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 December 12, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Holding pattern. A Canadian who was held in China for two years says this week's arrest of a former Canadian diplomat is a shocking reminder of what he endured as a political pawn.

JD: Now is the vintage of her discontent. Ontario liquor stores are once again stocking wines from Norman Hardie — just months after our guest came forward with allegations that he'd subjected her to unwanted sexual contact.

CO: Northern exposure, Part One. In the '80s, he proved pollution was traveling thousands of kilometres to contaminate the Arctic. And three decades later, scientist Derek Muir has been honoured with a lifetime achievement award.

JD: Northern exposure, Part Two. Remembering Helen Klaben, who survived a plane crash in the Yukon in 1963 — and the 50 days after, trapped in the mountains with the pilot.

CO: Take a download off your feet. In the '80s, his "Computer Shoe" didn't take off — but our guest feels vindicated now that Puma is offering a high-tech, fitness-tracking re-boot.

JD: And...tinkle, tinkle, little star. An American researcher has spent a surprising amount of time watching one tiny insect pee with remarkable force. And tonight, he'll tell us how it rains supreme.

JD: "As It Happens", the Wednesday edition. Radio that doesn't necessarily see the appeal of spectator spurts.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Racial China: Kevin Garratt, Taverner letter, insect pee

China: Kevin Garratt

Guest: Kevin Garratt

JD: The Chinese government says it has no information to share about the detention of Michael Kovrig. But the state news network says the Canadian diplomat — who is currently on leave — was arrested for activities endangering China's national security. Mr. Kovrig's detention came just days after China warned Canada that there would be grave consequences for the extradition arrest in Vancouver of the Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. This evening, in Ottawa, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, made it clear that her government is taking this seriously.

SOUNDCLIP

CRYSTIA FREELAND: This is a Canadian. He is someone who has family, who has people who care about him. As an employee of global affairs, many people in the department know him personally. We are very personally concerned about Mr. Kovrig. We have expressed that concern directly to Chinese authorities, and we are in direct personal contact with his family. We are very seized of this issue. And we're going to keep on working on it.

JD: And Chrystia Freeland isn't alone in her concern for Michael Kovrig. The scenario he appears to be facing is all-too-familiar for Kevin Garrett and his wife Julia. The Canadian couple lived and worked in China for decades. And then, in 2014, a Chinese national was picked up in Canada for extradition to face spying charges in the United States. Suddenly, the Garratt’s found themselves in a Chinese prison, being interrogated as spies. We reached Kevin Garratt in Thailand.

CO: Kevin, what did you and your wife think when you heard the news that Michael Kovrig had been arrested in China?

KEVIN GARRETT: Well, our first reaction was really a sadness for him, for his family, and really kind of a shock too that it actually happened again. And just really feeling for him right now knowing what he's going through. And then for his family, kind of not knowing what's going on. We understand that side of things as well.

CO: Is it clear to you that Mr. Kovrig has been caught up in some kind of tit-for-tat between states?

KG: It seems like that to me, yes.

CO: So let's go back to what happened to you in 2014. When did you first realize that you had some pretty big problems?

KG: Well, the moment we were taken really. But we had no idea what it was about because they grabbed us, took us off to a Ministry of State security building, wanted me to sign this paper saying I agree to be investigated, and investigated about what I didn't understand. And they said oh, you're a spy. And I said we're not spies. We have nothing to do with spying. And it was just like how could they get it so wrong? It was shocking actually, and frightful because how could they think we were?

CO: In the case of Michael Kovrig, this is a man who worked as a diplomat. At this point, he's working with the International Crisis Group. He's fairly active, fairly involved. What were you doing at the time?

KG: Well, we were running a coffee shop. We were doing aid work in North Korea. We were doing also some aid work and helping an orphanage in the city where we were in Dandong. As well as helping to set up a centre for families with disabled children to give them a break and a hand. So we were doing I thought reasonably good things, and serving some really good coffee. So it was good to me anyways. So we're more than surprised that we were taken because it just never crossed our mind anything that would ever happen.

CO: Did you know that there was this situation going on between Canada and China and the United States at the time of your arrest? Shat this Chinese citizen, Su Bin, had been arrested in British Columbia, that the United States had an extradition order for him, he was sent to the United States for trial, and he served a prison sentence there for hacking of technical data on military aircraft. And it's largely believed that you and your wife were arrested in retaliation for that. Did did you know this was all going on in the background?

KG: We had no idea that was going on in the background. I didn't find out about Su Bin until I was deported two years later — just over two years. So we had no idea there was a back story. We realized there must be something after a while because they would say, when it was time for a consular visit, tell your country, your government to work harder. They know what to do. But it made no sense to us.

CO: When you had those consular visits from Canada, did they tell you that this was going on in the background?

KG: No, they weren't allowed to talk about the case at all. And neither was I allowed to bring anything up. The only thing we could talk about were like yes, we're being fed. Yes, the living conditions are ok. Yes, we're not being beaten. You know those types of things.

CO: What were the conditions in which you were held?

KG: Well, for the first six months, we were held in really an isolation compound. It was outside the city. There was just the two of us in the building, and we were separated. I didn't see Julia for probably close to three months. The lights are on 24/7; two guards and each of our rooms 24/7. If you want a drink of water, you had to ask for it. I wanted to brush my teeth, I to ask them; they had to go get my toothbrush. It was very controlled and not a lot of fun.

CO: Julia, your wife, was eventually released. Did you have any contact with her? Were you able to communicate with her at all well the two of you were detained?

KG: Well, for the first six months, we only had limited contact — maybe two or three times during those four six months. The next 19 months, while she was on kind of bail pending trial and I was put in a prison, notes could be passed through the consular visits once a month. But not always guaranteed.

CO: And did you have any ways and sort of signaling to each other that you were ok?

KG: For those last 19 months, there's no way to communicate. But during the first six months, towards the end of the first six months, you know it was snowing more in the area we were where we were. And the guards would sometimes let us leave little notes in the snow like just to our boot prints in the shape of a heart or something like that — or just writing our initials and it being able to be seen by the other. That was one way we had to communicate. But that wasn't allowed actually until near the end. And I think at that point they probably realized we're not spies. And they're just trying to do what they could within the limits of the situation.

CO: And what was their evidence that you were spies?

KG: Well, they didn't have any. I mean what it came down to the end was pictures I'd taken that thousands of other people had taken too — like pictures of the main bridge going across into North Korea just because it was a really interesting architectural bridge. Then also passing on reports to foreign agents. Well, those were just reports we sent back to our supporters saying what we're doing.

CO: But you did have a really good cup of coffee in the Dandong coffee shop. I understand a lot of diplomats — a lot of Westerners — would drop in on that and take advantage of that. So did that become part of your problem?

KG: Well, it did, because unknown to us, some of these people were on China's radar. But to us, they were just customers. So if I happened to be around the shop I would talk to people, say hello. To us, they just were passing through and wanted a cup of coffee or a hamburger. So that became a problem, but we didn't realize that.

CO: There’s a lovely piece in The Toronto Star today by Joanna Chou, who says she’s a friend of Michael Kovrig’s, and she knew him in China when she was a reporter there. And she just describes how much Michael Kovrig loved being in China — that he took the job she said at ICG (International Crisis Group) so he could stay and get to know the country better. Can you identify with Michael Kovrig’s love of that country?

KG: Certainly, we loved working in China. We were there for 30 years. We loved the people, loved what we did, and we certainly didn't want to leave. And I certainly understand his love and his certainly interest in China, and him wanting to stay because it is a great place to be. And there's some wonderful people we got to know and continue to have good friends there.

CO: But how do you separate that out from what happened to you?

KG: Well, in the book that we just wrote — “Two Tears in the Window” — that we just released, we basically said that was the system, but it's the people that we went for.

CO: How much trouble do you think Michael Kovrig is in?

KG: To me, it's a whole political question. I think, in the end, he'll be fine. But it'll be really probably terrifying for him for the first little while. I know he's you know a diplomat; he probably has some other training that certainly we didn't have.

CO: What do you think he's going through right now?

KG: Just a fear of unknown, of what they could do. Shock, certainly. And because he is cut off from his family. I don't know if he has consular access yet. But I think China will, in the end, release him.

CO: Kevin, I really appreciate hearing your story and talking to you. Thanks so much.

KG: Thank you very much, Carol.

CO: Bye.

KG: Bye now.

JD: Kevin Garratt was detained in China for 2 years, ending in 2016, before being convicted of espionage and deported back to Canada. We reached Mr. Garratt in Thailand.

[Music: Indie rock]

Taverner letter

Guest: Julian Falconer

JD: In five days, Ron Taverner is set to take the reins of the Ontario Provincial Police. But the person currently holding the reins of that organization has a few things to say first. Brad Blair is the current interim OPP Commissioner. He filed a complaint to Ontario's ombudsman, claiming that Mr. Taverner's hiring amounts to, quote, "potential political interference." Mr. Taverner is a close family friend to Ontario Premier Doug Ford. And he got the job despite the fact that he did not hold the qualifications required in the initial job posting. The posting was later changed, which paved the way for Mr. Taverner to get the job. Julian Falconer is Brad Blair’s lawyer. We reached Mr. Falconer in Thunder Bay.

CO: Mr. Falconer, Premier Doug Ford says that the motives your client has for issuing this letter are, quote, “sour grapes”. Your client wanted this job as commissioner, and he lost to Ron Tavener. Is that true?

JULIAN FALCONER: What I think is true is that Commissioner Blair was certainly personally disappointed. As someone who was seen to be honest as a front runner for the job, he was no doubt disappointed. What's frankly troubling is that the premier would cast all of this as a simple question of sour grapes. This is not about Brad Blair and his job prospects. Frankly, anyone who understands a public service would know that the action he has taken in order to protect the credibility of the OPP is probably the most job-limiting thing he could do.

CO: We have this letter that he has issued to the ombudsman through you — a damning nine-page letter full of extraordinarily explosive details with serious allegations about political interference, accusations of political interference in this appointment. What's the point? What's the overarching message that this letter is supposed to send to the ombudsman?

JF: That it is essential that the ombudsman step in and clear the air. Before Commissioner Blair wrote the ombudsman, you had a rising tide of public concern for obvious reasons. How does a job ranking get dropped two or three levels after 48 hours after a posting in an unprecedented way that magically and conveniently includes a very close family friend the premier's?

CO: Okay, we should point out that Ron Taverner, the man who has been awarded the job, it's well established that he is a good family friend of the Fords. You mentioned, which has already been reported, this changing of the criteria for the job — for the qualifications that the first round did not allow Mr. Taverner to qualify. And then they were changed, and then he did qualify. That's one of the points made in the letter. I’m going go through some of the other ones. It's also stated in this that it appeared that Superintendent Taverner was possibly in the premier's office the day of the crucial second interview for the job. What is the evidence that that might be the case?

JF: It is more than apparent that an exchange took place between Superintendent Taverner and a journalist. And that's relayed in the letter. Why is that of concern? It's of concern because the day that that is said to have happened was the day of the second interview. So that needs to be looked at.

CO: I’ll just get more details that this is took place apparently this conversation in the Swiss Chalet where your client met with Mr. Taverner. And Mr. Taverner said that some reporter claims to have seen him coming out of the premier's office on that crucial day of the interview. And that apparently Superintendent Taverner told your client that well I'll give you the first interview if you don't report that. And that's what is actually stated in this letter.

JF: That's correct. So again, if this information is found to be solid information — all of it — then clearly there is a problem — a very significant problem. The bottom line to this is that it has a certain odour — an odour that occurred prior to Commissioner Blair's reference to the ombudsman. What he is saying is the OPP deserves better than this.

CO: All right, I just want to get to perhaps the most explosive allegation in this letter is the suggestion that the premier wanted specific people to be on his security detail — and that that his chief of staff, Mr. Dean French, had made a request, this is an allegation, requested that the OPP purchase a camper-type vehicle, have it modified to specifications of the premier's office, and provide it to them. And that the costs associated with the vehicle be kept off the books. These are quotes. What do we make of that?

JF: Again, the concern anyone reading that would rightly have is what is the perceived understanding of the government of the day and their staff of the rules of engagement with the provincial police? Do they understand it's supposed to be an arm's-length proper relationship? Or is there some misconception that the police are their own private service? That's the worry.

CO: An allegation from a police officer that they're asked to keep monies hidden from the public record. I mean that's at least a violation of government policy — if not a violation of the law. So why send this letter to the ombudsman? Why isn't this complaint gone too to some place that deals with the possibility that that laws and policies were violated here?

JF: That's part of the role of the ombudsman. That is absolutely part of the rule. But this is part of the bigger pattern. And when you look at the agencies responsible for independent investigation with actual powers to effect if necessary entries or seizures there are very few options. So if the pattern that is emerging and is of great concern — and certainly was raised before Commissioner Blair's letter — if that pattern that has emerged is actually happening — it's not just apprehension, but it's fact — then that's troubling and that's all part of the story.

CO: Okay, but you're painting a picture of corruption basically. So do you think that the appointment of Ron Taverner should be halted until this is cleared up?

JF: In a letter to the attorney-general and the Minister of the Community Safety, I, on behalf of Commissioner Blair, proposed just that. That the appointment be deferred until the ombudsmen has had an opportunity to address the concerns and clear the air. And I want to again restate Commissioner Blair did not create the cloud. What Commissioner Blair is dealing with is the fruits of that. And that is an effort to try to clean this up.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Falconer, thank you.

JF: My pleasure.

JD: Julian

JD: Julian Falconer is the lawyer representing Brad Blair. Mr. Blair is the current interim commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, and he has filed a complaint to the province's ombudsman over the hiring of his successor, Ron Taverner. We reached Mr. Falconer in Thunder Bay.

[Music: Jazz]

Not a robot

JD: "Robot Boris has already learned to dance, and he's not that bad." That's what the presenter said during a fun item on state-run Russia-24 channel last night. And, because it's television, there were pictures, too — from a youth forum on robotics, where Robot Boris was indeed dancing, clumsily, to the music. And that wasn't all! Boris the technological marvel could also speak!

SOUNDCLIP

BORIS THE ROBOT: [Speaking: Russian]

JD: Zowie! That’s not bad for a robot. But it is pretty bad for a human pretending to be a robot — which, turns out, is what "Boris" really was. Images posted on social media showed what looked like a visible human neck underneath a robot costume. And internet sleuths later revealed conclusive evidence that the audience wasn't watching Boris the robot — but possibly just some guy named Boris.

[Music: Percussive]

Insect pee

Guest: Saad Bhamla

JD: Saad Bhamla has been studying "sharpshooters" for about a year. Sharpshooters are insects that consume a huge volume of fluid each day. All of which has to go somewhere — and that is what Mr. Bhamla is interested in. Mr. Bhamla is an assistant professor at Georgia Tech's School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. And he and his colleagues have been studying how these insects can launch droplets of waste at very impressive speeds. The team is presenting the research at a conference next month, and writing up a paper. We reached Saad Bhamla in Atlanta, Georgia.

CO: Professor Bhamla, how fast is this insect pee traveling once it's launched?

SAAD BHAMLA: We measured the accelerations of these droplets from these insects, and they achieve about 200 metres-per-second-squared in acceleration. That's their peak acceleration. If you want me to put that into perspective….

CO: Yes.

SB: Yeah. Cheetahs or Usain Bolt is kind the peak accelerations that about 10 metres-per-second-squared. So these things are 20 times faster.

CO: Now you've shared a video online about the research you're doing on these sharpshooters. And there is one clip of people walking underneath trees, and it appears that there's a rain shower going on, but it's insect pee.

SB: Isn't that just wild? It’s just you know it's really, really unusual. And you know as a chemical engineer, when you look at it, these things are tiny pumps that are you know sucking fluid out of the trees. And, of course, they spread disease, but you know they're just making it rain. And you know it's interesting because tiny things usually have to work really hard and have some clever tricks up their sleeve. So you know we were curious, and we were expecting to find some interesting mechanics over there how these things would work.

CO: The insects you are studying — the glassy-winged sharpshooter and the blue-green sharpshooter — are the two that you are looking at, right?

SB: Right.

CO: And what do they do? You are saying they're sucking the life out of trees, right?

SB: Yeah, so let me let me clarify. Well, first of all, you know these are agricultural pests, so we don't have them in our lab over here. We work with the USDA — which is the United States Department of Agriculture — and we specifically work with the lab out in California because these are best for grape wines. And so the natural question to ask is you know how do they actually affect the plant? And the way I think about these insects is similar to a mosquito that spreads disease in humans and other mammals and animals. These insects are a plant’s mosquito. So akin to what a mosquito would suck our blood, these are sucking out plants fluids. And as a mosquito after sucking blood leaves behind a parting gift, which is a disease, which is the bacteria, same thing for these insects — they live behind a bacteria known as Xylella fastidiosa, which actually you know spreads disease and can rot away a plant.

CO: But they these insects really do have a lot of excretion. They're called “the pissing fly” for a reason, right?

SB: It’s not in the fly family, so maybe a pissing bug would be more appropriate. But yes.

CO: Okay, what you looked at is actually the way they project this so far and so fast is almost like a catapult.

SB: Yeah. What we stumble upon as we looked at this under slow motion is we divide this droplet ejection mechanism in three phases. The first it's almost like a valve that opens up as you turn on a faucet. In this case, for the insect, it’s the anal stylus which actually rotates about 90 degrees, and it opens up a valve of sorts. And then the droplet forms, and then you noticeably see a spring-loading mechanism where the anal stylus actually pushes down a little bit more. Just like you would if you had a gun and you were loading the trigger you would have one point, and then you would load it further back before it would hit the bullet and then off goes the droplet in this case.

CO: You actually came up with a mathematical formula for it. You figured out the speed of which… why is that? What practical applications do you see for this knowledge?

SB: Yeah, so one of the things we hope that this will allow us to do is once we have a mathematical model it helps us just validate to say hey, we think that it's this, but look here’s our equations and we can predict this. And we exactly match it. So we’re pretty confident in our understanding of the mechanism. But now, using some mathematical principles, we can now say hey, if I wanted to move droplets say in a biological test or if I were on the space station and if I wanted to come up with an easier way to move droplets for say fueling a tiny reactor then you know we now know a clever way that insects do it. So we may be able to you know be inspired by that and build a fast-moving droplet shooter, which you know we use droplets all the time for blood diagnostics for space station. Yeah, we're surrounded by fluids that there's no dearth of applications where this could be useful — and lots of chemical engineering processes, yeah.

CO: So the sharpshooter may teach us a few things?

SB: I think it already has. We just had to look a little bit closely. So that's very exciting.

CO: Now, just finally, you're at Georgia Tech, and we talked to a researcher at Georgia Tech very recently about her research into wombat poop. Why wombats actually excrete cubes of poo…

SB: I think I know where you're going with this.

CO: What is it about Georgia Tech and excrement?

SB: So I know our colleagues David Hu and Margaret I think you're referring to their recent work…

CO: Unless there are others who are studying square wombat poo, yes.

SB: Right. I think the way I look at this is we're very curious — passionately curious — and we're willing to explore questions that you know initially may seem a little bit perhaps not as valid or have any utility. But nonetheless, tell us something about our own self or about the natural world. And there's a you know special joy as engineers when we look at it because you know we put on our engineering hat and we can do something useful with that. We can build new machines. We can build new concepts with it. And so that's fun.

CO: All right, well we'll be watching Georgia Tech quite closely for more stories. Obviously, it's an embarrassment of riches that comes out of it. Professor Bhamla, it’s good to talk to you. Thanks.

SB: Yeah, likewise.

CO: Bye.

SB: Thanks a lot. Bye bye.

JD: Saad Bhamla is an assistant professor at Georgia Tech's School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineer. We reached him in Atlanta. And if you would like to see some photographs of the insects he's been studying, and why wouldn't you? Visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Tarzan?]

Part two: Norman Hardie accuser, Helen Klaben obit

Norman Hardie accuser

Guest: Heather Bruce

JD: He was a titan in the Canadian food and wine industry. But this summer, Norman Hardie — the world-renowned winemaker based in Prince Edward County, Ontario — faced a reckoning. The Globe and Mail reported numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Three women spoke to the Globe and Mail with stories of unwanted sexual contact. 18 others described sexual harassment. In response to the allegations, this past summer, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario — the LCBO — took Norman Hardie products off its shelves. Also, a number of restaurants removed them from their wine lists. But now, six months later, the LCBO has reversed its position. This week, Norman Hardie wines will be back in stores. Heather Bruce is a former employee of Norman Hardie who came forward with allegations of unwanted sexual contact.

CO: Ms. Bruce, when you heard the news that Norman Hardie wines would be restocked at the LCBO what was your reaction?

HEATHER BRUCE: For me personally, it felt as if that my experience didn't matter. It felt like a government agency didn't really care about mine or other's experiences. And it felt like you know behaviour that's really troubling was being given a platform again and almost being rewarded.

CO: Just for people outside of Ontario, LCBO is the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. And there is an email — an internal email — sent to the employees of the CBO at the same time as it restocked the wine. The Globe and Mail has seen it. It said that employees were instructed to, quote, “avoid any speculation or sharing any personal opinion negative or positive concerning the wine.” What do you think about that?

HB: Well, I find that part of the LCBO’s argument in reinstating Norman Hardie’s wine was to give customers choice. But in that statement, they're also limiting their employees their freedom of speech. And especially because wine is a thing that people make a living off of tasting it, discussing it, and then furthermore, talking about the person responsible for making decisions about that wine. I mean frankly it's about the person and the place. You're kind of ignoring all of it by not being able to talk about one aspect of it.

CO: When did you first come to meet Norman Hardie?

HB: I met him years ago, around 2011, through work as a restaurant worker and a wine buyer. We were one of the first sort of Toronto restaurants to really support his wine and bring in a lot of it. He would come and do tastings with our staff. And you know he was definitely a mentor — definitely someone I looked up to in this sort of burgeoning Ontario wine scene.

CO: Did you have any troubling encounters with him at that time?

HB: No.

CO: So when was the first time that you did have a problem?

HB: A co-worker and myself went up to his winery during the harvest of 2014. This was something that a lot of people in the restaurant industry did. They went. They hung out. They helped with the wine making process. So I went up for a couple of days. One evening kind of we were all drinking. Staff had made some really yummy dinner. And he asked me to have sex with him to my recollection at least two to three times. He kept asking, I would politely reject him. And the following day, he did apologize for that. And then the following year is when I began working at the winery.

CO: And can you tell us what happened?

HB: Well, I think it was initially a lot of inappropriate comments, commenting about my appearance, commenting about my sex life, and his and his own. And then in October of 2016, during harvest, he grabbed my breast. And then the following year, at a party hosted at his winery, he grabbed my ass as I was giving him a hug. To which I would like Norm, no! And he kind of chuckled and said well, you don't work for me anymore.

CO: Did you tell him that this was inappropriate?

HB: Yes, for sure. I earned both those instances with regards to him touching me and the comments. I think because he always kind of presented it in this sort of joking way. My reaction was always just like hey, don't do that. Almost light-hearted, if that makes any sense?

CO: Well, it would make more sense I guess if we understood some of the power dynamic here. So what is your status in relation to his?

HB: Basically Norm was the owner/operator. So all the decisions made were his to make. I was pretty young, and I was excited about the prospect of working for someone of that magnitude — but someone that was also kind of at the forefront of this you know this Ontario wine, and more specifically, Prince Edward County because Prince Edward County has a lot of people, especially in the restaurant industry.

CO: So you were looking to make a career in this industry — in food and beverage — around this region. And so would Norman Hardie have a fair bit of I guess influence over your career, or would you perceive him to have a fair bit of influence that taking him on and might affect?

HB: Oh, absolutely. Like even my current job that I started a year ago, one of the things that my employers said during the interview process was that he was really impressed that I worked for Norman Hardie. You know Norm is one of those guys that they have so many connections. You know Toronto restaurant scene, or Montreal, or even Ottawa, also kind of worldwide. You know he can call a winery in South Africa or somewhere else, and get you a job to work harvest and things like that. His influence is really, really huge.

CO: Did you tell anyone? Did you report the incidents?

HB: Well, there wasn't really anyone to report these incidents too. There wasn't an H.R. department or anything of that. If anything, I just confided in my co-workers and friends about these things. I'd also like to just stress that this was very prevalent at the winery. It wasn't just like you know one-off comments. This was kind of ingrained in the culture that Norm said these things, was a bit creepy, and furthermore, it's kind of you know you're working in this beautiful place. You were being given you know free food and free wine. And for some of us, a place to stay for the summer. So you're almost complacent in it because you're in the Eden, so to speak.

CO: Yours is not an isolated story, is it.

HB: No.

CO: And the Globe and Mail this summer it published these allegations — not just from you, but two other people with names said similar things about groping and kissing; 18 people have said that they have seen this work environment that you're describing. But you’re key to that. You’re named in the article, and you were a key voice in that. Why did you decide to come forward?

HB: You know it took a lot of time and a lot of reflection and a lot of struggle, but I was mostly inspired by the other women and men that I spoke with in that time and in that struggle. And I thought it was the hard thing to do, but the right thing to do to put my name to something. Because I do think that we really do need to share our experiences. Because I do think the truth is far worse than people think. But we need to keep the conversation going.

CO: Reaction from Norman Hardie, as you know, is that — this is a quote — that “some of the allegations made against me are not true, but many are.” What do you make of that?

HB: I'm not sure what to make of that. I suspect I guess that he had some strong PR in dealing with this — because he was made privy to the Globe and Mail article months and months before it came out. I don't think that that's honest given that I know my experience, and I believe those who have spoken out and those whose stories have yet to be told.

CO: But he also said that the allegations you've made are untrue, and that he said he's never physically grabbed people against their will.

HB: For me, that simply is not true because he did do that to me.

CO: And then following that you saw the reaction. There was a huge reaction wasn't there to that Globe article in the industry. What did that mean to you that so many of the restaurants decided to discontinue selling Norman Hardie wines?

HB: It was a great step. It was definitely a gesture from a community at large that this type of behaviour isn't tolerated.

CO: Again, Norman Hardie now says that since that reaction from the industry, his company has conducted a review, and found no examples of sexual harassment. And that is now a safe working environment. Do you trust that?

HB: I trust that Norm must be on his best behaviour, but I question the motives around the investigation. I know it began after the Globe and Mail had contacted him. And I also find that there's really no transparency in it. What were the issues? What has been implemented to change those issues? Those are questions that haven't been answered. And I think for public opinion to shift back into Norm's favour, he needs to do a lot more. He needs to take accountability and make amends. I think that being transparent is really important in this process. And I don't think him or the LCBO have done those things. We don't really know what the LCBO does value. Their website says we mandate social responsibility. But you know you're rewarding really troubling behaviour. And not just allegations, but some of which that Norm himself has admitted to.

CO: Are you still in the business?

HB: Yeah, I am.

CO: And you still want to make a career this despite all of this?

HB: I do, yes. You know I hope to one day own my own business, and run it in a way that is inclusive and fair and open. I really think that this situation — and many others that have happened over the last couple of years — especially in the restaurant industry, there is a push towards a more equal and fair community.

CO: Ms. Bruce, I wish you well. I hope you do have successes in your career. And I really appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

HB: Thank you.

JD: Heather Bruce is a former employee of Ontario winemaker, Norman Hardie. The LCBO sent a response, saying, quote, "We are leaving the choice to purchase Norman Hardie Products in the hands of our customers and will not be commenting further." Norman Hardie also responded to “As It Happens”. He wrote, quote, “I have known Heather for some time and had a friendly relationship with her....She worked at the winery at the time when the atmosphere was casual and informal. I thought at the time we had a good relationship, but hearing Heather's side of the story made me realize that some of my comments crossed the line. I realize that my behaviour made her feel terrible. The fact that I denied some of the allegations made against me by the Globe and Mail does not diminish my respect for Heather or the fact that she interpreted what I thought was an innocent hug as inappropriate. I apologize to any employee who I made uncomfortable or who felt diminished by my conduct. My attempt to keep the winery going is not intended to challenge Heather's feelings or those of other former employees. The independent review (of the winery) did not find any instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. (But) My team has worked hard to implement (their) recommendations over the last several months. My focus now is exclusively on re-earning the trust of those I have let down and continuing to provide a safe, respectful and inclusive environment for the numerous staff and employees at the Winery." Unquote. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Show tunes]

FOA: Helen Klaben obit

JD: She was stranded in the Yukon wilderness for almost 50 days — waist-deep in snow, in the dead of February, and with next to no food or emergency supplies. Helen Klaben died earlier this month, in Palo Alto, California — 55 years after that incredible ordeal. She was 76 years old. In February of 1963, when she was 21 years old, Helen Klaben was on-board a single-engine plane heading south from Alaska. She was the only passenger, riding along with the pilot, Ralph Flores. Mr. Flores was an inexperienced pilot. He crashed the plane. And the pair spent seven weeks stranded together in the Yukon mountainside — Ms. Klaben, a young Jewish woman from Brooklyn, Mr. Flores, a 41-year-old Mormon and father of six from California. Helen Klaben spoke to "As It Happens" about that ordeal back in 1975. Here's her conversation with Barbara Frum, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

HELEN KLABEN: It was an interesting experience, and it fits into my life in the same way that all of the other marvelous experiences I've had fit in.

BARBARA FRUM: You use the word marvelous.

HK: Yes.

BF: Most people would think freezing and starving to death in the Yukon for 49 days wouldn't seem marvelous.

HK: Well, it's a really fantastic experience to have lived through. Not many people have the fortune to experience the things I've experienced, and lived through it to be able to tell about it.

BF: Can you still get right back into it? Can you describe today for us what it was really like?

HK: Well, the thing is when you're trying to remember pain it's very difficult. And that's one of the marvelous mechanisms of the body is that you can't remember it. But what I remember is sitting there trying to analyze the pain in my foot. I had frostbite and gangrene in my right foot. And my arm was broken. And it was 45 below zero. And we hadn't food for 40 days. And I was trying to remember and trying to inscribe on my mind so that I would become aware of what it is to be hungry, and what it is to be cold, and what it is to be a starving, and I mean suffering.

BF: What did you do for food after your little supply ran out?

HK: We had none.

BF: You had no supplies?

HK: No food for 40 days. We melted snow for water. We had some chewing gum that was chewed on for weeks I guess. And then about the fifth week, we discovered toothpaste, and had a little dab just to freshen our breath.

BF: Did you fight with each other about whether or not you should survive? Did you try to cheer each other up?

HK: Well, Ralph, he felt the religious significance of the class. And felt that if I would finish reading the Bible, and I would accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, we would be rescued.

BF: He tried to convert you.

HK: Yes, he felt that was very important. And I took it day-by-day. I read the Bible, and it was curious that we weren’t rescued until about three days after I finished reading the Bible, and it's a pretty long book — 1,400 pages. And yet, I didn't accept the divinity of Christ. I didn't accept the religious aspect, although I developed my own spirituality.

BF: Did the rescue turn out to be the way you'd imagine if you could have ever been saved?

HK: Well, while I was there, I had little daydreams about the rescue. And I expected to be rescued by helicopter. And they would let down a rope, and I would climb up the rope. And another variation on that theme was a dog sled would come in, and get me and bundle me up, and take me across the tundra into the sunset with a mounted police waiting for me. But in actuality, Chuck Hamilton walked in and carried me out piggyback on snowshoes, which is very nice.

JD: From our archives, that was Helen Klaben, in conversation with Barbara Frum on "As It Happens" back in 1975. In 1963, Ms. Klaben survived a plane crash and spent nearly 50 days in the Yukon wilderness. She was rescued, along with the pilot, by Chuck Hamilton — another pilot from Watson Lake who spotted their SOS sign in the snow. Helen Klaben died earlier this month. She was 76 years old. You can find some photographs of the crash, and the makeshift shelter where Ms. Klaben and Mr. Flores lived afterwards, at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

DA: Germany chocolate leak

JD: Dateline: Westonnen, Germany.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: On Monday night, volunteer firefighters were relaxing. Maybe singing "O Tannenbaum" while trimming the tree with their families. Maybe sipping some Jagermeister after a meal of Bratwurst and Pfefferkuchen. Maybe putting their scary Santa masks through the dishwasher before a boisterous night of besnickeling. And then, at once, they all got the same text — and their hearts stopped. "Gott in Himmel," they breathed. "Katastrophe von Schokolade." A catastrophe of chocolate. They arrived to a scene that was heartbreaking to see, and beautiful to smell: outside the DreiMeister factory in Westonnen, a sweet brown river was flowing. A defective storage tank had leaked milk chocolate onto Weststrasse. A full metric tonne of the stuff — which eventually formed what the fire brigade called a, quote, "a ten-square-metre choco-pancake". Then began a grim task none of the firefighters could have trained for: cleaning up a giant choco-pancake that had hardened in the cool night air. Did they weep silently as they shoveled up the chocolate — and dumped it, tragically, into the garbage? Were they overwhelmed by angst as they fired up blowtorches to melt the stuff they couldn't scrape up? Will any of them ever be able to eat a Wunderbar again without being overcome by weltschmerz? We do hope that, one day, they stop hearing that terrible, terrible sound of shovels gouging hardened, ruined chocolate off the street. Because, yes, they know about tough scrapes — but that was the toughest scraping of all.

[Music: Guitar]

Part three: Puma ‘computer shoe’ designer, Derek Muir awarded

Thunder Bay police report

JD: There is a "crisis of trust" between the police and Indigenous people in Thunder Bay — and it's down to racism. That is the scathing conclusion of a two-year probe by Ontario's independent police watchdog. It found systemic racism in the way the northern Ontario police force investigates the deaths and disappearances of Indigenous people in the city. Independent Police Review Director Gerry McNeilly spoke in Thunder Bay today at a news conference, where he laid out some of his 44 recommendations.

SOUNDCLIP

GARY MCNEILLY: I found that the efficiencies in how the Thunder Bay police was investigated Indigenous sudden deaths were so problematic that I have recommended at least nine of these cases should be reinvestigated by a multi-disciplinary team. This team should include investigators from other police services, a coroner, and forensic pathologists. The original investigators are not to be members of this multi-disciplinary team. The failure to conduct adequate investigations and the premature conclusions drawn in these cases, at least in part, attributed to racial stereotyping. Racial stereotyping involves transforming individual experiences into generalized assumptions about an identifying group defined by race. We observe this process of generalization based on race in a number of the investigations we reviewed. Officers repeatedly relied on generalized notions about how Indigenous people likely came to their deaths, and acted or refrained from acting based on those biases. This does not represent a determination that all Thunder Bay police service officers engage in intentional racism, no. However, the fact remains that investigations were too often handled differently because the deceased was Indigenous. I also examined the issue of racism more broadly. That is beyond how sudden death investigations were conducted. In this regard, we conducted 36 interviews with Thunder Bay service members in the course of our review. We encountered a wide range of beliefs and attitudes. Some expressed very disturbing views. While these views were expressed by a minority of officers, they were expressed by more than just a bad few apples. I recommend that Thunder Bay police service leadership publicly and formally acknowledge that racism exists at all levels within the police service, and that it will not tolerate racist views or actions.

JD: That was Ontario's Independent Police Review director, Gerry McNeilly — recommending, among other things, that at least 9 deaths of Indigenous people in Thunder Bay be reinvestigated. One of those cases is the death of Stacy DeBungee in 2015, which initially prompted the report. Mr. DeBungee was found dead in the McIntyre River. Within hours, police concluded his death was not a crime. Mr. DeBungee's brother, Brad DeBungee, spoke to CBC reporter Kris Ketonen about his reaction to the report.

SOUNDCLIP

BRAD DEBUNGEE: Somewhat pleased about it, and a couple recommendations got me kind of baffled. Number two is both a multi-task unit that's gotta oversee the police service. It’s like it's like they need a babysitter, but it's probably mostly due to racism too why they just brush everything off.

KRIS KETONEN: A lot of this started with yourself, right? You initiated this procedure. So in that regard, how do you feel being here now after all this time having this report out there?

BDB: That seems like it got the ball rolling, but how far is the ball gonna roll?

KK: Does it give you any closure?

BDB: No closure whatsoever, cause we don't even know what really happened to him.

JD: That was Brad DeBungee reacting to a police watchdog recommendation that the investigation into his brother's death be reopened.

[Music: Epic piano]

Puma ‘computer shoe’ designer

Guest: Peter Cavanagh

JD: In 1986, in the world of sports footwear, there was nothing else like the Puma Computer Shoe.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: That's right. This is the world's first computerized running shoe. In the back of the shoe is a tiny micro-processor that registers foot strikes and has a little timer. Once you're finished running, you plug your shoe into a PC loaded with special software. And learn your progress.

JD: That's a clip from a TV news spot on Puma Computer Shoes, from 1986. That’s pretty groundbreaking stuff. Essentially, there were Fitbits embedded in a pair of runners, before Fitbits were even a thing. But, oddly, customers didn't find it all that groundbreaking. The shoes didn't sell, and they just quietly kinda disappeared from the market. Well, fast-forward to today, when Puma has decided to re-release its "Computer Shoe", as a limited edition. Peter Cavanagh designed the real deal back in 1986. We reached him on Lopez Island in Washington State.

CO: Peter, how do you feel about your beloved Puma Computer Shoe making a comeback?

PETER CAVANAGH: Well, I'm delighted, Carol. It's certainly never made a mark when it was released. I think it was greeted with pretty general hilarity. Somebody said nobody really needs a shoe like this. I think it's a harebrained idea — and various other sort of friendly comments.

CO: What did it look like this Computer Shoe?

PC: So it's got a bump on the back of the shoe that contained the electronics. There's only electronics on the right side, but for balance, there’s one on the left side too. It looks kind of retro and sleek at the same time — but I'm biased, of course, because I used to like it.

CO: Describe how it was intended to be used. What would a person using these shoes do?

PC: Well, at the time, people said why would you want to know how far you’ve run? Which is what the shoe would do for you — to tell you how far you ran, it’d tells you what your pace was, it would tell you what your caloric cost was. And these are things we absolutely take for granted today. But people would ask me all the time why on earth would you need to know that? And I would say to them well when the model T Ford first came out, there was no damage or only because people said why would you need to know how far you drived? And, of course, here we are today when most serious fitness buffs they won't leave the home without a very elaborate personal fitness tracker that's going to tell them everything about their run. So I was right, but the timing wasn't.

CO: But to look at this running shoe — pictures of it — the thing that slays me is to see that Commodore 64 desktop that you’d attach it to. So what would what would happen when you came home and you plugged this into your computer?

PC: So it's just like you'd plug a USB device in today — it was a serial interface. And it would do exactly the same things that your fitness trackers do today. It would add the run to your log, it would tell you how far it was, how far you'd run, it would tell you how much you've done for the week, how much you've done for the month, and how much you still need to do to reach your goal.

CO: But there was no GPS or not widely used at that time.

PC: No, GPS was not a part of it. What we did is the user would do a calibration run, and we would have them type that into the computer. And so we would be able to know what speed they were running based on the time between their foot strikes. And it would compare that in a regression curve and be able to calculate a pretty good estimate of what the running distance had been.

CO: But photos I've seen of the shoes also show quite a lengthy user's manual that came with this. Was that it was at your invention?

PC: Yeah, that was pretty hilarious. I mean how could I possibly think that somebody would want to read a 46-page user's manual? I mean today you want to turn something on. And the last thing you want is a user's manual.

CO: Did you, and did others, feel at the time that to tapped into something groundbreaking?

PC: No, nobody did. Part of the issue was the Puma marketed it for 200 dollars. And Running Magazine at the time said nobody, however rich, should pay 100 dollars to repair running shoes. You know those were the days. I think it was just running was not so widespread. People weren't so concerned about every detail of counting every heartbeat that they do in their exercise program, and today they really are. It's been quite a transformation I think because running has gone from just the few rather oddball people to a large slice of the general population.

CO: It seems like the shoe did get some good publicity. We just heard that clip at the beginning of a news clip, and you had that great slogan jog your memory.

PC: Yeah, that was pretty good.

CO: But they didn't sell.

PC: They didn't sell. I don't know how many they sold, but I'm sure you could count them on the fingers and toes of one person.

CO: Do you have a pair?

PC: I do. In fact, they're making a limited edition of 86 because 1986 was the year we released it and got the patent shortly thereafter. And they sent me a limited edition number one of 86, which looks very nice. They look identical. So the ones that they're bringing a slightly different, of course, in the electronics; they have a Bluetooth connection and so on — so they've taken advantage of the more modern electronics, but they look identical.

CO: But how does it make you feel that you couldn't sell them. At the time they said it was ridiculous to pay that much, and they're going to sell essentially the same thing for a hell of a lot of money.

PC: Well, Carol, I'm fighting that problem again because I'm still interested in body-mounted sensors. And I've been working for some time on monitoring people who've just had knee replacement surgery, so their health care team can get daily information about how they're doing. And I'm getting the same response 36 years later. People are saying why would you need to do that? Why would you need to know how people are doing after surgery? Well, of course, you know, but no one I think is willing to pay for it. And in 10 years, I think people are going to be saying again well how did we do without this information?

CO: Do you have a pair of the original Pumas then?

PC: I have the very first prototype that was just a Puma shoe with a Plexiglas box on the back of it and a few electronic components and a light-emitting diode. Yeah, I have that one.

CO: We have a shoe museum in Toronto — the Bata family set that up. It's a quite wonderful place, and they have a pair of the shoes.

PC: I know. I have been there and seen it, so that I'm very pleased with that.

CO: Okay, so now that they're going to have these new Computer Shoes back out again — at least in the limited edition — do you think you're owed a little bit of credit here?

PC: Well, I'm really not looking for credit. I personally feel very pleased that in 1986, we thought that fitness tracking was a good idea. And it turned out to be so. So for me, it's really confirmation rather than looking for credit.

CO: All right. Well, we will be watching for those few people who have these shoes. I'll look for them on the street. And it's great to talk to you, Peter. Thanks.

PC: Thanks, you too.

CO: Bye.

PC: Bye bye.

JD: Peter Cavanaugh invented the perma computer shoe back in 1986. He is now an orthopedic professor in Washington State. If you'd like to see a photograph what these bad boys looked like — and what the new limited edition runners look like today — go to our website.

[Music: World music]

Roxham Compensation

JD: Susan Heller got an unexpected delivery today. Ms. Heller lives on Roxham Road, in Quebec. That's near the unofficial border crossing that thousands of asylum seekers have been using as an entry point from the US. And in the scramble to respond, the once-quiet area has become kind of a hotbed of activity for reporters and border officials — as well as the army and the police. Well, it seems that Ottawa's is compensating residents for the inconvenience — with the amount depending on just how close the resident is to the crossing point. Here's Susan Heller telling the CBC's Jay Turnbull how she got the news.

SOUNDCLIP

SUSAN HELLER: Oh, the FedEx gentleman came by with a big grin on his face, and said I've got a parcel for you. And I said really, who is it from? He said open it up. So I opened it up, and on the first page it said from the government you are the recipient of twenty-five thousand dollars due to the inconvenience of the traffic and the noise.

JAY TURNBULL: No one was expecting this, correct?

SH: No, absolutely not. I mean it was just out of the blue. In fact, we have a group called Bridges not Borders. We go to the American side, and we give out hats, gloves, scarves, coats, whatever.

JT: You're still going?

SH: Oh yes, oh yeah, they're still coming through.

JT: What has it been like for you as far as you know extra traffic, extra inconvenience, sort of the things that the government is compensating you for?

SH: Well, I'll tell you that at some point this last summer, my sheep kept on getting out on the road. They were the greatest help. I would say could you just park your car there? And then I could round them up and bring them back in.

JT: Who is the greatest help — the government employees?

SH: The police. The police in their vehicles going up and down — because there was the police, the radio, the television, sightseers — there was a lot of traffic.

JT: So basically you're twenty-five thousand dollars, plus you get some great sheepherders in the deal.

SH: Absolutely, yes. Yes, they should be recommended for the job.

JT: I mean what you're getting compensated for is you know the extra traffic; I don't want to say burden but the extra hassle I guess of having you know all these extra buses and in cars and trucks and all this extra traffic and the pollution or whatever else. Has it been an issue for you?

SH: No, definitely not.

JT: So what do you think seriously about this money? I mean yes, depending on when it gets here, it could be a nice pre-Christmas or post-Christmas boost.

SH: It's incredible. I mean I've never received that amount of money from anybody. It's very, very nice.

JT: One woman said there's been a lot of a lot of buses; they kind of come day and night. You know the air isn’t as nice to breathe. I don't know how close she is to the road.

SH: Yes, I'll tell you what makes the difference. I have trees and bushes and vines all between me and Roxham Road.

JT: So you’re well-hidden.

SH: It's hidden, but also the noise doesn't get through. It really doesn't.

JT: So you're getting compensated for problems that don't really affect you.

SH: Right. You think I should give it back?

JT: Would you like my mailing address? Maybe we can split it?

SH: No, no, no, if we're being recorded, I'm not going to say anything.

JD: Too late! That was Roxham Road resident Susan Heller, speaking to CBC Montreal's Jay Turnbull — about the compensation residents of the Quebec community are receiving for the impact of the unofficial border crossing down the street.

[Music: Jazzy piano]

Derek Muir awarded

Guest: Derek Muir

JD: It was cold. It was remote. But at least the Canadian North was clean. Back in the 1980s, research by Environment Canada scientist Derek Muir helped establish that toxins were travelling thousands of kilometres to wind up in the Arctic — where they contaminated fish, seals, and people. His findings have contributed to worldwide sanctions on chemicals, including the 2001 Stockholm Convention. And today — for his body of work — he was awarded the Weston Family Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Northern Research — which comes with one-hundred thousand dollar cash prize. We reached Derek Muir in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Muir, first of all, big congratulations.

DEREK MUIR: Thanks very much. It’s been a busy day.

CO: What was it like to get the award this morning?

DM: I'm very gratified. It’s great to be recognized amongst fellow scientists basically who are working and doing northern research.

CO: You have devoted so much of your life to researching in the Arctic. What is it about that region that calls?

DM: You from a point of view of when you visit, it's actually how pristine it is from a distance, you know? Clear air where you can see tens of kilometres, the quiet, you're essentially in a remote area. No vehicles running or you turn your vehicle off if you’re out on your ATV. And those sort of things are really appealing. But then, at the same time, the whole issue of being a kind of a sentinel area is a great motivator to study it.

CO: It's extraordinary that the thing that drives you is the pristine nature of the Arctic. And yet, what you were seeing, what you were studying, what your eyes and your research showed you was these high concentrations of chemical contaminants in the Arctic food chain. What were those chemicals coming from? How come there were such high concentrations?

DM: I guess the issue is that although it's a pristine environment, you have the properties that enable these chemicals to move in the atmosphere, and also in the oceans — which actually is a new discovery in the past 15 years or so. And move long distances. And then because of their persistence end up in Arctic food webs — both freshwater and marine. And then you have another property, which is that they typically accumulate on the fat of the animal. So a polar bear for example, which is eating seals, is tending to get a magnification effect where the levels are higher in the bear because of its diet of seal. They're only a minority of substances that are in use which are a problem. But when you emit these substances into the environment, they seem to be able to go global very quickly.

CO: There were concerns that the Inuit had high levels of mercury and PCBs in their blood. And it was at one time the belief that this may have been because of military and radar sites in the region. Because, as you say, it's pristine — how did they get these pollutants into the bloodstream in such concentrations? What did you what did you find out about that? What was important about the research that you did?

DM: Yeah, that's a good point to raise because when I started in their work in the 1980s, that was the thinking actually. But when we did the math on it really and looked at how much would be brought in, especially in the atmosphere, we realized that you know the atmospheric input and deposition in the snow and so on and exchange into the ocean and in the plants was far greater than a few point sites where there was definitely major contamination, but nothing like the day after day movement of air and deposition. And if you do the math, and take into the millions of square kilometers, it's a huge input.

CO: Discovering that they were actually in high concentrations in the water in the sea and the oceans, and that they were actually getting in the food chain that way, how significant was that?

DM: I think that's a really stunning observation. I wasn't the first to make it. I mean in a sense you know I should emphasize that a lot of this is a scientific literature going forward and I'm a contributor to that. We really in the 1980s and 90s were thinking just atmosphere. And then it was discovered — it was actually a scientist in Canada was one of the first people I guess it was the first basically to discover that a chemical which was in scotch guard was high and polar bears. And that set off a whole chain of measurements, and I was involved in that with other scientists. And including measuring seawater, and here we were discovering that it's actually detective all over the world in the water, and including in the Arctic.

CO: Scotch guard is something you put on your furniture to prevent stains on your couch. And this was ending up in the in the fat of polar bears?

DM: Yes, this was a discovery in the early 2000s. Of course, I have to say that to be careful here to say that you know the current product doesn't have that in it. The fact is that there's a real problem with fluorinated substances because they have fluorine and carbon and they're extremely indestructible in the atmosphere. You know it's a case where we really have a large array of chemicals you know hundreds of thousands actually that are in commerce or have been in the last 30 years. But we don't know all about the behaviour or their degradation. And the fluoridated substances are certainly on the top of the list right now for people who are looking at other potential problems that are global in nature. In other words, where you move you know degradation products that are completely stable all the way through the ocean currents or in the atmosphere, and then deposit it on ice caps or into snow.

CO: What are you most proud of from your work?

DM: Well, I think it is the fact that I was able to contribute early on. I was in the right place at the right time. There was a team of Canadian scientists actually who I think had a really big impact on the information available with helping in the negotiation of the Stockholm Convention. And that convention Canada was the first signatory of it actually. I guess that era in the 90s where our data was being generated and then going quite quickly into management decisions — both national and then on the global level. It was really an exciting time. And so I guess I could say that I'm probably most proud of that.

CO: Well, we're very proud to see you in this award, Mr. Muir. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DM: Great talking to you. Thanks, Carol.

CO: Bye.

DM: Bye bye.

JD: Derek Muir is a scientist with Environment Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Show tune]

Squid emoji

JD: You've been assigned the job of creating an emoji of the human body. Your bosses expect you to produce a fun caricature. But you have something a little more noble that that in mind: an emoji that acknowledges the complexity, and beauty, of the human form. Finally, you present your masterpiece to the Head Emoji Person. She says, "Great work. Stunning accuracy. Just one thing: what's this thing on the human's face, between the eyes?" You say, “that's the butt." Well, you're fired. Whether you misunderstood anatomy, or you were trying to make a statement, you are fire. You are definitely fired. And yet, as far as we know, whoever designed Apple's squid emoji still has a job. Yesterday, the Monterey Bay Aquarium tweeted a picture of that squid emoji. And wrote, quote, "...the siphon should be behind the head. Right now it just looks like a weirdo nose." Unquote. The thing is: the squid emoji's tentacles and eyes are in the right place. But yes, between the eyes is something that looks like a nose. But it's not — it's a rendering of the squid's siphon. Squids use their siphons to propel themselves around in the water. They use them to breathe. They squirt their ink through them. And they also use them to excrete waste. That's why, on an actual squid, the siphon is located behind the head. Not on the front — where they'd constantly be inking and pooping right in front of their own bulging, horrified eyes. Well, Apple hasn't apologized, Hasn't even commented, and hasn't, so far as we know, fired the monster responsible for this emoji design atrocity — all of which suggests that — like that misplaced squid siphon — something is really clouding their vision.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 12, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode