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 2021

The AIH Transcript for January 12, 2021

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Quest for the West. Jim Carr insists today's cabinet shuffle has nothing to do with a spring election, but that doesn't mean the new cabinet minister won't be trying to make some gains in the Liberal wasteland between Ontario and British Columbia.

CH: Truly sickening. A New Jersey congresswoman who tested positive for COVID-19 believes she picked up the virus while sheltering with mask-less colleagues during last week's attack on the U.S. Capitol.

CO: Cold case. A new report finally reveals the truth about the thousands of children who died in Catholic run mother and baby homes in Ireland. But our guest fears she'll never learn the truth about what happened to her long-lost sister.

CH: Threading the needle. As provinces go their separate ways on how many vaccine injections to give and when, the chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunisation weighs in.

CO: Failure to lunch -- part one. The co-owner of a restaurant in England that does what no one else has ever accomplished or tried or even thought of, he sent a samosa to space.

CH: And failure to launch -- part two. Truck drivers leaving the UK for the EU are having their ham sandwiches confiscated because post-Brexit rules mean it's no longer possible for them to take pig products out and pig out. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that guesses its prosciutto first, ask questions later.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Cabinet shuffle: Jim Carr

Cabinet shuffle: Jim Carr

Guest: Jim Carr

CH: A cabinet shuffle is usually a way of strengthening your hand, but Justin Trudeau insists today's developments have nothing to do with the possibility of a spring election. This morning, the prime minister announced that he was moving ministers in and out of key ministries, including both industry and global affairs. He also brought Jim Carr back into cabinet after he finished his cancer treatments. Mr. Carr had been serving as the government's special representative for the prairies, now he'll once again take on the challenge the Liberals face between the borders of Ontario and B.C. as a full fledged minister. We reached Jim Carr in Winnipeg.

CO: Minister Carr, you are returning to the cabinet after you were treated for cancer. May I just ask, how are you doing?

JIM CARR: I'm well, thank you. Because of the wonderful treatment that Cancer Care Manitoba and the Health Sciences Centre and so much love and support from family and friends, I'm back with lots of energy, with a full head of hair, with a reenergized spirit to serve my country.

CO: And the job, the task that it seems Mr. Trudeau would like you to take up is to deal with the prairies, with the West. And if you just take one little look at CBC's poll tracker shows that the Liberals are are doing well, just marginally ahead of Conservatives. But if you flip a switch, you see they're not doing so well when it comes to the prairies. So what is the job that the prime minister has tasked you with?

JC: Well, you have to relate to people and you have to demonstrate that the country is good for them. And the pandemic was an example of citizens being able to directly relate to their national government and small businesses and institutions and community groups. And that doesn't happen all the time. And maybe it took this crisis to get us closer to people in ways that they recognise that their support is coming from their country. And also to realise that politics isn't only meetings amongst leaders. Politics is understanding in communities on the ground, speaking to working men and women, talking to people at universities, talking to producers, farmers, people who are producing wealth that we really have in Prairie Canada. So much of what the world needs and what the world wants. My job is to keep everybody's ears open.

CO: Right. And so this is interesting -- a two way street that you're talking about there, because on the one hand, you are trying to take the party colours into the West and say, yes, we're here for you. But at the same time, how much time do you spend trying to explain to the Liberal cabinet what they don't understand about the West and about Western alienation and the real issues that Western premiers are trying to get the ear of Ottawa to say?

JC: Yeah, well, I think there is more understanding than you might think. I like to think that our party has a pretty good understanding of the importance of federalism and the regional contribution to the very fabric of who we are. And I don't think that I have to persuade my colleagues about the importance of that. I think what I have to do is to translate that into initiatives, programs, policy, understanding and appreciation for some of the special problems facing particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan now.

CO: But we are looking at a tweet just that Jonathan Wilkinson, the environment minister, put out, responding to Scott Moe saying 'New Year, same dishonesty from Conservative politicians' regarding Mr. Moe's remarks about carbon tax. And so does that make your job more difficult when you have to deal with remarks that come out of Ottawa about the West?

JC: You know Carol, it's not been my experience. My experience travelling virtually throughout the prairie for the last 12 months has been a real willingness to appreciate the importance of governments getting along, a fatigue with governments that don't, a sense of unease when hyper partisanship clouds the public discussion. So that hasn't been my experience. And every once in a while when a political leader says something that's objectionable, I think we should object. But in ways that moves beyond that to look at the people we're trying to serve.

CO: Okay, but given what you just said, what would you say to Jonathan Wilkinson about his tone then?

JC: Well, I didn't see it. Jonathan Wilkinson is a very smart and sophisticated thinker and also a lovely guy. So, you know, maybe he got caught in the moment. We all get caught in a moment. What's more important is what we're doing and how the policies of the government of Canada impact the lives of Western Canadians.

CO: How do you explain the Liberal Party's unpopularity in the West?

JC: You know, it's historic. It's been around a long time. I mean, you could talk about the National Energy Program that they still talk about in Alberta. You could talk about comments that have been made by national politicians that depreciate or even denigrate the role of producers in western Canada. But, you know, at the same time, we have won seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We did very badly in the last federal election because the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan thought that we stopped listening or that we were inattentive to what really mattered to them and their lives. And that's the recipe for alienation and the recipe for political doldrums. So my job is to make sure that those of us who live in the rest of the country and who govern from Ottawa have a very good understanding of the tremendous capacity and capability of the prairie.

CO: Do you think the Liberal government, Liberal Party has stopped listening to the West?

JC: Well, it's hard to be on the ground where you don't have any members of parliament. When you lose the direct link with the voter, then you've got to find other ways...

CO: Which comes first, the horse of the cart? I mean, did you lose the popularity, lose the seats because you weren't listening?

JC: Yeah, that's a very good question. So, I mean, if you were to ask a large portion of the populations in Alberta and Saskatchewan, they would say either you stop listening or you didn't listen very well. So we have to listen better. But even more importantly, we have to deliver and we have to deliver in ways that matter and ways in which people can see that this is Canada, this is their country that understands the power of the region and is prepared to be a full partner.

CO: Minister Carr, thank you for your time.

JC: It's my pleasure.

CH: Jim Carr rejoined Justin Trudeau's cabinet today as the government's special representative for the prairies. We reached Minister Carr in Winnipeg.

[Music]

Federal vaccine report

Guest: Caroline Quach-Thanh

CH: Canadians seem to be getting conflicting advice on how many coronavirus shots they should hope for and when the manufacturers recommend two doses given 21 or 28 days apart, depending on which company vaccine you get, provinces like Ontario say they aim to follow that advice. But in Quebec, the government announced it's delaying those second shots in the hopes of getting a single dose into as many priority people as possible fast. So Canada's chief public health officer asked the National Advisory Committee on Immunisation to weigh in. Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh chairs the committee. We reached her in Montreal.

CO: Dr. Quach-Thanh, in your opinion, how long is it safe to wait before delivering the second vaccine dose?

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: So what NACI has said today is that ideally that second dose should be given, you know, preferentially within the 42 days after that first dose.

CO: Six weeks?

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: Six weeks. Exactly.

CO: Pfizer has told CBC that it has no data to support that the first dose is effective after that 21 day. So what are you basing your decision on?

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: Yes, I think for Pfizer and Moderna, I mean that both companies have decided on a schedule that they were going to test out of their phase three trial, so that's the data they have. What NACI has looked at are various elements. So the first one was the efficacy that was found between the first and second dose in both trials. And what we saw there is that after the first 14 days, the efficacy was already higher than 90 percent. Both companies are right to say that we don't know how long that efficacy will last. However, both trials have allowed for their participants to receive their second dose between 21 or 28 days and 42 days. So you already have participants in both trials that have been vaccinated at six weeks. The other elements are based on the previous knowledge we have, which is that when you give a multi-dose vaccine series to adults, the first those usually provides you with good efficacy and protection like on the spot, and that the second dose is really needed for longer term protection and that the more spaced apart they are, the stronger the response for the second dose is in terms of durability, of protection.

CO: But again, what are you basing all this on? Because when you say that we've know this before from vaccines, but this RNA technology has never been tried on humans before.

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: You're right. You're absolutely right. The caveat here is that the MRI technology is different. But we are thinking that because it presents an antigen the same way you would be presenting an antigen with other vaccine technology, that in theory it should act the same. So, you know, we're not saying give that second dose a year and a half later, we're saying we're giving some leeway, because when you look at the current scarcity of vaccine, at the epidemiology of disease both in Ontario and Quebec where we're completely inundated with the community transmission, what we see with mathematical models is that if you're able to protect more people with a vaccine that is decently protective, you're going to have much more gains in terms of prevention, complications, hospitalisations and that than if you were to only vaccinate a smaller proportion of your population because you want to keep that second dose and give it 21 days later. And I think you have to realise that there's a difference between optimal protection for one individual person and optimal protection in terms of public health.

CO: Are you not asking the public to make a pretty big leap of faith here? Because as you point, you say that you've looked at the data that shows that you can give the second dose up to six weeks later, and that's fine. Yet the data that you're looking at is what Pfizer is telling us, they don't have data to support that idea. You also admit that the RNA technology has never been tried on humans before, but maybe we need to do that in order to go beyond just a handful of people getting this right away. I mean there's a lot of vaccine hesitancy already involved with these things. Are you not playing with people's trust?

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: Well, I think, you know, we're completely transparent with what we're doing. I think that what is most important to you is to have surveillance data that will allow us to monitor vaccine effectiveness as we move forward and as we get further and further from that three to four weeks. I think you still have to realise that in both studies, both Pfizer and Moderna, that their participants did get vaccines up to 42, even 49 days, in some cases in the Pfizer trials. So I understand that they don't have data stratified by the second dose was given at 28, 29, 30 days or 42 days. But they are still participants and you know, a few of them that got that dose 42 days later. So if it was good enough for their trial, it's at least some data that we have to get the ball rolling.

CO: Okay, so let's just look at the case of people who have had one shot and were expecting to have another shot. A Montreal doctor we spoke to last week, had her second shot cancelled -- as an individual, she went into that with the anticipation that she was going to have the second shot. And she says now she's being forced to abandon that. Her individual decision was that she was going to have two shots and now she can't have the other one because the Quebec government has decided against it.

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: So that's I think is different because what we're making now as a recommendation is to say moving into, you know, you have to tell people you're getting your first shot, we're expecting to give you your second shot at X or Y or Z or we don't know, depending on the jurisdiction. I think it's different when somebody actually signed a consent to say, I'm getting the two shots at X-days apart. And then at the last minute, without any warning, you're denied your second dose. I think that's a little bit different. What NACI is saying is to say, you know, if you implement a programme in a province, just be clear about what you're doing. I think that in Quebec, things change midway. Not sure exactly how that happened, but it seemed to have changed during the holidays.

CO: And just finally, the federal procurement minister, Anita Anand, told the provinces that using the vaccines, as the companies recommend, that gives her the best chance at delivering those vaccines on time or sooner and getting the vaccines from the companies themselves. So is this decision why it would not make that job harder?

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: We were asked for our opinion on possibly extending that dosing interval. We made that recommendation to the public health agency of Canada, which then brings it up to the government of Canada. And it is we make a recommendation. It doesn't mean that it is a forced decision onto anybody. I don't have anything to do with procurement. I haven't seen the contracts. We are not part of those discussions. We're making our recommendations based on the various elements that we always look at with a goal in mind of trying to reach the objectives of pandemic preparedness in Canada, which is to protect the highest risk individuals and to minimise disruption of society.

CO: Dr. Quach-Thanh, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

CAROLINE QUACH-THANH: Thank you very much.

CH: Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh is the chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunisation. We reached her in Montreal.

[Music]

Space samosa

Guest: Niraj Gadher

CH: Three years ago, Niraj Gadher had a dream -- a dream many of us have had, but dismissed as a fantasy: the dream of sending a samosa into space. But Mr. Gadher, who owns an Indian restaurant in Bath, England, wouldn't accept that his dream was impossible or just weird. And now, after three tries, he has finally succeeded in getting a samosa, as well as a wrap high up into Earth's atmosphere with the help of gigantic helium balloons here from a video on YouTube is the moment his precious cargo lifted off.

NIRAJ GADHER: [Music plays] We wrapped it. We zip-tied it. That is on. My heart is beating, thump, thump, thump. Are we ready? I don't know if we're going to see you again, come on kiddo. Three, two, one! Are we doing that? Let's do it. I believe in it.

CH: The sound of Niraj Gadher releasing a samosa and a wrap attached to two helium balloons into the sky. We reached Mr. Gadher in Bath, England.

CO: Niraj, just take us back and tell us when you first had this idea.

NIRAJ GADHER: Three years ago. I was just in the shop and I just said I will launch a wrap into space. And then, yeah, you know, those things that you say you're going to do, then you just have to do them. [Laughter]

CO: What led you to suddenly say you're going to send a wrap into space?

NG: I don't know. I'm just one of these guys who just likes doing stuff.

CO: Do you know anybody else who has sent anything into space?

NG: No, but I saw a guy send something -- a baguette into space on YouTube, so I thought if he can do it.

CO: Okay, so what did people tell you or say to you when you told them you had a plan to send this samosa into space?

NG: He no one believed me. Can you believe it?

CO: Well, you know, I can't imagine why no one would believe you. You seem very determined.

NG: Yeah. And it was very clear.

CO: And what did you tell them you were going to do? Because in some places it says samosa and others it's a wrap. What did you decide that you were going to actually send into space?

NG: Both. Did you see the picture?

CO: Did you get anybody to help you? Just tell us a bit about how you went about doing this.

NG: So I just messaged this guy on eBay who sells weather balloons. And I said to him, this is what I want to do. And he was like, really -- he was a big scientist guy. And he was just like, this is the weirdest thing anyone's ever messaged me. And then he just, like, entertained the idea. And he told me what to get. And we've had a working relationship. Yeah. Then I just kind of guessed my way there.

CO: How did you decide what kind of samosa and wrap you would send into space?

NG: Our best seller, obviously.

CO: All right. Well, Chai Walla -- what are your best sellers?

NG: The samosa and the wrap. The bhaji wrap.

CO: Okay, vegetarian or with meat?

NG: Yeah, it's all vegan. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're all plant based.

CO: Okay, so you got into this arrangement with this man to give you the helium balloons. And then what happened then.

NG: Yeah, I got the balloons and then I was like "I've got to do this." So I just made the spaceship and then yeah -- I think the video is basically what I did. I just kind of jumbled my way through it and my friends, they were like, yeah, let's film this.

CO: We'll direct people to the video at the end so they can watch.

NG: Thank you. There's swearing in it just so they know.

CO: [Laughs] Okay. But now just so people can just hear about it, though, just say how you went about doing it.

NG: So I made a little spaceship out of polystyrene box and then I got the tracker, then we got a GoPro. And then I realised they're not going to last that long, got extra batteries, got a parachute as well, because you want the spaceship to land slowly, right? And then, yeah, it landed in France.

CO: But now, some things did go wrong. Do you want to tell us about that?

NG: Yes. I let go of the first balloons and they just kind of flew off. In the second launch, yeah, I made another blunder and then people around me heard how I messed it up. And one guy said to me, oh, obviously like, what do you know? Like, why would you be able to do that? But that made me even more determined. I think the moral of the story to everyone is don't listen to anyone -- live your dreams, don't give up.

CO: Right. And so you were successful in launching the samosa into space?

NG: Pretty much. Pretty high up.

CO: And how satisfying was that for you and your dreams?

NG: Yeah, pretty, pretty good.

CO: What happened to the samosa?

NG: I think a fox had it.

CO: [Laughter] But you had a tracking device on it. Where did it go?

NG: France.

CO: How do you know that? Tell us how you know where it landed.

NG: Well, the GPS tracker gave us exact coordinates and then I messaged loads of people online and this one guy went and got it and it was all there, except the samosa. Something got it.

CO: But there was a GoPro. So were they able to see what happened?

NG: No, because the GoPro ran out like halfway through the journey because France is like -- it must have taken it five, six hours and after four hours where you see it is yeah.

CO: And tell us about the phone call you got telling that they'd found it.

NG: Yeah. Yeah, I was sleeping and he sent me a video of him finding it and I was just like, yes. The journey is almost finished, but obviously I didn't know how much of the footage we had, but we had quite a bit.

CO: What did you see on the footage?

NG: The wrap really really high up -- the wrap and samosa really high up.

CO: And so both the wrap and the samosa you feel were eaten by foxes?

NG: I think so.

CO: Why foxes? Why do you think that's probably the answer?

NG: Because the guys who went to find it, they said, unfortunately I do not agree with this, but they were like, it was their hunting day. So this area was full of like foxes.

CO: What are your customers saying about all of this?

NG: They love it. They're just happy that Bath is now on the map.

CO: Niraj your samosas sound great. And this story is hilarious. And thanks for speaking with us.

NG: Thank you. I wish I could send you a samosa to try.

CO: I wish you could too. [Laughter] We'll have to go to Bath. Thanks a lot.

NG: Yeah, do come. You're welcome.

CO: Thank you. Bye.

NG: Bye Bye.

CH: We reached Niraj Gadher in Bath, England.

[Music]

Ham sandwich

CH: If you're a British truck driver who spoke out in support of Brexit, you might be eating your words right now. You may even be eating crow or humble pie. Just don't try to take either of those dishes over the EU border. In mid-December, the British government issued a low key warning to truckers about travelling with sandwiches in the post-Brexit era. From 1 January 2021, it said you will not be able to bring potato products of an animal origin, such as those containing meat or dairy, e.g. a ham and cheese sandwich into the EU. That's because the EU has strict regulations about foreign meat and dairy products, which could spread pathogens. It was food for thought, but I guess some truck drivers leaving the UK had too much on their plates to pay attention because now they're losing their lunches. Here's a clip from a recent broadcast on Dutch television in which Dutch border officials go through one truck drivers supplies.

VOICE 1: Do you have meat on all the bread or not?

VOICE 2: Yeah.

VOICE 1: Yeah. Okay, then we take them all.

VOICE 2: I'm sorry. Can I take off the meat and leave me the bread?

VOICE 1: No, everything will be confiscated. Welcome to the Brexit sir. I'm sorry.

VOICE 2: Oh my God.

CH: Dutch border officials confiscating a British truck driver's ham sandwiches. Because the Netherlands is part of the Schengen area, some anti-Brexit Twitter users have given the incident the hashtag "Schengenfreude," which is clever but not very sympathetic to people who just want a nice sandwich while they're doing their jobs. Unfortunately, the rules may be ham fisted, but they mean truck drivers can't be.

[Music]

Part 2: N.J. congresswoman gets COVID-19 after sheltering with maskless colleagues during U.S. Capitol siege

New Jersey Congresswoman

Guest: Bonnie Watson Coleman

CH: Last Wednesday, Bonnie Watson Coleman sheltered from violent rioters on Capitol Hill. Now she's sheltering at home with COVID-19. On Monday, the New Jersey congresswoman announced she'd tested positive. She decided to get tested after being put in protective isolation with several colleagues who refused to wear masks. On Wednesday night, we spoke with Congresswoman Watson Coleman hours after the pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol.

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I was actually walking down the hall when I saw a cluster of Capitol Police and some people who were pushing through. There was a disruption there. And I was directed down another hall and I went into an office and we locked down. And that's when we heard all the commotion outside.

CO: Can you describe that?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: It was loud. The only thing discernible was "USA, USA, USA." Other than that, it was just, you know, the clamour of a riot.

CO: And could you look out the window? Could you see what was going on outside?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: We had the television on. We could see some of the things that were outside, but the doors that were locked did not have any windows where.

CO: How many people were with you?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Five of us.

CO: Were you scared?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Well, I knew it would be very difficult to get through those two doors that we were behind, but I was unsettled because, I mean, it was startling. This doesn't happen in United States of America, we are a democracy, you know, we're a nation of reason and debate and discourse and disagreement, but not this kind of domestic terrorism that was exemplified today and the behaviour of the people that came here.

CH: That was Bonnie Watson Coleman speaking with us last Wednesday night. We reached Representative Watson Coleman again today in Ewing, New Jersey.

CO: Representative Watson Coleman, how are you feeling today?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: You know, I'm feeling pretty good. I've got cold symptoms, but nothing more serious than that.

CO: What sort of treatment are you getting?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I received an infusion of the monoclonal antibody. On the 29th of December, I had my first vaccine shot. I am supposed to get the second one sometime next week. And I'm on an antibiotic, and every supplement that every doctor who talked to me told me to get from A to Z and everything in between.

CO: But you have had a positive test result, is that right?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Yes. Yeah.

CO: We just heard a bit of your description of what you went through Wednesday. And it's just astonishing how calm you were, as you described all of that. But you described where you went. You were in a lockdown, five people. It was really quite scary. When was it that you realised that you were with people who were not wearing masks?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Well, that was when Capitol Police -- somebody came to the door and bang on the door and told us to move to a secure location. We asked them to show us their badge before we had opened the door. And then they took us to the holding room where I found that there were more than 100 members and staffers and folks in one of the hearing rooms. And there were a lot of Capitol police around the room. That's where people were refusing to wear their mask.

CO: And do you think that's where you contracted it?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I was working from home from March until going down to D.C. I went and got sworn in. I never was really in a mass of people until that day. And I never was around people who didn't have their mask until that day. So I deduce that that's somehow how I got infected in that room.

CO: And how closely confined were you with the others in that room?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Well, there was no safe distance thing. It was pretty crowded in there.

CO: And how many people were not wearing masks, if you recall? What percentage?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I don't think it was a large percentage, but it was members who had their buttons on -- I could tell they were members who didn't have their mask. There were other people around them who didn't have masks on. And one of my colleagues was trying to pass out masks to people who weren't wearing them and they were declining them.

CO: So they could have taken a mask at that point, but they didn't want to -- they said no?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Yeah, yeah. It was just their arrogant defiance coupled with their stupidity.

CO: Did you say anything to them about that?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I spoke to one young woman who took her mask down in proximity to me and told her to put your mask back on. You know, I wasn't face to face with the other ones. I could shout it across the room, but other people were trying to take care of it like Lisa.

CO: I'm sure you had a lot on your mind at that point. All of you did, because this was a life threatening situation that you were in or you believed to be. In the midst of all that, how much consideration did you give to the fact that you were now surrounded -- you had these people amongst you who would not wear a mask?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Well, I was very concerned about that. I mean, they were supposedly protecting us from the insurgency, which was taking place. And then I was put in a situation that was unsafe because of the pandemic. And so it was sort of a double whammy day. I have to tell you that I was more concerned at that moment that I was in a room with so many people and with some people not being masked.

CO: There were at least six House Republicans filmed refusing to wear masks. We've heard that at least three Democratic lawmakers have tested positive while being in lockdown during that siege. And so has anyone since spoken to any of those Republicans and asked them what they thought they were doing?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I don't know that either. I would suspect that they've had some encounters.

CO: What would you say to them if you had a chance?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: That your right to not wear a mask does not supersede my right to be safe. And that what you did was arrogant, ignorant and defiant. And there are consequences that you should pay.

CO: You sound like you got a bit of a sniffle there. Are you concerned?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I've had this the last couple of days. Scratchy throat, coughing, nose has stocked up. But so far, that's all that I have. And I'm grateful that that's all that I have.

CO: And then, of course, the symptoms take some time to reveal themselves. So you must be very worried.

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: I'm more prayerful than worried. [Chuckles] I know things have been day by day, and I know that this virus affects people differently. I am very fortunate that I've got people all over the country praying for me and I certainly am in prayer and I'm relatively healthy, even though I have pre-existing conditions. I have had my first shot, my first vaccine shot. And I did have the monoclonal antibodies. I was told by one of the doctors that talked to me, that's probably going to save your life. So I am grateful to God that I was able to access those resources.

CO: Just finally, the one Republican lawmaker, I'm sure you've heard of her, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who refused to wear a mask, refuses to wear a mask, and said on Twitter that before you point fingers at me or anyone else, you need to talk directly to Nancy Pelosi about exposing all of us to COVID when she called back positive COVID House members for the vote on Wednesday night. What do you say to Ms. Taylor Greene?

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: First of all, I don't know anything about the Speaker calling back any COVID positive members back. As a matter of fact, she was very clear to people, you know, you must be safe, you must feel safe. Secondly, I think they just say these things as an excuse for what she's doing, which is absolutely flat wrong. And certainly I think that any member that doesn't wear a mask should not be allowed on the floor and should not be allowed in their committee and their committee meetings. This is very serious. This is not political. And the political games that they're playing by being sycophants is dangerous to the safety and security of not only the members, not only the staffers, but just general citizens -- when those people come back home, their constituents ought not want to be around them.

CO: Representative Watson Coleman, I know you have to go on to some business, and so we're going to leave it there and I appreciate speaking with you again. Thank you.

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN: Thank you for reaching out to me. Have a good day.

CH: Bonnie Watson Coleman is a Democratic New Jersey congresswoman. We reached her in Ewing, New Jersey. And you can find more on this story on our webpage: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Ireland homes report

Guest: Annette McKay

CH: It's no longer a secret that unwed Irish mothers and their babies housed at homes run by the Catholic Church, suffered abuse and trauma. But now the Irish government has finally accounted for the thousands of children who died. Today, a long awaited report into 18 mother and baby homes was made public. It found that around 9000 children, one in every seven, died in the homes. Tomorrow, the prime minister is expected to make a formal apology. Annette McKay's mother, Maggie O'Connor, gave birth to a baby girl at a home in Choom County Galway in the 1940s, where an unmarked mass graveyard was later discovered. We reached Ms. McKay in Barrie, England.

CO: Annette what does this say to you that so many children died at these homes?

ANNETTE MCKAY: It tells its own tale, doesn't it, really, Carol? If you look at the the death certificates and the reasons given for the deaths in the two mother and baby home on its own, never mind the the 9000 time after time after time, the deaths are given wholly preventable diseases -- whooping cough. Oh, God. It's just a litany of neglect.

CO: This report from the government into the deaths -- this report runs to thousands of pages. It describes the tens of thousands of mothers who went through those homes and, of course, the 9000 children who died. And there's an apology expected from the government tomorrow. How satisfying is that for you?

AM: It's the most appalling thing. The report itself is a complete whitewash drivel. And then this idea that we've had to wait five years, delay after delay to this report, and tomorrow we'll do the final tidying up and we'll issue an apology -- there is nothing in that report that recognises the monstrous injustice of women being incarcerated, the abuses, the trafficking, the selling of the children, the deaths of the children. I have no idea how an apology even comes into that picture. In the months that my sister died, 11 babies died of whooping cough with no investigation, no outside scrutiny. The nuns just literally buried the evidence.

CO: When you refer to your sister, you're referring to the baby girl that your mother, Maggie O'Connor, gave birth to at one of these homes. Your mother didn't live to see this report. She died several years ago. What do you think she would make of this response from the Irish government?

AM: I think my mother would have been able in her best times to stand up and absolutely scorched them with shame because she could tell her own story better than anybody because she lived it. And the day she told me about it and she didn't tell me so she was 70 about the birth and the death of Mary Margaret, how anybody could listen to what had happened to a 17 year old girl who was then thrown out on the road when she was told the child of your son is dead at 18 and the baby died at six months and not listen to my old mother tell the story of when she was taken from when she was 12 and charged to the courts, in an open court, with the crime of being destitute and placed in an industrial school. And again, tortured, abused, no schooling, put to work in the kitchens. My mother to stand there and tell her own story should have scorched them with shame. And there's thousands of those women who would tell the same story.

CO: Horrible story of how much your mother suffered and you told us last time we spoke. But can you just remind us how it is that she ended up pregnant and in his home?

AM: So when she was 17, she was raped by the caretaker. And she was just taken directly from the industrial school, and placed into Choom. My mother's only memories of these places are of abuse, beatings, starvation, humiliation, cold, wet, hungry.

CO: And then she, in addition to all of that she suffered -- the child, Mary, your sister, she's told by the nuns that Mary died. Was she ever given any proof? Was there was a grave she could go to? Is there anything that could help her like that?

AM: She was taken away when she gave birth to Mary Margaret. And she remembers very vividly, Peggy and the nuns walking out and the nun tapping her on the shoulder and said, the child of your sin is dead. Get out.

CO: The child of your sin is dead.

AM: Yeah.

CO: We talked to a local historian a few years ago. She's the one, Catherine Corless, who discovered the remains of infants and children buried underground in what appeared to have been a septic tank at that home in Choom. Is it at all possible that your sister's remains are amongst those?

AM: Yeah, yeah, it's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that Mary Margaret is a 70 year old woman who lives in Canada, lives in America, she's got a family, she's maybe listening to the radio today and thinks that's a terrible tale, has no idea that she was one of those children or she might be in that sewage pit in Choom. And they fought and fought and fought against us. You know, we've asked and asked and asked for exhumation and DNA and identification. We went to a meeting with the minister two years ago where she made a promise -- yes, that's what I am recommending. And today, all the talk about is in 2022, we will have a respectful reburial. No identification, no DNA retrieval. We'll just have a reburial.

CO: Do you have any hope or expectation that you will find out one day what happened to your sister?

AM: Oh, I used to. I used to think that, you know, in a country that's so respectful towards the dead that it would be an obscenity to have a place where children have been described as pushed into a sewage pit. And here we are five years later, and the children are still in that pit. So I'm afraid my optimism and my hope is becoming extinguished.

CO: Annette I'm sorry for all you're going through. And I'm especially sorry for what your mother suffered. And once again, I appreciate that you'd speak with us. Thank you.

AM: No problem. Thanks Carol.

CH: Annette McKay's mother had a baby girl in 1942 at a home for unwed mothers in Ireland. Ms. McKay was in Barrie, England. One of the best known stories from the church run homes is that of Philomena Lee. Her search for her son, who was given away for adoption without her consent, was told in the 2013 movie Philomena, starring Judi Dench. In February 2014, Ms. Lee spoke with Carol about having her son taken from her. Here's part of their conversation.

PHILOMENA LEE: Well, actually, after eight weeks after you've breastfed your baby, we were in the hospital part of it, and sent over to the main building where all the other girls were. And we were all given different jobs. I mean, you've got the garden, the kitchens. But I got the laundry for three and a half years, so it was very hard day in and day out. We finished at four o'clock. And then at four o'clock you were allowed to, for an hour, to see your baby and talk to them and what have you. So a lot of it I've tried to fend for my existence.

CO: And then Christmas 1955, you say it was a Sunday evening. Can you remember what it was like watching your son being bundled into the car and taken away?

PHILOMENA LEE: It was most awful. I didn't know at the time because his adoption wasn't the norm. The lady that adopted him -- he was a doctor and his wife were from Missouri. She came to take a little girl out. She didn't want a little boy because she's already had three boys of her own. So she came and she picked this little girl out. But every time they came to look at Mary and she was with her, he was always looking after her, you know. And then when they finally came to take them away, my mother one day, he went up to the mother -- the last time she came gave him a kiss and she said, I can't leave him here. I just can't leave him there. So she rang her husband in Missouri and he said, oh, bring him along as well. So that's why he went off quickly in the end, I just saw the end of him going off in the car and this nice nun that was in the convent, she rang me up the stairs and all I could see was that his face peering out of the back of the window. And that was the last I ever saw of him.

CO: You remember that moment clearly. Can you see that image?

PHILOMENA LEE: I have never forgotten that moment in my whole life. And I don't suppose I ever will. Knowing my life and I kept the secret -- I see that little face sticking out the back of the car, you know, it's just just incredibly -- really so sad. You know I have since shed a few tears really. But anyway, as I say, he went to a very good home. I have to say that he went to go home and he was highly educated and ended up quite a powerful man in the White House.

CO: But you didn't know that, did you? You didn't know anything about him?

PHILOMENA LEE: I never knew any of this till ten years ago when Martin took on the story that he worked in the White House. We only found this out because Martin used to work for the BBC and he was a journalist in the White House for the BBC. And my daughter tried for a long long time to try and find him before -- but my daughter did find him from the headstone that was in the grave where he was -- years before we knew he was buried there.

CO: And you also didn't know that he was looking for you.

PHILOMENA LEE: No, I didn't. No way, no ways did I know. He actually died, they told him that I had abandoned him at two weeks old. Now, I raised him for the three and a half years and worked in the laundry day, you know what I mean? So I did not abandon them. But they told me, he went to look for me I think there's about three times you went over and they said I had abandoned at two weeks.

CO: But he obviously didn't believe that because he went looking for you. He had a memory of those years, didn't he?

PHILOMENA LEE: I never knew any of this before the book came out, before Americans found out. I mean, my daughter had found his headstone and we had found that he had died before [inaudible] did, because Jane tried everything and everywhere. And then there was one nun, the last nun she could resort to. And she rang this nun up. And I was with her that morning and she said we were enquiring about a man, Anthony Lee -- have you got any information about him? And then she said, have you got somebody there -- she said that we've got some information. I said, Oh my goodness, I found him at last. I thought, you know, we got information, we found him. But I'm very sorry to tell you, she said. I tell you, it was like losing him twice over, you know, and then the second time I really was so shocked. Anyway, she said but there is a plaque of his in where he was born. And I thought the plaque was just a picture. So we had to back up to the grave, my daughter and I. And it wasn't the picture at all. It was the headstone at the graveHe had been buried there nine years before I even knew it.

CH: That was Philomena Lee, whose story was told in the Oscar nominated film Philomena, speaking with Carol in 2014.

[Music]

Edith Russell

CH: One of Canada's most notorious serial killers is up for parole tomorrow. 72 year old Allan Legere has been behind bars for more than 30 years. In 1989, he terrorised the province of New Brunswick after escaping from prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder. He spent several months on the run during which time he murdered four people and assaulted a fifth. Two of his victims were sisters. Edith Russell was their neighbour. In October of 1989, with Allan Legere still at large, Ms. Russell spoke with former As It Happens host Michael Enright about the fear in her community.

EDITH RUSSELL: Everybody talks about it, everybody you meet to see or hear anyone on the phone, everybody talks about it.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: What are you doing to keep yourself safe?

EDITH RUSSELL: Well, having extra protection -- you know, good doors, making sure they are fastened up so nobody can get in on you and fix in your basement windows so no one can get in that way.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Are people actually buying locks for their doors? New locks?

EDITH RUSSELL: Oh yes. The people across the road -- the police, the other day, told them they had to have new locks for their doors, they weren't secured enough.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Did you know the women who were murdered?

EDITH RUSSELL: Very well. Very, very, very well. Very close.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Can you tell us what happened, what you know about what happened?

EDITH RUSSELL: The only thing is the first thing I knew of it was Saturday morning when the fire trucks passed up at my door here, the fire trucks and the police and everything. And I looked out to see where they were going and that's where they stopped. It was at the girls place. And then they had to put a ladder up and went through their bedroom window like and then the black smoke came rushing out, you know.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Had they ever talked about their concerns for their safety?

EDITH RUSSELL: Well, never, never thought of anything like that, really. They were secure. They had heavy doors and, you know, kept them locked all the time. And they were really careful.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: And you lived down the street from them?

EDITH RUSSELL: Yes.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Do you live alone, Mrs. Russell?

EDITH RUSSELL: No, with my son.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: And you and he talk about securing the house and being safe?

EDITH RUSSELL: Oh, yeah. Well, he just found me because I had the backdoor -- the outside backdoor wasn’t locked. And he said, no, you're going to wait till somebody breaks in and then hides in the basement or something.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: That's right. Have the police talked to you about...

EDITH RUSSELL: Oh, yes. The police has spoken to everybody around here.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: What have they said to you?

EDITH RUSSELL: Well, they just asked us, if we knew the girls and the usual things like, you know, how nervous we are, do we have good locks and everything put on the house. So like we have.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Do you think they're doing a good job in trying to solve this?

EDITH RUSSELL: Well, they're doing a good job on this case for sure.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: We're talking about Allan Legere.

EDITH RUSSELL: Right. When they had them so close before and they didn't get them, it was some slip up somewhere, you know, but now this time they're given a soil. They had the search and rescue here yesterday. They just swarmed with them, you know, searching every little bit and everything.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Now, when he escaped last spring, I guess it was, people were nervous immediately. I mean, they were quite worried. What was it like during the summer? I mean, it's been a long time since he got away.

EDITH RUSSELL: It sort of died off, but people all made sure their doors and everything was all locked like, you know. And of course, the gossip sort of died down like, you know, till these other things happened here with the beatings.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Are you afraid of going out at night?

EDITH RUSSELL: I have got a sharp ear, I can hear any move. Like now some people -- the furnace clicking on is a jump -- the nerves are kicking in. But no, I'm not nervous that way --no.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: But you're still going to lock your door at night.

EDITH RUSSELL: Oh yes. Yes. I lock now. I didn't lock but I will now.

CH: Edith Russell was a neighbour of two of Allan Legere's victims. She spoke with Michael Enright on this program in October 1989. Tomorrow will be Allan Legere's first parole hearing. Those close to the case feel it's unlikely he'll be granted parole.

[Music]

Part 3: Cargill RCMP investigation

Cargill RCMP investigation

Guest: Ariana Quesada & Michael Hughes

CH: Before COVID-19 was everywhere, it was in certain places more than others. And for weeks one of those places was a meat processing plant in Alberta. Last spring, the Cargill facility near High River was the site of North America's single largest coronavirus outbreak. And now the family of one victim says it's time for the company to face criminal consequences. Ariana Quesada is the 16 year old daughter of Benito Quesada, a Cargill worker who died of COVID-19 in May. On Friday, she walked into the local RCMP office to file a criminal complaint against his employer. Now the Force says it's investigating. We reached Ms. Quesada in High River.

CO: Ariana, I want to start with you, what made you and your family decide to file this criminal complaint against Cargill?

ARIANA QUESADA: Cargill from the beginning prioritised profit over the workers' lives, and that led to my dad passing away. We believe that they could have done so much more for them to protect them and their families. And so it's very important for my family to make it known that we haven't forgotten what they did to us. We live with the consequences every day while they don't.

CO: Your father, Benito, he was supporting the four kids in your family, plus his wife. Can you tell us a bit about Benito? Tell us a bit about your dad.

AQ: My dad was an extremely selfless person. He was very attentive and very understanding of us. He never pressured us to do anything. And even when he was very tired, he would still ask about our days, he was very caring and just a friend, besides being a dad, he was a friend to us all, and he was a very good dad.

CO: What did he tell you before he became ill last April? What did he tell you about why he continued to go to the meat processing plant as the COVID case started to grow?

AQ: As the case started to go, they general managers and the supervisors kept telling the workers that there was a 500 dollar bonus, but for that bonus to be given to them, they had to go to work every single day. They could not miss a day. And so that was my dad's motivation and the sole reason why he kept going because bills needed to be paid and that was the only way they were going to be paid -- even though he was already working overtime and working Saturdays and only sleeping a couple hours a day, that 500 dollar bonus was also going to help.

CO: This is in the complaint that you have filed with the RCMP that the promise of the 500 dollar bonus was a big incentive, also that workers faced unpaid temporary layoffs if they didn't report for work because they feared the virus, and that medical personnel cleared workers for duty despite positive COVID-19 tests or symptoms. That's something the CBC also found in its investigation. What does it mean for you to walk into the RCMP office to go there and to file the complaint listing these things that happened to your dad?

AQ: It meant a lot to us because he risked his life for us, so us going to file that complaint, it was finally bringing justice to him, because all these months have passed by and nothing from Cargill. They have seemed to forgotten that he existed and that's not okay. They are responsible for his death -- that's what we believe, what we as a family think and so are stepping in there, it was to make it known that my dad is still with us, maybe not physically, but we remember him every day and so should they.

CO: Just to remind people that there were 950 employee cases that ended up being confirmed at the plant. Your father's death was one of three deaths related to that Cargill plant. And I want to bring in Michael Hughes, who is a spokesperson for the union there. And just ask you, Michael, of the claims in this complaint, what constitutes criminal behaviour, in your view?

MICHAEL HUGHES: Right. Well, I mean, we helped the Quesada family brings a complaint to the RCMP and as far as we're concerned, you know, there are laws in Canada that govern workplace health and safety and labour laws and there's also criminal law. And as far as workplace health and safety goes, you know, Cargill, the plant in High River, was the largest single workplace related outbreak in North America. And so the cumulative effect of the many things that are, you know, cited in the complaint are that there may be some need for the RCMP to investigate as a criminal matter, whether enough was reasonably done to ensure the health and safety of the employees and specifically the health, the safety of Benito Quesada.

CO: And we should point out that the RCMP has opened an investigation into Benito Quesada's death at this point based on that complaint. But none of these claims against Cargill have been tested in court. And I'm just wondering, just in general, the union must have had great concerns about what was happening since within this complaint as well they cite the lack of proper protective equipment and lack of physical distance. What concerns did the union have at the time?

MH: Oh, yeah, we had many concerns and we raised them frequently. And in early April, we called for the plant to be shut down for a period of 14 days, for employees to be given financial security and pay for that period of time so that they could self isolate. But another really important part of our demand at that time was that there be an independent investigation carried out that took into consideration the feelings and the fears of the workers themselves. So we felt that, you know, workers were not being hurt in the way that they should have been. You know, we felt that that necessitated a reset. And for us to, you know, try to work with the company, frankly, to come up with a reasonable solution that would ensure that everyone felt safe going to work. And that's clearly something that wasn't happening and didn't happen in the spring, which led to the shutdown. And it was an inevitable thing when people were too afraid to show up to work.

CO: Ariana, I just want to go back to you. There is also, you know, a proposed class action lawsuit against Cargill for what happened. So why was it important for you and your family to pursue the possibility of criminal charges?

AQ: We do not care for money, although we may be in need of it -- no money will be able to bring back my dad. Filing the criminal complaint, it will never affect them because they aren't suffering this loss, we are. But this way, my dad's name will be associated with their company for a very long time. And that's what I want. I want Cargill to always be associated with my dad's death because they were the cause of it.

CO: Ariana just finally, is there a special memory that you cherish about your father? You're 16 years old, you've now gone through eight months without him. Is there some way that you remember him that you'd be willing to share with us?

AQ: [Chokes up] When my grandpa passed away a couple of years ago, my dad was the one to tell me and he immediately comforted me. It's a memory that I treasure because he missed work for a couple of minutes to be there with me and make sure that I was okay. And I strongly value it because that's the type of person he was. He always put us first, even until the end. And it spoke a lot about who he was as a dad and as a person in general who always loved his kids and always made sure that they were okay, even if he wasn't.

CO: Ariana I'm really sorry for the loss of your dad. And you sound like a very strong and determined young woman, and I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

AQ: Thank you.

CO: And thank you, Michael.

MH: Thank you.

CH: Ariana Quesada is the six year old daughter of Benito Quesada, a cargo worker in High River, Alberta, who died of COVID-19 in May. Michael Hughes is a spokesperson for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, he's been working with the Quesada family to file a criminal complaint against Cargill. When we reached out to Cargill, a spokesperson said they had yet to see that complaint and cannot comment on it or other litigation, including a proposed class action suit. However, the company says, we are deeply saddened by the loss of life and our hearts are broken for this family. Cargill also said it has worked closely with Alberta Health Services since the pandemic began to implement a plan that "meets or exceeds the government's health and safety standard."

[Music]

Update: Lisa Montgomery

CH: Lisa Montgomery was scheduled to die today, but a court has put a stop to the execution of the only female inmate on federal death row in the United States. We told you about Ms. Montgomery last week. She's one of several prisoners slated to be put to death before U.S. President Donald Trump leaves office. In 2004, she committed the grisly murder of a pregnant woman. As her lawyer told Carol she severely mentally ill due to childhood sexual abuse. Last night, a judge granted a stay of her execution while the court determines whether she is competent, able to understand the basis for the execution. Here's lawyer Sandra Babcock speaking with Carol last week.

SANDRA BABCOCK: We have found 16 other cases in the United States where women have committed almost identical crimes. And in not a single one of those cases are the women facing execution. They have all been sentenced to two lesser sentences where their cases have gone to trial, mostly because prosecutors recognise that these are crimes that are the product of mental illness. Lisa's crime is a terrible crime that resulted in a terrible tragedy, but it is inextricably linked for the torture and trauma that she herself experienced and the mental illness that resulted.

CO: How is she responding to this news of her pending execution date?

SANDRA BABCOCK: Well, Lisa is someone whose grip on reality is very fragile. Her mental illness, I should say her mental illnesses, because she has complex post-traumatic stress disorder. She has bipolar disorder. She was psychotic at the time of her arrest. And the symptoms of her mental illness are only controlled through a complex regimen of antipsychotic medications. So she is having a very, very, very difficult time right now and it is only going to get worse.

CH: That was lawyer Sandra Babcock speaking with Carol last week about the scheduled execution of Lisa Montgomery. A US court has now granted a stay.

[Music]

Robot empathy study

Guest: Hod Lipson

CH: Robots are great for certain things: building cars, vacuuming our homes, secretly plotting to rise up and take over the world. But they're not so great as something we humans take for granted the ability to understand and respond to social cues. When it comes to non-verbal communication, we will always be superior to our high-tech counterparts. Nope, just lost our superiority. Researchers at Columbia University have been able to teach a robot to see from another robot's perspective and to predict what that other robot would do with stunning accuracy. In a nutshell, the robot learnt, albeit at a very basic level, to empathise. Hod Lipson is a co-author of the study. We reached Mr. Lipson in New York City.

CO: Hod, first of all, why does it matter if robots see things from another point of view?

HOD LIPSON: Well, I think it's important for everybody to see everybody else's point of view for various reasons, but especially when it comes to interaction between humans and other humans, humans and robots, robots and other robots is very important for the social dynamics to unfold that we can understand, we can have intuition about what other people and other robots are doing around us. And we take this for granted with people and social behaviour. But it's time that robots learn the skill as well.

CO: And so what do you think you've been able to teach robots about understanding someone else's point of view?

HL: Yeah, so what we did basically is to put two robots into a sort of a playpen that's about a square metre in area. And we programmed one robot to do a very simple task. All it did is chase around these little circles that we projected into the playpen. But there's a catch, sometimes we would put a large red box somewhere in the playpen so that the robot couldn't see where the green dot was. So it was sort of in that case, you wouldn't know where to go. It would go to a different green circle. So it was a very simple kind of behaviour. But then we put in another robot and that robot with its camera was able to observe the first robot. And we asked the observing robot to tell us, where do you think that the robot will go? And after observing the first robot pottering around for about two hours, the observing robot was able to predict fairly accurately with almost 98 percent accuracy where the other robot is going to go. And we know that in order to do that, it must have been able to understand in some way what the other robot was able to see whether it was able to see the green circle or not, and whether from the other robot's point of view, was the line of sight occluded or not. So it was able to see the world from the other robot's perspective in order to make that prediction.

CO: And does that go as far as claiming that the robot had some form of empathy?

HL: It's the beginning of being able to see the world from another point of view. And it's a far cry from anything nearly as complex as the way humans think, of course, and even other primates. But we believe there's a couple of interesting things here. One, the fact that the robot was able to do this at all and do so accurately. But the second is that this was all done purely from camera, from raw video footage. So we didn't tell the robot what to look for. We didn't tell it all the story about the green light or the box and all the things I just explained to you. We did not tell the robot any of that. All we did is we showed it raw video. I mean, the robot watched it with its own eyes and then it was able to predict where the other robot is going to go. So we were kind of surprised that this can happen with pure visual observation, without any sort of clueing in the robot, then what to look for.

CO: Right. Because it's a long stretch from just anticipating the movement of the other robot and having that kind of reflex to being where as social animals as humans are, you actually care about what the other robot is up to.

HL: Right. It's definitely not at the level of caring in sort of an emotional way. But I would say that a lot of social interaction involves this subtle intuition about getting out of the way and helping somebody open the door because they seem to be struggling. Even if you look at driverless cars, for example, one of the biggest challenges or one challenge that the driverless cars have right now is understanding subtle cues about human behaviours, for example if a human is standing on the curb, are they going to cross the road or not? Should we slow down or not? That's a very subtle thing that humans are very good at reading other people, but driverless cars have a hard time making that decision. And so these subtle cues, although they're not, you know, deeply emotional, actually play out in daily lives all the time. And it makes the difference between smooth social interaction and awkward social interaction. I think it's going to be important for robots to be able to learn the skills.

CO: We have done interviews on the driverless cars, but also on military applications for robots and the desire in some quarters that there should be robots that have no empathy, that they can surpass that human instinct to not want to kill another and so that they become better military machines. And so there's the issue as to whether or not empathy can be taught robots, but also that some cases they don't want to do. Is that not the case?

HL: Robots by default have no empathy. I mean, the machines that we built today, most industrial robots you have out there have no such concept even of themselves to even understand what other robots and other people are feeling -- it is nowhere even close to that. So I think if people want to keep it that way for industrial applications, that's one thing. But I think anywhere where robots and humans are going to interact, it is imperative that robots will be able to understand the situation as well as other humans can, because otherwise they'll never mingle with us in a proper way -- we'll never really reach the kind of intuition you expect when you interact with another intelligent being.

CO: And do you think we'll get there, that we'll be able to have a bit up close and personal relationship with our robots?

HL: I personally have no doubt about that. But the bigger question is, what's the timeline? Is that going to be a decade or a century away? But eventually, certainly this will happen. It's on the horizon.

CO: Very interesting. Hod I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

HL: My pleasure.

CH: Hod Lipson is a researcher at Columbia University. He was a New York City.

[Music]

Pickleball

CH: As the old saying goes, you can pick your friends, but you can't pickle your friends. Pretty sure that's a saying. And now you can't pickleball with your friends either, at least not in Ridgewood, New Jersey. Pickleball courts there were recently locked until the town can sort out how best to cope with growing pickleball related tensions. Playing pickleball is kind of like playing tennis, using a big ping pong paddle and a harder, more acoustically expansive ball. It's not racquetball, but its ball does make a racket, leaving those who live near outdoor courts in a dilemma. Here's how the mayor of Ridgewood explained it to the local CBS affiliate.

SUSAN KNUDSEN: It's not necessarily the level of the noise, but it's a constant all day long just hearing the pop, pop, pop of balls all day.

CH: The town's pickleball has returned that volley, pointing out they're already required to use noise, reducing paddles and balls. And they argue that the pandemic-friendly sport plays an important role in their physical and emotional well-being. [Popping sound starts to instenify] Now, this is not the first pickleball related noise dispute, nor is it likely to be the last. But given pickleball'S snowballing popularity, those trying to dampen the enthusiasm of this loud and proud crowd are facing a real upstream paddle. [Chris talking loudly] Sure, all that popping is driving you to distraction, but this may be one pop-ularity contest you just can't win.

January 12, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode