anniversary of President Trump's election win, Samantha Bee had a special guest on her late-night show. She compared him to a superhero.

[sc]

SAMANTHA BEE: But there is hope on the horizon. A hero who stood up to democracy's nemesis before. Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's…

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: I’m Eric Schneiderman, and I’m the Attorney General of the state of New York.

JD: That was six months ago, when Eric Schneiderman was praised for his work against sexual misconduct as Attorney General of New York. Now, of course Mr. Schneiderman is the ex-Attorney General of New York. He resigned after four women told the New Yorker that he had assaulted them. So last night on her program, "Full Frontal", Samantha Bee addressed her former guest.

SOUNDCLIP

SB: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman resigned Monday night, after multiple allegations of physical abuse were published in The New Yorker. This is especially infuriating given his supposed Wolke Peñas. Throughout his political career, Schneiderman positioned himself as a feminist crusader. He championed the #MeToo movement, and filed a civil rights lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein. He put out pamphlets for victims of domestic violence, and he helped craft an entire choking law. Even though he's now accused of choking his girlfriends. It turns out that law had some fine print. Now Schneiderman was a guest on my show, so this is a little complicated for me to talk about, but just kidding. It's not complicated. [Censored] Eric Schneiderman. Let me say it louder. The good legal work that you did for women does not absolve you. It will not give me one second's pause about tearing you a new [censored] on television. I give zero [censored] I would do an act titled “My Dad is a Monster’ if I had to. I already made all the graphics. He ate the last yogurt; I was mad. Eric Schneiderman, you are trash, and we do not need you. Tarana Burke started the #MeToo movement 11 years ago on MySpace. It will keep moving forward without you just fine.

JD: That was Samantha Bee, from last night's episode of "Full Frontal".

[Music: Hip-hop]

Burpee record

Guest: Elizabeth Llorente

JD: The burpee is about as difficult an exercise as there is. It's remarkable if you can do any of them. It is extraordinary if you can do the most. On the weekend, a personal trainer in Australia set out to achieve that extraordinary feat — to break the world record for most burpees in an hour. Some would say she was successful — surpassing the previous women's record by more than one-hundred burpees. Others aren't convinced. We reached Elizabeth Llorente in Melbourne, Australia.

CO: Elizabeth, why in the world would you even want to attempt this?

ELIZABETH LLORENTE: Well, I’m a bit of a goal person. I like to have you know a goal that's going on the go. And I used to do bodybuilding and body sculpting competitions. And when I finished my last one, I decided that I want to do something a bit more performance-based, and I wanted to do it for charity.

CO: How many burpees did you do?

EL: I did 1,490.

CO: What was going through your mind when you hit 1,000?

EL: To be honest, I wasn't even aware of what number I was the whole time that I was I was doing it. I had my strategy that I needed to stick to. And that was all I was thinking about in between the little voice in my head saying you could just stop now — it’d be fine. And the other voice saying no, don't you dare stop. You’re doing amazing. Keep going!

CO: Those two voices, one of them is sane. You know that, don't you? The one that’s saying you cannot do any more of these, we are going to stop, we're going to have a rest. And the other voice is not sane, but the insane one won.

EL: Absolutely, always.

CO: 1,490 Burpees in one hour. You have a video of yourself doing the burpees. Tell us about the form you use used because this is I understand not a traditional burpee, or some people dispute this is a traditional burpee. Describe what you did?

EL: Yes, there’s some passionate people out there about the technique. What I did was what was the minimum requirement for the Guinness World Record standard that was sent to me when I put in my application. it required my feet starting behind certain line, with the other line being underneath my hips, and my feet jumping to the line in the front, hands and feet leaving the ground. No minimum requirement as far as height for that to happen — they just had to leave the ground. And feet jump back from that position back to the line behind me.

CO: Ok, so you're in crouch position. You thrust your feet back out. You go into plank position. You get back into crouch position. And then what do you do?

EL: Hands and Feet leave the ground.

CO: Ok, so at the same time?

EL: At the same time, yeah.

CO: Okay. So the aficionados of the burpee who say you're supposed to go out to plank, do a push-up, come back into crouch, and not to have your hands and feet up, but to leap up with your hands over your head, and do a leap in the air. And then come back and do it again.

EL: Yes, that's what they're saying.

CO: And so now you can do one of those, I presume?

EL: I can, yes. I definitely can.

CO: Could you do 1,490 of those?

EL: Probably. I would maybe need to increase my pace and train for a little bit longer. But I mean I don't know if I could do that in 60 minutes, but I reckon I could do a few.

CO: Ok. But for the Guinness record, you have done what you needed to do to get certified?

EL: Yes, so when you do an application, they send through all of the rules and regulations of what is required. For anyone that's ever done anything you know over a set period of time, if there is any kind of standard that needs to be met, generally you know you do what you need to do to meet the standard. And for something that's going to go for multiple hours. Me and my coach decided that there was no need to exceed the standard. It was about you know keeping the energy output low per rep, so that I could achieve the maximum number in the hour.

CO: And by how much did you exceed the record of burpees in an hour?

EL: The record that was set previously was 1,321.

CO: That’s for a woman?

EL: Yes, for a women.

CO: Ok, so you went way beyond it.

EL: Yeah, for the moment, yes. I mean the record is still unofficial until I send all my information to Guinness and they get back to me. But yes, that's definitely over and above.

CO: What then do you say to the critics who say you took the easy way out?

EL: I say to them if that's what I think then that's fine. If they would like to you know have a crack at doing it my way, or doing it their way, or doing it another way, then you know I would love to see it. And you know for all of those people that had something to say, if they wanted to you know do some do something positive then they could jump online and they donate even just a dollar, and then we'd have you know probably millions of dollars for MS.

CO: Well, that will tell them. And then say you get down there you burpee aficionado, and you do 1,490 of these things an hour, and then come back and talk to me.

EL: Yeah, absolutely.

CO: Elizabeth, congratulations, and thank you.

EL: Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

EL: Bye.

JD: That was Elizabeth Llorente in Melbourne.

[Music: World music]

CFIA response

JD: This week, "As It Happens" brought you the story of Sunshine — the goat, or "goat-friend" — who had been held under quarantine at a farm in Nipissing. his life in question, for four long years. But, as you heard on Tuesday, Sunshine's quarantine was lifted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Sunshine’s guardian, Sherry Milford, told us she doesn't really know why the CFIA had a change of heart. Well, after that interview went to air, the CFIA contacted us directly. Here's the statement. Quote, "The CFIA would like to clarify that we made a science-based decision to remove Sunshine's quarantine, taking into account the animal's current age and health, the incubation period of scrapie, and the length of time that has passed since Sunshine was exposed to the infection." Unquote. That statement came from Natasha Gauthier at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, regarding Sunshine the recently un-quarantined goat-friend.

[Music: Jaunty show tune]

Trump Peace Prize

JD: So we now have a time and place for the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un: June 12th, in Singapore. But when asked if he felt he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for the talks, the ever-modest Mr. Trump demurred:

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Everyone thinks so, but I would never say that. You know what I want to do? I want to get it finished. The prize I want is victory for the world, not for even here. I want victory for the world because that's what we're talking about. So that's the only prize I want. Everything can be scuttled. A lot of things can happen. A lot of good things can happen. A lot of bad things can happen. I believe that we have both sides want to negotiate a deal. I think it's going to be a very successful deal. I think we have a really good shot at making it successful. But lots of things can happen. And, of course, you'll be the first to know about it if it does. But I think we have a really good chance to make a great deal for the world. Thank you very much.

JD: U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking yesterday about peace negotiations with North Korea. Bookies are putting the odds of Donald Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize at 10 to 1.

May 10, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode