Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The AIH Transcript for January 29, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight...

CO: Fast forward. Canada has tried to bring the digital landscape up to date for years. Our guest says she knows how to do what many have failed to: Make companies like Netflix and Spotify play by the rules.

CH: Exposed at last. Almost no evidence was left of the Sobibor death camp -- but now newly released photographs show a chilling portrait of Nazi life on the inside.

CO: Free to learn. They had to go to school in secret, but now Rohingya children in refugee camps can get an education in the open -- our guest tells us why the change has left him overjoyed.

CH: Medieval trash, modern treasurer. Archaeologists in London dug through thick green sludge in a centuries old cesspool, essentially an ancient toilet, and it turned out to be just the right place to look.

CO: News you can uwz. A new website from the media giant News Corp may be informative -- I can't really say, because I'm not really sure how to pronounce it.

CH: And crackpots for a jackpot. The prize for the Kinsman charity Bingo in Manitoba is at a record high, and that's made some people so eager to buy playing cards -- they're even stalking the couriers delivering them to shops. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that worries that being B-9 may not be N-8.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Ottawa streaming

Ottawa streaming

Guest: Janet Yale

CH: Janet Yale says it's time for Ottawa to wake up to the realities of digital culture. Ms. Yale is the chair of a panel the Prime Minister asked to review Canada's broadcast and telecom laws. The panel delivered its report today and it calls for sweeping changes to the way the media landscape is governed and for regulators to be given broad new powers that could affect all of our lives. We reached Janet Yale in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Yale you're offering a number of solutions and recommendations, but in a nutshell, what's the problem you're trying to solve?

JANET YALE: I would say that there are two main problems we're trying to solve through our report. One is the fact that we want to make sure that everyone, no matter where they live in Canada, can live a connected life. And the problem right now is that access to and affordability of Internet and mobile wireless services is a problem for too many Canadians. The second area that we've addressed is how to deal with the fact that Canadians have the freedom to choose content at anytime from anywhere around the globe. But there are many streaming services that get a lot of benefits from participating in Canada with advertising and subscription revenues. But make no contribution to Canadian culture.

CO: All right. We're going to talk about mostly the second area. We've tried to solve this problem in Canada for decades, haven't we? About getting more Canadian content in the way of Canadians. So how do you do that? What are you proposing for giants like Netflix that would make their contribution to Canadian culture, to what we see about ourselves more accessible?

JY: I think that's the single most important question is how do we embrace the fact that we are now in an open global market where people living in Canada want, expect, and should have access to the best of entertainment content from anywhere in the world. At the same time, we believe that there is a very strong role to make sure that there are Canadian stories, Canadian perspectives, among the choices that are available to Canadians. So the way we've done it is by bringing Internet based services like Netflix into the Canadian legislation by means of a registration requirements. It's a very simple requirement. If you are offering service to Canadians and benefiting in terms of advertising or subscription revenue, you must register with the CRTC. And the CRTC will decide what's the appropriate contribution for them to make. Specifically in the case of Netflix, we're saying that they're like the Canadian broadcasters you would know, like CTV. And just like CTV has to spend money on Canadian productions, so too must Netflix. They have to spend a certain amount of their programing budget, which, as you know, is extensive on the production and discoverability of Canadian content.

CO: Okay. There's two things you just said. Well, first of all, Netflix has said that it's already voluntarily giving money or contributing money to Canadian production. But the other part you said was discoverability. And I want to ask you about this because your report recommends enforcing discoverability obligations to ensure Canadian streaming content is visible and easy to find. What does that mean?

JY: Well, first, let me deal with their argument that they spend money in Canada. Absolutely, they spend a lot of money in Canada on what I would call service productions. And those are terrific for Canada in terms of jobs, the contribution to the Canadian economy, making sure that there is a vibrant set of studios and technical equipment that are able to support production. But those are not Canadian. They do not reflect Canadian stories, Canadian perspective. And we're saying that some of the money that they spend must be spent on Canadian content in the sense that the key creative positions are held by Canadians. As far as discoverability is concerned, it's great to produce Canadian content that if nobody knows it's there, how to find it: that's the problem. So what we mean by discoverability is making sure that in a catalog environment like Netflix that if there's great Canadian content available, that Canadians are not forced to watch it, but they know it is there.

CO: And what convinces you that that's going to make them want to watch more Canadian content? Because we've seen with the cultural policies over the decades, that when there's a kind of Canadiana section like in a Blockbuster -- like a lot of really good Canadian films went there to die. They don't watch patriotism. They watch what interests them. So how do you encourage them to do that?

JY: And so that's exactly the point. We can't ghettoize Canadian content. The whole point is that if it's comedy, it's entertainment, it's drama, it's variety. It should be part of the menu that's displayed to you. People should be free to watch what they want, when they want, wherever they want on whatever platform or device they want. But as a country, we believe that it's important in the world, as I say, of endless choices and voices to have Canadian choices and Canadian voices and perspectives -- not just in terms of entertainment, but in terms of local, regional, and national news and Canadian perspectives on international news. Then we have to make sure it's available for Canadians to choose to watch if they want to watch it.

CO: We are not going to have time to cover everything you've proposed. You're calling for the CBC to be made ad-free on all of its platforms. You want a new media funding model. But the University of Ottawa media lawyer Michael Geist is worried about the powers that you want to give to regulators. And he says it's the stuff of science fiction. So what do you want to say to Michael Geist?

JY: Well, first of all, I think the CBC is our national cultural institution, and I think it should be publicly funded to deliver on its mandate. And we believe that it needs stable, multi-year funding so that it can deliver both entertainment and news content without the advertising imperative affecting the choices they make about what content they produce and deliver to Canadians. As far as Michael Geist is concerned -- I think there's a real values dilemma because what he's saying is that the Internet should be free and open and not subject to any restriction. On that we agree. We enshrine the right to a free and open Internet in the proposed legislation and say that Canadians should be able to choose what they want, when they want, on whatever platform or screen they want. That's different than saying that there shouldn't be Canadian choices among those. And if you believe that the main vehicle by which people are going to access entertainment and news content is increasingly the Internet, then we say there have to be Canadian choices and voices in a world of limitless choices and voices, whether by the Internet or traditional means. I think at the end of the day, he doesn't believe that Canadian culture matters. And that's a values based choice that he makes that we fundamentally disagree with.

CO: All right. It's a very interesting report. Ms. Yale I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JY: You're very welcome. Thank you.

CH: Janet Yale is the chair of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

Rohingya education

Guest: Raees Tinmaung

CH: Roughly one million Rohingya Muslims are living as refugees in Bangladesh -- and roughly half of them are children. Most of them haven't been able to get an official education. But today, after years of prohibiting schooling for Rohingya refugees living within its borders, Bangladesh is lifting restrictions on education for kids in camps. Raees Tinmaung is a Rohingya Canadian activist who just returned from visiting with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. We reached him in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Tinmaung, first of all, why has Bangladesh been restricting access to education for kids up until now?

RAEES TINMAUNG: Bangladesh has its own reasons for its policy -- they are afraid that Rohingya are going to stay forever. My people have been at the camps for about half a century now -- since the late 70s. And so they're afraid if they're going to allow more facilities, not only are you going to stay, but more people will come in from the villages where education or any form of basic human rights is totally restricted.

CO: So that the idea is if they provided services, people would settle in even more. But they've been settling in without the services. So what does that tell you?

RT: It just says how dire the situation is on the other side.

CO: Why, then, do you think that Bangladesh as changed its mind about this and it's going to ease the ban on education within those Rohingya refugee camps?

RT: I think Bangladesh -- and now I'm going to praise Bangladesh -- it has realized that education is a basic human need. You know, it's a fundamental human right. And for all the lobbying that we have done for all the international outcries, I think Bangladesh is beginning to realize that if we do not provide the basic human right. Kids are going to revert to other things which might be debilitating to not only the refugee camps, but also to Bangladesh. Crime rates may increase. There could be radicalism that could spread in the camps. Bangladesh is beginning to realize that.

CO: But after years of you seeing that they were resisting or denying us education -- what did you think when you learned that they were changing their minds about it in Bangladesh?

RT: This was a moment of joy -- jubilation -- for us. We've been really pushing hard for this. We've been active on the ground in education for the last, you know, more than five years. And some of our kids have to dodge police officers to get education. Our education is very grassroots. It's run by Rohingya teachers who have survived the massacre. So when we get this news, this is like a dream come true. We're really hoping. But how it really implements on the ground and how it turns out is another story. We're waiting for it to unfold.

CO: I know you've just returned from Bangladesh. You've seen what it's like for kids in these camps. Can you just describe those conditions?

RT: The camps...they're not a place where anybody would want to stay. You live in a little 5 by 4 metre shelter. You could have water pouring in anytime, whenever there is some rainfall. Kids would study (with a) candle you know. Or if they're lucky, they'll have some solar panel. But the drive and the resilience is still there. They're looking for education, which is why our schools, which are run by Rohingya -- they are popular because they get a chance to learn. So it is really this resilience that you see at the camps. In the most horrible conditions they're still out there wanting to get the basic needs, which they should have got in the first place.

CO: So the people who are teachers in those camps among the Rohingya refugees who are there, they were teaching kids, right? So what will be different between what has been going up to now informally and what will happen after these changes are in place?

RT: The big difference is they will not have to dodge authorities now. It's very hard for us Canadians and North Americans to imagine that you have got to dodge authorities just to provide basic education. So this is going to be different. Our schools will not have to be shut down. We have gone through several shut downs and re-openings. And now hopefully -- let's see how it gets implemented on the ground. We will be able to operate legally. Teach mathematics and sciences and, you know the actual curriculum as it is taught in Burma.

CO: And they'll start off with just a certain age. And so who will have access to the education at first?

RT: So the policy, as it came out of it, said up until age 14, which brings us until grade 9. And that is great news. That is wonderful news because it is allowing access to everyone under the age of 14 to get educated till grade 9 -- and, of course, in the Burmese curriculum, which is another good news. Because that's giving us that recognition that we are from Burma, indeed. And that one day we hope to go back. This is the very reason why we want to push for the education is because one day we go back and when we go back the Burmese government will start accusing us, saying, look, you are not Burmese because you don't know how to read and write Burmese. But we will now have the pride and dignity, you know, to go back and say, look, we have followed up even though you have extended from our lands, we are back again with the education that we were supposed to have.

CO: So instead of encouraging Rohingya to stay, it gives them a bridge. It gives them the means. It gives them the bases they need to return and be productive.

RT: Absolutely. And that's perhaps one of the incentives for Bangladesh to make this policy. So, yes, I think Bangladesh has seen the light and hopefully they will see it further and allow it until grade 10, 11, 12. And even employment, perhaps some small scale employment inside the refugee camps.

CO: We don't get much good news from the Rohingya refugee camps. And I know it's no huge -- it is just the beginning of something, but it sure is good to hear that these kids will have that chance.

RT: Absolutely ma'am. It is certainly a moment to celebrate because it is something that will translate day to day on the ground. If you see the ICJ provisional measures, which came out as well not too long ago, that was also a big moment for us. But this education decision that will impact them, that will impact their kids. And I can tell you, this is a very celebrated news in the refugee camps.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Tinmaung thank you.

RT: Thank you so much for taking the time.

CH: Raees Tinmaung is a founding member of the Rohingya Human Rights Network. He just returned from visiting Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. And for more on this story, visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Kinsmen bingo mess

Guest: Kathy Kennedy

CH: If you're in Winnipeg this Saturday, you might want to turn your TV on around 5:30. That's when the Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo airs. And this weekend the prize is big. Big enough that according to a now deleted Facebook post by organizers, people have been going to extreme lengths to get playing cards ahead of the event. Such extreme lengths that store deliveries are now being done in secret. Kathy Kennedy is a local radio personality who hosts the Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo. She's in Winnipeg.

CO: Kathy, I know you have been host of Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo for decades. Have you ever seen such a frenzy?

KATHY KENNEDY: Never, Carol. Never in my almost three decades of hosting this show have I ever seen a city and an entire province go this bingo crazy.

CO: What are you hearing about it?

KK: I think the big problem is that there's just a lack of cards out there for the number of people who want to play. The fact is, you know, the sale of cards have grown or has grown exponentially as the jackpot has grown. And now it's at a record breaking 640,000-dollars-plus. And we always put a "plus" on the end of it, because it depends on just how many tickets or bingo cards were sold. But, you know, this has become almost a bit of a cultural phenomenon in the last three or four months where people gather, they have bingo parties -- no word of a lie -- from politicians to even school kids are sitting around with their parents and playing this game and hoping to win this incredible jackpot.

CO: Okay, how (does) it works, maybe just briefly tell us. Because it's on TV, right? You watch it on CTV. What goes on?

KK: You purchase a card which cost five dollars. And then [inaudible] at Saturdays at 5:3 p.m. and we play bingo live. We've got a bingo machine. We pull the balls -- just like if you were in a bingo hall. Then whoever has a totally blacked out card, they win the jackpot. So the trick is, is to have that totally blacked out card in 50 numbers or less. That's going to get you the 640,000-plus. If you let's say blackout your card on ball 53 or 54 -- there's a guaranteed 10,000 dollar prize.

CO: But you don't yell "Bingo!" At the end of that.

KK: [Laughs] Well, you know what? I'm sure a lot of people do. [Laughter] What they have to do is that they flip the card over, the winners line is on the back of the card, they call in to say that they have a winning bingo.

CO: Wow. And that's it. And then possibly walk away with more than half a million dollars.

KK: Yeah. But the frenzy for these cards -- so as of this morning, we have sold about 45,000 cards. Now, keep in mind, Carol, a year ago when the jackpot was much, much less, we were selling on average 6,000 to 8,000 cards per week. And now it is up to 45,000-plus. Now you say to yourself, well, no big deal, just print more cards. Well, that's not how it goes. There are a lot of legalities, believe it or not, when it comes to bingo cards. And so it's not just as easy to just start printing more. Never mind the fact that they're printed in the United States. So it's been a real tough time for the Kinsmen Club, who are made up of volunteers and do incredible work to try and keep up with this demand. My heart goes out to them and my heart breaks for them because boy oh boy have they taken it on the chin since people have not been able to get cards.

CO: And I'm going to refer to this Facebook post -- Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo Facebook says: "I will no longer post a list of stores in Winnipeg that are receiving deliveries of the cards we have -- this is a quote -- we have hordes of people driving dangerously following our courier, driving like paparazzi and putting him in danger. This is not cool at all." What is going on out there?

KK: Well again, I mean, that is just one thing that is going on -- following courier drivers. We've got this morning in Russell, Manitoba -- which is northwest of Brandon, Manitoba -- there were a hundred people lined up outside an IGA at six o'clock this morning waiting for cards to be delivered. Not only are people chasing down couriers drivers and standing in line outs to get these cards, but unfortunately, there's been a bit of a downside, Carol. There is no law as it stands right now as to how many cards can be sold at one time. So people have been going in and buying huge amounts of cards and then turning around and reselling for profit. Which you know, is just terrible.

CO: So there is a black market in Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo cards?

KK: Okay, I thought I was going to say a lot of things in my life -- that line was not going to be one of them. [Laughter]

CO: This is wild.

KK: You know, at the end of the day, it's not funny because there are so many people involved in this organization that are just having a tough time and are completely overwhelmed by this bingo fever. You know, everybody has to remember this is a charity. The dollars that are raised to go to incredible charitable organizations like Special Olympics Manitoba, Habitat for Humanity. All the money that gets raised from this bingo stays in Manitoba for other worthwhile organizations. So, you know, you hear these kind of disheartening stories as well -- it kind of makes your stomach turn.

CO: And also in this Facebook post, it said, if you're going to call our office and yell and swear at our staff, accusing us of hoarding cards and playing favorites, I'm not going to share information anymore. This does not sound like the Winnipeg I know.

KK: No. And this doesn't sound like the Winnipeg I know. But I can tell you that even I have been receiving messages that are less than tasteful in the last month or so, where people are, you know, just so frustrated by the fact that they can't get a bingo card. But at the end of the day, if that is the biggest problem you have in your life, can you say first world problem? If you can't get a bingo card and you feel the need to berate somebody on the phone or in-person or even a retailer who's selling them...wow. Take a long, hard look at your life. That's all I have to say.

CO: So what's your message for people who might not be taking this too seriously?

KK: Here's my message. We're going to make sure this thing goes this weekend and end the madness. I am hoping. But everybody relax. And remember, this is a game for charity and raising incredible funds for charity. And it's bingo, everybody. It's just bingo.

CO: All right. Message is out there, Kathy, and it's great to talk to you. Good luck on the weekend.

KK: Thank you so much Carol.

CH: That was Kinsmen Jackpot Bingo host Kathy Kennedy in Winnipeg. She's also a part-time host on the local radio station, 680CJOB.

[Music]

Knewz

CH: GNUS bulletin: tens of thousands of gnus are in the middle of their annual migration across the Serengeti. That might have been confusing. That was actually a bulletin about gnus -- which are more commonly called wildebeests. And "gnus" sounds exactly like "news" as in breaking news. But that's what happens with homophones. You know, like if your friend says, "Have you seen the new website Knewz.com?" And you say you obviously don't mean gnus --spelled GNUS because that's ridiculous. And your friend says, "Ha! No, of course not. Knewz.com -- with a K and a Z." And then you don't know what's going on. Well, News Corp, the giant American media company, has a new news site. And for some reason it's called KNEWZ.com. As in "I knew it." But with a Z as in Boyz II Men. In a note that clarifies nothing, News Corp's chief executive, Robert Thompson writes, "We live in a world of vexatious verticals, of crass click bait, of polarized perspectives, and fallacious fact free feeds. Knewz is knowing and needed. Knewz nous is in the house." Now in that last bit, that's nous -- N-O-U-S, which is a word commonly used only in the UK, meaning common sense. Which seems ironic in this case, given that that sentence is nonsense when you read it aloud. Also because it is just common sense to never, ever say "in the house." In terms of branding, it seems like they've created a "knotty" problem that's knotty with a K. And frankly News Corp the problem is obvious. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

[Music]

Part 2: Death camp photos

Death camp photos

Guest: Andreas Kahrs

CH: It was a place of mass slaughter. But for years little has remained of the Sobibor death camp. After the war, the SS bulldozed the camp in Nazi occupied Poland, hiding evidence of its existence and evidence of the more than 165,000 Jews who were killed there. But this week, new photographs of Sobibor have been released. The images focus on life in the camp, at least as seen through the eyes of its deputy commander and the Nazis who ran it. Andreas Kahrs is a historian with the Stanislaw Hantz Educational Center in Germany, which helped collect and analyze the photos. We reached him in Berlin.

CO: Mr. Kahrs what is it like to look through these photos and get an idea of what Sobibor actually was like?

ANDREAS KAHRS: Well, yeah it was astonishing for us when we first saw the pictures because we knew a lot from the testimonies of the survivors, but then it's still hard to imagine. And now we have the photos and we can see -- we can really actually see what they described about the camp.

CO: And interestingly, not just from their point of view, which is among the people who were incarcerated in that camp -- but to see behind the scenes how the Nazis and the SS officers were living in that camp, which is really the shocking thing, isn't it?

AK: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like the scenes we see on the terrace and this like kind of beautiful garden, they are sitting there and relaxing in the sun, having a nice afternoon. And if you would not know that this is inside a death camp, you would think that this is just the holiday place. To see it like this was really astonishing for us.

CO: Where did the photos come from?

AK: They come from the grandson of Johann Niemann, who was the acting commander in Sobibor on the day of the uprising in 1943. And it was due to the work of a regional historian. And then he came across Johann Niemann, found out that he was an important person in the Sobibor death camp, and found out that there are still relatives in the town. And he contacted the grandson, got these pictures, and he thought that we might be the best organization to deal with this pictures.

CO: And just as far as how they are presented, this isn't just a box of photos that was tucked away and forgotten. These were photo albums. These were things that Johann Niemann wanted to show others about his time in the camp and in Berlin and on his travels. What story do those albums tell you about this man and his role?

AK: Well the very specific thing is that it captures almost the whole kind of career of this person. It starts even before 1933 and the takeover of government of the Nazis. So he was already a member of the NSDAP in 31. When he was 18 years old, he was a member of SA. Then he was in the very early stage in the concentration camp called Esterwegen, which is also located in the north west of Germany. And then he was commanded to Berlin being part of the so-called euthanasia -- the killing of of mentally and allegedly mentally ill people -- from 1939 and 1940. And so we could follow his career up to his final stage in the occupied Poland in Sobibor. We can see the way he changed and the way he wanted to remember his career.

CO: And these are happy snaps. These are, as you say, pictures that he is taking as he's posing in places where he helped to kill people in mass numbers. They're having parties. They're drinking out of nice wine glasses. They're listening to music. These appear to be happy moments for this camp commander, don't they?

AK: Yeah. But we also have to see that it is pictures that were taken because he wanted them to be taken. That means it is the way he wants to present his all-day life. But it's pretty clear that there were definitely other times in the camp -- and it's also important to understand that most likely, like the people in the camp, they were between 25 and 30 Germans only in the camp of Sobibor. And then there were like around 120 added to them -- this was the whole camp staff. No more people were needed for this very small and pure death camp. But the people, in my opinion, they did not enjoy what they do, that they had a very hard time. But this is not what he wanted to remember. This is not what he wanted to show maybe at home to his family, to his neighbors.

CO: As you point, it's a pure death camp. Its only purpose was to kill Jews. And a hundred and sixty seven thousand were killed in Sobibor. And it climaxed with an extraordinary event, didn't it? This uprising. Just tell us what happened.

AK: There were around 600 Jewish prisoners selected from the transports to do several things inside the camp -- not immediately killed upon arrival. And in the summer of 1943, the Jews recognized that the camp was going to be shut down and they tried to attack the German campguards one by one. And they placed at first Johann Niemann to one of the workshops and said they made some new clothes for him and he should try them on. And then they killed him. And after a few of the SS (personnel) were killed, they ran through the gate and tried to escape in the forest. And in the end, between 50 and 70 survived until the end of the war.

CO: And those who survived this extraordinary uprising and this escape -- have they seen the photos?

AK: So unfortunately, everybody is dead. Nobody is living anymore. But during our research in 2017-18, we were able to show the pictures to Simjon Rosenfeld. He was still living in Israel. He was selected by Johann Niemann himself when he arrived in 1943 in the camp. So he could tell us a little bit about the pictures. When he was building roofs on the barracks in the area for the Jewish prisoners, which is located directly next to the area for the German camp stuff.

CO: And finally, what does it mean for historians to have this collection of photos of Sobibor?

AK: Well, in my opinion, it's extraordinarily important that we can show and talk about the pictures and about the places. Everybody is focusing on Auschwitz -- that is a symbol of the Holocaust. But we need to talk about the other places. Like there are 5 million Jews killed in other places -- not in Auschwitz or Sobibor. And the death camps of [inaudible] are so important. And the pictures just help us to talk about it. We can show, we can connect them to the testimonies of the survivors. We can work on site with the pictures showing the places like this was here and this was there. And for keeping the memory alive, those pictures in my opinion are extraordinary important.

CO: Mr. Kahrs this is an extraordinary story. And I appreciate you telling it to us. Thank you.

AK: Thank you for having me.

CH: Andreas Kahrs is a historian with the Stanislaw Hantz Educational Center in Germany. We reached him in Berlin. Mr. Kahrs is part of a team that helped analyze a new collection of photos of the Sobibor death camp in Nazi occupied Poland.

[Music]

Francois-Philipe Champagne

CH: They have a plane. Now, they just need to figure out when and how it will land. Today, Foreign Affairs Minister Francois-Philipe Champagne announced that the federal government had secured an aircraft to help repatriate Canadians stuck in China's Hubei province because of the coronavirus outbreak. But even though plans are in motion, the minister could not say when that plane might leave, although he hinted it could take days because of all the logistical and diplomatic obstacles. Here's part of what Minister Champagne told reporters in Ottawa today.

SOUNDCLIP

FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: So the plane is secured. Now that's step one. After that, obviously in parallel to that, we need to work with the Chinese authorities with respect to the authorizations you need to bring the plane, obviously, in China, but also work on the logistics. Canadians understand that once you have the plane that you could repatriate Canadians, those who wish to be repatriated, then we need to work on the logistics, because, as you know, the city is on lockdown. So we are talking -- I just finished a call with the minister of international relation of Quebec, I just literally finish a call with Secretary Raab of the United Kingdom. We are all coordinating. We're all talking to each other to make sure that as minister, we said we've learned from practice -- we are coordinating and we'll come back to you as soon as we have more to say with respect to the next steps. Now, we are working together. [Reporters asking questions together]

REPORTER: Why has Canada taken so much longer than other countries to get this...

FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: Well I would disagree with you.

REPORTER: Still we are behind other countries.

FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: Well I was in touch with all the others, sir, and I would tell you, Canada is at the forefront of the response. We are talking with the allies. The only plane which has landed is a US plane which was scheduled to be there. The other one is Japan this morning. I've talked to my counterparts, we're in touch with everyone. And I can assure you that the government of Canada is there to respond to this consular emergency. And we will continue to do so.

CH: For the record, that's Foreign Affairs Minister Francois-Philipe Champagne speaking today in Ottawa. Yesterday we spoke with Megan Millward and Lie Zhang, a couple from Montreal who are stuck in China's Hubei Province and want help from the government to get home. As of this morning, they told us they still hadn't heard from consular officials about how to get out of the country.

[Music]

Cesspit find

Guest: Simon Thurley

CH: In his line of work, historian Simon Thurley has seen his fair share of medieval cesspits. Which for the rest of us would seem like an extremely unfair share. But Mr. Thurley is excited by them. And one that was discovered under a gallery in London has him very excited. It was found during a refurbishment project at the Courtauld Institute of Art. And inside the large hole, archaeologists say they found -- well they found a lot of what you'd expect, but also a lot of what you wouldn't. Artifacts dating back to the 14th and 15th centuries. We reached Simon Thurley in London.

CO: Professor Thurley I would think that once you've seen one cesspit, you've seen them all. So what makes this one special?

SIMON THURLEY: He would think that, wouldn't you? But I've seen a lot of cesspits in my life, and this one is absolutely gargantuan. I mean, the size of...it was so big that when I was rung up and asked to go and look at it, the archaeologists actually couldn't believe that it was a cesspit. But with a little bit more digging and a little closer look at it, it very very obviously is. You know, it's sort of big enough almost to live in it. You know, it's that sort of size. House size.

CO: What makes it a cesspit? What's the use of a pit -- especially this one that is this old?

ST: So essentially, it's a very large -- like a very large sewer that sits below the restrooms. It doesn't have a drain coming out of it. And everything that goes into it just sort of sits in there. It's very deep. And it gradually rots away and seeps out through the bottom. So didn't have anyone cleaning out, it just carries on filling up.

CO: Okay. [Chuckles] It's not the waste that interests you, it is the things that have been found in the pit. So what are the archaeologists actually found in there?

ST: Well, I suppose there are two things that interest me -- and yes, one of them definitely is what was found in there. And there's two classes of things, really. Things that accidentally got in there. So there was a very beautiful finger-ring that obviously had really annoyingly slipped off someone's finger as they were -- I don't know -- wiping their bottom or something. And it plopped down into the cesspit. And of course, there's no way you get it out. So someone was pretty unhappy about that and the archaeologists were pretty happy [Laughs].

CO: But that wasn't the only piece of jewelry they found down there, is it?

ST: No. There were other bits of jewels. Bit of a spur, someone's spur which probably dropped off someone's foot. And a bit of a belt buckle. A little pendant. So these were things that dropped in there and people lost them. But there was also stuff that people threw in there. So there were things that people didn't want anymore, presumably because they were chipped or damaged or, you know, they fell out of use in some way. So there's a lot of drinking vessels, lots of tableware, plates, jugs, all sorts of things. And they were all in pretty good nick because they'd just been lying there in this sort of pool of cess for the best part of 500 years.

CO: I mean, the dishes and cutlery. I mean, who tosses those in the pit?

ST: You know, things get out of fashion. They get out of date. I really think they're deliberately thrown away because I think, you know, when you go to the restroom, you don't tend to take a large pottery jug with you and accidentally drop it down. So, you know, these are things that have definitely been got rid of deliberately because they've just not been needed anymore.

CO: It is a toilet. There was the sewer for a toilet. This sounds like a pretty posh place and posh people who had been using it. So who was royal poop are you digging around in, do you think?

ST: Well, that's a really interesting point, because actually, I don't think it was posh people who used this one. And I don't think it was royal poop. I think it was servants who were using it because it was so big it couldn't have been designed for just one seat. There probably were maybe as many as 20 seats that emptied into it. And so you have to imagine a superstructure on the top that had probably two sides to it: man side and a woman's side. And on each side there was a great big long board with a series of holes drilled into it. And you'd, you know, sit on your hole and do your stuff next door to the person who's sitting next door to you, you have a nice chat while you're doing it. And then you go back to your work. So I think this was essentially a sort of communal restroom for the household servants of the Bishop of Chester, who's a senior Bishop in England.

CO: Whose house was it that this was in?

ST: Yeah, it was the bishop. There were lots of bishops in that part of London. It was a very sort of classy area, if you like. And this particular bishop, the Bishop of Chester, had a large house with an outer courtyard. And in his outer courtyard was this big communal restroom. At the time, it would have been called the Great House of Easement. [Laughter] All the big houses had one. And this is just very very unusual to find one.

CO: And so a great house of easement is not the same as a public restroom.

ST: It's not public quite, because it's only really for use by the bishop's household. But it was designed for a large number of people. And actually mainly men because these households were mainly staffed by men. But there were women too. But it was mainly men.

CO: Okay. So would they hang out in there? Would it become kind of a social thing?

ST: Well, you know, it's very difficult because, of course, we didn't really have any evidence to that. But what we do know is that they were a little bit less fussy about being private than we are today. And they were, you know, happy to sit next door to each other. And who knows? You know, you may have said, oh I'll see you in the great house of easement in 10 minutes. [Laughter] I'm not sure.

CO: But I guess the irony is, is that it was discovered because of the renovations there. That's where the Courtauld Institute of Art is going to have its restrooms. Right?

ST: I know. I can't believe it. I mean, it is such an extraordinary coincidence. That is exactly correct. And there's this lovely little bit of continuity that's going there. And I'm sure that when it's all finished, we'll put some nice photographs up so that you can see what's underneath the modern one.

CO: And what are you can do with the things that they're finding in this cesspit?

ST: Oh, I'm sure some will go on display at the Courtauld Institute or at Somerset House, which is the bigger building in which it sits, so that people can see them.

CO: Right beside the sign that says "Don't show anything else but whatever down this toilet." [Laughter]

ST: [Laughter] Absolutely.

CO: Professor Thurley it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

ST: Thanks very much. Thank you.

CH: That was Simon Thurley in London. He's a historian and the former chief executive of the charity English Heritage.

[Music]

Perdita Update

CH: Truth in advertising is an honorable aspiration. But in Perdita's case, it didn't seem likely to work. We told you about Perdita the Cat last week on the show -- you may remember her as the "world's worst cat." That's how her benefactors at Mitchell County Animal Rescue in North Carolina advertised her to would-be pet parents. The ad was so brutally transparent about Perdita's quirks that last Thursday we decided to call up the rescue's executive director, Amber Lowery, for more information.

SOUNDCLIP

AMBER LOWERY: I think she is silently judging us all. She looks at you in this way that you just have to look away sometimes.

CO: She's staring into your soul until you feel as if you may never be cheerful again. You actually put that in your ad. [Chuckles]

AL: Yes. Yes, we did. We did. We thought that was an important part of her personality was the stare that she does.

CO: Okay. Jump scares, this is something cats do. But that's her specialty. How does she do her jump scares?

AL: [Chuckles] Well, it's not that she jump scares. When you go to pet her, she will growl and kind of strike. And it makes you jump. I think she gets a kick out of it. [Laughter] She knows she's going to scare you. So that's her specialty: making her people scared.

CO: Lurks in dark corners.

AL: [Chuckles] She likes to hide. Definitely that makes her happy. She likes to hide. She gets a little bit uncomfortable if she's out in the open and she'll jump back in her little space and get in the back corner and settle down.

CO: And she likes to be the queen of her domicile, which is...I mean how many cats don't? I mean, is she even more exceptionally queen of a domicile?

AL: Well, I think that that's a trait that almost any cat could have. Cats love to be in control. And that's just their personalities. I think that she could give pretty much any cat a run for their money in as far as wanting to be queen.

CO: And does she give other cats, at the shelter, a run for their money?

AL: Oh, she certainly does. She keeps everyone in line. She has been known to slap a kitten or two if they're out of hands and trying to befriend her in a way that she does not appreciate.

CH: Now, while you might not find the idea of a judgmental, kitten-hating animal that lurks in dark corners appealing, a shocking number of people apparently did. Mitchell County Animal Rescue says it received 175 applications from prospective owners inexplicably hoping to bring Perdita into their vulnerable homes. And in the end, they found a place for that cat to sit and silently seethe. The couple in question has, quote, "a quiet lifestyle, vast cat experience, patience, and a cat appropriate house." Perdita moves in on Saturday. And we can only hope she embraces her new situation, although they better not embrace her.

[Music]

Jason Polan

CH: Jason Polan gave himself a project: sketching every single person in New York City. And even though it was fairly unlikely he would succeed, he enjoyed every minute of the attempt. Mr. Polan was a New York based illustrator. He died on Monday of cancer. He was 37 years old. For more than a decade, Mr. Polan drew as many people as he could from all walks of life, from commuters on the subway, to a man sitting at Taco Bell. He worked quickly and a lot of the people he was depicting had no idea he was sketching them at all. He posted his drawings on a blog called "Every Person in New York" which he later turned into a book in 2015 -- by which point he had drawn more than 30,000 people. Back in 2013, Jason Polan was a guest on As It Happens. From our archives, here's part of his conversation with Carol.

SOUNDCLIP

JASON POLAN: Initially I had the title -- it was the first idea I had: "Every Person in New York." And I like doing projects where I can interact with a lot of people. And I thought this would be a fun way to do it. And I like drawing a lot. So I thought I would try to draw everybody. And I started it right around the time I started to get a little bit comfortable with putting things on blogs. So I thought it would be a fun way that people could follow along as I kind of worked on the project.

CO: How much interaction do you actually do with your subjects?

JASON POLAN: Usually when I'm drawing people they don't know. They don't notice me drawing them because I like it more -- it's more natural when people aren't posing or they're not aware that I'm drawing them. But I give people the option of emailing me a particular place and time that they'll be and I'll go draw them. And usually they won't even know that I'm doing that because I like it also being a surprise. And also, I'm just more comfortable if people don't know that I'm drawing them because it's more natural for me too.

CO: Well, tell me a bit more. How do you arrange these encounters so the people who want to be in your collection -- want to be drawn as part of your project -- you can arrange for them to be someplace, but you'll go and see them and they won't know you're drawing them?

JASON POLAN: Yeah. Yeah. To increase their chances of getting drawn, they give me a two minute period -- I want it to be somewhere where it's not very hard for them to get to just in case I can't get there, but I usually try to get there. And I will draw them in that period because I asked them to tell me maybe something they're wearing or maybe something distinctive about their hair colour or something. So I'll go find them and I'll draw them. And then I post it on the blog so they'll be able to see it that night.

CO: That's almost a bit creepy. [Chuckles]

JASON POLAN: I try not. [Chuckles] I mean, I want it to be a little bit more natural and I try not to be creepy.

CH: That was Jason Polan speaking with Carol on this program back in March 2013. Mr. Polan, an artist known for his quest to draw everyone in New York City, died on Monday. He was 37.

[Music]

Part 3: NYC cashless business

NYC cashless business

Guest: Richie Torres

CH: It used to be that cash was king, but these days its crown is severely tarnished. More and more businesses are refusing to take traditional bills and coins altogether, preferring their customers pay only with cards or smartphones. Well New York City is fighting back. City council there has approved a bill that prohibits restaurants and retail outlets from going cashless. Councilman Richie Torres was the bill's lead sponsor. We reached him in New York.

CO: Councilman Torres, what is wrong with businesses going cashless?

RICHIE TORRES: Well, look, in the United States, when you open a dollar bill, it reads, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." So those words seem to reinforce our natural intuition that cash is a universal currency and ought to command universal acceptance among businesses.

CO: It says that on the dollar bill. I mean, this was there at a time long before the system we have now. So isn't this the way things are evolving? I mean who are you speaking of who doesn't have access to some kind of card?

RT: We as a society, we have to balance technological progress with equity. And the reality is, even in the 21st century, there are millions of people who have no access to credit or debit, who have no brick and mortar banking services in their neighbourhoods, and therefore would have no ability or limited ability to access goods and services in a cashless marketplace. And so even if it has the best intentions in the world, the fact remains that a cashless business model could have a discriminatory effect on the under banked on the unbanked. And as a legislator, I'm concerned not only about subjective intent, I'm concerned about the objective impact of a cashless business model in the real world. But even if you have access to credit or debit, right, there are some people, especially senior citizens, who prefer cash because it's a familiar method of payment. There's some people who prefer cash because it's more protective of their privacy. Whatever the reasons for preferring cash, consumers should have the power to choose their preferred method of payment.

CO: I just want to stick with the equity issue for just a moment. When you say those are the "underbanked and unbanked." What does that mean?

RT: It varies. But they are people who live in neighbourhoods that have no banks. They are people who have no credit worthiness and therefore cannot qualify for credit. They are people who have no permanent address or no documentation, right? There's a whole host of reasons an individual can struggle to obtain credit or debit.

CO: And what does that mean for them in trying to get to services or retail?

RT: It means that these people have no choice but to use cash as their method of payment. And that's precisely the concern that underlies the ban on cashless businesses.

CO: Your city council has approved a bill that prohibits restaurants and retail outlets from going cashless. So what does that include?

RT: It requires all brick and mortar retail and food establishments to accept cash. Then you do have the option of installing a machine that would convert cash into a gift card so that you can continue to take the same electronic approach to processing payments as you did before. So this is a pretty flexible bill that strikes a thoughtful balance between efficiency and equity.

CO: Okay. But some of those restaurants would be using the food delivery services that are cashless, right. And those people who are riding around their bikes with dinners on their backs, I mean, they don't want to get involved in carrying a lot of cash with them, right?

RT: So, no, the law only applies to brick and mortar businesses. It has no bearing on app-based platforms. So it does not apply to cyberspace. It only applies to physical brick and mortar space.

CO: What are your models? Are there other municipalities in the States that are moving in this direction?

RT: There are a whole host of municipalities including Philadelphia, that have adopted a ban on cashless businesses. So New York City's legislation is part of a broader trend that has unfolded nationally throughout the United States and possibly beyond the United States.

CO: Anything that goes beyond the brick and mortar model that you're proposing?

RT: No, because there's a recognition that if we were to apply it to cyberspace, then it would derail the digital economy. And that's not our intent.

CO: As you point out, there are those who don't have access to the cards and the plastic --- but there are those who would like to continue to use cash because they don't want their personal information out there. They want to be under surveillance. They don't want to be connected with that, right?

RT: I think we're living in an age of big tech and mass surveillance and data breaches. And there are some people who prefer cash because it is more protective of their privacy and it protects them against identity theft. And those people should have the right to choose cash on the basis of their privacy.

CO: Do you think you are going to see more and more people who will start to feel that way?

RT: Yes. I think we're living in a time of distrust of technology because of some of the data breaches that we've seen transpire. But again, I use credit and debit. So I have no objection to electronic methods of payment. My basic position is that consumers should choose their preferred method of payment, right. Ultimately, my bill is not only about equity and privacy, it's also about consumer choice. Protecting the right of consumers to pursue their preferred method of payment.

CO: Just finally, what about protecting the security of those in those brick and mortar businesses? Their argument is that they don't want to cash on their premises. It exposes them to robbery. And it also requires more time for employees to be counting that money, to be banking it, all of those things affect their businesses, and even their security. What do you say to that?

RT: The law allows businesses to install machines that convert cash into gift cards. And so that would be no different from any other business that has vending machines, right. It would allow those businesses to continue to process payments electronically. But it also requires them to accept cash, to have some accommodation for those who insist on using cash. So I think the cash conversion option in the bill addresses that concern.

CO: We will leave it there. Councilman Torres, thank you.

RT: Of course. Take care.

CH: Richie Torres is a New York City Council Member. We reached him in New York City.

[Music]

Sonia LeBel

CH: It's been three years since a gunman burst into the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City shortly after the end of evening prayers, killing six people and injuring 19 others. But the casualties of that day extend far beyond those who were shot. There are countless relatives left longing for their loved ones, and in many cases left seeking compensation for their losses years later. Quebec's Justice Minister, Sonia LeBel, says rules governing the province's compensation regime are partly to blame. Here's part of what she told the CBC's Cathy Senay earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

CATHY SENAY: What do you say to the victims of the shooting at the mosque -- the Quebec City mosque -- today that they didn't receive any compensation yet? They're still waiting. What do you tell them?

SONIA LEBEL: I'm really concerned about their situation. I understand what they are going through. And I'm telling them that that's why I'm looking at reforms [inaudible] because I mean, either the amounts that were given are not sufficient to their arguments. Or they're not admissible under the actual law. So there is an urgent necessity to reform --- so I'm working on it. I had the occasion to speak with some of the families last year. And they voiced their concerns to me. And I want to say that it was heard. And we're working on it very hard.

CATHY SENAY: There is a need for these people, these victims, to be recognized as victims. And three years later, it doesn't help them to basically...this lack of recognition becomes a source of frustration instead of helping them.

SONIA LEBEL: I do understand. I understand greatly. But right now, the definition of the victim in regards to the law is not adapted. And this is what we have to work on. Nobody denies the fact that they were victimized. But under the law, there's a problem with the definition -- it's too restrictive. So we have to work on that. We're working on that right now. We're working on the list of the crime immiscible also. So we have to work on that and modernize the law. And I'm working on it and I'm working on it on a broader prospect. So this is why it takes time. I won't have the chance to do this twice. So I want to make sure that I'm doing it right.

CH: Quebec's Justice Minister, Sonia LeBel, speaking with the CBC's Cathy Senay. Today marks the third anniversary of the mosque shooting that killed six people in Quebec City in 2017.

[Music]

Brexit Update

CH: The UK's tumultuous divorce from the European Union is finally final. Today, the European Parliament voted to ratify the Brexit withdrawal agreement, meaning Britain's 47 year membership in the EU will come to an end at midnight on Friday. Before the results of that vote were announced, Brexiteer Nigel Farage rose to deliver one last verbal middle finger to the institution he hates. As he spoke, members of his party rose and waved Union Jacks. And as you'll hear, that did not go over well with the chair, Mairead McGuinness.

SOUNDCLIP

NIGEL FARAGE: No more financial contributions. No more European Court of Justice. No more Common Fisheries Policy. No more being talked down to. No more being bullied. No more Guy Verhofstadt. [People cheering] I mean, what's not to like? I know you're going to miss us. I know you want to ban our national flags, but we're going to wave you goodbye. And we'll look forward in the future to working with you as sovereign [mic gets cut].

MAIREAD MCGUINNESS: If you disobey the rules, you get cut off. Please sit down. Resume your seats. Put your flags away, you’re leaving. And take them with you, if you are leaving now. Goodbye. [People cheering]

CH: That was Nigel Farage being cut off by European Parliament chair Mairead McGuinness. After the vote was confirmed, which will sever the UK from the EU, Britain got a warmer goodbye -- as MEPs let Bygones Be Bygones, rose, held hands, and burst into song.

SOUNDCLIP

[People singing "Auld Lang Syne"]

CH: The sound of members of the European Parliament singing "Auld Lang Syne" together after the final vote to finalize Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.

[Music]

Rockies lakes colour

Guest: Mark Olson

CH: People travel from all over the world to see the beautiful mountain lakes in Alberta. And if you've ever seen them, they almost seem too blue to be real. But it turns out those lakes are changing, and climate change is to blame. For more than a decade husband-and-wife duo Mark Olson and Janet Fischer have been studying the glacial lakes in Alberta. They're biologists from Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. And what they've found has surprised them. We reached Mark Olson in Canmore, Alberta.

CO: Mark, we all know these legs -- like Lake Louise. And even those who've never been there, we've seen the stunning pictures. So first of all, just what creates that extraordinary turquoise blue?

MARK OLSON: Well, that's a great question. And it really is a combination of a couple of things. One is the characteristics of water itself. Water tends to absorb the longer wavelengths of the light that we can see and it reflects and scatters back that blue light. And so in the absence of anything in water, it tends to look blue like when you look at a swimming pool. But for the lakes like Lake Louise and Moraine Lake and Emerald Lake, the added fear factor is the glacial flour. This is small rock particles, very fine rock dust that's being ground from the bedrock by the glaciers. And it's so small that it stays suspended in the water column. What that tends to do is absorb some of the blue light. So that kind of evens out the blue and the green. And so the lakes take on that rich emerald or turquoise colour. The other thing that it does is it reflects a lot of the light, scatters it back towards the surface. So it's not just turquoise, it's sort of an iridescent turquoise that looks even brighter and brighter when you see it from above and when it's really sunny out.

CO: It's absolutely jewel like, isn't it? So what are you seeing? What's changing in those lakes?

MO: So we've been studying the lakes, a set of lakes in Banff and Yoho National Park. We have a group of lakes that we visit each year and close to the same day. We measure various characteristics of the water. And what we have found is in the lakes that have glaciers in their catchments, we're seeing a decrease in what we measure as turbidity, but it's really a measure of how much of that glacial flour is in the water column. So that's been decreasing. Along with that, there's been an increase in the transparency. The lakes have gotten clearer. They're losing that sort of iridescent colour. And then their colour itself is shifting from that brilliant turquoise to more of a deeper rich blue. That's just the water itself.

CO: What's the glacial flour? Can you describe what that is?

MO: So that's the fine dust. As the glaciers are moving, it's grinding the bedrock into -- I mean, it's called glacial flour because it's sort of milled into those really fine particles. So it's dust essentially.

CO: And is that diminishing?

MO: Well, it's not so much that that's diminishing. We don't think. But more what's going on is as the glaciers are shrinking as a consequence of climate change, the lakes that we're studying, the melt water is decreasing. So there's less water flowing in the summertime off of these glaciers into the lake. And that's a key factor in delivering that glacial flour into the lake itself. And when it was flowing much more, there was a lot more of that being delivered and the lake would be more turbid and more of an emerald colour. But if that's going down, it's getting less of the glacial flour.

CO: But you're talking over seven years that you've been studying this -- that's not a long time. So how quickly, how rapidly, is this change happening?

MO: Well, that was one of the things that really surprised us that we're able to see it just in this window of time. The glaciers are melting quickly. It is the sad truth. In the next 50 years or so, well by 2100, it's expected that up to 90 percent of the glacial volume in the Canadian Rockies will be gone. And so they're melting very quickly. And I think what we're seeing is that sort of rapid melting is really changing how much water is flowing into the lakes. So it's happening a lot faster than we thought it would.

CO: I mean, it's just really sad to think that those colours would be gone -- even though the blue might be just as beautiful. But it's what it tells you about those changes, right, that's really shocking.

MO: Absolutely. This is another signal of what's happening as a consequence of climate change. And you're right, the lakes will still be beautiful. I mean, they're set in these wonderful settings. And the blue of a clear lake is something to behold. But it's not that characteristic iridescent, that turquoise that we get used to seeing.

CO: What else is changing since you're there so much and you're observing it? What else are you seeing?

MO: We have a set of lakes that we've been studying, that we're interested, that don't have glaciers. And interestingly, those were not seeing much of a change. One of the other factors -- one of the other things that climate change may be causing is a change in the vegetation that's in the catchment of these lakes. The growing seasons are getting longer. And at least in some places there's an advancing tree line with changes in climate. That can also affect the colour of lakes. But in the last seven years, we haven't seen much evidence of that.

CO: I know that you and your wife, who's working with you on this, you are scientists now in Pennsylvania. But you grew up in Alberta, right?

MO: That's right. I'm from Edmonton originally. And I went to University Alberta. And then Janet Fischer and I, we met at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. We are both aquatic ecologists. And now we're at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania.

CO: So what does it mean for you -- when you're visiting these lakes every year and seeing that -- how does that affect you to see that?

MO: Well, it's sad. I guess when I think about sort of my own childhood spending a lot of time in Jasper and Banff and childhood memories of those and how magical and special the place is -- and it still is. But just to know how much it's changing. And what my kids or grandkids are going to see is not going to be the same as what I saw. It feels like it's sort of a diminished world that they're inheriting.

CO: Mark, we'll have to leave it there, but I appreciate you giving us this report. Thank you.

MO: Well, thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

CH: Mark Olson and Janet Fischer have been studying the glacial lakes in Alberta for more than a decade. We reached Mr. Olson in Canmore, Alberta.

[Music]

Swiss Citizenship

CH: Time for a little pop quiz on Canadian culture. Just a heads-up your success in answering this question that I just came up with myself will determine your worthiness as a citizen of this country. But don't worry, it's not legally binding or anything. Okay. Ready? In what Canadian municipality did they film the 1989 movie "The Experts" starring John Travolta? I know you know this. Such a famous movie. Okay. Time's up. If you guessed Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, which just happens to be my hometown: Congratulations. You're correct. But like I said, not to worry if you didn't know the answer, even though that's weird. We'll just keep it between you and me. I mean, it's not like we're living in Switzerland or anything. There, believe it or not, a trivia question like that very much can matter in determining your eligibility for citizenship -- as it did for an Italian ice cream vendor. His application was rejected because -- this is true -- he didn't know that the local zoo housed bears and wolves in the same enclosure. It didn't matter that the man had lived in the country for three decades where he raised a family and ran a successful business. Well, now, fortunately, that decision was overturned this week. But it highlights the peculiarities of the Swiss naturalization process, which many Swiss themselves consider discriminatory. Back in 2007, Carol spoke with Doris Angst, a senior official with Switzerland's Federal Commission Against Racism, who explained how the system is set up.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Ms. Angst, first of all, can you explain how does someone acquire citizenship in Switzerland if they're from another country?

DORIS ANGST: It's quite a complicated procedures because it is threefold. Citizenship applications, have to qualify on the federal level, on the cantonal level, and also with the municipal or communal level. So in the end, the final decision lies with the municipality or the commune.

CO: And who ultimately determines or decides if someone can become a citizen?

DORIS ANGST: Actually, it's them. The third level on the communal level, it finally decides.

CO: And so is their fate decided by a commission that's an expert commission --what's the body that determines whether someone gets to become a citizen then?

DORIS ANGST: That's precisely the point that the Federal Commission Against Racism has been criticizing in its last report. It's that very often it's still the so-called communal assembly of all the inhabitants of a certain municipality or commune that is side by show of hands, by votes on such an assembly -- if an applicant is accepted to become a Swiss citizen and by this also a citizen of this community.

CO: Can you describe that? I mean, is this a place where somebody, they want to be a citizen, they come before a group of their neighbours and make a petition to become citizens?

DORIS ANGST: That's correct. The applicant has to give a lot of information also on his or her private life, which we think is not correct, because it interferes with the protection of private life.

CO: What kind of information about their private lives?

DORIS ANGST: Well, first of all, the law says that somebody can become a Swiss citizen, if the person is apt to do so and if the person is integrated and familiar with the Swiss habits. The Swiss political life. So people would have to prove -- I am in this and this associations, I know this and that. Not only that, their work and (how they) earn their livelihood. So there are even cases where the communal policemen would come into your house or into your apartment and check how you live and look around.

CO: What are they looking for when they come in?

DORIS ANGST: Well, they're not looking for something. They want to see if people live in a way that would correspond to what is said to be a Swiss life. [Chuckles] This is a myth. I mean, you cannot do that anymore.

CH: That was Doris Angst, a senior official with Switzerland's Federal Commission Against Racism speaking with Carol in 2007.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 29, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode