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 2025

The AIH transcript for February 4, 2025

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

NIL KÖKSAL: Hello, I'm Nil Köksal.

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

[theme]

CH: Tonight:

NK: The re-tools of the trade. As part of contentious trade negotiations with the U.S., Canada agrees to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. An expert tells us that is not going down well in Mexico.

CH: Shelter in a storm. Armed rebels announce a ceasefire in eastern Congo, but the operator of a women's shelter there says the situation is still bad -- and the Trump Administration’s cuts to foreign aid will make it worse.

NK: The messages are the message. Newly released emails confirm NFL and NBA executives helped a Roman Catholic diocese in New Orleans manage a sexual abuse scandal.

CH: Riverbank account. A site on the North Saskatchewan River is revealed to be one of the oldest examples of Indigenous civilization in North America. A Métis archaeologist tells us he could feel that history the first time he saw it.

NK: Ape-titude tests. New research suggests bonobos can consider what people around them know or don't know -- which means the unique human ability to guess what's going on in the minds of others isn't so unique.

CH: And...they’ll be the first to gnaw. Humans in Czech Republic were struggling with a $2 million infrastructure project -- and then some local beavers moved in and did it for free.

CH: As It Happens, the Tuesday Edition. Radio that guesses they got a bigger bang for their buck…teeth.

Part 1: Cartel Terrorist Designation, Saints/Pelicans Abuse Emails, Bonobos Thinking Study

Cartel Terrorist Designation

Guest: Maria Calderon

CH: A trade war may have been averted for the time being. But the drug war continues to rage. In its efforts to stave off 25 per cent tariffs from the U.S. for at least 30 days, Canada has agreed to some initiatives aimed at fighting fentanyl -- including an already-announced $1.3 billion border plan. But yesterday saw some new conditions: the appointment of a “fentanyl czar”, and a promise to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations -- as the U.S. did when Trump took office again last month. Maria Calderon is a researcher with the Wilson Center's Mexico Institute. We reached her in Washington, D.C.

NK: Maria, as you well know, the U.S. wanted Canada and Mexico to bring in this designation. Mexico refused. Canada has done it. What is the reaction from Mexico to see Canada take this action?

MARIA CALDERON: Mexico understands that Canada has the rights and will, of course, have a different strategy towards the U.S. mexico also would hope and like to have a joint strategy vis-a-vis Canada when it comes to negotiating with the U.S., since they would have a stronger position to the tariff conversation.

NK: So, do you think that this ultimately might make it harder for Canada and Mexico to work together, you know, if there are, if there are more tariffs, potential tariffs, in the future?

MC: Yes, I do think so, since the region would be debilitated, taking into account that the U.S. has been very vocal in terms of Mexican cartels taking over Mexico's territory. So, if Canada starts alienating with the U.S. in that view, then it will be harder to sit down on the table and have a discussion in terms of security.

NK: Were you surprised to see Canada make this move?

MC: Yes, I was. But, however, also, I think that the dynamic when it comes to the Trump administration is changing in terms of security, trade, and migration issues being discussed at the same time.

NK: Right.

MC: So, I think we're going to start seeing a lot of different solutions from the three countries. And these three topics that are very important for the North American agenda will start mixing.

NK: Give our listeners a sense, based on your expertise, Mexico's thinking on this. Why would they be resistant to bringing this designation in for cartels?

MC: This for Mexico would have a lot of implications, legal implications, financial implications, migration implications. And also, the way the world views Mexico. Imagine what would that do to tourism, thinking, oh, Cartels that, according to people from the U.S. Congress, control one-third of the Mexican territory now are going to be designated and treated as terrorists. So, of course, Mexico doesn't want to have that view in front of the U.S. and the rest of the world.

NK: But, but people are aware of the cartel situation and the dangers. So, what would they offer as a, as a better or different solution if they're communicating with the Trump administration?

MC: So that is the million-dollar question. What is Mexico going to bring to the table in terms of security cooperation. From the last Mexican administration under former President Lopez Obrador, U.S.-Mexico security cooperation stalled, however, with the current president, Claudia Sheinbaum. There are hopes, and there have been talks, to start having again a U.S.-Mexico security cooperation strategy. My, my sense is that Mexico needs and will have to bring solutions to the table, very sophisticated solutions that have to do and curb fentanyl. The main worry of the Trump administration in terms of security right now is stopping fentanyl.

NK: What does this kind of designation, what would it actually allow law enforcement to do that they couldn't do before? There's a Kingpin Act already in the U.S. Does this actually give them more power?

MC: Correct. So, the main change now, I would say, is the material support clause, which means that it's a specific list of activities that would allow U.S. prosecutors to bring a case against people that have knowingly provided material support to, in this case, the cartels. And this goes from providing them with a financial service, a training, arms, weapons, transportation. So, a lot of these people that deal with the cartels but are not properly part of the cartels could be prosecuted under the material support clause.

NK: What could it mean for migrants? Because, as you well know, and anyone who has read the stories or heard the stories, they often have to pay people, or even ransoms, or smugglers. What does that mean for migrants?

MC: So, that is a two-side conversation. On the one hand, there's a worry that asylum claims will be affected. And asylum, yeah, people seeking asylum, their cases will be halted under the material support clause. But on the other hand, there's also another part of the debate that says that migrants will be able to make asylum claims saying that they have been prosecuted by cartels. In this case, now terrorists.

NK: So, in addition to that worry, there's also a piece where this could actually help migrants?

MC: Correct. So, that is, that is an ongoing discussion. There's a lot of uncertainty of how this will be used. Because what the FTO designation does is it will provide the U.S. with a broader legal framework and a toolkit to prosecute cartels. The way they will do it is still, is still yet to be seen. It will depend on the political will, on how the U.S. government intends to use the extra legal tools to prosecute cartels. And if I can also add a very important side to the conversation is the financial aspect. Under the material support clause, if somebody knowingly provides financial securities, financial services, or monetary instruments to the cartels, they could be prosecuted under an FTO. This means that in terms of money laundering, which is a huge component of the cartels, if the U.S. can effectively use this designation to try to curb the cartels assets, that would be a huge blow to the cartels.

NK: Do you think that the cartels are worried about this news?

MC: If they see that the U.S. starts going for the, using this FTO framework to go after leaders and their finances and assets, then yes. But that remains to be seen.

NK: Maria, I appreciate your time. Thank you for this.

MC: Of course, Nil. Happy to talk. Thank you for having me.

CH: Maria Calderon is a researcher with the Wilson Center's Mexico Institute. We reached her in Washington, D.C.

[jazzy piano]

Saints/Pelicans Abuse Emails

Guest: Kevin Bourgeois

CH: For years, hundreds of people have accused Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of New Orleans of sexual abuse. And now, a lawsuit filed by those alleged victims has revealed that top sports executives helped the church manage the fallout from the scandal. Some 700 pages of emails obtained through the litigation show how executives with the NFL’s New Orleans Saints, and the NBA’s New Orleans Pelicans coached clergy through the crisis -- and even got some alleged pedophiles' names removed from prosecutors' public lists. When the Associated Press first reported on the apparent collaboration between the teams and the Archdiocese in 2020, the teams' billionaire owner Gayle Benson, denied any role. This week, the teams insisted their input was limited to, quote, "public relations assistance." Unquote. Kevin Bourgeois is a survivor of sexual violence at the hands of a New Orleans priest, and a long time advocate for survivors. We reached him in New Orleans.

NK: Kevin, I know you and other survivors have known about these emails for years, but I wonder what it means to you to see them made public now?

KEVIN BOURGEOIS: Well, a couple of things. It's great that they're out in the public now, but infuriating that the Saints' ownership and the archbishop, you know, spent a fortune preventing them from, from going public. And what that means to me, and anyone who's got half of a brain, is if you didn't have anything to hide, then why were you fighting to keep those communications from the public?

NK: The Associated Press first started reporting on this, as our listeners heard, several years ago in 2020.

KB: Right.

NK: We're talking about Gayle Benson, who owns both the Pelicans and the Saints. Her husband, late husband, Tom Benson, as well as one of the team's executives, Greg Bensel. As you, and you know, we learned back in 2020 about the tens of millions of dollars that the Bensons gave to the dioceses, the archdiocese, as well as other Catholic organizations. But obviously, these emails reveal much more of alleged collaboration and closeness. As you learned more, and saw the contents of these emails, what stood out to you most about that relationship?

KB: Good question. You know, the, Bensel, in one of the emails, it was reported his wife, I don't get paid enough money to do this for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. And so, there we go. And the theme is the money. And you have a billionaire heiress, right, who owns two professional sports franchises. Who's besties with the archbishop. And so, it's about, they're more concerned about protecting their image and their secrets rather than what happened to, to the children of New Orleans back in the '50s, '60s, and ' 70s. So, the communications, I mean, so those emails, right, were just, it gave me a snapshot of what their their, their mental capacity was. And it's to keep secrets. And the Catholic Church is famous for that.

NK: I wonder what kind of reaction, Kevin, there's been from, you know, people, people in New Orleans, people who are, you know, maybe your neighbours. They're learning about these emails, reading more about them. What's the general sense you get from, because obviously, people are tied to their sports teams as well. People are tied to the church. But, but the reality of the scandal, a sexual abuse scandal enrages people.

KB: Yeah, that's a great question. And the short answer is, is everybody is, you can't generalize, but most people are disgusted by it. What, you know, and disgusted with Gayle Benson. You know, how and why would she care to get involved in this? As well as an NFL football team? It just doesn't go together. So, there's a loyalty, an innate, innate loyalty living here and being a Saints fan. The Pelicans aren't as old, but certainly the Saints, you know, you're, you're a diehard fan. And, and people take great pride in, you know, professional sports franchises give people a sense of hope, and a sense of purpose, and, and community gathering. And forever, the New Orleans Saints, I believe, are going to be, are going to have a black mark against them for this scandal.

NK: And just to underline for our listeners, you refer to this a little bit earlier, but the emails reveal that the president of the New Orleans Pelicans drafted questions to prepare the Archbishop, Gregory Aymond, to answer questions from the media on the scandal. Greg Bensel, according to the emails, lobbied local outlets for favourable coverage. And even offered edits on letters to the editor. When you hear those, those kinds of details. And we know that the Saints have said, you know, they're denying any, any of their employees were, were involved. Do you think anything is going to change within the organization?

KB: No, I really don't. You know, I've been fighting this fight as a survivor since 2019, and I don't see the

Catholic Church ever changing. And so, you have a billionaire owner who donates a lot of money, not only to this Catholic Church, but to the NFL. I mean, they built a stadium in Ohio for the NFL game. It's the Tom Benson football stadium or whatever it is. And so, Roger Goodell feels, probably feels, beholden to her. I was actually shocked at that.

NK: What do you think the message this, all of this, sends to survivors?

KB: Golly! That, that you can fight, you can speak your mind, but at the end of the day, it's, you're just going to be frustrated.

NK: Do you regret coming forward, though?

KB: No, not at all. And I'm a social worker, clinical social worker. And I have, you know, people that have been abused. But, but for the most part, they mostly, my clientele are not. And, and one of my clients recently asked me, hey, how did you deal with the anger? And it was an easy answer for me. It was to file a lawsuit that went to mediation. So, I had to discover what my rights were. And my rights were I'm going to fight. Went to mediation with the church before they went into bankruptcy. The other part was creating a support group through a local SNAP chapter and from there. So it provided support, but it also gave a lot of, what's the word, power back in terms of demonstrations in front of Saint Louis Cathedral and the residence where Archbishop Aymond lives. And so, what that provided was, you know, strength in numbers, but certainly gave people a purpose and feel like, you know, I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor, and I'm using my voice, my voice, but also the collective voices around the men and women that I was working with as a fellow survivor.

NK: Kevin, I appreciate your time. Thank you for this. Please take care.

KB: You're welcome.

CH: Kevin Bourgeois is a survivor of sexual violence at the hands of a priest, and a long time advocate for survivors in New Orleans.

[international]

Bonobos Thinking Study

Guest: Luke Townrow

CH: We consider it a quintessentially human quality: our innate ability not just to think, but also to think about what others might be thinking. Enabling us to smile our way through social encounters while having such insights as "I think she might think I'm an idiot," and "Yes, she definitely thinks I'm an idiot." Now, it might not always feel advantageous to have those thoughts, but our ability to imagine the minds of others is part of what makes us who we are. But it turns out, we may not be the only ones who can do it. A new study from Johns Hopkins University contends that bonobos also try to read minds, and that can affect their behaviour. Luke Townrow is a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins. We reached him in Baltimore.

NK: Luke, what we're talking about here is referred to as theory of mind. Just explain for our listeners briefly what that means.

LUKE TOWNROW: Of course. So, as humans, we live in this very dynamic and social environment, so we need to be able to keep up with everything around us, right? And to help us, we have something called a theory of mind that essentially allows us to consider what somebody else knows, doesn't know, feel, or believe, in order to make predictions about how they may behave. It makes this unpredictable world a little bit more manageable for us.

NK: It can also cause problems when you make the wrong guesses. But that's not what we're talking about here. How did you go about testing this in bonobos?

LT: Yeah. So, the general setup included me sitting at a table across from a bonobo where we would be facing each other. And then on this table, we had three opaque overturned cups, or where a second experimenter to the side of us could take a food item like a grape, a peanut, an apple, and place it under one of the cups. Now, if I knew where the treat was hidden, it was essentially my job to reveal its location in order for the bonobo to receive this food item. Now, sometimes I would watch and see where the food was ultimately placed, whereas other times my vision was obstructed by having a barrier in front of my face, which meant that I didn't know where the food was ultimately hidden. And so, what we did is that when the food item was hidden, the barrier was removed, and as I said, it was my job to pick which cup. So, what I would do is that I would look at the cups and I would say, hmm, where's the grape? Or where's the food item? And then, they had 10 seconds to communicate if they wanted to.

NK: And when you saw that the bonobos were, were pointing more often where you couldn't see the grape, what did you think?

LT: I was, I was relieved. [laughing] It was, it was great to see. You know, we can only go by our expectations based on the literature and previous experiments that we found in the past. And that kind of literature was really at odds, right? There was these amazing studies that suggested that maybe this is something that other animals can do. But there was a recent reevaluation or analysis that suggested maybe animals are just relying on easier, more less complex things like understanding when someone's knowledgeable rather than when their perspective differs from us. So, even though my mentor, Dr. Chris Krupenye, has done some work in the past to suggest that this could be something that they do, you know, you never know what they're going to, how they're going to perform, or how they're going to take part in your experiment until they do. So, when they first started to do the experiment and, you know, differentiate between my mental state almost immediately, it was a huge relief.

NK: But how do you know that the bonobos weren't just getting impatient with you and pointing because they wanted you to hurry up and give them a treat?

LT: [chuckling] Great question. What I wanted to make sure of was the choreography that I gave between trials where I knew where the food was and I didn't know where the food was, was exactly matched. So, it was highly controlled. The only thing that differed was if I had seen where the food was hidden. And that was important to us because if they were just doing these assistance behaviours, and they were getting frustrated that I didn't know, I wasn't just giving them the food. And you would expect to see that between any of the conditions, regardless of whether I'd seen it or not. Or possibly, even on the other side, they would do that insistence or frustration behaviour more when I knew where the food was, but I wasn't providing it. So, the choreography matching of being the same is super important to us. And, ultimately, that helps us fight that deflation just a little bit.

NK: It sounds like you really enjoyed playing that part. Hmmm, where's the grape? You sold that line!

LT: Thank you. It's been, I've been having a lot of practice, I think.

NK: There has been, as you were saying, much debate on this issue. And specifically, whether bonobos have this ability. This particular study included just three bonobos. Are you planning to do more experiments to, to really underline these findings?

LT: Oh, definitely. And that's something that really interests me about science, right? Is the back and forwards, and making sure that we can ask these really rich and deep questions time after time. So, I think from a personal standpoint, I would definitely love to go back and work with these three again. But also, our motivation. Is to try and design some more experiments that means that we can take it not only two different populations of bonobos, but also run it with different species, right? There's other great apes like chimpanzees and orangutans, gorillas, etc. But there's also other species that we would love to ask similar questions for.

NK: And what's your sense of how your study is going to land with other researchers, given the debate that's out there and the questions?

LT: Yeah, I'm, it's a bit too early to tell exactly, although we've received some very lovely and very supportive comments and feedback from people outside of my department in the field, which has been amazing. But this is definitely a part of science that I love, right? It's that someone will present work and present their theory, present their ideas, and then it's up to the scientific community to then come together, identify what questions need to be asked next. What can be done to really deepen our understanding of something that we're trying to put forward. So, I'm very excited to see how it's being picked up by others in the community.

NK: What should, should it tell our listeners that this ability that we've believed is unique to us might actually be more widespread?

LT: I think it should be super exciting. I hope so. [both chuckle] And I think the main thing that we're taking away from this is that, you know, there's huge differences between the cognitive abilities between humans and other great apes like bonobos in this case, right? But what we're trying to find out, and not just myself, but other researchers in the field, is identifying what makes other animals special. But also, what makes humans special. And I think one of the things that we want to take away from this is the ability to identify when someone does or does not know something is not necessarily something that makes humans unique, right? It's the foundational ability that may arise to other things that give, that allow humans to have human-unique cognition, like I said, like teaching culture, advanced culture, communication, etc. But this specific ability does not look to be it.

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

LT: Thank you very much for having me.

NK: I hope you find that grape.

LT: [laughing] One day. [NK chuckles]

CH: Luke Townrow is a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University. We reached him in Baltimore.

Czech Beaver Dam

CH: There are reasons why you wouldn't necessarily want to get these particular construction workers involved. I mean, they won't look at your blueprints, listen to your orders, or explain anything they're doing. And they're always gabbing, or eating, or both at the same time. I mean, just listen to these two yammering at each other.

SOUNDCLIP

[these construction workers are either adults from ‘Charlie Brown’ or beavers… Wait, I’m told they are beavers]

CH: I mean, hey, come on! Maybe stop running your mouths and start using your tools…which are your mouths! Those are beavers, by the way. That’s what beavers sound like. And it’s true that working with such unpredictable builders can be a challenge. But it’s also true that they work fast, and the work hard. Which is how beavers fixed a drainage problem that humans still hadn’t even figured out how to deal with or pay for. In the Brdy region of the Czech Republic, humans wanted to restore a natural wetland at a cost of nearly $1.8 million CDN. But authorities still had to figure out who technically owned the land, who would oversee the project, how to oversee the requisite building permits, etc., etc. And that kind of stuff is hard to understand. And the colony of beavers that showed up certainly didn't understand it. So, they just got busy. And practically overnight, they built a bunch of dams that immediately created all the necessary conditions to restore the wetland. As the head of a local conservation group told Radio Prague International, they built the dams without any project documentation and for free. So, yeah, I would not hire beavers to build your deck in a timely fashion. But in this case, they did a great job. And nobody had to put any money where their mouths were.

[plucked instrumental]

Part 2: DRC Women’s Shelter, Sturgeon Lake Settlement

DRC Women’s Shelter

Guest: Thérèse Mema Mapenzi

CH: There's talk of a ceasefire in eastern Congo. But Thérèse Mema Mapenzi is not relaxing yet. Ms. Mapenzi runs a women's shelter in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. And Rwandan-backed M23 rebels had been closing in on that city, after seizing Goma to the north from Congolese forces last week. Now, the M23 says they're calling a unilateral ceasefire. They say it's to allow desperately-need humanitarian aid to reach areas under their control. But it remains to be seen whether the fighting will actually stop, and whether government forces will agree to lay down their arms as well. We reached Thérèse Mema Mapenzi in Bukavu.

NK: Thérèse, I wonder what the announcement of this humanitarian ceasefire will mean to you and your safety, personally?

THÉRÈSE MEMA MAPENZI: For us, we were living in fear. We were afraid that the M23, supported by Rwanda, would reach us here in Bukavu. But this morning, when we wake up, we heard from different radios that there is this ceasefire. Actually, we are happy. But we're still in doubt whether this will be true or not.

NK: Yeah.

TMM: Because in past years, last year, especially, again, the M23 announced that there will be a ceasefire. Unfortunately, they came again to bomb some areas. And some people died. I remember it was in June 2024 when they were attacking some villages near Minova in the North Kivu. We went for humanitarian actions there. Although they were saying that they were in Ceasefire, they threw some bombs, and I felt myself in danger going there for humanitarian action. So, I think and believe that this time, they will consider the words and they will respect the decision.

NK: You say we, and I assume that means the women that you help, and the women you work with. I wonder how you assisted them when you're in fear for your own life and for your own city. What kinds of things were they saying to you? Because they have already experienced such unimaginable things, so how, I can only imagine that this was incredibly frightening for them.

TMM: The many things that the people explained to us, they don't understand we as Congolese people, as civilians, why this war? And the worst thing in this is to see that only the very poor, the very vulnerable are those who should pay for the consequences of this conflict.

NK: Why did you decide to stay?

TMM: I decided to stay in Bukavu because I am not safe everywhere I can go. I'm not sure if I will be safe. For instance, if I should travel, I have to cross Rwanda. And from Rwanda, I am not very sure if I will be safe because I'm making that, I'm talking to people, but also, if I go there, I don't know if I will stay there for how many days. But also, I don't have no one to, to support me outside my country. Because when I live here, I have my family, I have my friends. If I flee away from Bukavu, where can I go? Some people travel to Europe, to America, and elsewhere. But, for me, and for my experience, we are safe at home. When we are at home, we feel safe, even if it is war, even if there are conflicts. But we feel safe at home. We, outside home, there are so other many problems to integrate ourselves, to understand the culture, to be accepted by the other community that hosts you. So, all these are issues that sometimes we forget to think about.

NK: We know that there are reports of food shortages, price spikes, then the violence itself that has been playing out. Does your centre have what it needs, the kind of supplies and support it needs, to keep helping the people, the families, who depend on you?

TMM: That is the really big issue that we have. Here in the Bukavu, we depend 80 per cent from Goma. And before the conflicts, we tried to sensitize people to raise awareness, to say, please, buy some food, buy something, so as this can help you. Unfortunately, many people are very poor. In my office, for instance, we bought 25 kilograms of rice, 25 kilograms of beans. But it is now two weeks since the situation started. We are not sure if they will reach the end of the month, or they will reach the end of this situation. And if it is not sufficient, on Monday, we heard again that the U.S. closed the finance assistance.

NK: I wanted to, I wanted to ask you about that, Thérèse. Because, to remind our listeners, the U.S. president signed an executive order. How will you make up the loss of that, that U.S. funding?

TMM: That is the situation. That's the issue. We really don't know. And myself and some of the people with whom I talked to says we should stop stressing ourselves. We don't know what will happen. We will pray. We make advocacy. Maybe things will change. We don't know. Because we don't have any issue. Our government is very weak, and I should tell that today, the project financed some families and households leave thanks to those organizations -- those small organizations. Now that the U.S. has closed, many European organizations, also the Ukraine war, they closed the doors. So, now, we don't know where to go. We don't know to whom to talk. We don't know to which door to go to knock. All these are challenging situations coming at the same time. And if we think too much on this, maybe we will become crazy.

NK: Thérèse, I very much appreciate your time. Please do take care.

TMM: Thank you so much.

NK: Thank you.

TMM: God bless you.

CH: Thérèse Mema Mapenzi is the director of the Centre Olamé in Bukavu in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

[lo-fi]

McGuinty Border Training

CH: This morning, Canada's public safety minister, David McGuinty, was in Emerson, Manitoba -- a day after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that nearly 10,000 frontline personnel "are and will be" working on protecting the border. Minister McGuinty talked to the CBC about the new border initiatives -- and gave one of the first detailed descriptions of what Canada's new "Fentanyl Czar" will actually do.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID MCGUINTY: The president has raised this as a serious issue. We share that concern. When our top neighbour, our, our ally, our biggest trading partner, says we have concerns about this, we listened. And that's why I think that what we saw yesterday in terms of how we prevented these tariffs for 30 days as we work our way forward is a really, it's just an interesting outcome of what happens when you come together as a Team Canada.

MARCY MARKUSA: Help us understand how bolstering security on, on our side of the border will prevent people and drugs from going into the United States. Because CBSA doesn't stop people from, you know, heading to the border. They stop people coming in. So, it's up to U.S. border services and police to stop that.

DM: That's an excellent question, Marcy. And the reality is, if we're going to wrestle the fentanyl demon to the ground, we've got to do it together. So, we are working with our counterparts. For example, one of the things that we're building on are, is our announcement to create a Canada-U.S. enforcement fentanyl strike force. That's where we'll not only be working together between Canada and United States in terms of operational folks, but also within Canada. We'd be working with our provinces and our local police. Our national agencies. This is a real all hands on deck moment here now. And the president is right in raising this, and we're responding accordingly. And we want to get this thing handled as best we can.

MM: But, to be clear, does this Fentanyl Czar have anything actually to do with what's happening at the border?

DM: The Fentanyl Czar's role will be very much one to help integrate the different parts of this response. For example, we're standing up a series of new laboratories in Canada so we can properly track and trace where the precursors are coming from that are used to make fentanyl. That, that new fentanyl person will be working with our police forces, will be working with Health Canada, working with the border folks, working with their American counterparts, working with police of local jurisdiction, making sure our attorneys general are properly, properly prosecuting where they can. We don't want, I guess, look, this is all about one basic goal here. We are working hard to prevent any tariffs from being applied on Canadians goods and services, and companies. That's the objective here. We've managed to get a 30-day reprieve. We're going to go back to this. We're empowered at it. This Team Canada approach that prevented the tariffs is exactly the same approach we've got to take now to wrestle some of these issues to the ground. And these, this new federal individual, a Fentanyl Czar, will help pull all this together for us.

MM: So, this is, this is a border response effectively, though, to, to try to stop the trade war because President Trump has positioned this this way. But he's also flip-flopped on his motivation for asking Canada to do all these things.

DM: He may have. And I, you know, it's hard for me to understand all that's going on in Washington right now. I'm fixated on dealing with this problem. I was in Washington last week meeting with White House officials, with Minister Joly and Minister Miller, the immigration minister. And we shared a lot of data, a lot of information, a lot of details. I think they were quite surprised he didn't have all the facts. And I think in the call yesterday between the prime minister and the president, much of that information was, was shared directly with President Trump. So, look, we have an obligation to meet this head on. We're doing everything we can right now to, as I say, keep these tariffs off.

CH: Public Safety Minister David McGuinty speaking to Marcy Markusa on Information Radio in Winnipeg today.

[folk rock]

Mohawk Council Borders

CH: The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke would like to remind everyone that any conversations about borders should include them. The council has sent a letter to U.S. President Donald Trump saying as much. They've also sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying that if he wants Indigenous people to support Canada in the fight against the U.S., then they should be invited to the Team Canada table. Grand Chief Cody Diabo explained the message they are trying to send.

SOUNDCLIP

CODY DIABO: You know, there's all been this talks about the border and border security. But it's important to note that as Kahnawà:ke people, as Mohawk people, we predate any of these borders. And, you know, understandably in this modern era, borders have been erected. But any conversations that are talking about border between U.S. and Canada need to stay between U.S. and Canada. And Mohawks, we have through the Jay Treaty, you know, the right to cross the border. And we shouldn't be inhibited based off of either changing policies between, you know, these, as we say, colonial governments or settler governments. So, that was really the message at the end of the day. As well as referencing the history of Mohawks in the United States. You know, we built skylines of the United States. We're world-renowned for our iron working skills. You know, as well, we have many members who join, you know, the U.S. Armed Forces. So, really kind of emphasizing that, you know, any types of policy changes or actions around the border, that's fine. You know, if you need to deal with illegal immigration or whatnot, or the conversations you have with Canada, but don't do it at the detriment of our rights to freely cross the border.

SEAN HENRY: The council also wrote a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. What was the message there?

CD: Well, that one was a little bit more direct. I mean, we have more engagement, obviously, on, you know, with the Government of Canada. But a lot of that one was about this sort of notion that despite all the issues that we have, and the constant, you know, communications we try to have with the Liberal government at this moment, or even governments in general, parties. Like, we don't get meaningful dialog at the end of the day. And, you know, there's constant legislation that's imposed, that's sweeping, that doesn't carve out anything for First Nations. It's kind of directly imposed on us. But now, because they're facing war, I mean, right now, it's on pause. But at the time, they were facing these tariffs. Then they want First Nations to stand behind them. But yet, we don't get the same relationship at the end of the day. It's becoming increasingly more apparent, I mean, that Canada is just reaching out to the AFN to say, well, we're engaging with First Nations. It's, no, the AFN is only an advocacy body. They're not the rights holders. They don't represent First Nations in these discussions. Kahnawà:ke, as I stated in the letter, speaks for itself. We're very adamant about that. You need to reach out directly to all 634 Indigenous communities or First Nations communities, and get that, or hear from them directly. But I mean, I get it. It's easier to reach out to one body. But the AFN is not like the, in quotes, again, I'll put, like, the Indian government, you know, where you reach out to them, and then you consult with them only.

CH: That was the Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, Cody Diabo, speaking with Sean Henry, host of Daybreak Montreal.

[folk]

Sturgeon Lake Settlement

Guest: Dave Rondeau

CH: Dave Rondeau has known about this site for years. It sits on the riverbank along the North Saskatchewan River. And now, thanks to a study conducted in collaboration with the local Sturgeon Lake First Nation, he knows what he's long suspected: it's old. Like really old. In fact, it’s one of the oldest Indigenous settlements in North America. Mr. Rondeau is a Métis community-based archaeologist who invited other researchers to look at the site. We reached him in Crutwell, Saskatchewan.

NK: Dave, for, for those who have not seen any photographs, or have never been to see this site up close, can you describe what it looks like?

DAVE RONDEAU: Oh, absolutely. If I may, I'd like to begin with stating that I do acknowledge that I live, and have raised my family, on Treaty Six territory, and the homeland of the Métis. And I must pay my respects to the First Nation and my Métis ancestors of this place, and reaffirm my relationship with them. What you're looking at is, what you would be looking at is, a hill that's been undermined, or the bottom has been dug out. And the top of the hill has just sloughed to reveal a very clean profile with, with layers, layers of soil called stratigraphy. It's, you know, the different lines are very well-pronounced. The exposure would be around 120 metres long. And approximately 60 metres high.

NK: The first time you visited that site in person, you had a hunch. What did that hunch tell you? What was your hunch?

DR: Well, I had, I had been visiting that location for years. I always held a strong suspicion that there was more to that site. Because I was always finding what's called debitage, or flake. And that's what's left over from the original people making, making points, and spears, and arrowheads, and various tools. You know, you're finding these little pieces and they're unmistakable. And they don't really, you know, they don't occur in nature in that respect.

NK: And so, you knew it had more stories to tell -- this site?

DR: Oh, absolutely. And then, we had a very unusual and extraordinary ice breakup. I believe it was the, the spring of 2022, or '21, [chuckling] not 22.

NK: Twenty-two, I think.

DR: You'll have to forgive me. The ice, you know, was pushed up under the bank, and it undermined, it carved out, the bottom of the hill. And that caused the whole hill to slough, revealing, revealing the exposure now. And everything, the secrets that the hill held, were revealed without any digging. It's like it had a story to tell.

NK: So, when you stand and look at it now, it sounds like it might still take your breath away.

DR: It does. It does. Because I, you know, I've, once your eyes become learned, and you know what you're looking at, you know, the lower sections, you can see the recession of the lower entire glacier. You can see the shallow seas, and the, you know, what that left behind. And then, once the stable soil started, you can see, you know, the paleosols and such that hold the very first signs of human habitation, which have now proven to be, you know, close to 11,000 years old.

NK: That was the other secret. Radiocarbon dating is what helps suggests that, that number. And I was in our CBC News reporting, our colleague Jeremy Warren writes that the, the Sturgeon Lake First Nations press release says that, that this puts it alongside some of the most well-recognized ancient sites, you know, the pyramids of Egypt, Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, Stonehenge in England. Is that, is that, when you, when you hear that, knowing that hunch that you had, how does all of this sit with you?

DR: I mean, those are very prolific sites. And the original people here were very gentle with the land. They didn't, they didn't carve it, and they didn't bend it to their will. They, the signs that they left behind are very subtle, very subtle. So, it's a lot more difficult discerning where the occupation zones were, you know? But that's, it is, it's, all we are and all we ever were is what we leave behind. And, for me, to be able to, to put aside some of the preexisting misconceptions around habitation for, for our territory, it's an absolute honour, you know? And, and it's not, it's not my, you know, I invited some, some very exceptional professionals out to the site. And they, they help to, to discern what I was looking at. To, like, I can't, I can't take all of the credit for this because, you know, there are some very, very learned individuals that came out and contributed to the site right from the very beginning.

NK: Researchers, but alongside elders and knowledge keepers, and you as well. That kind of collaboration, would you like to see more of that as, as there's more research done on this location?

DR: Oh, it's, it's absolutely essential to the site. It's, it's absolutely essential in the manner that it, we need to keep this study authentic. And, and, you know, the parallels with, with traditional oral history amongst the First Nation and our discovery here. There, there's no, you know, there's no question. You know, we need to look to the First Nation perspective first. Or, you know, at least make the comparisons because they're telling the same story.

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

DR: Oh, it was an absolute honour. Thank you for providing the time for me to give my, my insight.

NK: Our pleasure. And maybe we'll speak again. Thank you.

DR: Very good.

CH: Dave Rondeau is a Métis researcher and avocational archaeologist who identified an almost-11,000-year-old Indigenous settlement along the North Saskatchewan river. We reached him in Crutwell, Saskatchewan.

[lounge jazz]

Part 3: DEI Job Losses, Calif. Water Dump

Kultida Woods Obit

CH: Tiger Woods is remembering his mother, Kultida Woods, as a force of nature. Mr. Woods announced her death on social media today, saying quote "without her, none of my personal achievements would have been possible." Unquote. In the early days, when she could get around more easily, it was rare to see Mr. Woods on a golf course without his mother. From his junior tournaments to the majors, Kultida Woods was there, often in a wide-brimmed hat, and frequently walking all eighteen holes. She was born in Thailand and spoke very little English when she married Tiger's father, Earl Woods, and left her home country for the first time in 1968. Passing along her Thai culture in America was important to her. It's the reason Tiger Woods would wear a red shirt on Sundays, because she said it was his "power colour". In 2006, shortly before Earl Woods died, mother and son sat down for an interview with 60 Minutes. And here's what she said, when she was asked if she faced prejudice when she first came to the U.S?

SOUNDCLIP

KULTIDA WOODS: Yes, especial when I take him from the tournament to the country club. Some of them reject us.

ED BRADLEY: They would reject you?

KW: Yes, both of us.

EB: And what did you tell him about it?

KW: I said, Tiger, is their problem. Is there ignorance. You cannot control other people action, or control their mind. You only control you. And be proud of who you are.

CH: Kultida Woods speaking with the late Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes in 2006. Kultida Woods died today.

[droning instrumental]

DEI job Loss

Guest: Jeremy Wood

CH: For more than 20 years, Jeremy Wood has been working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And he's proud of the work he's done there. But late last month, like dozens of other federal employees, Mr. Wood was unexpectedly placed on administrative leave. Now, he fears he'll be fired because of his work on the department's diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs. U.S. President Donald Trump has been cracking down on DEI initiatives since he took office two weeks ago. And that's left civil servants like Mr. Wood in limbo, as they await more information. We reached Jeremy Wood in Raleigh, North Carolina.

NK: Jeremy, this news of this administrative leave came to you in a letter. I'm trying to imagine you opening that letter. Was it a shock to see?

JEREMY WOOD: To a certain degree, yes. I did have kind of an idea what was coming, just based on what I'd heard from some fellow federal employees at other agencies in the same situation. So, you know, while it was a bit of a shock that it was actually happening, ultimately, unfortunately, I was kind of expecting something like that.

NK: You've, you've worked as a federal employee for, for many years. You've certainly been through changes in administration. Had you ever come across anything like this?

JW: I haven't. Yeah, as you said, I've been around in my specific agency, even, for 23 years. And, you know, have been through, what, four, five different administrations now. And, you know, there's always priority differences. There's always ways in which you have to adjust. But nothing, you know, quite to this degree as, as far as even the possibility of losing my job.

NK: What do you think the goal of these administrative leaves is?

NK: What do you want people to know about the work that, that you were doing? You, the Department of Agriculture's DEI office, we should say, closed in December, before the inauguration. You were transferred to another branch of the department even before you got this letter. But when you worked in that office, let our listeners know what kind of work you were doing.

JW: So, the work of DEIA is, is not, you know, what's been widely reported as non-meritorious or a preference of any kind of one group of individual over another in hiring or hiring unqualified individuals for a job for the sake of any kind of identity. It's really about creating a level playing field for everyone. Realizing that there have been historical inequities in the access to available, to opportunity for various folks for various different reasons. You know, one, one aim of that is to address it. One aim is to make sure that we're doing everything we can to ensure that everyone has access to competition for jobs in our agency. And that, you know, through that, we are getting the best and brightest. And, on top of that, we're creating a culture at the workplace where, you know, folks feel like they belong, they have a voice, and that their contributions are weighed the same as everyone else, regardless of any type of identity. And it's not just about any one particular kind of minority or underrepresented group. It's the same type of access and protections for everyone.

NK: I hear pride in your voice about that kind of work and a commitment to it. So, I wonder how it is felt, even if you were expecting this letter or this kind of action from this administration, how does it feel to hear the messaging that contradicts the philosophy that you saw was working and helping?

JW: Yeah, I mean, there's absolute pride in the opportunity to do this work. And not just in general, but, you know, where I work at the Department of Agriculture, I've had a passion around agriculture my entire life. It's surrounded me my entire life. So, different things. One is I'm profoundly sad that, you know, all the progress that we made, and the things that we've done that we've seen improve the work life of employees is going to be rolled back. And that the perception of work that I've put, you know, so much of my time and effort into is in any way, you know, kind of shameful or discriminatory.

NK: I'm looking at the letter now. It says that, that you're still being paid, at least for now. It also explicitly says that this is not a disciplinary measure. How does that language sit with you? Does it feel disciplinary to you?

JW: In, in a lot of senses, yes. My, the way I look at it is I was doing the job that I was hired to do. Again, you know, any administration that comes into effect, no matter whose it is, will have various priorities. And, you know, federal employees, career employees, are expected to, to do their jobs in line with those priorities. And, you know, the ones that were introduced by the former administration included an emphasis on these principles. That was my job.

NK: Even, you know, when we, when we love where we work, and we love the programs we work for or with, we might want things to change, or we might see room for improvement. Is there anything that could or should have been done, in your view, from your perspective, to ward off what is happening or combat this kind of messaging?

JW: Yeah, I think, I think, you know, honestly, there needs to be a better job done of explaining to everyone what this means. That it is important work. It is work that research shows is beneficial. You know, creating diverse teams who all feel like they have a voice. And able to do the things like, you know, speak up on innovation and process improvement and all these things. Especially in, you know, government agency has the effect of improving delivery of those services to the American people. And, you know, for most, if not all, federal agencies, there are an abundance of, you know, services that we provide that are, that benefit, you know, citizens every day.

NK: Has anything changed since you received that letter? I mean, this is such a state of flux or limbo for you.

JW: I honestly haven't had any communication past that letter, you know, directly from my agency at this point. The only thing that I know is, you know, the experiences of others I know in other places who are kind of in the same situation or have, it's moved on a step further and they've been notified that they're going to be separated.

NK: Jeremy, I appreciate your time. Please take care.

JW: I appreciate you taking the opportunity to talk and make sure folks understand what we're going through.

NK: Well, I think you've helped them understand it. Thanks, Jeremy.

JW: I hope so. Thank you.

CH: Jeremy Wood formerly worked on diversity programs for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and is currently on administrative leave. We reached him in Raleigh, North Carolina.

[sombre instrumental]

Trans Trump Rection

CH: Elliot Duvall wants people to know that he's a normal person. He spends his days going to work, sending emails, trying to figure out what to eat for dinner with his family. But Mr. Duvall also has to deal with threats that many others don't, because he happens to be a trans man. Now that Donald Trump is President again, there's heightened fear in his community. Mr. Trump has moved forward with policies targeting transgender Americans, and declared that there are two, unchangeable sexes: male and female. Mr. Duvall says he's fielding questions from "terrified" friends in the States who are considering getting out of the country. He's from Arkansas, but lives in London, Ontario now. He talked to the CBC about his fears, and what it was like to watch President Trump's inauguration address.

SOUNDCLIP

ELLIOT DUVALL: When I was watching his speech, I, I was devastated. I couldn't imagine, like, I can't, at the time, I couldn't imagine what was going on. Like, I couldn't figure out in my brain how people had reelected him. I was scared. Like, everyone has been trying to connect with everybody else, and trying to figure out how, how can I move to Canada? Can you please tell me how? Like, do I need to marry somebody? How do I? And it's not easy. It's not easy just to immigrate into Canada. And so, since November, we've been dealing with this. And when the speech happened, and listening to his words, it felt like he was just trying to erase a whole population of people. And it was emotional. I cried a lot. I cried a lot that day. Like, so many things are going to change. And so many things have changed since then. And it's terrifying.

PERLITA STROH: You haven't been back to visit your family in a while, and you're scared to go back to the U.S. to see them. Why is that?

ED: I, I'm scared to go back because, one, my passport still says I'm a female on it, and I don't look anything like a female. I am lucky enough to walk around in this space, and everyone would just assume that I'm a guy unless they know who I am. And I'm not, I don't hide it. But I don't just share it with everybody just for fun. So, to hand over my passport to the border guards is terrifying. It's terrifying because now, all of a sudden, they have this power that Trump has, it feels like Trump has given them the power to harass you, to question you. I would be terrified that I'd get pulled into secondary, and I'd have to go into the immigration, even though I'm a, still a U.S. citizen. And they're just going to question me down to the bone. And I'm, I don't, I don't want to, I don't think I'd mentally be able to handle that, to be honest. [chuckling] I'd just cry. I'm just an emotional person. [chuckling]But I would just cry. And it's unfair. And then, that's just getting to the border, and that's just trying to get over the border. And then, driving if I were to drive that far.

CH: Elliot Duvall of London, Ontario speaking with CBC producer Perlita Stroh. And tune into The National tonight, for more on this story -- including a conversation with a trans family that is considering leaving the U.S. after Donald Trump's re-election.

[hip-hop]

Calif. Water Dump

Guest: Heather Cooley

CH: This past weekend, over 2 billion gallons of water was released from two dams in Central California, as U.S. Army engineers took over from local water managers. That move was accompanied by a flood of social media posts from President Trump, who claimed the action could have prevented wildfires in Los Angeles -- a claim water management experts strongly dispute. Heather Cooley is the research director for the California water management non-profit organization, The Pacific Institute. We reached her in Oakland.

NK: Heather, on his own social media platform, the U.S. president wrote water in California was, quote, heading to farmers throughout the state, and to Los Angeles, unquote. What actually happened to those billions of gallons of water released from reservoirs this weekend? Where is it?

HEATHER COOLEY: Yeah, great, great question. So, two dams in California's San Joaquin Valley released an estimated 2.2 billion gallons of water between Friday and Sunday. And that was in direct response to President Trump's executive order. That water was, was, while they said it was going to go down to the wildfires and help there, it actually, that water is not connected to Southern California. It's about 150 miles north. It was released. It went downstream. And then, likely went out to, to recharge groundwater basins in the area. But, certainly, didn't make its way to Southern California.

NK: The U.S. president also claimed that if this water had been released earlier, the fires would not have been a problem. Is there any way that emptying these reservoirs -- now or sooner -- would have helped firefighters fight the Los Angeles fires?

HC: Unfortunately, this water would not have helped fight the wildfires in Southern California. And, in fact, the reservoirs in Southern California are at record levels, record high levels. And so, the issues with the wildfires were because of extreme heat and winds. There were some local places where, where they weren't able to get water, but not because water wasn't available. It was more that the local infrastructure just couldn't move the water sort of fast enough. Those systems are not designed for wildfires. Those urban systems are designed for house fires. And so, they were just simply overwhelmed by the scale of that fire, and the massive winds that they were facing.

NK: The water, as I understand it, was being held for drier weather conditions, for irrigation purposes. So, what will this mean potentially for, for farmers if they need it down the road?

HC: That water was being held upstream in reservoirs so that in the summertime, when we need it, it could be, then be released and be made available to farmers. Unfortunately, by releasing that water now, we're not able to use it later. And that puts those farmers at risk of not having water when they really need it during the dry months.

NK: Is there any way that the U.S. president or the president's advisers would not know any of the information that you just outlined in the first part of our conversation?

HC: It's unclear sort of what, what they knew or understood. I think one of the issues here is that there was really a lack of coordination between the federal government, the state, and local government. It requires close coordination between all of the various stakeholders to be sure we're making the most of the water we have. And so, a big challenge here was that locals on the state were taken off guard. They didn't know these things were going to be happening. I think, fortunately, they were able to reduce the discharge of water. And so, not much, not as much was lost. But it's still an issue. It still points to the need for coordination and between all the parties.

NK: I take your point about it being a complex system of what's going where, and when, and how. But I would imagine they would make some phone calls if they didn't have the information. Did you, did you or others get any of those kinds of phone calls?

HC: No. What I understand is that locals were given, you know, little knowledge. They were given a matter of hours that it was going to be happening. And so, they were, they were scrambling. Because it not only is a waste of water, it also introduces flood risk for downstream communities. And so, they were scrambling to really make sure that, that people were safe, that infrastructure was safe, that farming equipment was safe. And so, again, it points to, I think, a larger issue here, and the need for that close coordination and collaboration.

NK: And can you try to, to give us a sense, Heather, of, of what local water managers were saying and have been saying about that experience?

HC: Yeah, reporting indicates that the local managers were surprised, that many had never seen anything. And, you know, the many mayors, the multiple decades they've been working on this. And so, it is a big departure, I think, from how things are done. There's a lot, typically a lot of communication when there are releases. Let's say if there's flood risk, there's a lot of coordination between the various systems to ensure that, that that safety is paramount. And that they are also meeting that additional purpose, that dual purpose, of providing water supply. We've had a number of wet years in California, two years, in fact. And so, it's likely we're going to be heading into another dry spell. It becomes even more critically important that we make the most of the water that we have.

NK: When you see that water, or hear about that water being released in that way, how does someone who does the work you do, what do you do in those moments knowing that those billions of gallons of water are going where they're not supposed to go when they're not supposed to go?

HC: I think the, the overwhelming sense is sort of frustration because water is precious in California. And it's only becoming more so. We are seeing the impacts of climate change already. It's having big impacts on the availability and the timing of water. And so, we need to be making the most and the best use of the resources that we have to ensure there's enough for people and for our ecosystems. And so, it's frustrating when we see a loss that just provided zero benefit, zero intended benefit, and, in fact, caused more harm.

NK: Thanks for this, Heather.

HC: Great. Thank you so much.

NK: Take care.

CH: Heather Cooley is the research director for the California water management non-profit, The Pacific Institute. We reached her in Oakland.

[ambient instrumental]

Aga Khan Obit

CH: The Aga Khan has died. He was the spiritual leader for millions of Ismailli Muslims around the world...with connections in the worlds of religion, politics, and high finance. A statement from the Aga Khan Development Foundation said he died peacefully in Lisbon today at the age of 88. Prince Karim Aga Khan visited Canada several times, and was in the news in 2017...when Canada's ethics commissioner ruled that Justin Trudeau had improperly accepted gifts from the religious leader, including a vacation to a private island. But he was also known for bridging divides between Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world. And he spoke about that in an interview with the CBC in 2006.

SOUNDCLIP

KARIM AGA KHAN: It's a long-established problem, and it's going to take, I think, several decades before we reach a situation where the definition of an educated person includes basic understanding of the Islamic world. And that hasn't been the case. And the absence of that basic education has caused all sorts of misunderstandings. But above all, the inability to predict statehood, international affairs, economic affairs are often predicated on the ability to predict. If you don't know the issues or the forces at play, the ability to predict is severely constrained.

PETER MANSBRIDGE: What's been the resistance, do you think?

KAK: I think, essentially, historic. I think that the Judeo-Christian societies have developed their own education over decades and more. And basic knowledge on the Islamic world has simply been absent. And if you look at what was required education in the '80s, for example, I was a student in the U.S. Basic education in the Islamic world was absent, even on general courses on the humanities, for example.

PM: Is a sort of a one-sided clash of ignorance, I mean --

KAK: No, I think there is ignorance on both sides. And I think very often there's confusion. I think more and more there has been confusion between, for example, religion and civilization. And that's, that's introducing instability in the discussion, frankly. I would prefer to talk about ignorance on the civilizations of the Islamic world, rather than ignorance just on the faith of Islam.

CH: The Aga Khan speaking with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge in 2006. The religious leader died today at the age of 88. According to the Aga Khan Development Network, his designated successor will be announced at a later date.

[ambient instrumental]

FOA: Seine Mussels

CH: There were a lot of impressive feats pulled off at the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games last year. And athletes did almost all of them. But the organizers did one that no one thought was possible. The River Seine in Paris wasn't safe to swim in for about a century, until the city spent more than $2 billion dollars CDN to clean it up. And swimmers did wind up competing in the Seine -- although some of them did get sick afterwards. But now, it seems like some non-swimmers are enjoying the refreshed river: scientists have found traces of DNA from 23 different types of mussels in the Seine. And that’s especially good news because they’re sensitive to pollution, and would never hang out anywhere dirty. At the moment, it's too early to say whether the findings are directly linked to the clean-up efforts, but that probably won't matter for Joel Stratte-McClure. We spoke to him in the lead-up to the Paris Games, after he took a dip in the Seine.

SOUNDCLIP

NK: Good swim today, Joel.

JOEL STRATTE-MCCLURE: Great swim today. You know, I went back to the same place I swam in 1976.

NK: [chuckling] I'm going to ask you --

JSM: It's always nice to have a history with the place you're swimming.

NK: Well, sure. Not many of us do that, though. Even if it's nice to have the history. How long were you in the water?

JSM: I was only in the water for about 20 minutes today. The, the idea of swimming in the Seine is one of the big controversies in France before the Olympics. And I wanted to simply take it down a notch and show how easy it was to swim.

NK: Yeah, we've covered, we've covered that, we've covered it. The controversies, the questions, the promises of, of cleaner water, and the promises from officials to swim in it. But how was it today -- cold, warm?

JSM: No, delightfully warm. A little bit murky. When I swam in 1976, the surface of the water -- due to a drought -- was covered with dead fish.

NK: [disgusted] Oh.

JSM: So, this was a lot better. But what's interesting -- of course -- is the postponements of the, by the president and the mayor of Paris to, to get in it. And that has led to confusion about whether or not the swimming will take place in the, in the river at all?

NK: Yeah.

JSM: And I just, just wanted to take it down a notch and get in the water and show how easy it is. It turned out that hours after I swam, new reports came out saying that the river is now swimmable. So, Le Monde put a picture of me on the front page [NK chuckles] of the web, of their web issue, showing that a 75-year-old guy was now swimming, the water is swimmable, we can reconsider this whole thing.

NK: Come on! You wanted to be the poster child for swimming in the Seine in the Olympics!

JSM: They treated me like I was the first person to swim since 1976.

NK: [chuckling] You might have been, no?

JSM: No, I see people -- often with wetsuits. I didn't have a wetsuit on.

NK: That's true. Parisians, Parisians do jump in there sometimes. You're not a scientist -- of course -- but, but how would you rate the water quality?

JSM: Well -- between you and me -- I couldn't see any E.coli -- even [NK chuckles] if I were scientist.

NK: You can't normally either, but.

JSM: Yeah. You know, I flew in from California, where I swam in the crystal clear Trinity River over the weekend. I came in on Tuesday. This is definitely not a sparkling California river. It is a still murky, full of algae river with lots and lots of pollution left in it. I'm, I'm taking one for the team. And if I die, I'll, they'll, they'll cancel it, [NK chuckles] and I'll save, I'll save numerous lives. But -- obviously -- the discussion discussions got to be held between the organizers and the national teams.

NK: So, if an Olympic, if an Olympian -- a swimmer -- said to you, what do you think? Should I dive in? What would you tell them?

JSM: I wouldn't suggest that Michael Phelps get in. But I would somebody who's used to open-water swimming in triathlons. Again, wait five days. If I'm still alive, it's safe.

NK: So far, you're feeling okay?

JSM: So far, I feel fine. Yeah, but it's only been eight or 10 hours.

CH: Joel Stratte-McClure speaking to Nil in July 2024.

The AIH Transcript For February 5, 2025

Social Sharing