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 Current Transcript for November 22, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Two months. Canadians are going to get a real break on everything they do.

PIERRE POILIEVRE: That sounds like a trick, a trick. Are you fooled?

MATT GALLOWAY: The gift or a vote grab? In the midst of a cost of living crunch and a slump in the polls, the Liberal government announced a GST holiday on everything from beer and wine to children's toys and Christmas trees. And if you make less than $150,000, you'll also get a $250 cheque in the spring. In 30 minutes, our national affairs panel on the temporary tax cut and who it might actually help, the public or the governing party. Also this morning, winter has arrived on the prairies, just in time for our trip there next week. And for almost 40 years, Saskatoon meteorologist Terri Lang has been steering people in that part of the country through wild weather. In an hour, bomb cyclones, armchair forecasters and why she doesn't tell people at parties what she does for a living. Plus, rats driving cars?

SOUNDCLIP

Speaker 2: There's one little rat. She's so cute. She knows how to like back up. She was like, I'm a make a left, she made a left. She's going to make a right. She knew, like, how to navigate.

MATT GALLOWAY: Turns out rats actually aren't terrible drivers, and getting them behind the wheel seems to bring them some joy. Coming up, the scientist who taught rodents how to drive, on why she would do such a thing, and what she learned about them and maybe us. But we begin with the Canadian human rights advocate Irwin Cotler and the warning of an imminent assassination attempt. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Irwin Cotler on Iran's attempt to assassinate him

Guest: Irwin Cotler

[MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe speaking in French in support of Irwin Cotler]

MG: In the House of Commons on Monday, MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe of the Bloc Québécois, stood in support of Irwin Cotler. Irwin Cotler is well-known to Canadians. Former federal Minister of Justice, the international Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. He's also been a longtime critic of the regime in Iran. And now, the RCMP has confirmed reporting in the Globe and Mail that Mr. Cotler was the victim of a planned assassination attempt backed by the government of Iran. Irwin Cotler, good morning.

IRWIN COTLER: Good morning. Good speaking with you.

MG: It's really good to talk to you. You've had some week when this news comes out. How are you doing?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, you know, it's not new. In November 2023, on a return trip from Washington with my wife on arrival in the Montréal airport. We were advised not to leave. The RCMP would be shortly in touch with us, and I was advised then of what they characterised as an imminent and lethal threat on my life. We had no more particulars than that, other than I, from thereafter be under 24/7 protection. And some months after that, we learned that the source of that threat was Iran, which was not surprising to me because in the Iranian media now, for years, they have been speaking of me as being the kind of enemy of the regime. And it's part of what I would call a larger policy and pattern of the Iranian regime's transnational repression and assassination. So, I think this has to be looked on not just as something with regard to me personally, but this is a, a growing assault on the democratic order. It's a threat to our national sovereignty and security. And the community of democracies, and includes Canada, has to see this as a wake-up call to challenge the Iranian regime's culture of impunity, which it has enjoyed, let alone its massive domestic repression of the Iranian people. We need to show solidarity with the Iranian people, because what we're witnessing by the Iranian regime is the confluence of massive domestic repression and transnational repression and assassination.

MG: Can I go back just to that moment of learning about this? I mean, the threat was, as you said, imminent. The word is, this was going to happen within 48 hours. You might have, given the work that you have done, perhaps suspected like something like this could happen. But when you hear that from the RCMP, what goes through your mind?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, I've been living under that threat since November. What gave it a sense of urgency was a month ago, I was to attend the 60th anniversary of my McGill Law School graduating class. And I was told that day that I could not go because they had evidence of an imminent threat on my life within the next 48 hours, so I did not go. The imminence of the threat became clear on that Saturday.

MG: What has changed in your life since you became aware of these threats?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, what it means is that all my movements are both monitored and protected. So, if I go just to have a haircut, I have a security detail that accompanies me to the place of the haircut and even inside. I began dialysis about a month ago, and I have the security people accompanying me and are with me during my dialysis treatment. So basically, whatever I do, I'm accompanied by an omnipresent security protection, which I just want to say is, has been exemplary. But it does mean a change in my life because sometimes, if I want to attend a, a particular event and it's of a public character, I'm advised that it's not advisable for me to do so. And I have to take into account that the threat to me can perhaps pose a risk to others. And so, I have to be responsible in terms of where I go and, and what I do. It doesn't change my advocacy because I can engage in that, and will continue to do so because part of the transnational repression and assassination is an attempt not only to harass but to intimidate the target, to, to silence the target. And so if we are silenced, we basically allow the Iranian regime to be successful in its attempts at repression and intimidation and the like. So, I think it's important for me to continue to do what I have always done, which is, you know, to continue to advocate, to continue to speak up, to support the Iranian people who, as I said, are not only under intense, and escalating domestic repression. But as we speak, you know, a Nobel Peace laureate like Narges Mohammadi, you know, not only was sentenced to unjust, imprison, but effectively being tortured in that prison because denied the necessary medical care. I would have thought that the Iranian regime should celebrate that an Iranian citizen was a Nobel Peace laureate. In fact, what they have done is punish that Nobel Peace laureate.

MG: Do you worry, to your point, the point of these sorts of threats is to intimidate people to I mean, yes, perhaps kill them, to shut them up, to not have them speak. And you say that you won't be silenced. But do you worry that others who don't have the protection that you have will be silenced? People in the community, people beyond who have spoken out against the regime, that that concept of free speech in this country could be threatened because people are afraid to take a stand?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, you know, it's human nature. People don't want to put themselves at risk or even put them, their family at risk if they're not going to have that protection. And, you know, there have been reports in terms of Canada how Iranian dissidents here have been intimidated and threatened. That's why it's important, really, for our government to act. And what I think right now is we're about to chair the upcoming G7. We have to put the issue of transnational repression and assassination as a priority on the G7 agenda. Thus far, only Canada and the U.S. have put the IRGC on a terrorist list. We have to get the other G7 countries to do so. And we need, I think, here in Canada to establish a separate department and agency to deal with transnational repression and assassination, because there are a number of constituent elements. It's not the only, sort of, foreign interference during an electoral campaign. And as we have now hearings in that regard, but we have here massive disinformation, misinformation, mal information, cybersecurity warfare. We have, as I say, the targeting of the Iranian diaspora, of human rights advocates, of journalists. And so, this becomes a threat to media freedom. And we have, of course, the ongoing patterns of intimidation and harassment of, of Canadian citizens. So, this has to serve as a wake-up call for the community of democracies, for Canada, that we have to hold the Iranian regime to account. And we have to show increased solidarity with the Iranian people for the reasons that I mentioned.

MG: It goes well beyond, as you would know, the Iranian community as well. The federal government and Canadian police have accused the government of India in alleged criminal activities being involved with the murder of the Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. You call this a wake-up call, that we need to have a wake-up call in this country. Do you think that Canada has been naive in terms of, of how the world and some of the bad actors in the world might be operating right now?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, you know, there's always been a touch of naivete. And I think the thoughtless part of, you know, being Canadians, because we always like to think the best about people, which is a good thing, and to think the best about country, which is a good thing. But when you're faced with the reality of this omnipresent, persistent and pervasive transnational repression and assassination, when that becomes, you know, a threat to the international democratic order and to not only the democratic order in Canada, but to Canadian citizens, I think that then becomes the responsibility of the Canadian government to heed this wake-up call and to begin to put in place the necessary policies and protections.

MG: How much of this, when it comes to the threats, specifically on your life, how much of this do you think has to do with the war in the Middle East, particularly in the wake of the 7th of October of last year?

IRWIN COTLER: It may have some, although it began before October 7th. And in terms of the Iranian regime, they've been targeting me for years. It may be that the October 7th might have been a tipping point. And not only with regard to me, but with regard to the increased transnational repression and assassination. We see the manner in which Iran has been involved with its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis. So, they have intensified their involvement on October 7th and since. And we've had Hamas say they're going to commit October 7th again and again and again with the support and backing of Iran. So, yes, I think that's, that's part of it. That may have been, you know, a tipping point, but it was there before. And our response is to take all these factors into account, and we have to be ahead of the game and begin to address it pre-emptively rather than belatedly responsively.

MG: Let me ask you, if I might, just a couple of things about the world post-October the 7th. You were Canada's special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combating anti-Semitism. There has been an increase in anti-Semitism, an increase in Islamophobia as well in this country and around the world. When you take a look at Canada in 2024, when it comes to the state of anti-Semitism, where do you see that state today?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, you know, the mass atrocities of October 7th were perpetrated not only by a terrorist organisation, Hamas, under Canadian law, but by an anti-Semitic, genocidal terrorist organisation. Not because I say so, but because Hamas is so affirmed in its founding charter of 1988 and since and as I said, affirmed that they'd like to commit October 7th again and again, one would have thought that this would have resulted in a mitigation of anti-Semitism. One would have thought that this would have resulted in a global condemnation of anti-Semitism. And what we've seen and you've mentioned that has been an unprecedented explosion of anti-Semitism globally and here in Canada. You know, I have no problem, you know, with pro-Palestinian protests and rights. I mean, I've been a long-time supporter of two states for two peoples. What we're talking about are pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah protests and even celebration of Hamas and Hezbollah in the public square in the [inaudible]. That to me is what's unprecedented, I will say, is Canada's special envoy from 2020 on that the embers of anti-Semitism were burning before October 7th, I reported in my first year as special envoy that one of the things that concerned me most was that I said then was the, the mainstreaming, the normalising, the legitimation of anti-Semitism in the political culture, popular culture, entertainment, sports culture, media, and in particular, in the campus culture. As I've always said, anti-Semitism is not just a threat to Jews. It's toxic to democracies, as my colleague Ahmed Shaheed has put it. It's an assault on our fundamental freedoms. It is, as I've mentioned many times, the canary in the mineshaft of global evil. And so, we have to combat it in terms of protecting our democracy and protecting the human rights of Canadians.

MG: You're also the former Minister of Justice and the former Attorney General of this country. You also served as a special adviser to the foreign minister around the creation of the International Criminal Court. How do you think Canada should respond to the ICC warrants that were issued just in the last couple of days when it comes to the Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant? [IRWIN COTLER: Well...] How should Canada respond to those warrants?

IRWIN COTLER: I've always said that Israel, like any other democracy, must be held accountable for any violations of human rights and, and humanitarian law. What here has been regrettable is that the ICC and as someone who's been involved in it, you know, from its founding and, and the like, is anchored in the principle of complementarity, which means that if a country, a democracy has an independent judiciary that is capable of investigating those crimes, then the ICC should not substitute itself for that independent judiciary. Regrettably, and I had been in touch with Karim Khan, the special prosecutor. We have a long relationship. And in February of 2024, while acting as counsel for hostages who had been abducted and languishing, you know, in Gaza, we made representations and submissions to Karim Khan about bringing Hamas leadership to justice. Then, came the possibility of ICC arrest warrants being issued for Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Israel. And we felt that if that were to be done, that would both undermine the principle of complementarity while prejudicing the pain and plight of the hostages. So, it would seem to me at this point that this undermines the foundational principles of the ICC, and I believe it to be prejudicial to the ICC. Again, not that Israeli officials should not be held accountable, but where Israelis are prepared to undertake and have undertaken the necessary investigations themselves. Then, the principle, complementarity, should prevail. And it's an ICC foundational principle. Also, the paradox here that the ICC special prosecutor who went to Venezuela, met with President Maduro there being a dictatorship and decided not to issue arrest warrants there in order to cooperate with Maduro, but yet decided to issue arrest warrants with regard to Israel, where the Israeli leadership was prepared to cooperate with the special prosecutor and he cancelled his visit to Israel. And on the same day that he cancelled an agreed-upon visit, he then, you know, issue the arrest warrant. So I think this, regrettably undermines the ICC.

MG: Do you worry about undermining the rule of law internationally, that there are people who say that if the rule of law is to be believed and to be upheld, that it applies uniformly, that it can't be applied selectively and that people would say to follow that logic that you're suggesting would undermine that idea that the rule of law applies universally?

IRWIN COTLER: No, I think it's the other way around. I mean, I agree fully with the, the rule of law principle. I agree fully that it should be help, you know, equally. But the ICC foundational principles are that where you have an independent Supreme Court and where you have a situation where independent investigations can be undertaken, then you're not supposed to issue arrest warrants and not substitute your judgement. And here, it's the other way around.

MG: Can I just, finally just end with bringing it back here to this country? This is a really, it feels like a very fractured world in some ways. And there are competing interests that you see play out on Canadian soil. You have Israeli and Palestinian protests over the war. You have Sikh and Hindu scrimmages happening in outside temples over the course of the last few weeks across this country. How do we co-exist peacefully with different world views in this country, do you think? That, that really worries people, that people aren't able to disagree without taking it beyond a disagreement?

IRWIN COTLER: You know, well, that, that worries me, too. You know, when I was a Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I then instituted a national justice initiative against racism and hate, established then a council on National Security, which was co-chaired by a Canadian Jew and a Canadian Muslim. And we worked in concert at that time. And I, of course, as you know, as an MP, we always were working across partisan lines and the like. What worries me is the manner in which we have become more polarised and more divisive within our own democracy. I think we are at an historic inflection moment where what we're seeing is not only resurgent global authoritarianism, but a concerted and intensifying, you know, axis of evil involving not only Iran, but China and Russia and North Korea on the one hand. And yet we don't have a mobilised community of democracies on the other. Rather, we have divisiveness within the democracies. And I think the larger struggle here is really the struggle between democracy and tyrannies. And it's time for the democracies to come together to hold the tyrannies accountable, that what we need is the Canadians to come together in common cause, because the hate and discrimination here is the cause of all of us. And that has to be addressed in the best of Canadian traditions and values.

MG: Difficult to remain optimistic in the face of that?

IRWIN COTLER: Well, I'm an optimist by nature. I believe very much as the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior used to say, that "At the end of the day, the arc of history will bend towards justice." But we have to help bend that arc towards justice. And if we do so, then I believe both the dream of Martin Luther King of that happening and what we can hope to have happen in Canada will indeed be realised.

MG: Irwin Cotler, good to speak with you. Thank you very much and take good care.

IRWIN COTLER: Thank you. Good speaking with you, Matt.

MG: Irwin Cotler is a former federal Minister of Justice and the International Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. [Music: Theme fading in] Your CBC News is coming up next. And then, maybe all you wanted for the holidays this year was a tax break. If so, it should soon be on its way courtesy of Trudeau government, with the backing of the NDP. No GST for two months on things like prepared foods, snacks, restaurant meals, beer, wine, toys and Christmas trees, too. The conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, calls this a trick. Our national affairs panel will unpack this and more coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Trudeau's temporary tax cut

Guests: Rosemary Barton, Stephanie Levitz, Ryan Tumilty

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Government can't set prices at checkout, but we can put more money in people's pockets. These are things that recognise that people are squeezed, and we're there to help.

MG: That's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau yesterday announcing his government is giving Canadians a temporary tax break in time for the holidays, plus some extra cash in the new year. The Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, wasn't buying it.

SOUNDCLIP

PIERRE POILIEVRE: Today, what we have is a two-month temporary tax trick that will not make up for the permanent quadrupling carbon tax on heat, housing, food and fuel. And all to save Justin's job, and Jagmeet's pension.

MG: The tax pause comes in the midst of an affordability crisis. And amidst more uncertainty for this government, with Cabinet resignations, immigration changes and a potential new trade negotiation once Donald Trump returns to the White House. To get into all of that, we have brought together our national affairs panel. Stephanie Levitz is a senior reporter in the Globe and Mail's Ottawa Bureau. Ryan Tumilty is a political reporter with the Toronto Star at Parliament Hill. And Rosemary Barton is the CBC's Chief Political Correspondent, and host of Rosemary Barton Live. Good morning, everyone.

EVERYONE: Good morning.

MG: Rosie, just walk us through what the government is announcing here with this this tax break. Alliteration apparently is on the docket as well. The NDP said it was a liberal letdown. The conservatives are calling it a temporary tax trick. What is this actually about?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Everyone loves alliteration because they think it will convince Canadians that they're saying the right thing. It's a two-month break, you're right. A GST break from December 14th into mid-February. So, after the holiday season as well, that, that applies to a lot of different things and basically makes all food essentially GST-free. But it also applies to things like kids' clothes, footwear, car seats, diapers, toys, books, puzzles, all the things people are kind of thinking about right now as they get into the holiday season. And then on top of that, they are also sending cheques, $250 cheques to almost 19 million people, people who earned $150,000 or less. Those are coming in the spring. I should point out that the $150,000, that's actually net, not gross. So, that means that there's a whole bunch more people included. And you're right, this is essentially because the government has been desperately trying to show Canadians that it is aware of the affordability crisis, that it is trying to help them and all the other things that they were doing, which include, you know, dental care, day-care. They haven't seemed to be able to thread all those things together to show Canadians that those things also help with the affordability crisis. So, now they're just saying, 'Okay, here's the money, here's the money and here's a break and maybe that'll help you.'

MG: Steph, I mean, in some ways, Rosie has hinted at this and people might understand the answer already, but why is the government doing this now?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: The government is under, the Liberal government can't seem to find its footing, Matt. You know, it has been slumping in the polls for so long, it feels like it's moribund. There's questions about can Justin Trudeau even remain as Liberal leader, although it seems right now at this moment in time that he is, no one's listening to them. And as Rosie alluded to, I think a lot of their, their measures to sort of grapple with affordability in this country have been and by necessity and by design, targeted at people, targeted at specific segments of the economy. And these measures are sort of that big national program that the liberals love. It's sort of, it's a little bit for everybody. It's reminiscent of like, you know, Oprah Winfrey. You get a car and you get a car, you get a car and... It doesn't matter. Everyone's going to benefit here. And so, you know, maybe it's a bit, you know, putting the shine back on the rose for the Liberals, for Canadians. But I don't know if that's going to work longer-term. Maybe if the vote were held, you know, the day the cheques arrive, fine. But if it's held six months later, is it going to matter?

MG: I mean, is there sound reasoning behind that idea of a chicken in every pot at a time when people really are struggling? I mean, whether you get a $250 cheque or some taxes knocked off your Christmas tree or the, you know, the toys that you're buying or the shoes that you're buying for the kids. Is the sense that people will notice that and that that will translate into goodwill for a government that could use that?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: I mean, that's certainly the belief. But it's remarkable. You know, Matt, just in the hours after the announcement yesterday, how many people I heard say this is really nice. And also, I don't have a family doctor. You know, it's the little thing. Yes, it is nice that it is going to be cheaper to buy pretty much, you know, the essentials, plus, over the Christmas season and a little bit later and yes, it is going to be nice to get an extra $250 of money back from the government. And of course, the Conservatives and others will quickly point out that is already your money. You paid it in taxes. It's not, you know, being manifested from, it's not being plucked out of Santa's sleigh or something. But there's always a give with these things, right? Who pays for it in the end? And if you're choosing to do option A, well, what aren't you doing instead? And is it things like health care? Is it some of the bigger government spending programs? Because those take too long to trickle through. The Liberals want the boost now.

MG: Ryan, how do you think most Canadians are going to see this? Pierre Poilievre calls it a trick. Is it a trick or treat? Something in between?

RYAN TUMILTY: I mean, you know, I think everyone sort of hit on this. The Liberals have spent a year trying to turn things around. They've talked about the benefits of the carbon tax, that you get more back than you, than you actually pay. They've talked about the benefits of child care and pharmacare and dental care. They've talked about all of these programs, but they often have to talk in 2 or 3 sentences to explain the benefits of those programs, to explain the benefits of $250, you have to say, here's $250. It's just a much cleaner, straightforward message. I think it's partially why, obviously, the Ford government is doing something very similar. And during the pandemic, we saw similar moves from governments, provincial governments across the country of: You know what? Here's a cheque. You know, that money is ultimately Canadians' to begin with. In fact, at this point, because we're borrowing it, it's future Canadians' money. But I think, you know, as the Liberals have been trying to make the case that they are better on affordability, I don't think they've been winning that argument. And on some part because it's a complicated argument. Diapers and toys and clothes and food are cheaper, and here's $250 is a very simple argument.

MG: Is it hard for the Conservatives, then, to oppose something like this? Alliteration aside.

RYAN TUMILTY: I mean, they're certainly going to try. But I actually think the interesting thing about this is, you know, for a year we've heard from Pierre Poilievre: Axe the tax, fix the budget, stop the stop the crime and build the homes. 12 very simple words that have resonated with Canadians quite clearly. I think on some level that the Liberals are flipping the narrative here by saying you explain why sending $250 to everybody is bad. You explain the inflationary aspects of that. You explain the deficit projections. We're just going to say here's $250.

MG: Rosie, are there real concerns around this? I mean, how does the government afford something like this? This is a six point something billion dollars to be able to, to do this? And presumably, if you give people a two-month break on these taxes, it's pretty hard to put them back into place after two months, right?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: Yeah. I mean, I think that would be a real concern. But they'll have to do it because it is very expensive and not something that they can keep doing. I mean, they're doing what everybody's doing heading into the holiday season. They're just using their credit card a little more, right? [MG: Oh, dear]. And so, that's what they're doing here to the tune of, as you say, $6 billion. But, but that is also problematic for a government that has long talked about fiscal guardrails and not really demonstrated that it knows how to keep them up. I mean, this is. Sure, this is. A policy play for people at a time when you spend more. But the politics of it are obvious, and I'm not sure that they're terrible. As you guys talked about there, the Conservatives are now going to be stuck potentially. You noticed that Pierre Poilievre didn't say how he would vote yesterday. He said all kinds of things about the measure, but didn't say how he would vote because now what are they going to do, vote against a tax cut? That seems to be what Conservatives like. And they're going to vote against sending cheques to people. That's a difficult position for them. And of course, they've had to get the NDP to, to help them out. The NDP has said they'll do that. They'll pause all the shenanigans going on in the House in order to get this through. So, you know, it may be crass politics, but that doesn't mean that it's bad politics in terms of strategy.

MG: It also changes the channel, Stephanie, in terms of giving the Liberals something else to talk about. And it comes just a day after one of the Prime Minister's cabinet ministers, Randy Boissonnault, resigned after weeks of pressure even from his own MPs over these shifting claims of indigenous identity. Why did this drag on so long, do you think?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: You know, it. There's lots of, I'm sure, very different reasons why anything drags on in government. You know, sometimes politics is all a matter of timing. Sometimes, it's about we've got to wait and see. And what if and this and also this government, this particular government is not known for being so swift. They don't do things quickly. They don't act decisively. They let, you know, they've repeatedly let sort of stories, issues, scandals bubble along for days and days instead of just cutting them off at the knees as quickly as possible and often sometimes, not. I shouldn't say often, that can come out of a belief that they are right, that their critics are wrong, and that they have the moral high ground, that the facts are what they are, so on and so forth. Until it isn't, right? Until the political pressure gets to be too much. This is absolutely a channel changer for the government, except it's curious because it's, how are they going to keep making it a channel changer? The reality here is that in order to get these measures through the House of Commons, it's going to only be, as far as we know right now, a one day pause to the shutdown that's happening in the House over what the Conservatives and the opposition parties alleges, a spending scandal. The government suggests otherwise.

MG: And this is gone on. People may not be paying attention. This has gone on for months now, but essentially no business is happening within parliament, right?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: Correct. No government legislation has been able to pass. So this will be the first piece of legislation that gets through. And notable, of course, because it hands, you know, money to Canadians directly, whereas the other bills that are sort of sitting there waiting, not all of them are that tangible for people. And so, it's a channel changer perhaps for a day. What's going to be interesting, I suppose, is to watch how the Liberals now try to leverage this, right? Are we about to be bombarded with a billion ad campaigns? What kind of pressure is going to be on the Conservatives, as Rosie pointed out, to account for this? And in a little bit of irony, under their former leader, Erin O'Toole, the Conservatives ran on exactly this promise in 2021, a GST holiday, a GST break over the holidays. So, you know, that's a delicious bit of political irony there. So, does it become this sort of meta level national political story while things are still not moving in Ottawa? Perhaps, or it's a brief boost and we'll see what happens next.

MG: Rosie, if you talk about the Randy Boissonnault story just for a moment, what damage to something like this do to the Liberals? On At Issue last night, one of the things that came up is that, I mean, maybe the delay was because the party's still looking for representation in Alberta, but that's hard to maintain for this party particular when it comes to claims of indigenous identity.

ROSEMARY BARTON: Yeah, I mean, I think that's why Randy Boissonnault got to stick around longer than maybe they should have as well as, as Jeff points out, this government likes to do things death by a thousand cuts. That, that's kind of what they, what they do. Yeah, I think that this thought really untenable when, first of all, the Edmonton police decided they were going to investigate the some of the claims of his former business partner and, and when his claims of indigenous ancestry became, let's say, confusing at best and not the truth at worst, that, that was not something that this government could be associated with. And it doesn't matter if it means they now don't have an Alberta voice around the cabinet table because that's, just runs against all their values. The damage long-term from that story, though, is that it contributes to the idea that Liberals are entitled and doing things for their friends. And that is something that the Conservatives have been hammering away out in different ways and committees for months and months and months. And this becomes sort of the perfect potential example of this depending on how it all unfolds. But, but it was just not worth it. And remember, they got rid of this guy as they are getting ready for a cabinet shuffle, possibly in January. So, they couldn't even hang on to him that long. That's how damaging it was becoming. And the other Liberal in Alberta, George Chahal, apparently got up at caucus yesterday and told the Prime Minister again that he needed to leave his job. So, he's probably not going into Cabinet, either.

MG: Ryan, we also saw the Prime minister trying to blunt criticism on another file this week. This is on immigration. This is also something that the Conservatives have been hammering the government on. And it's not just the Conservatives. It was broader than that. The Prime Minister put out this video, the seven-minute YouTube video, saying that he should have acted faster to make changes to the immigration system. Take a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Immigration. Let's talk about. In the last two years, our population has grown really fast, like baby boom, fast. And increasingly, bad actors like fake colleges and big chain corporations have been exploiting our immigration system for their own interests. So, we're doing something major. We're reducing the numbers of immigrants who will come to Canada for the next three years. Today, I'm going to let you in on what happened, where we made some mistakes and why we're taking this big turn.

MG: Where we made some mistakes. Ryan, what do you make of the use of that language?

RYAN TUMILTY: You know, I mean, it was a very brief, but it was an acknowledgement that they made an error, which this government doesn't tend to do. Not, not many governments do tend to admit that they made an error. So, that's not unusual. But they did come forward and say here that they made a mistake, and that's why they are making a big change. And let's not, you know, forget that this is a giant change, this new immigration set of measures, this new immigration set of targets. It's going to be the first time in Canadian history that Canadian, Canadian population has declined. It's a small decline, but it is the first time in this country's history that this country will not be growing in its numbers. And, you know, immigration is really central to this country. It's central to our economic future because Canadians do not have seven and eight children anymore. We need to bring in a lot more people if this country is going to continue to grow. It's central for a lot of reasons. And so, I think for the Liberals to have to suddenly switch gears here, they need a really good explanation for this. And I think that's why you're seeing, you know, Marc Miller has been talking to a lot of media, explaining himself in greater depth. And I think you have to explain why you're making such a big cut, because the plan was not this. You know, the plan was 500,000 people a year starting next year and well into the future staying at that level. And that was what they were telegraphing. And they essentially, you know, cut that number drastically. They're cutting international students. You know, I think some of this did get away from them. International students is not a program they really directly supervise. They issued the visas when university said, 'Hey, we've got a bunch of students.' Same with, you know, colleges, same with temporary foreign workers. It's clear they didn't drastically watch that program. And so now, they're having to explain what happened.

MG: Stephanie, what do you make of the fact that the explaining comes through a YouTube video? There's more than a million views in just a couple of days. So clearly, people are watching.

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: Yeah. You know, once again, we have the question of: Are the Liberals borrowing a strategy from Pierre Poilievre? The Conservatives have had a lot of success, sort of over the last couple of years with these explainer kind of videos. And they're jazzy. They boil things down into very clear concepts that people can take away from, they're personable. There's a lot of eye contact, and they work. And one of the reasons they work as well is that they're shareable, right? Like, a lot of our political discourse right now happens on the Internet. And I don't mean that, I mean, we can talk about some of the negative political discourse that happens on the Internet. But the reality is, yes, there are still lots of folks who consume media and consume things in traditional formats, but more and more often, they're going to the source. They're sharing things online. And the politicians need to be there. They need to be talking there. And if I can just make another point, in an era where on many social media platforms, Canadian media outlets cannot share their work, these messages do not get through, do not have the chance in legacy media outlets to get through in the same way. So, Mr. Prime Minister has to go to YouTube, has to do things himself, because necessa--, you know, the interviews that Marc Miller is getting, giving, are they being read or are they being shared?

MG: Rosie, is this going to be an election issue? Traditionally, immigration has not been a top election issue. But there's, I mean, I think of, there's a survey that came out from the Canadian Human, Museum for Human Rights this month saying that of the 2, 2,500 people they spoke with, 40 per cent say there's too much attention focussed on the rights of newcomers. 56 per cent said asylum seekers and refugees received too many benefits. Is the--, is this going to be an election issue, do you think, whenever that election happens?

ROSEMARY BARTON: I do, but I don't think it's about xenophobia or fear of the other, or people coming into the country. I think it's about the, the pressure that puts on systems and policies and programs. I think that's what polls are suggesting: That Canadians worry that more people coming into the country means that there are fewer places to live, and that's true. We're in a housing crisis. We actually can't accept the kinds of numbers that the Liberals had established. Our health care system actually can't take more asylum seekers, temporary foreign workers, permanent residents like those are, we are, we are strained to the max when it comes to what, what we can do with what we have. And that's what I think it's actually about. I think it runs the risk, though, of becoming something else, depending on what happens with Donald Trump. If he immediately goes ahead with a mass deportation in the United States in his first number of days in office, the pressure that that could put on our border and our country becomes, I think, extreme. And then, it also becomes a values question for a Prime Minister who has in the past, opened his arms to refugees from Syria, from Afghanistan, from Ukraine. If they are coming from your closest neighbour and friend who fear, don't want to be deported, what, what do you do then? How do you, how do you manage that politically at a time when you have to get your immigration numbers under control?

MG: What do you know about how the government is preparing for Trump 2.0?

ROSEMARY BARTON: My gosh. I mean, there's a million different things that they're doing. Whether any of it will work, I don't know. You know, they have this new cabinet committee. Their ambassador, Ambassador Hillman, I think is probably their best asset in Washington. They do have people inside the Trump camp who will call them back and people that they talk to. The problem is, is that no one really knows how this is going to go. No one really knows if the arguments that that federal government that premiers are making around tariffs, around border security are actually going to reassure Donald Trump and the people around him. And some of the people, as we've seen, are pretty extreme and maybe difficult to convince. And so, it's going to be a pretty wild ride for the government. And I do think that, politically speaking, that is a potential opportunity for the Liberals if they can make the case that they are the ones who know how to run the board when it comes to Donald Trump. Maybe Canadians will, will see that as a positive thing.

MG: Stephanie, do you see that as a potential opportunity? It's interesting. The premiers are taking the lead. Doug Ford talking about Canada cutting Mexico out of the equation, striking a bilateral trade deal, Wab Kinew in Manitoba has been talking about the importance of figuring out a strong relationship with the United States. Is this an opportunity for the Liberals?

STEPHANIE LEVITZ: I mean, yes. And there's [cross-talk] [MG: Yes, and.] Parliament, right? There's a Member of Parliament in the Conservative caucus who's best friends with the US Vice President. So it's sometimes you wonder about, you know, what we heard coming out of the first Trump administration is that people-to-people relationships were never more important, that you had a group of cabinet ministers and premiers and business leaders sort of making this full court press to build relationships with American political leaders in order to massage the relationship. In this instance, you do not have that kind of, right now anyway. There's no sign of that cross-partisan support, which is to say, I don't think Mr. Poilievre is at all inclined right now to play team, put on a Team Canada hat and help out the Liberals. So, where do you get to next? You get to the premiers, and the premiers' becoming perhaps a line of defence here and a way in some way for the Liberals to float trial balloons to say, okay, let's get the premiers engaged here because this isn't necessarily a win for the Federal Government and a way to make this look like more of a Team Canada effort when we can't get our friends across the aisle to help us out, is to go find the premiers and have them have our back. That helps us look sort of more in control of the national story.

MG: Ryan, we're just about out of time. Last word to you. There, there's a narrative that's floating around that perhaps Donald Trump would be more interested in working with a Pierre Poilievre government than, than Justin Trudeau. Is there an opportunity here for the Prime Minister?

RYAN TUMILTY: Yeah, I mean, I think there is. I think the thing about Trump is that he has always been so unpredictable. It's very hard to imagine what he's going to do over the next four years. I mean, we know what he says he's going to do, but we also know what he said he was going to do in 2016. And many of those things were different. So, you know, it's a bit like being in the ring with a bull. If you ride it successfully, it's great. If it gores you, it's not good. And that's what the Liberals are facing over the next 10 months.

MG: Avoid being gored. It sets a low bar in some ways, isn't it?

RYAN TUMILTY: Yeah. But that's where the bar is.

MG: That's where the bar is. At the risk of sounding like [cross-talk], at the risk of sounding like a parent, buckle up your seatbelts. This is going to be some ride. Thank you all for being here this morning.

EVERYONE: Thanks, Matt. Thanks.

MG: Rosemary Barton is the CBC's Chief Political Correspondent, host of Rosemary Barton Live. Stephanie Levitz is a senior reporter in The Globe and Mail's Ottawa Bureau. And Ryan Tumilty is a political reporter with the Toronto Star at Parliament Hill. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

RESEARCHER: It's almost like I've said, seeing pigs fly or something. You're just so, it brings you in. It's your curiosity. But I want to make sure that it's not just a circus trick, that it is done in a scientific manner.

MG: [Music: Theme fading in] Researchers at the University of Richmond in Virginia have been training rats to drive cars. What did he say? He said rats are driving cars. Apparently, the rats love it. Coming up, how this research has evolved to explore if excitement might make rats better problem-solvers and more optimistic. Yes, it turns out you can also measure rat optimism. We have a lot to talk about in 90 seconds. How could you possibly leave? I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

And why rats just love to drive little cars

Guest: Kelly Lambert, Terri Lang

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Picture this: A tiny rat pulls on a string to open the door to a tiny garage made out of cardboard and popsicle sticks. Then, the rat hops into a tiny electric car and starts steering. This, it turns out, is a regular scene at Shaun Stephens-Whale and Kendal Crawford's home in Squamish, British Columbia. The couple has two pet rats named Cusco and Cronk. And for Kendall's birthday, her dad surprised her with two homemade electric cars for the rats to learn to drive in. Shawn, as you can imagine, was sceptical at first.

SOUNDCLIP

SHAUN STEPHENS-WHALE: I did not think they were going to figure anything out.

MG: It turns out that Cusco and Kronk really took to it, the rats learned how to push down on the paw-sized pedals on day one, and after about a week they had steering in hand or paw.

SOUNDCLIP

SHAUN STEPHENS-WHALE: Their ability to conceptualise where they are, just as, as humans do when they're driving, is pretty incredible.

MG: Cusco and Kronk have gone viral on social media right now, but they're not the first rats to get behind the wheel. Researchers at the University of Richmond in Virginia actually started teaching rats to drive in 2017. The first prototype car was made out of a plastic cereal container. Not surprisingly, news of that research also went viral.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This is probably the best thing that you'll see all day. New, this morning, rats.

VOICE 2: Take a look right here. Rats driving tiny cars in exchange for Froot Loops.

VOICE 3: But you can see the rats actually navigating this little arena. It is both the coolest and cutest thing in the entire world. By the way, [inaudible].

VOICE 4: They're driving these tiny cars.

VOICE 5: I see it. So, as it's pedalling, as it's sort of pedalling, it's moving it forward. Is that why it was?

VOICE 4: It is.

MG: The original goal of this research was to look at how training the rats to drive might affect their brains. Five years later, the project has evolved. Now, they're delving into whether rats feel excitement, even joy. And what we might learn from that. Kelly Lambert is a professor of behavioural neuroscience at the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia. Kelly, good morning.

KELLY LAMBERT: Good morning.

MG: The brain spins thinking about all of this. Why did you decide you wanted to teach rats how to drive?

KELLY LAMBERT: Yes, that's a great question. One of my colleagues who was a cognitive scientist when I came here to the University of Richmond, she challenged me with a question of whether or not I can teach a rat to drive a car. She had seen some exhibit with fish in an aquarium, and I'm a behavioural neuroscientist interested in neuroplasticity, how the brain changes in response to environment. And at first I thought, why would I want to do that? But once you start thinking about this, it kind of invades your brai--, hijacks your brain, and it's hard to not think about it. And we, I saw that there was potential to learn more about how a rat could acquire a very complex skill. So, it became a serious-minded project, but then they seemed to enjoy it so much, that has caused me to pivot our research, to look at more positive emotions and use some of the rat experiences to understand more about that. So, it was a challenge, but it turned out to be very interesting. And the rats are considering to drive the research in my lab.

MG: I want to talk about the positive emotions that come out of this, but just quickly tell us how you teach a rat how to drive. They are operating these ROVs, rat operated vehicles, right?

KELLY LAMBERT: Yes, we like to call them that. [MG: Yes.] We use good old-fashioned psychology, operant behavioural conditioning and shaping. So, you need a reward or an incentive, and that's a Froot Loops serial piece in our, in our lab. That's our currency for the rats. So, they're very motivated to do something to get that. So first we have to introduce them to the car so they feel comfortable getting in and then approaching the dashboard, if you will. And then activating the driving mechanism, the lever, and then pressing that down. So, we require them to do a little bit more day after day after day to learn to drive forward. And then, we've played around with different, we're in our third version of the Rat Rodent, other ROV, and we have different levers for right and left turn. So, once we teach them to turn to go straight, then use that conditioning, that behavioural shaping to teach them to turn right and left. And interestingly, the first time we taught them steering, once they learned to go left, they generalised and they, as if they had the concept of turning and they automatically knew how to turn the car right. So, they're surprising us with... I should know, I've worked with rats over 30 years and they constantly outsmart me and surprise me, but they're continuing to do so.

MG: So, how did you figure out that they got some sort of excitement or joy from this, that they weren't just looking for their reward, but something else was going on?

KELLY LAMBERT: Yeah, and it's hard to disentangle it from the reward. But what, what really struck me was during the pandemic, my trainees and I, well, all the students were gone and we had one group of driving rats. And this has become science outreach as well as what I'm talking to you. So I went in to, you know, I think everybody kind of had a low mood during the pandemic. But I went into the lab to check on the rats to feed them that day. And I just, they just came out to the cage and they were climbing up and down and reaching out. And they just seemed so excited to see me. And I was excited to see them. And I know we have to be careful about using these terms with rats, but they were showing all this, you know, intensity of behaviour. And I just decided then that I wanted to learn more about what that response had looks, and we're using the word joy and some animal work now, this intensity of a response. And I so, we pivoted and that inspired me to come up with another protocol where we give our rats, we call it unpredictable, positive experience responses, "upers" with just one P. And so, we're extending anticipation and really manipulating, making them giving them a stimulus that's associated with the reward and make and requiring them to wait for it. So, it's a lot of wait for it and they show this excitement. So, after several weeks of that "uper's" training, now we're looking at how that influences cognitive strategies like optimistic, optimism strategies, which you can assess in and around an interesting way, and their boldness and cognitive tasks and anticipation really revs up a lot of the brain, and it is rewarding in itself. There's research to suggest that as we're approaching our reward or anticipating it, some of those same neurochemicals, such as dopamine, they're involved in reward and other important behaviours are activated. So, we're getting our own natural kind of hit of some of these feel-good neurotransmitters and neurochemicals as we're thinking about something positive. So, we don't want to deprive our brain of that. And this society today where we have these immediate rewards, this delayed gratification may be very healthy for our brain, especially children's, whose brains are being sculpted in more dramatic ways than adults. But all of our brains are changing throughout our lives.

MG: Rats can experience optimism?

KELLY LAMBERT: Well, we think so. So, can we talk about it?

MG: No, I just. We only. Like, we, I could talk to you for hours. We'll have about a minute and a half left. But I [KELLY LAMBERT: Yeah] just, I think one of those, that's one of those things I think would surprise people. They may not expect that rats could experience optimism. So, tell me briefly.

KELLY LAMBERT: Right, it's a cognitive bias or strategy. So, you give them an ambiguous cue and see if they respond in a positive. What's associated with positive or negative? [MG: Yeah.] And at least for the males, we're shifting, but the females seem to be a little bit more grounded in what we've done so far, and that may be relevant for humans as well. But yeah, it's a cognitive strategy and so, we're excited to at least they're shifting on their, on a rat model of optimism. This is still preliminary. We're writing some of this up. We presented it at conferences, but it's just surprising where, where these, these rodent studies can, can take us.

MG: How should we think differently about these rodents then?

KELLY LAMBERT: That's an interesting question. They, they're mammals. Their brains have all the same areas that we have, they can experience complex emotions. So, maybe with a little bit more respect, we certainly respect them in research. But in New York City, we have the rat czar, trying to figure out how to kill as many as possible. I know it's a, we need to figure out how to live with all of the animals. This is a challenge. But I do respect rodents. I read a whole book, The Lab Rat Chronicles, about all the lessons I've learned from these animals.

MG: There's something to take from that, I think. Kelly, thank you very much for this. There's a lot that I'm thinking about. I see rats on my way into work almost every morning, and I...

KELLY LAMBERT: Oh, really? Yes.

MG: Yeah. [cross-talk between Kelly Lambert and MG] And that's how I think about them. But now, I should think perhaps differently about those.

KELLY LAMBERT: We're starting to look at the wild ones, and they are some tough cookies. They are very different from these docile lab rats, but they're amazing in their ability to cope with the reality of the real world out there. So, I think we can learn about coping mechanisms from those wild rats.

MG: The last thing I want to see is one of them behind the wheel of anything. Kelly, thank you very much.

KELLY LAMBERT: You're quite welcome. Have a good day.

MG: Kelly Lambert is a professor of behavioural neuroscience at the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia.

Unidentified: [Upbeat funky music playing]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway. Headed to Saskatoon this weekend for some special programming that you will hear early next week on this program. I keep being warned that it is a whole lot colder and snowier than where I am right now. If there's anyone who knows a thing or two about the weather in Saskatchewan, it's Terri Lang.

SOUNDCLIP

TERRI LANG CLIP 1: The snow will start accumulating on the roads. It'll start freezing up. We're expecting blowing snow probably near blizzard conditions. Then, that's really going to ice the roads.

TERRI LANG CLIP 2: The vast majority of tornados that are seen across the prairies tend to be short-lived, weaker tornadoes. This one was longer lasting. And we know just from the damage that it was a stronger tornado, what we call a supercell tornado.

MG: From summer tornadoes to blinding blizzards and walloping snowfalls like Saskatchewan got this week, Terri Lang has been a trusted voice about all things weather-related for decades. After 36 years, she is retiring from her position as the Warning Preparedness Meteorologist for Environment and Climate Change Canada. Terri Lang joins us from our Saskatoon studio. Terri, good morning.

TERRI LANG: Good morning.

MG: It's a dream job for you to be talking about the worst of the weather?

TERRI LANG: Always. I love talking about the weather.

MG: I mean, a lot of us like talking about the weather, but we don't end up getting to do that for a living. How did you fall into this?

TERRI LANG: It was just something that fascinated me as a kid. I was always reading books about weather and the earth, volcanoes, earthquakes, all that kind of stuff. Tornadoes, hurricanes. So yeah, it was really a passion.

MG: How has the industry that you work in changed over the 36 years that you've been in it?

TERRI LANG: Oh, it's changed so much. The technology has changed incredibly. We used to get our weather charts from those old machines, you know, that had that purple ink. I think my husband remembered the name, The [inaudible]. So, we would get that smell. And remember, you would always remember that smell as a kid, and we would print them off and colour them and hang them on the wall. And we'd only get them once or twice a day. Now, the information is instantaneous and there's so many different sources of weather information. Even the weather models have changed because the meteorology is a fairly young science still. Most of the meteorology started after the War is, when they figured out the planes were flying a lot faster if they flew one direction than the other direction. So, that's when the science really exploded. So it's very young, but it's really taken off.

MG: How much more accurate is weather forecasting now than it was when you started it?

TERRI LANG: Oh, my goodness. It's incredibly accurate. You know, a lot of people don't think so, but they, they only notice when the forecast is wrong. They don't notice when it's right, then it's right most of the time.

MG: A lot of people don't think so. Do they let you know if the forecast is wrong?

TERRI LANG: Oh, they really do. Yeah.

MG: Do tell.

TERRI LANG: Well, I've got, you know, nasty phone calls. You know, I just shovelled five centimetres of mainly sunny off my driveway. You know, all that kind of stuff. And people that are planning weddings or whatever in the, in the summer and it rained on their wedding. Like, that's a surprise. All that kind of stuff. I hear it all the time.

MG: How much stock do you put in? I mean, we look at the forecast and it's today, tomorrow. Now, you can see upwards of 14 days, maybe even longer. How far do you trust?

TERRI LANG: That's a very good question. When we're looking out into the longer range, beyond about day three, we look more for trends. Is it going to be warmer? Is it going to be colder? Is it going to be drier or is it going to be wetter as opposed to, you know, sticking a number on something? And, you know, you said while you said it was going to be 15 next week, well, you know, things can change quite a bit. And boy, you can get a very different set of weather than what you looked at maybe a week ago. So, we're always refining that. I always say you can see to about 10 days with some amount of confidence. But we've also seen that, you know, absolute exact opposite of what you were expecting.

MG: Is there anything particularly challenging about Saskatchewan, that makes it difficult to predict what the weather is? I mean, just in terms of geography and big skies? And is it at all different there than elsewhere in the country?

TERRI LANG: Everybody thinks it's easier on the prairies because there is no mountains in the way. I worked in B.C. for 17 years. So that, you know, there's, there's mountains that dictate sort of which way the wind is going to blow. And on the Atlantic side, they are saying, well, you know, you could see it coming off the ocean. In Saskatchewan, we have one of the biggest variations in temperature from winter to summer in the world. We can go from -45 in the winter to plus 45 in the summer. That's a 90 degree difference between those seasons. And you don't get that on the coast just because the oceans have such a moderating effect on the temperature. I think what's the most challenging here is the summer thunderstorms, because they can be so violent and we can narrow it down to an area, but we can't narrow it down to a neighbourhood. So, we always equate sort of when the thunderstorms are popping up to watching a pot of water boil and figuring out where the first bubble is going to come up, and then the next bubble, and then the next bubble. Right? And we always know what the ingredients are to make severe storms and tornadoes, but we can't identify, you know, exact time that it's going to happen in the exact place that's going to happen. There's so many dynamics going on in the atmosphere on such a small scale that, you know, it's almost impossible to forecast down to the neighbourhood. And that's the big difference here in Saskatchewan. The storms are can be very, very violent.

MG: How have you seen the climate change in your neck of the country over the time that you've been doing this job?

TERRI LANG: Well, certainly we're seeing, at least I'm seeing sort of more extremes in the dryness and the wetness. We can go from extremely wet one year and then a couple of years later, extremely dry. And now we're seeing it sort of, less of the wet years and more of the dry years and just the extreme nature of, of the dryness as well, like lasting seasons. And that smoke from forest fires now is something that, you know, and the statistics bear it out that, you know, we, we haven't seen in previous years then, that does have an effect on the weather here because the smoke can suppress the temperature. It can suppress thunderstorms which give precipitation, all that kind of stuff. So, that's something that, you know, I don't ever remember seeing when I was younger.

MG: And that has a real impact on people who, I mean, who live off the land. You think of farmers in particular?

TERRI LANG: Oh, absolutely. The people who live and breathe here [MG: Yeah] by the weather. It is a part of every single conversation that you have with people and the farmers. It's their livelihood. So it means something to them. It's, it's kind of heartbreaking when you see some of the things happening, you know, the hail storms or a big washout or anything like that, because you know, how much of an impact it has.

MG: What sort of impact does it have on you when you have to warn people about extreme weather events that are coming their way?

TERRI LANG: You feel it because you know what's coming and you know what impacts it can have on people's lives. And you can't stop it from coming. But every time that you see a big storm coming, like last week, we could see the snowstorm coming and you know that there's people out there that are going to drive in it. You know, there's going to be accidents. You know, it's going to, you know, make people late for things. People are going to miss important, maybe, medical appointments that they've been waiting months or years for. So, you do feel that in your soul just because you know it's coming and there's nothing you can do about it.

MG: Let me play you something in terms of feeling it. This is from one of your colleagues south of the border.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN MORALES: It's just an incredible, incredible, incredible hurricane. It has dropped. It has dropped 50 millibars in 10 hours. I apologise. This is just horrific.

MG: That's John Morales. He's a Florida meteorologist talking this fall about Hurricane Milton, that clip went all over the world. Do you understand where he's coming from?

TERRI LANG: Absolutely. Absolutely. Because he knows what that means, because he knows that hurricane is strengthening so quickly, and it's going to be so destructive. So, yeah, I remember that same sense of dread that I had last summer. Not this past summer, but the summer before when we could see a weather pattern setting up across British Columbia. You know, there are already a number of fires burning across British Columbia, but we knew with the weather pattern that was coming that it was going to make all the forest fires take a run. You know, that the wind and the heat and we know what that means. It means that people are going to lose their houses. That, you know, there's more smoke, puts the firefighters at risk. You know, that's coming. It's a real sense of dread. And also seeing now that things that we haven't seen before. So I think that for him, that's what he was seeing, too. This is something I've never seen before. And there's a sense of being quite scared about that.

MG: Do you ever get frustrated with people who don't take what you know as seriously as perhaps they should, the warnings that you're giving them as seriously as they should?

TERRI LANG: It is frustrating. Yeah. And you try not to take it personally because you think, what else could I have done in this situation? How else could I have warned people, especially now, like we're physically pushing warnings to people's phones. And I know that not everybody has telephones, but it's the next best thing to knocking on their door. But, you know, we've kind of, you have to accept the fact that you're not going to reach everybody and you're not going to necessarily make people understand what's about to happen.

MG: What impact has, I was going to say technology broadly, because, you know, in the phone that I have, there's all these different weather apps and I can kind of get conflicting streams of information, but also social media. I mean, what impact has that had on you and the work that you do?

TERRI LANG: Well, it's a blessing and it's a curse because we can use social media to get the message out for, you know, storms that are coming. But then, there's a lot of noise on there, especially in the in the past year or so, that there's so much noise naysayers, but also people that, they're, sometimes they're, they're heart's in the right place and they, but they know just enough to be trouble, right?

MG: What do you mean? I mean, can you give me example of that?

TERRI LANG: Some people know a little bit about the weather. So, they can find out some information and they'll post that information. But when we look at the weather, we're not just looking at one weather model. And when you look at, for instance, for this particular storm that we're having, there is a huge range of what the models we're going to do. So as meteorologists, you have to look at all of the information, synthesise it and give your best guess based on what all the models are saying. But armchair meteorologists, we call them, they like to pick the worst-case scenario and then, really hype it. And that can be quite damaging because it can scare some people. Plus, then when if it doesn't work out, which is for the vast majority of the cases, it doesn't work out, then there's credibility that's lost.

MG: It's like that idea of crying wolf that people eventually get tired of you saying that, that this [TERRI LANG: Absolutely] terrible storm is coming and when the terrible storm comes, they tune you out because somebody has been saying this and it hasn't been true.

TERRI LANG: Exactly. 50 other times. Yeah. It can be very, very frustrating.

MG: I mean, one of the things with armchair meteorologists and forecasters is that people will use all the language. Pretend now I'm an expert in bomb cyclones and atmospheric. Does that, if when we use that language, does it actually help inform people? Does that tell people what's going on when you say there's an atmospheric river coming in?

TERRI LANG: We debate this all the time because in some ways, it gets people's attention. But if they don't understand the language that is being used, then it can be quite confusing. Or people just say, that's just a bunch of hype. Because, like, take for instance, the bomb cyclone, which sounds absolutely horrific, but it's something, it's a real term. It's a real phenomena. But it just sounds, you know, especially with wars going on, it just, it can scare the daylights out of people. And then, other people use it for hype as well. Right? To get more clicks and that and that type of thing. So, it's a real double edged sword.

MG: What will you miss about this job?

TERRI LANG: Oh boy, I will miss so much just because I love the weather so much and I'm never going to stop looking at the weather. I think the most rewarding part has been working with emergency managers and municipalities, the provinces, you know, helping them get ready for weather before it happens and helping them work through emergencies, not even necessarily weather emergencies, but other types of emergencies like train derailments, forest fires, all that kind of stuff, because weather impacts almost every type of emergency. So, when you can give informed information to decision makers and you see them go out and make these decisions that impact people's lives in a really positive manner, you feel like you're, you're contributing in a very small way, because I have such admiration for these people that, you know, when these emergencies happen, they're the ones that are working behind the scenes. They're the ones that are running towards the emergency.

MG: How would you distil what it is that you love about the weather?

TERRI LANG: It's there every single day of your life, it's, it impacts what you wear, it impacts how you plan your holidays. It impacts everything. And I'm a big sky appreciator, too. I love clouds. I love everything about the weather. It's just, it's in me.

MG: And there isn't. I mean, there's kind of like a Zen approach that some people have that I'm going to look, not look at the forecast because of a friend who says this. You know, the weather, it is what it is going to be. And if you work yourself up about what you know, what the temperature is going to be like tomorrow or whether it's going to rain, it's just something you can't control. It is what it's, you don't buy that at all?

TERRI LANG: No. I know, I know I can't control it. And it is a bit of a blessing and a curse because you can get yourself, I can get myself worked up into a frenzy or, you know, just really be anxious about it. But there's nothing more satisfying than seeing your forecast work out and go, I nailed it. I got that one. So, it's just, I don't know. There's, I, I just love, I love the weather. Yeah, I just love it.

MG: Last thing. As you said, everybody loves to talk about the weather, particularly in your part of this country. If you're a party and somebody says, what do you do? Do you tell them what your occupation is or has been?

TERRI LANG: I usually work around it a little bit. Like, I work for the government. And so, then they kind of, you know, they press a little bit further. I do tell them what I do. And people are absolutely, they look at you first, they think you study meteors. And then, when you they actually said no, I say I'm a weather forecaster, they, they're absolutely flabbergasted because most people have never met a weather forecaster or meteorologists. There's very few of us across the country. So, people have so many questions about the weather and they like to tell stories, all that kind of stuff. And of course, yeah, give me a drink and I'll all go on forever.

MG: It's probably best to keep them at bay or else, you won't be able to talk to anybody else at the party, either.

TERRI LANG: That's exactly. Or, then you get a whole crowd around you and it's. Oh, It's fun. It's fun.

MG: Congratulations on a great career. There are a lot of people in your province that have relied on your voice and the wisdom behind it to tell them what they need to know when the weather rolls in. Terri, thank you.

TERRI LANG: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about it.

MG: And safe drive home because you guys got some snow. So, I hope it's okay out there. [TERRI LANG: Yeah.] Looking forward to getting out to Saskatoon on the weekend.

TERRI LANG: Safe travels and pack warm, okay?

MG: Yeah, that's what I'm going to be doing. All the best.

TERRI LANG: You, too. Bye bye. [MG: Bye.]

MG: Terri Lang is a warning preparedness meteorologist for Environment and Climate Change Canada, based in Saskatoon. She's retiring on Monday after 36 years in that job. As I mentioned, I'm heading to Saskatoon on Sunday. [Music: Theme fading in] We'll be there next week with two special programs. Some great guests that you will hear from, including the great author, Guy Vanderhaeghe. I'll be speaking with one of the largest farmland owners in Canada, and some small farmers about how difficult it is to get into farming right now. We'll hear from a Métis community leader, Olympic divers. And then, we're doing a show in front of a sold out live audience at the Broadway Theatre in Saskatoon featuring local music, comedy, some great conversations as well. One of the things that we have been hearing over and over again in the lead-up to our trip there is that Saskatoon is a city that punches above its weight. It has great, great stories to tell, and we cannot wait to tell them to you next week. That's The Current for this Friday. I'm Matt Galloway. Q's up next. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend, and we'll talk to you from the Prairies next week.

[Music: Theme]

Friday, November 22, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing