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

The AIH Transcript for September 21, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Hate mail. It's been a strange day in St. Hubert, Quebec. Hazmat teams, counter-terrorism experts, and the RCMP raiding a condo they say is linked to a ricin-laced letter sent to U.S. President Donald Trump.

CH: Feminist, optimist, notorious. A long-time friend remembers the remarkable career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who went from defying the odds as a woman in law school to a historic tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court.

CO: Good run. He'd been both the prime minister of Canada and the country's fastest man. But Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt remembers John Turner as a man who met the pains of politics with simple humanity.

CH: Surf war. Simmering tensions over lobster fishing in Nova Scotia come to a boil. Our guest says the dispute goes back to a decades old Supreme Court decision that left too much room for interpretation.

CO: See you later. After narrowly escaping an alligator attack, a Florida artist is coping in a very on-brand way by painting a grisly portrait of the gator that nearly got him.

CH: And trophy case in point. While most actors take their awards submissions to the max, one opted for the min by submitting a performance in which she said three words and she won. As It Happens. The Monday Edition. Radio that assumes more than a few voters went for the short cut.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Ricin letter raid

Ricin letter raid

Guest: Vincent Larouche

CH: There was a hectic scene in St. Hubert, Quebec this morning as dozens of RCMP officers as well as chemical and explosives teams descended on the Montreal suburb. They were focused on one condo, a condo linked to a woman from Quebec who was accused of sending letters containing the poison ricin to the U.S. president and others. The woman was arrested by American officials yesterday as she was trying to cross the Canada-U.S. border. So far, we know little about her. And journalists are rushing to fill in the gaps. Vincent Larouche is an investigative reporter for La Presse. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Vincent, can you describe for us this scene this morning in St. Hubert?

VINCENT LAROUCHE: Yes, this scene is in a very quiet neighbourhood near the St. Hubert airport. There's also a military installation just nearby. And you had this massive deployment this morning of police officers, from the RCMP, and some experts that were with them who are really specialized in chemical, nuclear, and other biological threats. They were working with some high tech equipment. They had some of the residents confined in the building because there was potentially a danger for their health -- while the officers were searching for some very dangerous substances that they thought could be found at that location.

CO: And they were wearing hazmat suits and all kinds of gear like that?

VL: Yes, hazmat suits and protective equipment and gas masks. And (they were) coming in and out for the whole day. And they're still there as we speak actually. These things, as you know, they take a lot of time. And they were taking their precautions. I spoke to some local residents who said, my God, it was like a military operation at my home. And at first they didn't know what it was about. Pretty soon it was confirmed that it was related to that suspicious letter that was sent to the White House. But at first, you can imagine their surprise. They were not expecting that.

CO: And what we understand was sent to the President of the United States was something that contained the deadly poison ricin. What were the RCMP looking for in the woman's condo today?

VL: Well, they didn't disclose a lot about what they were looking for. But we can understand that they expected they could find traces of ricin at that location. Since CNN has reported that the FBI believes the letter was mailed in St. Hubert, the authorities in the U.S. have apparently conducted some tests that confirm that there was some ricin in the envelope. Ricin, as you know, is a pretty lethal toxin. They take it very seriously. There have been cases in the past where it was used literally to kill people. It was used in assassinations and suicides in the past.

CO: The RCMP has confirmed that there were other letters sent as well to other areas in the United States, not just to the White House. Do you know anything about that?

VL: Well, many local media in Texas are reporting that some of the letters were sent to law enforcement agencies in Texas. But some of those agencies, they do not have the same level, of course, of security as the White House. But it's all part of the same investigation for sure. I don't think they have confirmed yet that everything is linked to the same suspect or that she's acting alone. But, of course, that's something that they're working on right now. And the search in St. Hubert today might provide some more clues.

CO: And there is a woman in custody, a Canadian woman who is in custody in the United States where she was arrested. There's a lot we don't know about her. But CBC has confirmed that her name is apparently Pascale Cecile Veronique Ferrier. And can you tell us anything about her?

VL: Well, there's a woman by that name who was living in St. Hubert and who had been arrested in Texas in 2019. We don't know if this has anything to do with the present case. The investigation, again, focuses on St. Hubert as the location where the letter was sent. But this suspect was arrested while trying to cross into the U.S. at the Peace Bridge between Ontario and the Buffalo area. That's a pretty long drive. And we can guess that she took that drive recently because the letter was sent pretty recently from Quebec. She is set to appear in court tomorrow in Buffalo. And for sure, we're going to learn a lot more about her on that occasion.

CO: Do we know why she was arrested at the border? Was there a warrant for her? Was she under suspicion for this letter that had been sent? Do you know anything about that?

VL: Yes. She was arrested while trying to cross over. And as soon as she presented herself to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they arrested her. So they were apparently waiting or they had either a warrant or a warning. They were expecting her and they were watching for her, of course.

CO: And so tomorrow in Buffalo, where she'll be presented, do you know what charges she might face?

VL: We don't know the charges yet. But this is a very serious matter. If we look at the past cases, people who have sent ricin through the mail to former presidents in the U.S., we've seen sentences of 15 or 18 years of prison, either after a trial or a guilty plea. So this is a very serious matter that can carry a very lengthy sentence. And, yes, we're going to see what the charges are, but we can expect that the prosecution is going to ask for a very heavy sentence.

CO: All right. We will be watching. Vincent, thank you.

VL: Thanks to you.

CH: Vincent Larouche is an investigative reporter for La Presse. He's in Montreal.

[Music]

Lobster fishery dispute

Guest: James Michael

CH: People who fish for lobster in Nova Scotia are asking the federal government to stop Mi'kmaq operated boats from dropping lobster traps ahead of the regular fishing season. They say the Sipekne'katik's new self-regulated lobster fishery is illegal. But the band's leadership says a 1999 Supreme Court decision gives them every right to proceed. And things are getting heated. Both sides are alleging violence, intimidation, and vandalism. And the RCMP are now patrolling the waters off the western part of Nova Scotia. James Michael is a lawyer for the Sipekne'katik Band, and we reached him on the Indian Brook Indian Reserve in Nova Scotia.

CO: Mr. Michael, what's the latest that you're hearing from Mi'kmaq fishermen at St. Marys Bay today?

JAMES MICHAEL: Well, I'm hearing that there is still quite a bit of concern over the non-native fishermen tactics, harassment. And I believe now they're starting to harass people that have indicated that they would buy fish from Sipekne'katik.

CO: And what are the Mi'kmaq fishermen doing?

JM: Well, I mean, right now, they're trying to do the best they can. They're trying to remain calm and polite in the face of extraordinary circumstances, which I tip my hat to them. I was down there Thursday before it got too stressful. But my heart and prayers goes out to them that are practising and exercising their rights.

CO: Do they still have their lobster traps in the water?

JM: They're trying to. We're currently looking for donations. Non-native fishermen have been cutting traps or hauling them up and taking them away. Our guys, our crews have been going out and trying to recapture some of them. Just in the name of conservation. I mean, because those traps once they sink to the bottom of the bay in a state there's no way to recover. The lobsters are done for.

CO: This is based on a very old disagreement over rights. It's, I guess, most recently in that long history, it goes back to Donald Marshall Junior in 1999 in the Supreme Court ruling at that time. So it's not the first time over these past 21 years where this has erupted. Why are things so heated right now?

JM: Well, I mean, I think the frustration has just grown over the years, as you indicated, 21 years without any indication or justification from DFO as far as what they plan to do to implement our treaty right to moderate livelihood fishery -- there's been nothing. So finally, the frustration, the growing frustration has reached a point. And, you know, this has been a 21st year anniversary of the Marshall decision. I mean, if nothing was done before, you know, it would be 42 years later and the same amount of frustration would still be there. So something had to be done. DFO wasn't willing to do anything to recognize and implement the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Marshall.

CO: The non-Indigenous lobster fishermen in the area say that what you're doing is illegal. And the fact that no one intervened in their attempts to pull up the Mi'kmaq lobster traps, they say actually proves that. I just want to play a bit of what Colin Sproul's the President of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association said to the CBC today.

COLIN SPROUL: After we left the water and went to the ground to retrieve the lobster here, that all happened under the careful watch of RCMP and Coast Guard helicopters, as well as RCMP ships and Coast Guard ships. So we're left to ask ourselves, why didn't they take action against commercial fishermen? And the reason is because we acted within the law. That's why. It's not appropriate for anybody to fish in a lobster molting breeding ground during the closed season. We have seasons for a reason. Indigenous people have a right that we believe in and that I personally believe an inherent individual right access to the fishery. But do Indigenous people have a right to destroy Canada's fishery?

CO: Okay, that's Colin Sproul -- not questioning the right to fish, but that the right to do it given that it's an industry, it's a resource that is limited and needs to be managed. What do you say to him?

JM: Well, certainly there's been no indication from DFO or any government official agency that conservation is an issue here. So I'm not quite sure where he was getting that. As far as molting and that sort of stuff, the Band has a management plan that allows for the sustainable harvest of moderate livelihood fisheries. And I mean, there's prohibitions against undersized lobster, egg barren, and soft shell lobsters. So this is not an unregulated free for all by Sipekne'katik Band members. It's a very professionalized and responsible approach to the fishery.

CO: So who do you blame for what's happening right now? Because this is a very tense situation. It's unsustainable, isn't it, for both sides? So who's at fault?

JM: Well, I mean the elephant in the room is why has it taken 21 years for the government to sort of perk up and say, well, maybe we should start listening to what the Supreme Court of Canada told us back in 1999. And as far as what the Supreme Court of Canada has said, I just want to reiterate that there's two rights involved: one is the right to fish, and the second is to sell it. And, I guess, the rationale that people have been using lately, you know, conservation is unregulated and so on. There was no justification offered by Canada or they couldn't justify any infringement of those regulations on Donald Marshall Junior back in 1999 when they had a chance. I mean, Donald Marshall was caught fishing without a license, out of season, and he was selling these catch that was front and square with the Supreme Court of Canada. And they decided that he was to be acquitted because there was no rationale at law for him to be convicted.

CO: Okay. But you know that the with the decision, the Supreme Court, yes it said that this was a treaty right that went back to the 18th century. But at the same time it said that the federal government needed to regulate it. It is in its jurisdiction to put regulations on. So is that at the core of this is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans just has not regulated this, has not come up with some regulatory structure that can have both Mi'kmaq fishermen, Indigenous fishermen and the commercial fishermen working together?

JM: Well, I mean, I think that's a valid point. And you're quite correct that DFO has not offered any sort of rationale or justification on how, why, when and whatever it is this might look like. So, I mean, Sipekne'katik actually being the responsible Band that it is, developed its own regulations to fish responsibly and respectfully.

CO: So you think the ball's in the court of the government?

JM: Oh, yes. I mean, I think our chief, Chief Sack, made it perfectly clear that our fight isn't with non-native fisherman. Our issue is with DFO not implementing the Marshall decision from the Supreme Court of Canada 21 years ago.

CO: Mr. Michael we'll leave it there. Thank you.

JM: Thank you very much.

CH: James Michael is the solicitor for the Sipekne'katik Band. We reached him on the Indian Brook Indian Reserve in Nova Scotia.

[Music]

John Turner obit

Guest: Susan Delacourt

CH: John Turner called the 1988 election the fight of his life. And Mr. Turner didn't have a history of shrinking from a challenge. As a student, he had qualified for the Olympics as Canada's fastest man. Mr. Turner had gone onto dual Pierre Trudeau for power in the 1970s and rose to become prime minister, albeit briefly, in 1984. But Mr. Turner may be best remembered for that 1988 election when he fought for a vision of Canada that he said was threatened by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives and their free trade agreement with the United States. John Turner died on the weekend. He was 91. Here he is back in 1988.

JOHN TURNER: This election is more than an election. It's your future. This election goes to the heart and soul of this country. Now, I happen to believe -- I happen to believe that we have something very special here. Like a lot of people in this room, I could have worked in the United States. Like a lot of people in this room, I was offered jobs in the United States. But I like it here. I want something sovereign and something special. And I instinctively feel like a Canadian. And I'm sure that my psychology is no different from anybody in this room. We look at things differently. [Crowd cheers] We have our own way of reacting. We have our own sense of tolerance. We have our own sense of community. We have our own sense of city. We have our own sense of fairness. We've built a remarkable country with two languages and then welcoming people from all over the world in a peaceful way. We have an attachment to our geography. We have an attachment to our outdoors. We have an attachment to our environment. Our character is shaped by where we are, where we've come from, how we've done it, and how we have built it. That's what is called Canadian culture. That's what's called the Canadian identity. That's what's called a Canadian integrity. This is the cause of my life. And I am confident that if I can get this message through, that Canadians will not allow Mr. Mulroney to sell out the birth right of this nation, that the Canadian people will not allow Mr. Mulroney to reverse 120 years of Canadian history, that Canadians will not allow Mr. Mulroney to destroy what has been a magnificent Canadian dream that we've all lived. That's the issue in this election ladies and gentlemen.

CH: John Turner in 1988. Susan Delacourt covered Mr. Turner in that election. Ms. Delacourt is a national columnist for the Toronto Star. We reached her in Ottawa.

CO: Susan, when you hear John Turner say that, what does this say about the man? What does that say to you?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Oh, it brings me back and it also situates me right here in the here and now. He was kind of Canada-first before it was cool. I wrote this in a piece I did about him this weekend. John Turner was a man who was constantly either ahead of the time or behind the times. He was very much criticized. I think you will remember this Carol from your days in Ottawa too, as a man whose politics was more of another era. But the issues he was identifying then in that amazing speech, I'd forgotten it, really do touch on things that we're still talking about today. I think the Canadian American identity back in 1988 and the free trade debates was more out of a sense of insecurity. There was the Canadians always feeling that Americans were going to try to take over us. And I think that was an animating part of that debate. But I think now we have a different conversation about it and it's equally as valid. I think we feel a little better than Americans these days.

CO: And I guess just that clip if we took Brian Mulroney's name out of it, you wouldn't know if you were hearing someone speak today. And why did John Turner get considered to be yesterday's man?

SD: Well, he had taken the big break from politics. He'd been a big cabinet minister, big justice minister, finance minister and the heir apparent in the 1970s. And he'd taken a break, broken with Pierre Trudeau and come back. And a lot changed in Canada and in political culture between the 70s and 80s. You know, a lot's changed since the 80s too. But I think he was seen very much of the era where politics was a club, a men's club in particular. And it looked like he was constantly being accused, rightly or wrongly, of being a little rusty. He didn't sound rusty in that clip though.

CO: And it's interesting, when the article you wrote on the weekend reminding us of what it was like for women on the Hill when you arrived in the 1980s. And here he was back. I was taken by this, you said I was prepared for a John Turner who would be patronizing or even crude as so many their past their prime politicians were in those days, Turner was not. You said he was direct, respectful and unfailingly polite, even when the questions were hard. Yeah, not what you expect from the yesterday's man.

SD: No. And especially, you can't talk about John Turner, unfortunately, without talking about the bum patting incident.

CO: Do you want to remind us about that?

SD: Yes. When he first came back and ran for the leadership, he famously was spotted doing a sporting or patronizing or totally inappropriate pat on the back side to the Liberal Party president, Iona Campagnolo. And she called him out on it. And it became a signature event in the description of John Turner as a guy who just didn't understand that politics had changed. I had been expecting that when I first came to Ottawa, I thought that he would dismiss a woman reporter, as so many did back then. And Carol, you'll remember this, but he did not. I never, ever felt that John Turner took me less seriously as a reporter. He always treated questions honestly and he was always interesting. His reverence for Parliament and his reverence for the institutions of parliament was very much a distinguishing feature of him. And as I also wrote in there, I don't like the descriptions of him described as a tragic figure because he may have not got the titles he wanted, but what he embodied and what he stood for, civility in politics, the role of institutions, the importance of the member of parliament -- those are still, those are fine things to believe in. And John Turner lived by those rules. And right up until his 90th birthday, I was at his birthday party last year where he gave a big speech on them.

CO: Just tell us a bit about him. What was he like?

SD: Funny. I've heard [chuckles] he apparently did swear a lot. You got the impression that he was most comfortable when he was sitting, sipping a scotch or having drinks with friends. But serious about parliament that he looked at you with those blue piercing eyes and you saw sort of shades of the celebrity that he was back in the 1950s and 1960s when he was rumored to be involved with Princess Margaret. Yeah, you saw all of that. You saw the royal jelly and you did see that the fundamental decency of the man too. I think you can't talk about John Turner without talking about him as a decent man.

CO: In that clip we just heard, he described the resistance of the free trade agreement that Brian Mulroney was negotiating -- he called it that this is the cause of my life. It was an unsuccessful opposition to that agreement, wasn't it? So I'm wondering, what was his legacy in the end, do you think?

SD: I've been thinking about him a lot over the weekend. And one of the things, one of the images I have of him is he had agonizing back pain. When he gave that speech, when he did all his great cause of his life, he had a back injury and was literally walking wounded as he went through that election campaign. He was also dealing with for those political junkies out there who'll remember this internal Liberal Party strife. So he literally looked like a man walking with knives in his back through that campaign. And I think the dignity with which he carried himself, the fact that he fought on, the fact that he never gave up on politics. I got a lot of respect for that. But what I've been thinking is he may have been the last of the political leaders who actually showed they were wounded by criticism or attacks. You know, you saw after that Jean Chretien, even Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, they don't sweat attacks. But Brian Mulroney and John Turner were very much alike in that they showed that they were wounded. And I think it's interesting that they remain friends right up until the end too.

CO: So that he was human?

SD: As they all are. But John Turner was just a little more human than some of us, I think.

CO: Susan I really appreciate you telling us about John Turner. Thank you.

SD: Thanks for the chance to do so Carol.

CH: Susan Delacourt is the national columnist for the Toronto Star. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

Jasmine Cephas Jones

VOICE: Ellen Burstyn, Mrs. Harris. [Crowd cheers] Shirley Jones...

CH: That was a clip from the 2006 Emmy Awards when Ellen Burstyn was a nominee for outstanding supporting actress for her role in the HBO film Mrs. Harris. And nothing against Ms. Burstyn, but that nomination upset some people because that clip you just heard was almost exactly half of her entire performance. She appeared in Mrs. Harris for 14 seconds. Now, Jasmine Cephas Jones is a really good actor. And last night, she and her father made history, becoming the first daughter and father to win Emmys in the same year. Plus, it's her first Emmy ever. It's great. And they both deserve the honour. But here is a summary of her performance in the particular episode of the Quibi show #freerayshawn -- that she submitted for the television academy's consideration. She says what happened now puts her head on her husband's shoulder and scene. That's the whole thing. 30 seconds in which she says three words. She must really make you feel like she wants to know what happened now. It's just weird that she picked that episode instead of one of the ones in which he has more screen time and says more words. But I guess she knew what she was doing because she accomplished two firsts and it just took seconds.

[Music]

Part 2: Ruth Bader Ginsberg obit

Ruth Bader Ginsberg obit

Guest: Nina Appel

CH: Her life's work ensured it wasn't just men who are created equal in the United States. Supreme Court justice, pioneering lawyer, and contemporary feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday. She began her remarkable career as one of only nine female law students in her Harvard Law School class. Throughout her life, she fought to give women the same protection from discrimination that was enjoyed by men. And as a Supreme Court justice, she kept fighting. In 2015, her vote helped overturn state bans on same sex marriage. In 2019, Justice Ginsburg was interviewed on stage at New York's Kennedy Centre. In that interview, she called herself a belligerent optimist. Here she is explaining what she meant by that.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I've lived through some terrible times. I grew up in the shadow of World War Two when we were fighting against odious racism and yet our own troops, until the very end of the war, were rigidly separated. In my college years, it was the heyday of Senator Joe McCarthy, who saw communists on every corner. So that's how I got the idea it was a pretty nifty thing to be a lawyer. [Crowd laughs] But I thought you would get a paid job and then use the rest of your time to make things a little better in your community. I didn't realize that when I graduated from law school there were no anti-discrimination laws. So legal employers were totally upfront about saying, we want no lady lawyers in this job. So I have seen great changes in my lifetime and that makes me optimistic. I think it will take people, true patriots on both sides of the aisle to say enough of this nonsense, we should work together for the good of the people.

CH: From 2019 that was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking to an audience at New York's Kennedy Centre. Nina Appel was a long-time friend of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is the former dean of Loyola University Chicago's law school. We reached her in Stone Harbor, New Jersey.

CO: Nina, first of all, I'm sorry for your loss.

NINA APPEL: Thank you very much, Carol. I'm very sad, but I'm sadder still for the country.

CO: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as you know, she had battled cancer for so many years, and yet it seemed to catch people by surprise when we heard of her death. Were you caught unaware that...

NA: Yes. Strangely enough, although she was 87 years old and had been ill many times over the years, she had battled her way back from all kinds of illnesses, her death still came as a shock to me. Because while she was very small in stature and frail in her appearance, she was a giant in her intellect and so courageous and so forceful that somehow we all thought she would go on forever. I know that sounds strange, but it was a shock to hear that she had died.

CO: She said in that clip we just heard that it'd be a nifty thing to be a lawyer and then she found out what was in the way of a woman being able to have the kind of career that she wanted to have. You graduated with Justice Ginsburg. Was it clear to you as well that it was going to be very difficult for someone even as amazing as Ruth Bader Ginsburg to actually be successful in that profession?

NA: Absolutely. We grew up in a time when the employment ads for regular jobs were listed as men wanted and women wanted. And it was very clear that if you were female, you would not be able to apply for a job in the other listing. Neither one of us had ever had a woman professor, not at Cornell -- I was at Cornell with her as well -- and most certainly not in the law school. I had never had a woman faculty member. And there were so few women in our in our class and in the school, and the atmosphere was not a welcoming one. So, yes, we all knew that there would be very strict limitations on what women could do in the profession. I would like to say that the women who were in our class, each of them, went on to practice law. We had other people who had gone on to become a judge -- Ruth was not the only one. And every one of the women who persevered through [chuckles] the pain of law school in those days went on to be professional lawyers. I cannot say the same for the men in the class. And I say that with some irony because we were forever being asked, how are you in the law school and why are you here taking the place of a man?

CO: Is there anything in your early encounters with her that led you to suspect that one day there would be law students, women who would tattoo her image on their arms, that she would be called "Notorious RBG" that she would be celebrated, there would be bumper stickers that said, "You can't spell Truth without Ruth" -- could you ever have suspected that would become of your friend?

NA: Never have suspected that. Neither did she. She once told me that she could not believe that in her ninth decade, teenage boys would be striving to have a selfie taken with her. [Chuckles] This was her wildest thought. She couldn't believe it, and she laughed. Now, I do want to share one memory with you that has stayed with me and maybe exemplifies what she meant and how I will continue to remember her. Less than a year ago, a few months ago, she was in Chicago to accept an honour from the University of Chicago. And a few of us went with her to the University of Chicago. And when we approach the building where she was to be recognized, there was a huge line, hundreds of students waiting patiently in line. We were told that some of them had been there for hours. I will never forget the students who rushed in with expressions and they're clutching their ticket with expressions of such joy and anticipation that they had won the so-called lottery and had gained entrance into her presence, that they would be able to sit at the University of Chicago and listen to her being interviewed. She was being interviewed by another judge. And I remember thinking how many jurists, distinguished jurists, at the age of 87, no matter how learned and how wide ranging their knowledge would be, could possibly attract these young people in such numbers. I'll never forget it.

CO: We understand, she told her granddaughter a few days before she died -- 'my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.' Why do you think it was so important for her to make that statement?

NA: Well, I know that your broadcasting in Canada and your listeners may not understand or be able to comprehend what is happening in the United States, how partisan our divisions have become.

CO: We're quite aware actually.

NA: I can hardly believe it. And it saddens me deeply. I understand from your colleague that Ruth was surrounded by family when she died. And I was glad to hear that. But it saddens me deeply that her last thought was that her legacy might not be carried forward. And that makes me very sad.

CO: How do you think she'll be remembered most? What do you think is going to be that lasting legacy?

NA: Well, you know, people have said that she is the icon for women's rights. I would restate that. In my mind, she's an icon for human rights. The cases that she argued in the Supreme Court, she argued six cases, obviously, before becoming a judge -- five of which she won -- primarily dealt with male plaintiffs. And her argument was that a male, just because he was in one case a father, should not be prevented from receiving his wife's Social Security benefits. So she opened the eyes of the justices and of the world to the harm that occurs when we stereotype people by gender, when we have those columns that say women side and men, that we should simply have human beings applying and may the best person get the job, get the position. In a deep sense, she's an icon for people, for humanity. She was just a humanist. I shouldn't say just. She was a humanist of the deepest kind.

CO: Nina, I really appreciate you talking about your friend and remembering her. Thank you.

NA: Thank you so much for letting me do that.

CO: Thank you.

CH: Nina Appel was a long-time friend of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and is the former dean of Loyola University Chicago's law school. We reached her in Stone Harbor, New Jersey.

[Music]

John Horgan

CH: John Horgan is taking his chances. The British Columbia NDP leader just called an October 24th election -- a year earlier than scheduled. Mr. Horgan could capitalize on his government's high approval ratings for the province's handling of the pandemic and score a much coveted majority government. Or his move could backfire precisely because he called an election in the middle of a pandemic. At a news conference today, one reporter asked him, would you have called this election if he weren't doing so well in the polls?

JOHN HORGAN: I don't...well, I appreciate the question, but I have to again reiterate that I have grappled with this. But the challenges ahead are not about me and they're not about politics or about British Columbians. And we have significant challenges ahead on the health front, on the economic front and what instability that brings to our communities and our social fabric. And I believe the best way to get going on the work ahead is to put the politics behind us. I cannot imagine 12 more months of bickering, 12 more months of not knowing whether a bill would pass the legislature because of uncertainty in numbers. I think the best way forward is to resolve that now, not just for me, particularly not for me, but for British Columbians. And that's why we're doing this.

REPORTER: Hi premier. Green leader, Sonia Furstenau, on your first note, tweeted out that he met with you Friday and told you that you have a stable government with her support. You're telling us this morning there's instability. Why don't you believe what she told you on Friday?

JOHN HORGAN: Well, I had a very good meeting with Sonia Furstenau on Friday. We discussed a range of issues. I laid out for her the concerns I had following the summer session of the legislature, where two significant pieces of legislation were not brought forward because we didn't have the support of the Green caucus. And another instance where the Green caucus amended a financial bill without discussing it with the minister of finance or anyone else. So the evidence speaks differently. But this at the end of the day, it's not about the confidence of the legislature. It's about the confidence of British Columbians. And it's never a bad idea to say to British Columbians, who do you want to lead you and where do you want to go? After three and a half years, the time is right for that. We are at the beginning of a pandemic, not at the end. We have a bunch of work ahead of us and I think a renewed legislature with new people, with new perspectives and new ideas is the best way forward.

CH: B.C. NDP leader John Horgan responding to Vancouver Sun reporter Rob Shaw. And before that to a question from CTV reporter Bhinder Sajan.

[Music]

Alligator attack artist

Guest: Mark Johnson

CH: As a wildlife artist, Mark Johnson is not exactly squeamish about animal encounters. He's been stung by stingrays and had innumerable snakes slither across his path. And it's all been welcome inspiration for his paintings. But this month, one of his subjects got a little too close for comfort. And now, true to form, Mr. Johnson is capturing the moment an alligator almost captured him on his canvas. We reached Mark Johnson in Port St. Lucie, Florida.

CO: Mark, what were you out doing when you had this encounter with an alligator?

MARK JOHNSON: I was walking my golden retriever, Rex, who is eight years old, which we do pretty much every day.

CO: And where were you walking?

MJ: There are some wetlands behind where we live -- it's calm -- just little trails back in the woods. He likes to go back in there. I let him roam free back in there.

CO: And was there any warning before you had this encounter?

MJ: Well, we were leaving the wetland area and coming back to the house (from) a little trail. And we approached a canal, which we live on. And there's four or five canals in the community area. They are 60 feet across, probably the most. We approach the canal. And Rex is always in front of me. And I looked out in the canal and there's a gator -- which I've seen, gators. The previous week we saw a few. You know, we saw him. He was out in the middle of the canal 60 yards away, kind of looking. And I go ahead and unhook Rex. And I'm tell him to 'shark boy -- go to the house.' And he listens good. And he ran to the house, which was probably 75 yards away. I looked back to my left and he was actually splashing water, moving that fast. He was almost on me.

CO: And he clearly had you in his sights, I guess.

MJ: Of course, I saw him coming. And there was a little mud bank. I looked down and there he was and he lunged. I was wearing crocs that day. My left leg was stuck in the mud. And in a split second he had my leg. And my right foot was sticking out of the very end of his mouth, which would be the, you know, the jaw area of the mouth.

CO: How big was this creature?

MJ: I was estimating -- the first interviews I did I said he was figuring that I'm six foot, six one, he's bigger than me. Let's go seven foot. And deep down inside, I figured that he was eight. And when he wound up to be eight foot six inches anyhow.

CO: Okay. So we had you had a pretty good look at his head when he had your leg in his mouth, right?

MJ: He knocked me down. When he lunged, he did knock me down. I was on my rear end and I had both hands on the ground because he had started to pull. When he first lunged and got me, I caught him, you know, I was gutless. And I said, you SOB -- just like that. And he had me and it was locked down. There was no way I could get out of there. And, you know, he was pulling back. I was kind of pulling him a little bit, trying. Yeah. It's happening in three to four seconds.

CO: And he's trying to pull you into the water.

MJ: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's first thing they do. Once they get their locked down, you're not going to open that mouth. The jaw is so big you can't pry it open with a pry bar.

CO: How did you get him to release your leg?

MJ: I poked him in the eyes. You know, everybody's heard of poking animals in the eyes -- sharks especially. But, you know, he's staring right at me. I have both hands free. I poke him in the eyes and he immediately opens up. And of course, I get my leg out and look back real quick cause he could've easily came back and grabbed me again. But apparently my left finger, index finger had six stitches and went down to the first knuckle, that's how far up the eye's in. And he didn't like it and opened up. Thank God.

CO: How did you get back to the house?

MJ: I got up and walked back.

CO: What did your leg look like at that point?

MJ: I just kind of looked down and there was blood all down my leg. I didn't really feel any pain. I was still -- I'll be honest with you, I was still very angry. [Chuckles]

CO: And on the subject of being angry, did you really say "you SOB" or did you actually spell that out?

MJ: Oh very loud.

CO: Okay. But did you really spell it out or did you use the actual words there?

MJ: Oh, actual words. And I think I said a few other choice words too.

CO: You had to get to the hospital. What was the damage?

MJ: There were stitches inside and they had to come out and do some stitches, but overall, like 60 stitches and nine puncture wounds from the teeth. That was within probably two seconds of him starting his death roll, which gators and crocodiles, they just start rolling. That's how they get their prey to give in. Then he gets you in the water and that's it. That’s why I emphasize getting this story out because there's young people out here all the time bass fishing and now this gator, a ten or even a 15 year old kid, if he got him in the same spot as me, that kid would have been gone in one second.

CO: Now, you are an artist. And so your response to the trauma of this is that you're going to make a painting.

MJ: Yes. Exactly. Him looking at me with my leg in his mouth and my foot hanging out and probably my left leg stuck in the mud and both fingers going toward the eyes.

CO: Why would you want to? I mean, you're obviously not going to forget this for some time to come.

MJ: It just tells my story. Everybody can see it.

CO: You want other people to see what you saw.

MJ: Yeah. Yeah.

CO: What's the worst thing that you're going to remember about this?

MJ: Just that he outsmarted me. And got me. [Chuckles] I'm very lucky. Yeah. You're talking three to four seconds of things changing and going worse in just that time frame. What I was thinking before I did the eye thing, you're talking milliseconds here. I'm doing the eyes. Okay if that doesn't work. What have I got next. I was thinking already what am I going to do. But if it's a nuisance like this, you know this is still a man-eating gator. Yeah. It was going to eat me. [Chuckles] Pretty simple. But I'm sure they euthanized it.

CO: Well it sounds like more than a nuisance in your case Mark, and I'm glad you're okay. And thanks for telling us the story.

MJ: Thank you.

CH: Mark Johnson is a wildlife artist who's recovering from an alligator attack in Port St. Lucie, Florida. That's where we reached him.

[Music]

Jesse Armstrong

CH: There were a lot of thank yous at last night's virtual Emmy Awards from the cast of Canada's own Schitt's Creek, which, as you undoubtedly know, swept the show with a record seven comedy awards -- and probably from everyone involved to the tech people because the COVID-friendly show managed to go off without a hitch, despite actors calling in from their living rooms. But there were also a few un-thank yous. Those were from Jesse Armstrong, the creator of HBO Succession, which won Best Drama. Here is his acceptance speech, which he gave from a hotel room.

JESSE ARMSTRONG: Oh, thank you very much indeed. This is such a very nice moment. And it's very sad not to be with the cast and some of the crew to share with you all tonight. [Phone rings in the background] But this is a wonderful achievement for the whole group. Room service it is. Yeah. Probably. [Laughter] But being robbed of the opportunity to spend this time with our peers and with the cast and crew -- I think maybe I'd like to do a couple of un-thank yous. Unthank you to the virus for keeping us all apart this year. Unthank you to President Trump for his crummy and uncoordinated response. Unthank you to Boris Johnson and his government for doing the same in my country. Unthank you to all the nationalist and sort of quasi nationalist governments in the world who are exactly the opposite of what we need right now. And unthank you to the media moguls who do so much to keep them in power. So unthank you.

CH: That was Succession creator, Jesse Armstrong, accepting the Best Drama prize at the Emmy Awards last night.

[Music]

Niall McCann

CH: The mystery of hundreds of elephant deaths in Botswana has been solved. A few months ago, aerial photos showed hundreds of elephants had dropped dead in the Okavango Delta. No one could explain what had happened, but there were fears that the animals had been deliberately poisoned. Well, today, after extensive testing, officials in Botswana say the elephants died from drinking toxic water from watering holes with blue green algae blooms. Those blooms taint the water with cyanobacteria. Because of climate change the blooms are becoming more common. So Botswanan officials will be testing the water holes for blooms during the next rainy season to try to reduce the risk of another mass elephant die off. From our archives, here is Niall McCann talking about the investigation into the deaths in July.

NIALL MCCANN: There have been two aerial surveys over the last six weeks. And what they've revealed is that there's in the region of 400 dead elephants lying in the Okavango Delta. And many others walking around with some form of neuronal dysfunction. This is completely unprecedented. So you would expect to see a die-off of a certain number of elephants happening every dry season, or during a drought, when there's a lack of food or a lack of water. But in terms of a single event, that's either a poison or a pathogen, we don't yet know. There is no precedent that I can think of.

NK: Let's dig into that a little bit deeper. What might be at play here? What are the options you're looking at?

NM: There are three main options. We've ruled out the elephants being shot or speared. But we haven't ruled out the elephants being killed by poison. There are normally poisons that people use in the area that have an impact on scavengers as well as. So cyanide would have an impact of scavengers, and we're not seeing dead scavengers. But there are other poisons that don't have a secondary impact. So we cannot rule out poisoning at this stage. The other two options are a natural toxin, something along the lines of an anthrax or a blue-green algae. But if that were the case, I'd be expecting to see other species also dying. And we're not seeing that. The third option is a pathogen, a disease. And there are lots of different potential diseases, potential candidates for what this could be. And for me, that's just as likely as it is a poisoning event.

NK: Botswana's government says it is taking samples for testing to try to get to the bottom of what's going on. But you're not satisfied with that response?

NM: We know the samples were taken back in May, and then they were never sent. Samples have now finally been sent. And I can confirm they have arrived at the laboratory in Zimbabwe, but we don't know about the providence or the storage or necessarily the chain of custody of those samples. So we cannot necessarily be sure that what has been sampled is from the right place, is treated correctly and then it hasn't been tampered with in any way. What we absolutely need is for an independent team to be granted access to the area to travel to the site, sample multiple carcasses. And we need blood, we need tissue, we need brain, we need spleen, liver, stomach contents, water samples, soil samples. All of that needs to be tested and kept in very, very secure reagents, so we don't lose whatever signature is in the soil or in the blood. And then, that lab itself can reveal the analysis. Only with that level of transparency, can we be truly sure that we've got to the bottom of what's going on?

CH: From our archives that was Niall McCann, the director of conservation for the charity National Parks Rescue. He was speaking with guest host Nil Koksal in July.

[Music]

Part 3: Aid workers mapping WW II bombs killed in explosion in the Solomon Islands

Bomb tech deaths

Guest: Per Breivik

CH: They were tasked with neutralizing Second World War era bombs to keep civilians safe. But they found themselves in danger. Two bomb disposal experts were killed on the Solomon Islands yesterday by an explosive remnant. The islands in the South Pacific were the site of fierce fighting between Japanese and allied forces in 1942 and 43. And a lot of explosive naval shells and landmines were left behind. The victims were Stephen Luke Atkinson, who was British, and Trent Lee, who was Australian. Police on the island, say the explosives weren't detonated at the site of discovery, but in Mr. Atkinson's apartment. Per Breivik is the director of disarmament at Norwegian People's Aid, where the victims worked. He knew Stephen Luke Atkinson for decades. We reached Mr. Breivik in Oslo.

CO: Per, first of all, my condolences on the loss of your colleagues.

PER BREIVIK: Thank you very much. That's very much appreciated.

CO: How did you learn this news that these two men, Luke Atkinson and Trent Lee, had been killed?

PB: I received a phone call from our Solomon Island office yesterday. We do not know exactly what type of explosives or whether it was an ordinance or a fuse or the exact type. That is still pending -- the police investigation.

CO: But does it seem to be the case as it's been reported that the device, whatever it was, was something that exploded inside Mr. Atkinson’s apartment?

PB: Yes. And unfortunately, that seems to be the fact. So, of course, the circumstances surrounding that accident is hard to accept.

CO: In what way?

PER BREIVIK: In the way that accidents do, unfortunately, happen from time to time. Within the mine action and disarmament sector, it is not frequent, but when it happens, it happens during operations, field operations and not in the residential areas. What I can say is that we have the highest international standards when it comes to our observing and clearance operations of explosive remnants of war. Luke Atkinson was highly dedicated, a very qualified staff member from NPA with experience from a lot of different countries for more than 20 years. And what exactly has brought him to then potentially take ordnance to the residence is only guesswork at this point in time.

CO: And not just bring it to his own residence, he would have brought it into a residential area where other people were. Is that right?

PB: Yes. That is right. And our sympathy, of course, is also with the worry that this has caused with the residents following this very very tragic explosion and accident.

CO: Can you tell us about the work that these two men Luke Atkinson and Trent Lee, what were they doing in the Solomon Islands?

PB: The program NPA has on the Solomon Islands is dealing with explosive remnants of war from World War Two, a legacy from more than 75 years ago. And we have acted upon a request from the Solomon Island authorities to assist them with the mapping and establishing exactly the extent of the contamination, which is still unknown.

CO: What were they finding as far as what kinds of explosives, unexploded ordnances, and where were they and how often did they map these and locate them?

PB: Yeah. The Solomon Islands are a cluster of a number of islands, some of them more contaminated than others. It is all kinds of World War Two ammunition, maybe predominantly artillery shells. So it's a combination of what we call abandon-unition, which was left and his ammunition that was not fired. And in some cases, unexploded ordnance, which was ammunition that was fired but didn't explode on impact as it was intended.

CO: And what kinds of numbers? Some reports say it's close to 50,000 of these remnants have been found already in the area.

PB: Solomon Island police forces started recording back in 2011. There's been about 45,000 such items or handled since then.

CO: Elsewhere someone has said that the people of the Solomon Islands, the farmers are afraid of their own land.

PB: Yeah. On the Solomon Islands, the impact, of course, has been there through generations of land that is currently not used because of the contamination from a long time ago.

CO: When was the last time you spoke with Luke Atkinson?

PB: I spoke to Luke about two and a half months ago, and he was his usual very enthusiastic self.

CO: This is very very dangerous work that he was doing. Why did he do it? Why was he dedicated to doing something that I guess would always be endangering his life when he worked?

PB: Yeah, it was a genuine wish to help vulnerable civilian population in post-conflict areas. It's always a race against time -- immediate post-conflict in a number of those countries where he worked such as Angola and Iraq and Sudan and Sri Lanka. So that drove him to take on this work for 25 years.

CO: I wonder if you're doing work that on a daily basis risks your life. What sort of cumulative effect does that have I'm just wondering what would lead him to have this explosive remnants in his home? Would that be something that somehow you just, I guess, become kind of desensitized to this?

PB: I think those that are as driven as Luke was will always be pushing the boundaries of working more effectively and with these sort of genuine interest in ammunition and understanding how explosive works so that he could more effectively find ways of disposing of it, etc.. Then there is always that what we call normalization, that we all as professionals have to fight where explosives and being around explosives and in such environment becomes in a way the norm and commonplace.

CO: So how are you making sense of your friend's death today?

PB: It is very difficult to make sense of it, I have to admit. If anybody had asked me on Saturday whether I ever thought that Luke Atkinson would have been one of those that have an accident, I would have said no. And he was very known in the sector as a careful operator. What is clear is whatever he was thinking, it would have been driven from a genuine interest in understanding ammunition, no ill will sort of behind his actions. I can only reflect on the fact that he paid a very very high price.

CO: Per once again, I'm sorry for your loss.

PB: Thank you very much.

CO: Thanks for speaking with us tonight.

PB: Thank you for having me on.

CH: Per Breivik is the director of disarmament at Norwegian People's Aid. We reached him in Oslo, Norway.

[Music]

Rod Waterlow

CH: Not only did Rod Waterlow complete the Boston Marathon, a race that would make me throw up while crying sometime in the first eight minutes. But at 83, Mr. Waterlow was the oldest runner in the race and he ran it in his hometown of Vancouver in just under five hours. All of this year's competitors ran virtually wherever they chose. And because of the smoke from the wildfires on the West Coast, runners like Mr. Waterlow did it later than most. He finished the marathon yesterday. And then, moments after being cheered across the finish line by friends and family, he got on the phone with the CBC.

ROD WATERLOW: [Crowd cheers] Hello.

DEBORAH GOBLE: Hi, it's Deborah Goble at CBC. How do you feel?

ROD WATERLOW: [Chuckles] Well a little tired, but so relieved. I was really stressed out for this one. I'm so glad it's over.

DEBORAH GOBLE: Is this the end or are you still going to keep doing marathons or...

ROD WATERLOW: You should never ask that to someone that at the end of a marathon. Everybody says, that's my last one. And then it's like childbirth. [Laughs] I don't know. It may be my last one. But I was born in London and I haven't done the London Marathon. And that's been postponed until next November, I think -- it's in November of next year. That will be a thrill to sort of winding up my running career running in my hometown.

DEBORAH GOBLE: Absolutely. How difficult was this one this morning?

ROD WATERLOW: This was pretty straightforward, actually. The weather was perfect, I really lucked out with the weather.

DEBORAH GOBLE: Wow you sound pretty good for a guy that just ran all that. Are you not exhausted?

ROD WATERLOW: Well, I'm tired. My legs are tired, but I'm feeling great.

DEBORAH GOBLE: I've done, as a reporter, l watched people coming in after the Vancouver marathon and people half your age look like they're going to die.

ROD WATERLOW: Well, I had a race like that. I ran Boston the year after the bombing in 2014. And what I didn't know was that I had contracted bronchitis from the fellow I was travelling with. And there people passing me walking. You'd think -- you can't quit often Boston. [Chuckles]

DEBORAH GOBLE: And so your final summation of this whole experience.

ROD WATERLOW: This was a really, really good run. And a good way to end 2020, because it's been a rotten year for so many people and I'm just happy that it's over. To be honest. I'm just thrilled to have finished. I encourage everybody to get out there and stay active as long as they can. Maybe if I can be a role model in that area, that makes me happy. I like the sense that other people may do something more than they thought they could. I think I'm we're all capable of doing more than we know so we're pushed a little harder.

CH: Rod Waterlow of Vancouver speaking with the CBC's Deborah Goble after completing the Boston Marathon virtually in his hometown yesterday.

[Music]

Australia stinging trees

Guest: Irina Vetter

CH: The leaves look soft and inviting like a bunny's ear. So it's only natural to reach for them. And that is when you'll be reminded that it's also only natural to protect yourself, even if you're a tree. No one knows exactly why the gympie gympie tree developed the ability to inflict searing pain on those who get too close. But no one is pondering that exact question once the deceptively spiky leaves have emitted their toxin. By all accounts, at that point one's mind becomes very focused on the pain. Irina Vetter is a researcher at the University of Queensland and an author of a new study published in the journal Science Advances about Australia's infamous stinging trees. We reached her in Brisbane.

CO: Irina, first of all, just if you can, describe what it feels like to come into contact with one of these trees.

IRINA VETTER: Initially, it feels pretty much like a normal stinging nettle that you can find in America or Europe. So it is intense burning and stinging pain. But the really unique part about this Australian stinging tree, like it lasts for a very long time and over the hours as it progressively gets sort of weird buzzing, crawling and shooting pains. And this can actually be for days and weeks afterwards just by having a shower, for example, scratching an area.

CO: Yikes. One of your colleagues says it's like having a nail shoved into your flesh. Is that about right?

IV: That's sounds about right. Yes. It's a bit unpleasant, to say the least.

CO: Okay. But you're also not just the subject of this pain, but you're an expert on the subject of pain. So what do you understand causes this? Even studying the tree, what are you learning about the pain that it inflicts?

IV: So this really started off as a bit of curiosity as to why the pain is so bad, actually. As you say, I'm actually a pain researcher. I'm interested in understanding how we feel pain so that we can develop better ways to treat it. So much to our surprise, what we found was that this tree seems to inject toxins that have the 3D shape that act like something that you would normally find in animal venom. And so what we want to do is to understand how we can perhaps use these molecules and turn them from something that activates pain-sensing nerve into something that might block pain-sensing nerve, and perhaps find a better treatment. And the other aspect is that because the pain is so long lasting, we're hoping that it might give us some information to understand how chronic pain develops.

CO: So you say it's similar to what you get to say from a spider bite. Would that be accurate?

IV: Yes. So the similarity between that tree and animal venom is that the molecules in a three [inaudible] shape and look very very similar. And they actually also work on the same molecular targets as toxins that you would find, for example, in spite of venomous animals, even scorpion venom. So it's a remarkable case of what we call convergent evolution. So nature has a problem -- how do you deter herbivore or a predator? And that in nature has come up with basically the same solution. These toxins that act on pain-sensing nerves.

CO: Okay, so obviously this is some kind of a protection system, a defense, for the tree. But there are things that do feed on it, right? There are insects that munch the leaves. How can they avoid that?

IV: That's a really good question, actually. We're not quite sure yet. We're not really sure why the tree has evolved these toxins. As you say, the obvious thought would be that it's as a protective mechanism. But there's both insects and also a paddy melon, like a small kangaroo that seem to be feeding on this leaf. So we're not quite sure whether the paddy melon, for example, is just a very tough cookie or whether there's something else going on.

CO: Yikes. How did you come to know about this thing? Is it just something that is kind of inevitable when you're doing this research? Or did you actually have this inflicted on yourself as a form of study?

IV: So the trees are actually found quite widely in southeast Queensland where I live. And it's actually my understanding also that they have a related species in Canada, which is called Laportea canadensis or the Canadian Wood Nettle. So you can find these species all over the world. And I've encountered them just going for a bushwalk. But I have occasionally sought out a sting on purpose to investigate a bit more of what's going on. And we've obviously looked for these trees to collect some specimens.

CO: But you have been able to create a synthetic version of the compounds at this point, is that right?

IV: Yes, that's correct. So all of our studies later on in trying to understand what these compounds do or not, of course, modifying the components of all of that was done with synthetic compounds that we've made in the lab. And so we've used [inaudible] models, so neurons in a dish to try and understand how these compounds act and how they work on our pain-sensing nerve.

CO: That sounds a lot safer. But I understand that the tree itself, the leaves are very attractive. Unless you're warned about them it is really compelling to reach out and touch them.

IV: Well they're much like an ordinary nettle. So they are quite large, actually. And they just look a little bit fuzzy and not that scary, actually. Of course, if you look up closely, you can see that the fuzziness is actually just tiny little silica needles that are filled with wood, which really we can think about offered as venom now -- the same thing as what you find in a venomous animal. And it gets injected into your skin sort of in a fashion like a hypodermic needle.

CO: And you're learning about what is inflicting the pain. Are you able to take from that to figure out how pain can be prevented or how it can be suppressed? Is there something we can learn that we can benefit from this study?

IV: Yeah, undoubtedly. So these molecules actually are really really interesting in the way they act on our pain-sensing nerve. And also what we've started to do is make chemical modifications through the naturally found toxins. And the hope is that once you've found something that acts on a pain-sensing nerve to activate, it is actually not that difficult to modify the chemical structure of it, to turn it into something that would block a pain signal. So that's work that was just started recently. And hopefully now watch this space maybe we can make something useful out of this.

CO: We will leave it there Irina. I appreciate you waking up so early in the morning in Australia to talk to us. And thank you.

IV: No problem. It was a pleasure. .

CH: Pain researcher Irina Vetter authored a new study into the pain causing properties of Australia's gympie gympie tree. She was in Brisbane. And you can find more on the story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Pamela Hutchinson

CH: The youngest sibling almost always has it easiest. Curfews are later and your parents are tired. Your older siblings wore them out. Stakes are just lower. But it was a different story for the youngest sibling in The Emotions. When Pamela Hutchinson first joined her older sisters to become a member of the Grammy winning R&B vocal group, the stakes were high. It was the mid-70s and The Emotions had already recorded a string of hit records. But the acoustic sound of the late 60s was shifting to a more plugged in funk and disco sound. Pamela Hutchinson, whose voice helped the group make that shift, died on Friday. She was 61. The Emotions had already made a big transition from sacred to secular music. As Wanda Hutchinson told The New York Times in 1977, gospel is the route -- we get the same reactions from people now that we got when we sang gospel. The big change was on stage, though, where the new choreography included, "soft and sexy glides. There's a lot of eye contact and winking." Well, like her sisters, Pamela Hutchinson had honed her singing chops in the church. And when she joined the group, she quickly became the key voice in the trio, which helped Teh Emotions glide into the disco and pop era hit singles like I Don't Want To Lose Your Love and Turn It Out climbed the charts and collaborations with legendary producer Maurice White and his group Earth, Wind and Fire brought even more success.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 21, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode