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 2024

The AIH Transcript for November 13, 2024

For more episodes of this podcast, please click this link.

NIL KÖKSAL: Hello, I'm Nil Köksal.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

NK: Good COP, bad COP. Canada's former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, says delegates at the COP 29 climate summit survived a Donald Trump presidency once, and they're not going to let him derail the fight against climate change a second time.

CH: All ports in a storm. CUPE's national president tells us the Trudeau government violated the rights of working people with yesterday's order forcing port workers back to work. So they're taking their fight to the courts.

NK: Exit Interview. The head of the Church of England resigns after a report reveals he covered up decades of abuse. A survivor tells us he still can't quite believe it. After being stonewalled for years.

CH: Unsafe passage, Doctors Without Borders says a recent attack on one of its ambulances and two of its patients raises serious questions about its ability to continue providing care in Haiti.

NK: Generated to a fault. Artificial intelligence never lets the facts get in the way of a great story, which is why a Reddit post entitled "ChatGPT Saved My Life And I'm Still Freaking Out About It" was such a great yarn before it all unravelled.

CH: And a truly multifaceted subject. It may have played a role in the downfall of Marie Antoinette. And now an enormous diamond necklace has sold at auction for a commensurately enormous price. As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that really doesn't like a practical choker.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: COP 29: Catherine Mckenna, Archbishop Resigns, Antoinette Necklace, ChatGPT Lifesaver

COP 29: Catherine Mckenna

Guest: Catherine McKenna

CH: The pressure is mounting in Baku. Corporate and political leaders are gathered in the capital of Azerbaijan for COP 29, the annual UN led effort to wring climate progress out of the reluctant powers that be. In the run up to this year's summit the focus was on finance and whether the wealthy would pay for the less wealthy to contribute to the fight against climate change and survive its effects. Then came the re-election of Donald Trump with his promise to once again walk away from his country's climate commitments. Catherine McKenna was Canada's environment minister from 2015 to 2019. Now she chairs the UN Secretary General's Zero Emissions Working Group. We reached Ms. McKenna in Baku.

NK: Catherine McKenna, some of the words used to describe the energy there in Baku or what this summit will be about fraught, pressing, high stakes, high ambition is the phrase used in the leaders statement, signed, you know, by world leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. You're there. What is the energy and mood like?

CATHERINE MCKENNA: Well, I have a report coming out that's called "The Work is Now". So I think that's really what needs to be happening. Look, I mean, it's hard. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. With the Trump administration, we have seen this story before. I was minister when Trump was elected before. So it's not new. It does take a little bit of the energy out of the room, Although I was just an event with Secretary Garcia from California, head of their environmental agency, and California's all in and they're the fifth largest economy in the world. So, I mean, I think people are getting on with things because, just because there's a new government in the United States federally, it doesn't mean that the climate crisis isn't accelerating. At the same time, the energy transition is well underway. So, I mean, I think, you know, my view on life is you don't get to choose everything, you know, to have the way you want it but we don't have a choice but to move forward.

NK: As you move forward. And given what happened in the U.S. election and what the president-elect has said about this issue, how do you calibrate or change the conversations you're having in those rooms?

CM: Well, look, I mean, my advice to folks, is we have seen this story before, when I was minister and this happened the first time Canada stepped up, we created the ministerial on climate action with the European Union and with China. And we brought together all the major countries every single year, starting in Montreal, to continue moving forward on climate. And I mean, I think the message has to be that not one, not one country can stop progress. And the real difference actually, between this time and last time is the energy transition had not accelerated the way we've seen it now. That fossil fuels are going to peak by 2030. This is the International Energy Agency. And why is that? It's largely because China has super scaled electric vehicles as well as the renewable energy revolution is well underway with costs being, you know, it's cheaper actually to go forward with renewable energy than it is with other options, especially wind and solar. So, look, I mean, I think the world has changed a lot, but I do think that we don't, I don't think you can overstate the importance of one country. It would be better for sure to have a Harris administration than a Trump administration. But the science on climate doesn't change and the energy transition that's underway hasn't stopped.

NK: Your former cabinet colleague, former finance minister Bill Morneau, says, you know, in terms of specific policy vis a vis what is unfolding in the U.S. says he's not convinced now is the time, the right time for the Trudeau government to be setting an emissions cap on oil and gas companies given what the president-elect has said his priorities are and the importance of energy security. How do you respond that this is not the right time to do that?

CM: Well, we're in a climate crisis, so that's number one. Number two, the oil sands, because that's really what we're talking about, has its own net zero target, but its emissions continue to go up. And it made massive historic record profits largely off of the back of an illegal war, Russia's war in Ukraine, and gave that money back to shareholders largely outside of Canada and then invested in new fossil fuel infrastructure. So, I mean, look, if they were able to reduce their emissions in the way that they said they would do, like every single other sector in Canada, then you know, there wouldn't be a need to do this. They have haven't. In fact, their greenwashing. That's what my report was to the secretary general. It was about what does it mean when you say net zero. What are the criteria and standards? Your emissions need to go down, your money needs to go to clean. And the oil sands haven't done that. Oil and gas has not done it. So, I mean, look, they've been talking about reducing their emissions for a long time. And the reality is we don't get to choose what barrel of oil is sold. And when you look at the oil sands, it's not only amongst the dirtiest, it's also amongst the most expensive. So this is actually important to our own economy as we're subsidizing. They're getting massive subsidies both in terms of a pipeline, but also for carbon capture and storage to reduce our emissions. They need to do the work or else it's going to impact us because our barrels will be gone and they will be there. People won't be buying it. So I think actually, I mean, had the oil sands stepped up, you know, when they said they were going to do things, we wouldn't need to do this. But we're in a climate crisis and we're in, you know, a transition of economies. And so we actually, I think it's actually important to our economy. Also, I mean, I think Canadian taxpayers should be quite outraged, to be honest. We're giving massive subsidies. And when in good times, when they make a lot of money, they're not reinvesting that money to reduce their own emissions.

NK: You mentioned the report that's in your capacity as chair of the UN Secretary General's Zero Emissions Working Group. So you're trying to hold corporations to their climate change promises. We heard that in that last answer as well. But how do these shifting political winds in the U.S. change that work?

CM: Well, I mean, look, I think integrity is really important if we're going to tackle the climate crisis, which has massive economic costs. And I don't need to tell this to Canadians because they're living it, whether it's flooding or we've seen wildfires that have actually literally destroyed communities. We had to evacuate in places, that these extreme weather events have a massive cost, both in terms of the cost to economy, but also in terms of the cost to people's lives. So, I mean, there's we ought to be addressing the risks of climate change and moving forward. And as I said, like I want Canada to win in the new economy and it's a race out there. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, actually, which is continuing to go forward. We'll see what happens but has actually driven a humongous amount of investment to the United States. The same thing is happening in Europe. The same thing is happening in China. So, I mean, I think that it is really important that we continue moving forward and that companies continue to move forward because they understand risk, that you know, climate is a financial risk and they also understand the opportunities. So when it comes to countries, cities and regions as well as corporates, it's actually just makes sense to move forward to manage your risk and also take advantage of the economic opportunity.

NK: Catherine McKenna, I thank you for your time.

CM: Great to join you. Thanks very much, Nil.

CH: Catherine McKenna is a former Canadian environment minister and is now the chair of the UN Secretary General Zero Emissions Working Group. We reached her in Baku, Azerbaijan.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

Archbishop Resigns

Guest: Andy Morse

CH: He served as the head of the Church of England since 2013. Now he's announced his resignation because of horrific reports of abuse that he failed to act on in 2013. The now former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, had been facing calls to step down since an investigation found he had covered up serial, physical and sexual abuse at Christian summer camps. Many of those calls came from the victims of a man named John Smyth. For over five decades, he abused over a hundred boys and young men. He's believed to have been the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the church. He died in 2018 at the age of 77. One of his victims is Andy Morse. When he was a teenager, he was repeatedly beaten by John Smyth and subjected to what he describes as grooming. Now, in his 60s, Mr. Morse was one of the first people to go public with his story. We reached him in London.

NK: Andy, it's certainly notable any time an archbishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury, resigns. But when you saw Justin Welby's resignation, how did it sit with you?

ANDY MORSE: For a moment I couldn't believe it. It was something obviously, that I've thought about for many years and believed was the right thing to happen. But then I felt an overwhelming sense of relief and also hope that things for victims of the Church of England were going to be better from now on.

NK: Today, Julie Conalty the Bishop of Birkenhead is calling for more senior clergy to do the same in the Church of England, to resign in order for institutional change to come. Do you think that that's something that you will see? And specifically, what kind of changes do you think might come?

AM: I would think that it's almost inevitable that there will be further resignations. The Makin Review mentions, well over a hundred Anglican church men who knew of Smyth's crimes and didn't report effectively. As to what I think hopefully will come out of this is that the church will move from its safeguarding from outside of its own control to an independent body, which obviously means that effectively they won't be marking their own homework.

NK: The Makin Review, just to let our listeners know, was a recent independent review that found Smyth might have been brought to justice had Justin Welby gone to police when he first found out about the abuse back in 2013. Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley has also been speaking out about this, telling the BBC this week, quote, It's hard for the church as the national established church to continue to have a moral voice in any way, shape or form in our nation when we cannot get our own house in order, unquote. You know, you mentioned that this gave you some relief, this resignation, that it might be a safer space. Do you think that survivors will find a safe space in the church now?

AM: I don't believe currently that there is a safe space in the church now. There have just been too many instances of abuse cases that haven't been recorded or reported correctly to the police and the authorities. I think moving forward, as I said, with independent safeguarding, I think that, that has proven in other institutions to work in a much better way and will make the church. And it seems bizarre we're talking about the church not being a safe place, but churches being a safe place in the future.

NK: You first shared your story anonymously until 2017, then you decided to come forward publicly. What made you make that difficult shift and that decision?

AM: I found being anonymous a real burden because whenever I said or something was written about me. Friends and family would often come up to me and say, Was that you Andy, was that you on the radio, was that you in the paper? And I wasn't sure whether I should reveal myself or not. When I did eventually decide to go public with my name, it was a huge burden being lifted. And I discovered that that my conscience felt clear because I've always had a strong feeling of having kept the secret of Smyth's abuse for far too long in the shadows and within a very small circle. And so, having my name publicly put against it seemed to be an appropriate way of making a stand. I was young when the abuse occurred, but I'm now in my 60s and approaching elder age and thinking about life and matters of life and death. And I know now that I can go to my maker with a clear conscience of having spoken out.

NK: You've also spoken about forgiveness. When you're talking about Smyth. For those who can't reconcile those two things, what do you want to tell them about forgiveness, even though he will not face a court?

AM: I just find or I've found in my life that it's impossible to live without forgiveness. I make a hundred mistakes or more every day, and I rely on the people I love to forgive me. And hate and anger are very difficult and controlling things to carry with you in your life. And so I've decided, wherever possible, to forgive, wherever it's a practical option. And I think in the case of John Smyth, because of his death, he was, the victim group was robbed of justice in one sense. But if I had seen him or had the opportunity to talk to him, I would, of course, have said that I forgive him. I wouldn't have found that a difficult thing to do.

NK: If someone is not able to speak out and is hearing this story, your story. You've certainly been outspoken about how the abuse you suffered changed your life mentally and physically. You've been outspoken here about forgiveness and that burden being lifted when you went public with your story. What do you want people to know about the supports that are available in coming forward when they're ready?

AM: I think that's the key thing. I think it's when they're ready. I think you have a sense of that when the time comes. Up until then, it's very important to stay close to those who care for you. Being a victim of abuse can be a very solitary thing. You can spend a lot of time thinking about it, stuck in your own mind. But if you have someone to talk to, maybe on a free telephone line or maybe a friend, maybe a family member, if there's someone that you can reach out to, then that is often, I think, a very good place to start.

NK: Andy, I thank you for talking to me today. Please take care.

AM: Thank you very much for your interest, it's much appreciated.

CH: That was Andy Morse. We reached him in London.

[Music: Piano instrumental]

Antoinette Necklace

Guest: Andres White Correal

CH: At first glance, it appears to be a necklace containing almost five hundred diamonds. Good glance, you are correct. But did you know that some of those diamonds played a role in the French Revolution? Well, how could you? You only glanced at them. If you're a history buff, though, you may recall the so-called "Affair of the diamond necklace' and its association with the neck of one Marie Antoinette. Well, Ms. Antoinette never actually wore that diamond necklace. And the diamond necklace that sold today in Geneva was not the diamond necklace from the aforementioned affair. But today's necklace is believed to contain many of the diamonds from that original necklace. You know, who'd be better at explaining this, Andres White Correal. He is the head of Noble Jewels at Sotheby's, and we reached him in Geneva, Switzerland.

NK: Andres, I know the auction just wrapped. Have you had a chance to catch your breath?

ANDRES WHITE CORREAL: Well, I'm walking in the middle of the street, so I don't think I'm going to catch my breath until I go to bed tonight. And I realize what a fantastic result we managed to get in this market.

NK: So, final price?

AM: Four million two hundred and sixty thousand.

NK: Is that francs?

AM: Yes, it's francs.

NK: That's roughly 4.8 million dollars U.S. How many bidders were there? Can you describe the atmosphere? I mean, auctions are amazing to watch anyway. But on a day like this that you describe as so special, what was it like?

AWC: Well, normally when you have a big an important lot like this one, if you get 3 or 4 telephones to begin with, it's already very optimistic because every, you know depending on how much the a lot is, you're going to get a wider audience or a shorter or smaller audience that will like to participate in the auction because of simply, you know, the less people who can afford such things. So to begin the auction with eight people on the phone you could feel the electricity in the room and you could feel the desire to acquire this piece of history.

NK: Can you share who purchased it in the end?

AWC: I wish I could, but it's an undisclosed private collector. [NK: Ok, so a collector.] An international collector.

NK: Do you imagine that collectors, I mean, you know collectors well, that this person will wear it one day. That we'll see it out in public or is it something they really do keep under lock and key?

AWC: I, I but knowing this client, I think they will wear it. I am not sure when, but I certainly if it were dependent on me, I would really expect them to do so because jewellery becomes alive when it's worn and it's very lot lay dormant in a bank vault for nearly 65 years. So I believe that it's a fantastic moment in time for it to re-write its own history. I think that every time such a jewel changes hands, it gets a new lease of life. So hopefully they wear it.

NK: Let's describe the piece, if you could, for our listeners, because it's, when we say necklace, it's certainly not... Well, it's not typical in many ways. It doesn't have a clasp at the back. It's quite beautiful to look at. Even if you don't wear jewellery like this a lot. Describe it for our listeners, if you could, Andres.

AWC: Absolutely, it was, you're quite right in saying that it's not only a neckless, it's because normally 18th century jewellery was very versatile because people A, wore jewellery all the time, and B, they didn't want to be stuck only with one design. And certainly because diamonds were so expensive in those days that you would try to multiply the possibilities of how to wear your diamonds. So basically what a family owned wasn't the jewel itself. It was the collection of diamonds that they had. And they were repurpose through time in, into different jewels in order to keep up with fashions and time. So in this case, it's an [inaudible] it's a rope. It's like a scarf if you so want, but that it's worn not at an equal level. You can wear it around your neck or you could wear it wrapped around your neck on a knot, or you can wear it as an epaulette. I don't know if you're aware of that name [NK: Yes] or familiar with it. That name an epaulette, it comes from epaule in French, and it's like a shoulder jewel that would hang from the shoulder onto both sides, back and the front of the dress. You could wear it also, as a ras de cou, which was to bejewelled your cleavage from the dress and, or you could wear around the bottom part of the corset as a chatelaine. So it's a very versatile jewel...

NK: For those who have five million dollars to spend. But it is, I'm looking at the photo right now. Just to, just... or who dream about it. And did you at all as you were preparing for the sale, do you get to pick it up and try all of those different configurations that you just described? Because I would.

AWC: Absolutely. Trust me. I've been styling ladies all over the planet with it for the past six months.

NK: How does someone in your position Andres, top a sale like this?

AWC: My God. Let me enjoy this one for tonight. [laughter]

NK: You can't, you shouldn't try to top it. How does, how do you celebrate after a sale like this of a piece with such a history?

AWC: It's a shared victory and it's a very sweet one. I'm sure I'll be thinking about this interview in years to come and how lucky I was to have the opportunity to do what I do.

NK: Very, very charming. Champagne is on you, is what you're saying.

AWC: Of course. [NK: For your team.] [Laughter]

NK: Andres, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

AWC: Thank you very much.

CH: Andres White Correal is the head of Noble Jewels at Sotheby's. We reached him in Geneva, Switzerland.

[Music: Guitar and piano instrumental]

ChatGPT Lifesaver

CH: Chat bots are like a funhouse mirror, the AI that powers them can distort what it reflects. And to an online prankster that can prove pretty irresistible. The subject line in a recent Reddit forum read "ChatGPT Saved My Life And I'm Still Freaking Out About It". The poster claimed that he had felt a tightness in his chest, dizziness and nausea. He immediately asked ChatGPT what was up, as one does. The bot told him to seek immediate medical attention, so he rushed to the E.R., where doctors said he was having a heart attack. He had arrived in the nick of time. Thanks to ChatGPT. That story received tens of thousands of upvotes and lots of comments from many, many sceptics. Days later, the original poster came clean, admitting that the whole story had been made up by none other than ChatGPT itself, which had concocted the whole story on its own after he prompted it to create a Reddit post.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

Part 2: Ports Arbitration: Union, COP Albania, Haiti Ambulance Attack, Kaja Kallas E.U.

Ports Arbitration: Union

Guest: Mark Hancock

CH: Today, unions at Canada's biggest ports said that they are taking the federal government to court. Yesterday, Federal Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon ordered locked out port workers in Quebec and British Columbia back to work and imposed binding arbitration on their negotiations with employers. Minister MacKinnon insisted that it was not a decision he had made lightly.

SOUNDCLIP

STEVEN MACKINNON: My belief and the government's belief in collective bargaining and in the fact that collective agreements that are reached at the bargaining table are the most durable agreements. That has not changed. However, when mediators who are among, it should be said the best in the world informed me in three different circumstances that we are at a total impasse and the way forward is not clear. The duration of the disputes is not clear and there is real economic health and other risks posed to Canadians. I take that responsibility extremely seriously, and Canadians have limited tolerance right now for economic self-harm.

CH: That was Federal Labour Minister Steven MacKinnon speaking yesterday. Mark Hancock is the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents twelve hundred dockworkers at the Port of Montreal. We reached him in Bogotá, Colombia.

NK: Mark Hancock, how are your members responding to Minister MacKinnon's back to work order?

MARK HANCOCK: Our members are not happy by any stretch. And in fact, they're angry. They're frustrated, and they're meeting today and tomorrow. And, you know, we'll be formulating our response, which includes a variety of different things, including using the courts. And, you know, we'll figure those out as the days move forward. But this is definitely an overreach by the minister and he has completely bought what the employers are saying, the employers have created this crisis. They locked out my members, created the crisis, went to the minister. The minister has now come in on his proverbial white horse to save them. But this is a real sleight and it's not good news for collective bargaining in this country.

NK: We heard the minister say, as you did just now, that he didn't have a choice. That he's been told multiple times it's things are at an impasse; negotiations are stalled and the economic risk to Canadians is growing day by day. I hear what you're saying, as you said a moment ago, but how do you respond to that? He said the negotiations were not going anywhere, so someone had to do something and it's his job to do it.

MH: Well, to say this, we have two ports represented by CUPE members. The Port of Quebec City has been out for two years now, and not until this moment have we seen any interest in this federal government stepping in to do anything. So that's two years. And I get that the Montreal Port is a bigger port. But we've been you know; we've been bargaining with this employer for months. We've had job action going on for, since September. And it's the employer that moved to lockout our members at the Port of Montreal. So they've created this crisis.

NK: Why haven't negotiations gotten anywhere, though? That does sound like an impasse at this point.

MH: Negotiations are tough. Negotiations are difficult. But, you know, we have 750 thousand members across the country. We're very good at negotiating collective agreements and very few disputes I'll say. You know, like one or two at any points across this country. But this employer is the problem. This employer refuses to negotiate. Of course, money and benefits are always important, but this is really about scheduling. This is about work life balance. This is about those workers being able to spend time with their families. And the employer just doesn't want to deal with those issues. And that's the impasse that we're at. And by the minister sending this off to the Industrial Relations Board, this isn't going to be dealt with one more time. This is another round of bargaining where those issues are not going to be dealt with because generally and overwhelmingly, arbitrators, mediators like to cut to the, you know, the money, the benefits, those types of things, and these more complex issues which take more time and they won't be dealt with. And once again, my members at the port will be left hanging without this, the collective ruling, which would allow them to spend time with their families.

NK: Minister MacKinnon also said in that clip that we heard, that in his view, Canadians don't have tolerance right now for what he called, quote, "economic self-harm". Do you feel, you know, other Canadian workers, other Canadian families are willing to deal with this kind of job action so that, you know, as Canadian Press is reporting and talking about the Maritime Employers Association, mentioning that at the end of the six year contract, it would be an average wage of more than two hundred thousand dollars a year for your members. So when other workers and families hear that he's saying they don't have tolerance for this right now, what would you say?

MH: Yeah. And we're not, you know, not crying poverty. We're, I'm not saying that and we're not saying that the wages and benefits are the primary issue here. Of course, they're an important issue in any round of bargaining. But this issue is clearly around their ability to spend time with their kids, their elder parents. They're doing their family responsibilities. And here's what I can tell you from across the country, workers are frustrated. And I'm not just talking about CUPE members or unionized workers, but workers across this country and really across the globe are frustrated. You know, first of all, we got through the pandemic. Then we saw a cost of living increases that we hadn't seen in decades. And anyone with the collective agreements that had negotiated wages before that happened, we're falling further behind. So I can tell you, workers are frustrated. And while these workers, just like any other workers or members that we represent, nobody wants to go on strike. No one, nobody wants to be locked out. They want to be doing the jobs that they do. They want to be able to go and provide for their families and get a good standard of living. And this is the last thing that they want to be doing. But this is having such an impact on these workers at the Port of Quebec and the Port of Montreal. That they just can't have any time to deal with their family responsibilities. And that's what this is all about, work life balance.

NK: What will you say to Steven MacKinnon, the minister, the next time you get a chance to talk?

MH: I talked to him yesterday [NK: Oh, yeah] and I said to him, I wish he, wished we would have talked before he made this announcement yesterday because maybe we could have found a way through this and he chose not to contact me. The national president for both of these locals. And, you know, I'm not a I'm not a difficult person to deal with generally. And I'm happy to have these conversations. And we could have this, had a conversation about, you know, if you... Free collective bargaining is such a fundamental right and if a government is going to wade in and they're just going to make this announcement and the federal minister's just sort of, you know, wiping his hands clear of this situation, okay, it's over. Well, it ain't over. This is not over. You know, we'll go through the processes. We'll see what my locals do. I'm not a hundred per cent sure that they're going to go back to work. We'll see over the next couple of days. And then we've got years of going before the courts and maybe this federal minister isn't going to have to worry about it. But the next one will or the one after him will.

NK: What did he say to you when you said, why didn't you tell me this before?

MH: He told me a lot of the B.S. that you have heard on, from the clip on him that this is having an impact and we want a strong economy. CUPE members across this country want and need a strong economy as well. We get it. The public services that pay for, you know, most of the jobs that my members do are better off with a strong economy. They're better funded through a strong economy. And so we get it. But we also get that workers have the fundamental right to bargain a collective agreement without interference from the government.

NK: Mark Hancock, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

MH: You're very welcome. Thank you.

CH: Mark Hancock is the national president of CUPE. We reached him in Bogotá, Colombia.

[Music: Guitar instrumental]

COP Albania

CH: COP 29 might evoke the words of baseball great Yogi Berra, "It's like deja-vu all over again". Last year, the climate summit was held in the United Arab Emirates. This time, Azerbaijan, both oil rich countries, both facing criticism for their human rights records, both hoping to boost their international reputations through what some, like climate critic Greta Thunberg, called "greenwashing". It might all feel a little too scripted. But today, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama went off script.

SOUNDCLIP

EDI RAMA: I decided to leave aside my well prepared speech because in the meantime, since yesterday, I was watching the silent TV screens in the leaders lounge where the organizers have thoughtfully added green plants above the comfortable couches. People there eat, drink, meet and take photos together, while images of voiceless speeches from leaders play on and on and on in the background. To me, this seems exactly like what happens in the real world. Everyday life goes on with its old habits, and our speeches full of good words about fighting climate change, change nothing. Worse, as the UN Secretary General emphasized yesterday, carbon emissions actually increased last year from previous COP to this COP. Far be it from me to lecture anyone. After all, we are used to being lectured, not to lecturing others. But my point is, what on earth are we doing in this gathering? Over and over and over. If there is no common political will on the horizon to go beyond words and unite for meaningful action. And adding insult to injury, some major and minor players even boycotted this annual global event. What does this mean?

CH: That was Edi Rama, prime minister of Albania, addressing the UN Climate Change conference COP 29, in Baku, Azerbaijan today.

[Music: Lo-fi instrumental]

Haiti Ambulance Attack

Guest: Christophe Garnier

CH: The medical charity MSF describes what happened this week in Port au Prince as a shocking display of violence and says it's now wondering whether it can continue to deliver desperately needed care to Haitians. MSF is one of the last international humanitarian groups operating in Haiti right now. Amid a bloody gang war that saw gunfire shutter the country's main airport this week. The charity believes that on Monday, two of its patients were executed after one of its ambulances was stopped by a group that included law enforcement officers. Christophe Garnier is the head of mission for MSF in Haiti, and we reached him in Port au Prince.

NK: Christophe, have you had a chance to speak with your colleagues who survived this ordeal? How are they doing?

CHRISTOPHE GARNIER: Sure. They are still shocked. But we had some debriefings and they stayed in coordination for a couple of nights. So we just drove back then to the project this morning. They are gonna be okay. I'm not sure they realized fully again.

NK: So if we go back to what happened, your organization says three young people with gunshot wounds were being transferred to an MSF hospital. They did not make it to that hospital. What happened?

CG: We were stopped around one hundred metres before arriving to the hospital by the police and we were asked to let the police take the three wounded ones. And of course we refused. There were some negotiation and the first of the negotiation we accepted was to go to another public hospital where we could wait in the parking with the three wounded in the car. Time for us to try to make some call at highest level and to see how we can find a solution. Of course, for us, the solution would have been to be able to go back to our hospital and to take care of the three wounded ones.

NK: Why would police or law enforcement, as you've said, why would they be so interested in the passengers of that ambulance? Who were they?

CG: Because Monday was a crazy day and the police was expecting some gang fighters to be transported in the hospital.

NK: And it wasn't just police who confronted you. And it strikes me how close you were to your hospital as well. But your organization says it was not just police, but members of a vigilante group. So how many people stopped this ambulance?

CG: The first stop was only by the police. Later on in the evening when we wanted to go back because they finally told us, okay, you can take them after maybe four hours. And when we wanted to go back to our hospital or to our base with the wanted ones, then [inaudible] started. [inaudible] it's kind of popular justice. And some people from the area came and started to fight against the car. So the car came back to the hospital. And then, I mean, for the police, like it was different groups who came to rely one to the other. At the end, there were 20 to 25. In the evening, it was something like 9:00. And they finally sent some gas, tear gas in the car. That forced our driver and MSF caretaker to exit the car and to go in the second car. And then they took the three wounded and they took them out of the hospital.

NK: So they just they gassed the vehicle so that they would be forced to come out.

CG: Yes, exactly. Yes. It's really the first time that our staff has really aggressed this way and we are fully aggressed this way. So we are assuming that two of the three have been killed later on by those people. Those armed people.

NK: You're assuming you don't have proof yet?

CG: We haven't seen by ourselves because that took them away and we could, we could only hear the shooting. So, of course, we haven't seen and thank God, I would say we haven't seen. So yes we are assuming. [cross talk]

NK: They heard what they believe was, were executions.

CG: Exactly. 12 shots. But we know that the younger was 15. They let him go, finally.

NK: How old were the other two?

CG: We think they were 18 and 21. One of them had a student card and the second had a kind of official document I.D. telling us was just civilians. But that's why for us, there were civilians, wounded civilians and the gunmen.

NK: They were civilians, not gunmen. But the people who overtook your car seem to believe that. [CG: Exactly.] Not that, I mean, it shouldn't matter, obviously. You mentioned your teams have never been sort of gassed in this way. But this kind of stopping and making demands by authorities or vigilante gangs, is that something that they're experiencing regularly?

CG: I would not say regularly, but we experienced it already, yes, September and a few times. But I cannot say it's like regular. Generally speaking, it's quite okay. And we have maybe not the best relation in the world, at least collaborative relation with all the different authorities and even the police. But everyone is under pressure, including them. I mean, the situation in Haiti, in Port au Prince, touches is absolutely all the families, all people, everyone has suffered of the situation already. Everyone has experienced some suffering. It can be being obliged to move away. Being obliged to be in camp. Being kind of internally displaced. Losing the house. Probably losing some member of the family. Everyone here has experienced this. So I'm telling that because I don't want to be the one blaming. You know, we of course, we are [inaudible] this situation, but at least this situation is a main issue. The global situation is the main issue. Who drove to this particular one on Monday.

NK: Your MSF said it is not sure it can continue delivering care to Haitians because of this latest incident and how severe it was compared to others that you've experienced. What will that decision come down to? The decision whether to continue providing care to Haitians.

CG: We the line on Monday regarding aggressivity with our people, with our staff. MSF members have been clearly aggressed on Monday and this is really a red line for us. So, yes, we are questioning not the facts of being in Haiti, providing some care. We are questioning being secured during this care. So, of course, if we don't have any guarantee that we will be able to provide some safe environment to our patients and to our staff and to ourselves, then how long can we stand and how long are we going to be able to continue our activity. That's a question today. I don't have the answer. No one wants to leave, but at least if it's to face issues like Monday, it will not be possible anymore.

NK: Christophe, I appreciate your time. I'm glad your team is okay. Christophe, thank you.

CG: Thank you very much. You're welcome. Take care.

CH: Christophe Garnier is the head of mission for MSF in Haiti. We reached him in Port au Prince.

[Music: Guitar instrumental]

Kaja Kallas E.U.

CH: Kaja Kallas endured quite a grilling yesterday. The former Prime Minister of Estonia is under consideration for a job as the European Union's next foreign policy chief. And yesterday, the confirmation process involved an hours long interview with all comers from the European Parliament. It was a multi-lingual barrage from politicians of all stripes. Ms. Kallas was a staunch opponent of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and she maintained a flinty smile throughout her appearance, including while answering this question, which we'll hear through the official interpreter from Alexander Sell, an MEP from Germany's far right party, the Alternative für Deutschland.

SOUNDCLIP

INTERPRETER: Two and a half years of war in Ukraine, more than a million dead. 400 billion euro. To Kyiv. Donald Trump wants to end that. That will mean the end of the biggest donor to Ukraine. Only in Brussels, is this war fatigue not yet setting in. And the commission is promising more and more billions to Ukraine. What for? Mrs. von der Leyen is saying that European policy should be guided by Zelenskyy. We want to support Ukraine, she says, for as long as it takes. Ms. Kallas, you want to work for Mrs. von der Leyen? I have these questions. Why is the European Commission following goals formulated in Kyiv? Wouldn't it be better to represent our own interests? Secondly, apart from supporting the war, will you be seeking a diplomatic solution? Will you want to put Zelenskyy and Putin around a table? Do you know Trump's peace plan and will you support it? Thank you.

KAJA KALLAS: Thank you. Everybody wants peace. But there's a difference between peace and peace. We want the sustainable peace because if we just give in to the aggressor and say that, okay, take what you want, then all the aggressors, would be aggressors all across the world, would get the note, okay, this pays off. You go for your neighbour's territories, you kill some people, you kill your own people, and then you walk away with more than you had before. And that's why we say that we have to support Ukraine, not give in to Russia. [applause] Thank you. Just to end. If aggression pays off somewhere, it serves as an invitation to use it elsewhere. That is our worry. Thank you.

CH: Former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas responding to a question from AfD MEP Alexander Self at the European Parliament in Brussels.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

Part 3: Manitoba Veterinarian, SCC: Sex Work Ruling, Old Halifax Buildings, Jasper Found Cat, FOA: Rembrandt Restoration

Manitoba Veterinarian

CH: Thomson is the biggest city in northern Manitoba, but it only has one veterinarian. And over the past four years that veterinarian Keri Hudson Reykdal, has seen more than five thousand three hundred patients. That's around four hundred animals a month. That's a phenomenal workload plus, which is rigged all the time in Thompson was only ever supposed to be temporary. She's been itching to move back home but there's been no one to take her place. And there still isn't but she says she can't delay any longer. Here's Keri Hudson Reykdal, speaking with the CBC.

SOUNDCLIP

KERI HUDSON REYKDAL: I let the city know probably two years ago that I was not planning to stay long term, that I wanted to leave to go back home to the Interlake. So the city of Thompson's known for at least two years, and my clients as well have known that, that Thompson is not home for me. And I want to go home. There's definitely been I feel like a delayed reaction. Everybody's worried when they come in for their appointments now. They're like, okay, what are we supposed to be doing? You know, what's going to happen? But there, I feel like nobody's worried enough. I mean, right now they don't have to travel to Winnipeg eight hours. Right now, they still can access care. So it doesn't become real until, you know, they phone and the clinic is closed and then all of a sudden it's the middle of winter. It's minus 40. There's a blizzard. My dog is sick and now I have to access vet care either in the Pas, who is already busy, they already have their clientele. They're already, you know, booking full. Swan River, same thing, they're booked full. Dauphin, same thing. So they're so, you know, they have to head down to Winnipeg to one of the 24 hour emergency clinics and they're busy, too. I think for Thompson, I mean to attract veterinarians and RVTs, I mean, it is a long ways north. There is lack of essential services or lack of enough services as well. The community doesn't have the best reputation in the province as far as crime rates. And, you know, I have seen that in the last few months. There's been, you know, vehicles that are driving crazy in town and hitting houses. And, you know, when you see, when you see high crime rate and when there's that concern, it's hard to attract people to come north. Right now for me, the last four years, basically, I've put my life on hold to be up there. I mean, I play sports when I'm up there, I hike when I'm up there, but I'm away from my husband, I'm away from my family. So basically, the things that I love to do I haven't done for almost four years.

CH: That was veterinarian Keri Hudson Reykdal speaking with the CBC's Chelsea Kemp.

[Music: Upbeat instrumental]

SCC: Sex Work Ruling

Guest: Jenn Clamen

CH: 10 years after Canada enacted new criminal prostitution laws, the Supreme Court is considering their constitutionality. This week, the court is hearing a challenge that centres on two men in Alberta. Both were drivers arrested in a human trafficking probe. They were originally found guilty of benefiting financially from sexual services. But that decision was overturned after they challenged the constitutionality of the legislation. Now, the case has made its way to the country's top court, as advocates for sex workers argue that the current laws impact workers freedoms and safety. Jenn Clamen is the national coordinator for the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. The coalition represents 23 sex workers rights groups across the country. It applied to be an intervenor in this case, but that application was rejected. We reached Ms. Clamen in Ottawa, where she's been attending the hearings.

NK: Jenn, you've just left the courtroom. The hearing has wrapped up. What's your sense of things so far?

JENN CLAMEN: My sense is that the court is asking itself some really important questions about its capacity to challenge or understand some of the objects that parliament had when it implemented these laws. But my understanding most definitely from our advocacy work with sex workers every day, but also from what the judges are saying, is that the provisions themselves are so unclear, not only to sex workers who are forced to work under them, but also to all of the judges and to all of the interveners. There's no clear parameters that could actually help sex workers achieve safety that they need to live in safety, which is a fundamental human right.

NK: And the two men at the centre of this case, Jen, are not sex workers themselves, to underline, not for our listeners, what parts of the law are they challenging?

JC: They're challenging the laws that they've been charged with. So there are two provisions of the entire regime. One of them is a procuring provision, and the other is the material benefits provision. The procuring provision makes it illegal for people to entice people into sex work. And the material benefits provision makes it illegal for anybody, including sex workers, to earn any material benefit from the sale of sexual services.

NK: So the owners of the business that these men worked for were convicted in a sex trafficking operation that moved women from Quebec to Alberta. The women did not hire them to act as drivers or bodyguards or have any control over how much they were paid. They testified they were... [interrupted]

JC: Peculiar framing of it. So these two men are drivers for an agency, and that's usually the way things that would work is if people own an agency, they would hire the drivers, they would hire the receptionists. It wouldn't necessarily be up to the people who are working for the agency to hire those third parties. Same with any other business. It wouldn't be up to the employees working at a hair salon to hire the cleaners or to hire the administrative staff. It would be up to the owner to hire those third parties.

NK: There's two sort of competing views at the heart of this challenge. What is at stake, in your view?

JC: What is at stake, in my view? Well, what's at stake is sex workers capacity to be able to put things into place that actually protect their safety. And so, if a sex worker decides to work for an agency that is the, and all the agency, all the things that come with that agency like drivers and security and whatnot, that's a sex workers decision to work in the industry in that way. Another sex worker might decide to work independently, but she still needs to be able to engage third party services. So what's at stake is that sex workers, when they don't have access to these third party services, are working in isolation and are working alone. And there's not any context in which a human can work on their own without engaging in any third party service at any point, whether you're taking a taxi or an Uber to your work, or whether you have a website that you pay for. There's no way to work in any business without the help of third party services. And so these particular provisions limit sex workers capacity to engage third party services or work for third parties that would actually make their safety more secure. And that's one of the objectives of PCEPA that was set out by parliament.

NK: What do you say to those who believe that, though, that these provisions are key to actually protecting sex workers, which you want as well, in helping to safeguard against human trafficking? When we consider the example that's at the heart of this case.

JC: Well, the, what's at the heart of this case... At the heart of this case isn't the trafficking issue. Even though the owners were at the heart of a different case, was at the heart of this case are the two drivers that were hired to work for the agency to be able to drive sex workers to and from...

NK: Right. But the owners of this business were convicted in a sex trafficking operation that moved women from Quebec to Alberta. The women testified they were assaulted by the owners of the commercial operation. Right.

JC: Absolutely. There were four sex workers who testified in this case, and some of them talked about violence and some of them didn't. Some of them talked about violence, also talked about non-violence. And so obviously, the conditions under which sex workers are working right now are conducive to violence because there's no way for sex workers to actually put safety mechanisms into place in a way that they actually work. So nobody's denying that there's violence in the sex industry. In fact, what we're seeing is that's a part of the reason that that violence exists is because sex workers don't have the capacity to be able to control the way that the safety mechanisms are set up because the law is so limiting in that way. So that would be my answer to that. It's not a denial of the actual conditions. It's a recognition that those conditions exist because sex work is criminalized. If sex work wasn't considered a crime, then sex workers wouldn't have to be doing hoops in order to protect their safety.

NK: You wanted to be an intervener in this case. Your application was denied in part because you have another challenge of sex work laws underway. So for you to sit there and watch the testimony but not be able to share the perspectives of the people you work with and your experience, what has that been like?

JC: Well, my response to that is twofold. One is that the limitations of this case or that two of the provisions are being considered in isolation. So the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services wasn't discussed and wasn't analyzed in conjunction with the two provisions that were discussed. And that just really limits a lot of the legal argumentation, especially when we're talking about what is exploitation and what is not exploitation. If you have provisions in the regime like the purchasing provision that makes sex work exploitative, how could you talk about what is exploitative and not exploitative when everything is being considered exploitative for one. Two, what makes it really difficult is that our alliance, which is an alliance of 23 sex worker rights groups across the country who serve thousands of sex workers, who some experience violence, some don't experience violence, some work on the street. Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black and migrant sex workers. We're not able to actually provide evidence in this case as to how these two provisions impact on their lives, and particularly for migrant sex workers. Third parties play a huge role in their capacity to stay safe and not get deported, so it was difficult to not have that voice represented.

NK: What was one thing that an intervener shared that illustrate what is at the heart of this for you and others.

JC: Throughout all of the intervenor submissions they were really questioning the idea that when government decided that sex work was exploitative, that wasn't necessarily an objection of theirs, but it was sort of a guiding, moral idea that guided the objections of the law and that that needs to be questioned because the evidence that they were provided with then and now in this case is that sex work is not always exploitative. And so how do we understand that? How do we understand, how do we protect sex workers rights in a case where there is no exploitation, I think is really, some really important questions that the court is faced with right now. And instead of pitting women against each other and deciding whose rights are more important, the submissions from the interveners really point to the fact that this decision should be thrown back to parliament for them to create new laws and to have more coherency, because it was really clear that there was a lack of coherency in the law. And I think a lot of the judges pointed to that, too, in their comments.

NK: Does that give you a sense that that's the kind of change that you're seeking is actually closer to becoming a reality?

JC: I can't say that. No. I can only say it's a wish.

NK: I appreciate your time, Jenn. Thank you.

JC: Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it.

CH: Jenn Clamen is with the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. She's an Ottawa.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

Old Halifax Buildings

Guest: Blair Beed

CH: For centuries now, it's been a point of entry into Canada, the port by which many Canadians ancestors arrived in this country. But according to a new study, historic Halifax is disappearing brick by brick. A new study by archaeologists at Saint Mary's University has revealed the extent to which the city's centuries old architecture is getting torn down to make space for new developments. And Blair Beed hopes its findings serve as a wakeup call. He's a historian and tour guide in Halifax, and that's where we reached him.

NK: Blair I think even if people haven't had a chance to visit Halifax, there's, there's an idea in their mind. There's the picturesque beauty, but also history there that it's quite beautiful when you look out on your city now, what do you see?

BLAIR BEED: I see a junior Toronto.

NK: You don't like the way that looks then?

BB: I don't like the way they've built a wall in the downtown that blocks a view from the Citadel Hill to the harbour.

NK: Your feelings have been backed up by this research that we're talking about today. These researchers layered 19th century maps over images of Halifax today, the junior Toronto that you see as well. If I was at a table with those maps right now. What would we see of what was there?

BB: Well, the way they have it is, is sort of a green is there and the red is gone. So without having a picture of what the actual buildings looked like, you would know there has been dramatic change in a hundred and some years. Much has disappeared, not all of it because of fires and Halifax explosion.

NK: Yeah, I was going to ask you, could a lot of that it be attributed to the explosion in 1917. What has happened since?

BB: The explosion in 1917 was in the far north end of the city, and the older part of Halifax was spared most of the destruction. World War Two expanded the city, but into things like blueberry fields on the edge of town with housing. It's only after World War Two that Halifax decided to modernize and anything old was simply not needed.

NK: A lot of communities make decisions like that, and I know it's heartbreaking for folks who live in those communities. The study says Halifax had close to nine thousand buildings in 1878. Only about 11 hundred of those buildings are still standing. What does that signal to you about the leadership in your city?

BB: In the 1970s, there was a movement to actually save some things, but it was overwhelmed by the 1980s need to modernize once again. And we're in love with the idea that we want to be the big city. And any idea to be bigger is the best idea. And Heritage itself is here in Halifax, looked at as a liability.

NK: Construction and development can be necessary certainly for cities and communities that are developing and growing. Housing is scarce certainly across this country, including in Halifax. But what would you like to see planners and elected officials do to balance those priorities, which are sometimes competing?

BB: That's sort of like the closing the barn door after the horse has left. The city has accepted the upsizing money from the federal government, which has told them that we should upsize everything. And despite the fact that Halifax Regional [inaudible] is bigger than Prince Edward Island. They still have this view that everything should be in the downtown. On top of what's already there. Rather than using empty land, for instance, car lots and empty industrial sites. It's knock down the old stuff and put everybody together in really communal living with very small sizes. Somehow that's going to make us happy people.

NK: Are there other cities across the country that you see sort of a kinship with that you think officials in Halifax could have modelled your city after instead?

BB: Well, certainly Quebec City has decided there's a section that won't be 40 story buildings in the old walled city. Montreal has an old port. There are various places that have set aside areas in the downtown which they know can be commercialized and be very vibrant. Something that Halifax decided a while ago that it just didn't work here.

NK: Do you think that this research from the team, the archaeologists at Saint Mary's, might bring some change?

BB: It's difficult to say. What it will bring is it gives a great tool to say to people, look, instead of you just answering, well, we can't save everything. This shows, what are we saving, it's like pulling out what buildings you think will actually still be here in 10 years’ time. And that may cause pause but other jurisdictions do set aside money for heritage buildings in greater amounts then Halifax does. Other cities react quicker to designating areas and other cities also have stronger protection once buildings are registered that they can't just be a door on the building kept and build a 20 story building behind the door.

NK: You mentioned what you see now. What are some of the places, the spots, the buildings that aren't standing anymore that you are wistful about, that you would like people to know used to be there and what they look like.

BB: Well, in the 1980s, Spring Garden Road was sort of a boutique shopping area on the side streets and. One city staff member in a radio show that I was on, I was saying I was concerned with the buildings and that person who's now passed away said, oh, developers are very interested in those buildings. And on Spring Garden Road, seven of those blocks of buildings are now gone. They were houses that were residential that turned into boutiques. You could go in and see the family fireplace and the mouldings in the rooms and the China shop or the bookstore really set off nicely against that historic character. But they've all been taken down. There was this idea at the time they actually had a slogan we would become 'the Rodeo Drive of the North'. So we need to have three shopping malls all at once on Spring Garden Road, tore everything down. The malls are half empty. Some have been converted to office space and all the character buildings are gone.

NK: So what do you say to people when you take them on your tours?

BB: I'm a really good tour guide so I can colour a full picture what's left. But at the same time, a bit of me is saying, you know, I'd love to be able to stop outside the house of the famous author that's no longer here or the famous scientists that's no longer here. To give you an idea of the doorway, they came out of the city type of life they came out of in order to be the person they were.

NK: Is there a building that you are concerned about now?

BB: There is. It's the home of the first mayor of Halifax, would have been partly in a state house. A developer has now bought those buildings on either side and ripped them down. And I'd actually said in the last planning thing that I ever went to, to the city staff person, I'm very concerned about this particular house because if you can say you can build 20 storeys on the property, how can an individual’s pay to keep that kind of property. And their answer was, you can't save everything. And it's like yeah, can't save everything. But what are we intending to save?

NK: Blair I'm glad we could speak. Thank you for this.

BB: You're most welcome.

CH: Blair Beed is a local historian and tour guide, and we reached him in Halifax.

[Music: Electronic instrumental]

Jasper Found Cat

CH: Felix the cat has finally made his way back home after a hundred days missing. Being a cat, he took his sweet time. His family lost him in the midst of the evacuation from the wildfires that surrounded the town of Jasper, where they live. Nicole Klopfenstein, the sister of Felix's owner, took the cat with her to the family cabin near Valemount. She told the CBC what happened after he disappeared.

SOUNDCLIP

NICOLE KLOPFENSTEIN: Of course we did look for him. We had access to a cat trap. We put our clothes in there. We put food in there. We were near a helicopter pad. So every day you would hear these helicopters going by and it was loud. And I can only imagine for a cat how scary that would be. We also made some posters, put that in the community of Valemount. On August 16th we were allowed back in Jasper. That's four weeks after the evacuation. It was really hard to go back and not bring him home. As time went by in Jasper, we had a couple of sightings in Valemount. We'd go out, spent days looking for him. We put the traps out again, food out. So three days ago, already, a lady was walking her dog at the cranberry marsh, which is just a little bit more south of Valemount. And she looked to her right and saw this cat, and she looked again and she, her jaw dropped and said, that looks like the cat, that looks like the cat, that looks like Felix. So she took her phone out. She took a picture of his face. He didn't run away. He kind of just got up and kind of walked further into the marsh. Of course, she texted me immediately and said, I think I saw your cat. The next day my friend who had the cat trap said, unfortunately, he wasn't in the trap. And again, a disappointment. So within 15 minutes, my friend who was helping us that morning was biking home and she had called me and said, I think I saw him and I ran as fast as I could to the location she was. And she was about a half a kilometre away from where the lady had spotted him and she said he ran into the marsh. So Christine came, that's my sister. She owns Felix. I said, You go in there on your own and I'm going to stay back here. And you go in and you call him. Sure enough, she went in. It was about 30 metres away from where we were standing, and all of a sudden she was waving me back and I ran and [emotional] I still hear that meow. She was calling his name, and his meow was just like you found me, you found me. And it was like I couldn't believe it. Like he was hearing her voice and the meowing that he was giving back was like, you found me. You found me.

CH: That was Nicole Klopfenstein speaking to CBC reporter Megan Deuling.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

FOA: Rembrandt Restoration

CH: Operation Night Watch has entered a new phase. It is not a secretive military op as far as we know, but rather a very public years long project undertaken by the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, which is using fancy technology to research and restore Rembrandt's 'The Night Watch' and also using un-fancy technology. If you visit the museum, you'll see steady handed conservators using tiny swabs to gently remove the varnish from the canvas while the painting remains on display. That makes for high octane viewing. I'm not joking. It's nerve racking. One false move with one swab could mean smearing the canvas so, someone's exquisitely rendered beard smudges into their ruffled colour. So naturally they're taking it slow. Just removing the varnish could take a year. So you have time to get to Amsterdam and spend many hours whispering "Easy, does it" and "be careful" to already tense art restorers. In the meantime, let's pay a cautious visit to the As It Happens archives for a conversation about an earlier phase of Operation Night Watch. Not long after Rembrandt painted his gigantic 17th century masterpiece, someone decided it was a little extra, just kind of unwieldy, you know? So they did what anyone with an enormous, priceless masterpiece would do, they just lopped a bunch of it off. And that crop to Night Watch is what we've all come to know as the Night Watch. But in 2021, the museum used AI to help recreate those missing pieces. Former host Carol Off spoke with Rijksmuseum senior scientist Robert Erdmann.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROL OFF: Robert, first of all, what was missing from this Rembrandt masterpiece?

ROBERT ERDMANN: When the original Night Watch was painted, it was quite a bit bigger than it is now. And when the painting was transferred from the [militia's club house] to the city hall, it wouldn't fit between the two doors where they wanted to place it. So they ended up cutting off all four sides of the painting. The biggest chunk on the left side, about 63 centimetres there. And this actually left the painting minus the top of a... of an arch. Three figures were cut off of the left side, the backs of a couple of figures on the right side and the ground into which the main figures were walking was also removed from the bottom.

CO: Yikes!

RE: So, yeah, we are fortunate in this case that there was a small copy made by a different painter, Gerrit Lundens, before The Night Watch was cut down. It's less than 20 per cent of full scale. So we used a neural network to first find more than 10 thousand matching details between the two paintings. This would then enable a second neural network to find a way to kind of distort the copy so that it would be very precisely aligned feature for feature down to the smallest detail, both the copy and the original Night Work… Night Watch would be aligned. And then, this enabled the final step, which I like to call sending the computer to art school, where essentially we would cut up each of the virtual paintings into thousands of little tiles. And then I gave this to a neural network to teach it how to translate from the style, and the scale and the palette of the copy up into the style, scale and palette of the Rembrandt.

CO: What do you think he would think of [laughing] your... your recovery of his work in this way?

RE: [laughing] Ummm, I like to think that since Rembrandt was himself very innovative, he was willing to try new techniques constantly and invent new ways of doing things, that he would appreciate this sense of what we've done. The rest would be pure speculation. [chuckling]

CO: You better hope so! [both chuckling]

CH: Former host Carol Off, speaking to Rijksmuseum senior scientist Robert Erdmann in 2021.

[Music: Theme]

CH: You've been listening to As It Happens on the CBC Listen App. Our show can be heard Monday to Friday on CBC Radio One after Your World Tonight.

NK: And you can always read more about the stories and conversations we feature on As It Happens on our website, cbc.ca/aih. I'm Nil Köksal.

CH: And I'm Chris Howden.

[Music: Theme]

The AIH Transcript For November 13, 2024

Social Sharing