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 6, 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: Stick a fork in it. The president of the American Federation of Government Employees tells us the Trump administration's "fork in the road" resignation offer to federal workers isn't just a bad deal; it's illegal.

CH: An in-depth examination. When an asteroid crashed into the surface of the moon nearly four billion years ago, it created two trenches the size of the Grand Canyon. Our guest says figuring out how that happened has proved a suitably grand endeavour.

NK: Scaled up. We'll hear about the moment reptile relocators removed more than one hundred venomous snakes from a single slithering stack in one Australian man's backyard.

CH: I am still Canadian. Former As It Happens co-host Jeff Douglas reflects on the tariff-induced resurgence of his once-viral Molson Canadian commercial -- and on rethinking patriotism in 2025.

NK: Badger of honour. The winner of a prestigious wildlife photography award tells us sometimes the wildest images are the ones you capture closest to home -- and thanks his subject: an artistically-inclined badger.

CH:And..history three-peats itself. The Kansas City Chiefs may win their third consecutive Super Bowl, but we already know a former NBA basketball coach has won -- because he owns the trademark on the word "three-peat."

CH: As It Happens, the Thursday Edition. Radio that figures if they score touchdowns, he'll make buckets.

Part 1: Federal Employees Resignations, Jeff Douglas, Wildlife People’s Choice

Federal Employees Resignations

Guest: Everett Kelley

CH: The fork is now a little further down the road. U.S. government employees had until midnight tonight to accept a buyout package -- but today, a federal judge pushed that deadline back to Monday, at the earliest, when a hearing is set to determine whether the offer is legal. In a move reminiscent of Elon Musk's Twitter takeover -- right down to an email with the subject line "A Fork in the Road" -- last week, federal workers were offered several months pay to resign, and warned of changing expectations for employees. Today's court decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by three unions -- including the American Federation of Government Employees. Everett Kelley is its president, and we reached him in Washington, D.C.

NK: Everett, the deadline has been moved, but the judge today did not offer an opinion on whether what the administration is doing is legal. So ultimately, how are you feeling about your overall chances in this case?

EVERETT KELLEY: Well, I'm feeling very optimistic because I think this judge is taking this seriously. You know, it tells me that he's not just rolling over and doing something because it's what the administration wants done.

NK: I want to tell our listeners a little bit about the email that employees received. There's a warning in it. And the warning says, quote, employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward, unquote. It also makes references to employees being, quote, trustworthy and loyal. What are government employees telling you about the language, the tone, and essentially, conditions of employment?

EK: These employees are telling me, you know, and they're expressing their fearfulness because these letters and these memorandums are intended to stoke fear, all right? It's also intended to confuse the workforce so that they don't really know exactly how to take it and what to do. Some of the ones, you know, have decided, you know what, I'm getting out of this. You know, I don't want no more parts of it, you know? But they are the ones mostly that were planning on retiring anyway, they're retirement eligible. You know, so, you know, I don't think that they're really making any headway, you know, by doing this.

NK: And we know other presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have offered government employees buyouts before. Is that fear that you're talking about, the language that is different this time around, or is there more to it?

EK: The previous presidents, Obama and Clinton, whoever, it was done in accordance with the law, rules, policies, and regulations. This is not, okay? They would always involve the union. And the union would negotiate, or will have already negotiated these policies, and they will follow those policies. But this is done without any communication with the union whatsoever.

NK: It was reported back in December that you had requested a meeting with President Trump, then President-elect Trump, to, to talk about government employees. What kind of response did you get at that time?

EK: I had no response. This administration has not reached out to us at all to discuss anything. That's one of the problems and the differences. Some called this a buyout, and they name it as a fork in the road. I say it's a knife in the back, okay? Because these employees are not guaranteed that they'll even be paid if they accept this, [chuckle] if they accept this proposal here, you know? There is no guarantee. And it's a violation of the law. It's a violation of every form of negotiation. Well, we have a negotiated and have contracts with these various agencies. And these agencies are not the ones issuing these letters.

NK: You raise an important point there that others have, have raised, a concern that they're not confident that these employees, if they choose to take these buyouts, will actually see that money.

EK: They can't guarantee it at this point because we have a continuing resolution that lasts until March the 14th. You know, there is no guarantee that the Congress will authorize those expenditures. But secondly, you know, the law only allows 10 days of administrative leave. And they're saying they're going to put them on administrative leave until sometime in September. Okay, now, are we just making rules as we go? You know, without Congress, without anybody? That's not fair, that's not right, and it's illegal.

NK: If you were able to speak directly to the president or Elon Musk now, what would you tell them?

EK: I would tell them the same thing I've been saying all along. We're not fighting what you're doing. We just ask that you do it appropriately. We're not saying that you shouldn't downsize or downsize the federal government. We're saying follow the rules, you know? Follow what's been negotiated. Follow the policies that's already been in place and has been on the books for decades now.

NK: What are you saying, Everett to, to employees who are choosing to take this package? It's being framed as a voluntary offer. So, if they're not being forced to, I know you have your concerns, but what are you telling them when they say to you, I'm out?

EK: Well, you know, I say to them, you know, look, if you want to take that offer, that's entirely up to you, okay? However, make sure you consult with financial planners. Make sure you consult with legal counsel, so that you know that you're making the right decision for you and your family.

NK: And ultimately, I believe, according to Axios reporting, just one or two per cent of government employees have actually accepted this offer as of earlier this week. Why do you think the majority of workers are staying?

EK: They see it just as I see it, okay? And they see that, that it's so filled with confusion. They have read the law. They know the law. You know, some of these, these are very intelligent workers, you know? You're talking about doctors, and lawyers, and, you know, scientists. And, you know, these are the people that are looking at this, and they know that it's not validity to it.

NK: When you talk about that, that confusion, and the fear, and also a, quote, toxic environment, how long do you think people can, can stick it out if that's the environment that's being created?

EK: I think the vast majority of the American workforce has made a decision that they're going to stick it out, you know? And they'll stick it out until the final decision is made as to whether or not the president is right or wrong in this. And it's very apparent in that you always see just a little over two per cent that is ready to go anyway that have already said, you know what, I'm retiring in the next few months anyway, so I'm just going to go ahead and get out of this rat race. You know, I'm tired of being, you know, a political pawn, you know? So, they're the ones that are saying I'm going. But the rest of the federal workforce is saying, I'm going to stick this out, and I'm going to fight for what I believe to be right. And they're going to stay with their union, you know, and the union is going to fight.

NK: I'm glad we could speak, Everett. Thank you for your time.

EK: Thank you. And have a great day here.

CH: Everett Kelley is the president of the American Federation of Government Employees. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

[island rock]

Jeff Douglas

Guest: Jeff Douglas

CH: Jeff Douglas is known for many things. He's the host of the CBC radio program Mainstreet in Nova Scotia. Singer in the '80s cover band Height Requirement. He sat in this very chair for many years, as the former co-host of As It Happens. And he is an actor. And in this moment of heightened national pride, as Canadian people and Canadian businesses face the threat of tariffs from our closest ally, one of Jeff's performances is suddenly back in the conversation: his portrayal of a character known as "Joe from Canada".

SOUNDCLIP

[patriotic music]

JOE: [clears throat] Hey, I'm, I'm not a lumberjack or a fur trader. And I don't live in an igloo, or eat blubber, or own a dog sled. And I don't know Jimmy, Sally, or Susie from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice. I have a prime minister, not a president. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it about not a boot. I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peacekeeping, not policing. Diversity, not assimilation. And that the beaver is a truly proud and noble animal.

[fades]

CH: Jeff Douglas, of course, starring in the Molson Canadian "I Am Canadian" ad, which aired in the year 2000. We reached Jeff in his Halifax studio.

NK: Jeff, how does your body react to hearing that? What is happening to you physically?

JEFF DOUGLAS: I don't know. It's complex for me, right? Because it, it's 25 years ago.

NK: My goodness!

JD: So, there's that. Like, just hearing a younger version of myself. But I've always had a great relationship with that spot. I've never, ever, ever, people always say, hey, are you okay? Are you okay at talking about it? And I've always been thrilled to talk about it. So, when I hear it, I'm, yeah, it's very fond memories.

NK: And when was the last time before just a moment ago that you had heard it?

JD: Well, [both chuckle] I've heard it an awful lot over the past 15 days. [chuckling] That's for sure, yeah.

NK: I bet! How did that show up? Was it just, you know, on your social feeds, or were people sending, sending it to you, quoting it to you? How did, or did you, for me, as soon as people started talking about buy Canadian, and, you know, you sort of see this, this surge in how people are feeling in Canada, I immediately thought of your ad. But when did you realize that it was, it was clicking with people again?

JD: People were, some people were tagging me on socials directly, and, you know, saying, Jeff, it's time to do these again. Or, hey, we need these back again, these commercials. And then, other just happening across it too. That's been happening more recently. Initially, it was just people tagging me. But then, now, it's, it seems to have gathered a little more steam.

NK: I remember back when it first came out, it was a great spot. You were amazing in it, obviously. But part of the reason it was so popular is because people didn't expect that kind of talk from Canadians. And they were like, yeah, finally, we're speaking up for ourselves! And now, people are saying the same thing again. Why do you think we, we always go back [JD chuckles] to the modest ways, only to rediscover, hey, we are Canadian.

JD: Well, do you know, it's really interesting, Nil, that I think that back in 2000, pride in the Canadian aspect of people's identity, particularly among young Canadians, was really high. People had a lot of pride in being Canadian. And, I think, you know, that the stereotypes that Glenn Hunt in his writing of that piece was refuting echoed with people. It was fun. And it was kind of like, you know, biting the thumb at, at the States, and standing up at a point when national pride was already really high. In the interim 25 years, so much has changed. And I think so much has changed for our idea of what Canada is. When that dropped, I was 28, 29 years old. I did not have the benefit in my education of learning about things like, you know, some of the policies enacted by successive governments of Canada to, you know, really taking aim at indigenous culture, and, and language, and identity. Perfect example, of course, is the, the residential school program, the internment camps during the second war. There's a lot that I was not privy to. So, it was very easy for me to believe in Canada, and to believe in Canada as the end of the Underground Railroad. You know, there was a lot of glossing over in my education. And I think in 2000, people could buy into this because we weren't dealing with --

NK: The realities.

JD: The totality of, of what Canada was. And over the past 25 years, we have had to look at that, and had to confront it. And that makes it a lot harder to just go, yeah, I'm really proud of Canada. I'm really proud to be Canadian. Because we're, we're trying to onboard all this knowledge of, of a really problematic and violent history. And so, I think that, you know, and also for young people today who are coming out and can't get into housing, you know, there's a, there's a lot. I think there's been a lot. There's been the pandemic that has really, I think, stolen some of the fire from that burgeoning sense of, of patriotism that we experienced back in the early aughts. And now, now, we've got this kind of external force working on us, or this adversity that helps us to maybe start to put aside our own personal grievances, and start remembering that, you know, along with all this problematic history, and problematic is the understatement of the world, you know, of the century. But along with that, there has been a lot of good. And I think that people are looking around at their communities, at their neighbours, at their families, and, you know, the people in the provinces and territories and going, no, you know what? Canada is them. That's who this is. And that's what I stand for. So, I think that that's where we're coming back.

NK: And it's both things can be parallel. You know, we have conversations on the show all the time with people from different countries who love their countries, but are talking about the things that are, that need to be, need to be fixed. So deep love, but also understanding that it hasn't always been all right. And, again, an understatement, as you said. And that, that not everyone has been honored and recognized in the way that they should be. Do you worry, though, I wonder, if, as people just just take the initial message that they're going to, that they're that they are going to take only one aspect of it and not see the complexity. Is that, are you worried about that?

JD: Yeah. Yeah, I do worry about it. And I think that, you know, I think there's a time and a place for everything, or for certainly for the balance of how people experience their Canadianism or their relationship with Canada. Things will, you know, patriotism will go up and self-scrutiny will go down. And then, other times, I think there is a time when self-scrutiny has to come up and we've got to really, you know, maybe downplay the blind patriotism. Right now, I feel that people are needing to feel that love. And I just hope that they don't forget that there is still a lot of work to do.

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

JD: Thank you, Nil. Good to hear your voice.

NK: Likewise.

JD: Okay. You take care.

NK: You too.

CH: CBC host -- and former As It Happens co-host -- Jeff Douglas in Halifax.

[elevator music]

Wildlife People’s Choice

Guest: Ian Wood

CH: Ian Wood wants you to know that nature photography isn't only about soaring eagles, herds of caribou, or breaching whales. Those are all great, of course. But, he says, creatures closer to home deserve their close-ups, too. And if your home is in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, those closer creatures include the majestic badger. Mr. Wood set out to capture an image of a badger that he hoped would help draw attention to the rarely-seen creatures. And it took him nearly a year to achieve his goal. Now, the resulting image has earned him top spot in the British Natural History Museum’s people’s choice award for wildlife photographer of the year. We reached him in Chilfrome, England.

NK: Ian, describe your winning image for our listeners.

IAN WOOD: The image is of a Eurasian badger, which is the type of badger we have here. And it's actually in an urban environment. So, I used to live in a town called St Leonards-on-Sea And there was some, a badger set quite close to the house. And they used to come up into the road to forage on scraps of food left out for foxes. So, this is an image of a badger actually walking along the pavement, and there's some, a sign, and there's some graffiti on the wall, which I actually put on the wall. [NK chuckles] It's actually the logo for a campaign called "Stop the Cull". It's like a black and white badger with two guns. And the badger is walking underneath it.

NK: It almost looks like the badger is looking at the badger art that you put on that wall. Was it?

IW: Well, it definitely wasn't because badger eyesite is terrible. [NK laughs] They have incredible sense of smell, which is what they rely on. I took a lot of photos over a period of about nearly two years, and I got a few that worked. And this is one of them. So, it's just paused basically as it's going along. So, no, it's definitely not looking at it. But that was kind of the, the hope, if you like.

NK: Yeah, the persistence and the patience it took to get this shot. Certainly, any wildlife photographer in any environment understands both of those qualities are important to capturing a great photograph. But what did you have to do? So, you put up the art. Then what?

IW: Then, it's a waiting game. So, every night when I was at home, I was always out photographing the foxes and badgers in a variety of settings in my garden. And I had to like have a little pond for them to drink from when there was times of drought. So, I'd get, like, reflection shots, and then them walking up and down the road. And you're trying to think of originality. And so, by putting that graffiti emblem on the wall, it really added something to the picture. But it also was very much part of a you try and get a photo that means something. And because that image is, the graffiti is off the stop the Cull logo, we have this badger cull in England, where we have killed nearly a quarter of a million badgers. The government has paid for them to be killed. And they're a highly protected species, and they're on the verge of local extinction in lots of parts of rural England.

NK: The Government, I think, it's a strategy for controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis. You and others clearly disagree with, with the way they're going about it.

IW: Yeah, no, that's exactly what it's for. But we have a new Labour government. And in 2024, in their manifesto, they called the cull ineffective, which is why a lot of people actually voted for them. Because, you know, we, we're a nation of wildlife lovers, and we love our badgers. And the government's own scientific data, they have an independent scientific study of it. And killing the badgers is not the answer to bovine TB. And in Scotland, we don't kill badgers. We have no badger cull, and there's no bovine TB. In Wales is the better example, really, because they have had some bovine TB there, and they've almost eradicated it there by controlling the movement of cattle a lot better, testing cattle, and cleaning up farms, getting farm hygiene. So, it's been unnecessary England, and it hasn't, it hasn't worked. We've also spent like 60 million pounds worth of taxpayers' money, killing a quarter of a million badgers.

NK: So, that's part of why you wanted to capture this image, a big part of it, to send that message. But was there also, I wonder, given the kind of image you, you were trying to capture, it's not a scene just unfolding in the wilderness, right? This is an urban setting, as you said. You've put up that graffiti. What message were you trying to send with that setup? Because it challenges, really, what people think of wildlife photography, I think.

IW: Well, you know, as wildlife photographers, we're all trying to get originality. And so, when I moved into that house, and we have, we have lots of foxes in urban settings, but it's quite unusual because I'd never seen badgers in an urban setting. And every night, they're coming up to forage. So, it's an opportunity because we've, we've got an unusual setting. So, it's partly to get originality, but also very much partly to try and highlight what's been happening with the, the badger cull.

NK: Even if people disagree with a cull, they may not love badgers. You mentioned their eyesight is an issue. They can be kind of fierce. I think some people might describe, I have not come face-to-face with one. So, I'm speaking, you know, without any knowledge of badger behaviour. Why are you such a fan of them?

IW: I'm just absolutely fascinated by them. I mean, one of the things that I really love about badgers is that they have been around since the Ice Age. And they have incredible communities. And then, you know, they come out at night. So, they live in a, you know, in a different plane of time to most other wildlife. And so, I just think that, you know, they're absolutely fascinating creatures. And you're right in terms of, you know, they've got incredible claws. And, you know, that's to kind of protect themself. But, you know, they will always shy away from humans. They can come in and dig people's gardens up a bit, you know? And I understand if you want a pristine-looking lawn, and badgers keep coming and doing that, then I can see why that occasionally affects somebody. But, you know, let your garden go wild.

NK: Is there any image that you're working on now?

IW: There's a few images that I'm working on at the moment, yeah. And I like the way you say it because that's very much how I'm seeing my photography these days, is working on an image, coming up with ideas, and then figuring out how you can execute them. So, yes, there's that. There's an image of a fox that I've had an idea for. And occasionally, I'm getting close. So, I think it's on, but it needs a lot more time.

NK: Okay. Well, you'll have to talk to us when, when you get that shot. Do you ever worry, though, Ian, the process of this, maybe when you were trying to get the badger shot, that it's not going to happen. I mean, is there a point you've had to with other photographs, you know, say, okay, this one's not going to work out?

IW: Yeah, no, that does happen, particularly when you come up with a concept of an idea. And then, with wildlife, you're trying to see if it could happen. Yeah, yeah, definitely. But also, you know, being persistent. But it's one of the things I love about wildlife photography. You know, it forces us to spend huge amounts of time just out in nature. So occasionally, I go to northern Finland to photograph bears. And I go and sit in a very small box for 16 hours each, each night. [NK chuckles] And it's like, it's the best meditation you can get.

NK: Yeah. Ian, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

IW: Oh, thank you so much.

CH: Ian Wood's picture of a badger has won him the Natural History Museum’s people’s choice award for wildlife photographer of the year. We reached him in Chilfrome, England.

[lounge jazz]

Threepeat

SOUNDCLIP

[very '80s music]

PAT RILEY: Winning the championship is only a very fleeting moment. The enjoyment is the process of getting there. And you can't always measure success by how high you finish, or how much money you have. The only way you can measure your success is how you feel about yourself.

CH: From 1983, legendary basketball coach Pat Riley, philosophizing over the inspiring sound of yacht rock. It was 1983. It's great advice, but, I mean, keep in mind: it's easy to feel good about yourself when you're one of the winningest coaches in NBA history. Now, "winningest" is not a word, but sports people say it all the time. And "three-peat" is also not a word. But that non-word is another reason Pat Riley can feel good about himself. Because three-peat comes up pretty frequently amongst the sports folk. And Mr. Riley makes money every time it does. In the late '80s, he was coaching the Los Angeles Lakers, who had won two championships in a row. It seemed like they might win another -- in which case, they would need a term that meant three repeated victories. Everyone thought for a long time. And then, they gave up. But then someone came up with it: "three-peat". Now, that hero's name is lost to history. But we know who owns the trademark: Pat Riley. He secured it in 1988 -- before his Lakers failed to three-peat, and stalled out at a two-peat, a term that did not catch on. But he'd already won anyway. Because ever since, any team that wants "three-peat" on its merchandise has to strike a deal with Mr. Riley. And that includes the Kansas City Chiefs. They're playing in the Super Bowl this weekend, and they're hoping to three-peat, and then, sell a lot of shirts and hats with "three-peat" written on them. So they had to negotiate with Pat Riley. And he has graciously permitted them to use it. All he wants is simply to be asked! And also, simply, to be given some money. By now, a lot of teams have paid him to use a term he didn't coin. And I'm sure he never gets sick of it: it's not the kind of thing that gets dull through threpetition.

[lounge jazz]

Part 2: Moon Canyons, Sydney Snake Nest

Moon Canyons

Guest: David Kring

CH: Imagine the Grand Canyon, in all its breathtaking hugeness and splendour. Over 400 kilometres long, up to 29 kilometres wide, and nearly two kilometres deep at its deepest -- formed over millions of years. Now, multiply the Grand Canyon by two. And imagine those two canyons were created in about 10 minutes, more or less. That describes two canyons on the surface of the moon, called Vallis Schrödinger and Vallis Planck. And thanks to a new study, we now know more about the impact of those huge impacts. David Kring is a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, and the lead author of the study. We reached him in Flagstaff, Arizona.

NK: So, how would you describe, David, the moments that these canyons were carved into the moon?

DAVID KRING: We believe it was produced by a 25 kilometre diameter asteroid. And when it hit, it threw up a tremendous curtain of debris. And within that debris were two concentrated streams of rock. And some of those boulders, or collections of boulders, were half a kilometre to five kilometres in size and went arching over the lunar surface, and then came down, bang, bang, bang, bang, producing craters that were 20 to 27 kilometres in diameter. And then, collectively, that excavated these long radial channels.

NK: And describe for our listeners, if you could, David, what these canyons look like.

DK: These two canyons radiate from the Schrödinger impact basin like spokes on a wheel. They're long, linear canyons. They're are 270 to 280 kilometres long. They're 20 to 27 kilometres wide. And they're two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half kilometres deep. So, they're truly monsters. And they're produced by a series of individual impact events that, one step at a time, carved out a little circular patch. And then, they have excavated these very, very long channels.

NK: Did the speed at which you believe all of this to have happened surprise you? It's certainly a surprise to most of us. But what about for you?

DK: The fact that it occurred in 10 minutes is a number that I could not have predicted in advance. But having spent a career studying impact cratering events, I knew it was relatively fast -- minutes to perhaps an hour. And that's in sharp contrast to the erosional processes that produce canyons on Earth, which take millions of years. And so, we have a very sharp contrast between the carving of canyons on the Earth over millions of years, and the calving of canyons on the moon in a matter of minutes.

NK: I know you and, you and other scientists have known about these canyons for a long time. Beyond finding out about how quickly this, this all occurred, what else has your research allowed you to learn or confirm about them?

DK: By studying these canyons and the other debris that was ejected from the Schrödinger Basin, we were able to show that most of this debris was shed or jettisoned to the north. And that's important because we plan to land astronauts -- the Artemus astronauts -- at the South Pole. And that means that very little of this material landed on the South Pole, which in turn means that the astronauts are going to be able to collect even older rocks on the lunar surface around that South Pole. And this is very exciting scientifically because this is the earliest epic of the moon. And the moon is our best recorder of the earliest Earth. And so, all of this means that astronauts are going to find it easier to collect the rocks that need to come back to Earth to provide us a better story of early Earth.

NK: And as you look even further ahead, what do you hope this research might help answer or uncover about the moon and even the rest of the solar system?

DK: Well, the research helped identify the geologic processes that shape the lunar surface. And in particular, that around the original or the initial Artemus exploration program. And so, it's going to give guidance to those selecting landing sites in designing an exploration program as to where they should go to collect those dust samples.

NK: You love the moon. You love your work. Clearly, you're curious. That's what fuels, well, fuels journalists, certainly. But scientists as well, obviously. When you look up at the moon now at night, has this research changed your perspective or what you're thinking about when you look up at it?

DK: Well, the question is, how does it change the perspective of the public? And I hope the public gets out of this that the moon is a very dynamic geologic planetary body of its own kind. And that the landscape that we're going to be asking astronauts to explore is incredibly dramatic. As I tell people, when you, when you ask astronauts to go to mountains that are taller than Mt. Everest, and you ask them to go to canyons that are deep in the Grand Canyon, they are going to be looking at spectacular landscapes that if they existed here on Earth, would be national and international parks. It is going to be truly extraordinary when we get astronauts back on the lunar surface.

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

DK: You're welcome.

CH: David Kring is a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, and the lead author of a new study of two moon canyons. We reached him in Flagstaff, Arizona.

[winding instrumental]

Wilkinson Pipeline

CH: The tariffs are off the table for now. But they may be back on the table in a month. That threat, and the accompanying uncertainty, have severely damaged Canada's relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Trudeau avoided an all-out tariff war but, for now, the trust built on decades of friendship -- and free trade -- has unraveled. Today, Jonathan Wilkinson -- the minister of energy and natural resources -- gave a press conference, after spending the week in Washington convincing American lawmakers of the value of Canada-U.S. trade. A reporter asked him whether the federal government is considering an oil pipeline going east from Alberta and Saskatchewan, in response to the still-looming tariff threat. Here's what Minister Wilkinson said.

SOUNDCLIP

JONATHAN WILKINSON: The world has changed quite a bit in the aftermath of what we have seen from what has been our friends in the United States for many decades. We have had a free trade agreement in this country with the United States since 1988, and the auto pact since the 1960s. I don't think anybody ever expected us to be in a situation where the United States, the president of the United States, is essentially treating Canada as an adversary and not as an ally. But I think it does call for us to reflect on whether there are some conversations that we need to have in this country. Certainly, we are all working very hard to ensure the tariffs never come into place. And I was just in Washington again to have some of those conversations. But we also have to reflect now on things that we never thought we would, which are, there are some things for which we are vulnerable. Seventy to 75 per cent of our exports go to the United States. Some of them go to the United States and then are reexported to other parts of the world. That is true with a range of products. It is not just oil and gas. But certainly, in the context of oil, I think in the aftermath of what has happened, we do need to reflect a little bit. Right now, much of Ontario and Quebec get their oil from a pipeline that runs from Canada into the United States and back up to Canada. And much of the Atlantic provinces get their oil from the United States. We hope that that will continue going forward. But I think we are all aware now that perhaps there are some vulnerabilities we did not actually believe existed. And I would expect that the prime minister and the premiers of the provinces and territories will be reflecting on all of this. I think it is only a responsible thing to do. That doesn't mean the federal government is supporting the building of a pipeline from Alberta elsewhere. But it does mean that we should be reflecting on the vulnerabilities and deciding collectively, including with our First Nation partners, whether there are some things we should do to address these vulnerabilities?

CH: That was Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson speaking to reporters today.

[indie pop]

Sydney Snake Nest

Guest: Cory Kerewaro

CH: Recently, Cory Kerewaro got a call asking for help removing snakes from a family's backyard. That's not a weird call for him to get. He owns a business in Sydney, Australia that relocates reptiles. But what ensued was weird. And for some, the stuff of nightmares. Mr. Kerewaro expected a handful of snakes, but his company found so very many handfuls. We reached Cory Kerewaro in Sydney.

NK: Cory, you you get that call, so you delegate, as bosses do. You send one of your employees down to do that job. What did he tell you about what he found when he got there?

CORY KEREWARO: So, my employee, Dylan, gave me a call probably about 10 minutes into being there and said that he was going to be there for quite a while because the ball, ball was quite large. But there was also a large number of snakes that were starting to come out of the ball.

NK: Is that a direct quote from him? What words was he really using? [laughing]

CK: He actually rang me and said, this is going to be an interesting one. [both chuckling] So, and then, yeah, he said that he'd caught, already caught I think it was 10, I think it was 10 snakes he'd already caught within 10 minutes.

NK: And so, in total, how many snakes did you end up with?

CK: So, in total, we ended up with 102 red-bellied black snakes.

NK: [chuckling] Even if you like snakes, that sounds like a lot to deal with.

CK: Yes, it's definitely a, definitely a high volume of, of snakes. And, yeah, we haven't really seen anything in that number before.

NK: How do you explain why there were so many?

CK: So, it's quite common for the females to share the same birthing site. So, they give live birth, so they, they, they do congregate and share the same birthing site. And, yeah, we've just never seen it actually happen, so.

NK: So, there were five adult snakes, female snakes, all giving birth to many, many, many more snakes?

CK: Yeah. So, there was five adults that we took out of there that were pregnant. And the babies that were already born that Dylan had already caught, the mothers of those, we don't know where they were. So, there was more than five adults in the ball.

NK: I mean, it's nice that they have that community for this important time. But how did the family react to what was going on?

CK: The family were pretty, they were pretty excited. And they were pretty good with the snakes.

NK: Excited?! Like, happy excited or terrified excited?

CK: No, yeah, they weren't terrified at all. They're just, they're actually pretty excited and pretty intrigued.

NK: So red-bellied black snakes, as you said, babies, the majority of them, as you, as you mentioned. How big are they?

CK: They're probably about six inches long -- five to six inches long.

NK: Okay. And then, is that, how large do they get?

CK: They get up to, close to, the largest, like, recorded is around two metres. But on average, they get to about a-metre-and-a-half.

NK: They're also venomous, as I understand it. So, I mean, could the family have been in danger at all?

CK: They are highly venomous. But unless you're sort of doing what we're doing and holding them, there's no real danger. But they did have their dog get bitten by a red-bellied black snake just on Boxing Day.

NK: You know, you mentioned that it's normal for them to congregate when they're going to, to give birth. But also, that you haven't seen anything like this before. Why do you think there were so many of them this time, and in this one place? Like, why, why this family's property?

CK: So, the, the family had a mulch pile, like a rather large mulch pile in the, in the yard. And mulch piles keep a stable temperature. So, the females use that. And we just don't physically see the babies and the adults at the same time. And we were just, yeah, for us, it was right time, right place, and it's like we hit the snake lottery.

NK: [chuckling] Yeah, I guess that's one way of looking at it. You hit the snake lottery, yeah. [CK chuckles] So, what happened to, to all of them? You guys, you know, removed them from the property. And then, what?

CK: So, because there was such a large volume of snakes, and it was a more suburban area, we did, in Australia, we are licensed by National Parks and Wildlife. So we went back and forth with them to find a suitable spot to release them. But I still actually have the animals here with me. And they're getting released today.

NK: With you in your car, in your house, what?! Where?

CK: So, I have, I have a quarantine room for, because we do deal with wildlife and, and diseases and things.

NK: Sure.

CK: I have a room dedicated to, to wildlife. So, yeah, they're in the quarantine room at the moment.

NK: And how are they doing?

CK: They're going great. So, they're all, they're all alive. They're all, well, they're all, all shedding their skin because they, they shed really quick when they're young as well. So, there's a couple that have been shedding their skin over the time as well.

NK: And is this, is this quarantine room, You know, do you have sort of a place of business, or is this in your home?

CK: This is in my backyard. So, I have a dedicated room, a room built off the house. And, yeah, just in the backyard.

NK: It's, it's your business. So, you mentioned you're going to release them today. Where?

CK: So, we got National Parks to give us permission to go into a national park. And they're going to, they're going to open gates for us so we can drive deep into the national park where it's far away from human interaction. So, they'll be far enough away from everyone.

NK: Well, as humans, we all here appreciate that, even though you're far, far, far from us. What, what is the takeaway here, Cory? Don't have a mulch in your backyard if you live there?

CK: Yeah, pretty much. If you, don't, don't have a mulch pile. And, yeah, keep your yard tidy and you won't have any issues.

NK: Okay. Well, Cory, I'm glad we could speak, Cory. Thank you.

CK: And no worries. Thank you.

CH: Cory Kerewaro owns a reptile relocation business in Sydney, Australia. That's where we reached him.

[swing]

No Booing Tournament

CH: You don't have to be cheerful. But please don't be boo-ful. That is a request from the mayor of Quebec City, and the organizers of the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament. Over the past few days, Canadians sports fans have booed U.S. basketball and hockey teams during their national anthem because of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats, and constant musing about Canada becoming the 51st state. But Patrick Dom doesn't want to hear any booing when 11- and 12-year-old American players from over 40 different teams hit the ice for the tournament next week. Mr. Dom is the general manager of the event. He told the CBC about why he thinks it's important to call for civility.

SOUNDCLIP

PATRICK DOM: So, we just want to make sure that people understand the difference between what's going on between Canada, the U.S. and the Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament. Even the kids are coming from the U.S. You know, we're going to get our opening ceremonies. It's going to be a team from Quebec against a team from Team Maryland. And it's a dream for these kids to come here and play in front of 10,000, 12,000 people, which will be probably the first time ever, and the last time also. And when they go back to the city, whether it's Detroit, Los Angeles, or Chicago, we just want to say, hey, you know what, the people from Quebec were very respectful about us. You know, they were talking to us, and we were treated like, just like young athletes who come down here toQuebec to play a hockey tournament. That's what we want. You know, I was at home, and I was watching the Raptors game, and also what happened, different NHL games. Personally, it's not normal, but I could understand why people react like this. But when you're an athlete of 22 to 24 years old, it could be different when you're 12 years old. Even the parents who are coming in with them, they're going to be walking downtown, you know, going to the restaurants and making some activities. So, we figured that, you know, with the players, the coaches, the parents, it's going to be about 2,00, 2,500 U.S. citizens are going to be in town for, for a week or so. You know, we don't want something very, you know, we just want to say, you know what, let's just cheer for them. If you want to protest against, say, sit on your chair, don't have to clap or cheer for the U.S. teams. But we don't want them to, to be booed. That's what we want.

CH: That was Patrick Dom, general manager of the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament, speaking to CBC reporter Rachel Watts.

[jazzy instrumental]

LR: Cats VS. Dogs

CH: It would be ridiculous to lie: on last night's show, we made the conscious decision to open the Talkback floodgates. We asked a question that has torn families apart, like the creatures themselves have torn families' furniture apart: cats...or dogs? Now, obviously, there's an obvious right answer. It's the one that's three letters long and walks on four legs. Ha. Of course we got some emails. Janet Woods writes, "Cats! Yes! Dogs, no!!!" Linda M. Boire writes, "DOGS all the way!" And Linda Zahka in Holderness, New Hampshire writes, "To those who think dogs are filthy animals and cats are so clean and groomed, I want to point out that toxoplasma gondii is a dangerous parasite commonly spread by cats via their feces. It takes over rodents' brains, so they actually approach cats rather than hiding, making them easy prey. Research on effects of human infection, both physical and mental, are ongoing. Suffice it to say, if cats wander through your yard, the U.S. CDC recommends wearing gloves and a mask when gardening. And, by the way, dogs groom themselves, too. When they roll in something we find disgusting, it's to cover their scent to make them better hunters." Thank you, Linda. And it's true that the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention does recommend you wear gloves while gardening if there are outdoor cats around. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety recommends the same. No mask, though. Regardless, it is gross and disturbing, and explains why I am easy prey to both of our cats. We also got some calls.

SOUNDCLIP

[Talkback beep]

RASALIND HALVERSON: Hello, Rosalind Halverson, calling from Montreal. I wanted to say that I'm a huge cat fan. I think they're fantastic animals. They don't get good enough press. Bye!

[Talkback beep]

DIANNE DOAN: Hello. It's Dianne Doan, phoning from Halifax. I have a story about Booboo the Cat. She lived with the superintendent in my building, my apartment building. And, that I lived in, and she was, so she would roam the halls sometimes. And I would see her. And, you know, I always observed proper protocols, but she would never allow me to pet her. And then one day, I was in the hallway, and the super was there, and we were talking and Booboo was there. And after that, Booboo, let me pet her, from that day forward. Because Booboo figured, well, any friend of the super is a friend of mine. That's what I think.

[Talkback beep]

THIS CALLER IS ME I THINK. I AM LUKE?: Hi, Nil and Chris. It's Luke in Hamilton. I was hoping you can send me help because in the debate of cats versus dogs, I adopted my girlfriend's cats -- Hiccup and Trip -- and Hiccup hisses at me like a goose in mating season. And so, I, I need a lot of help. He seems to like me, but he hisses. Let's see if we can get him to talk. [Hiccup talks] Hiccup. Hicupp. Hiccup, hiss at me. [he did not his at me because he knew he was on the phone, and he's a jerk, but a polite jerk] Okay. Love the show.

CH: [chuckles] Thanks for your calls and emails. Especially nice to hear from you, Hiccup. If you weren't keeping track, that's four for cats and two for dogs. So far. If you've been holding on to your cat versus dog opinion, or you want to comment on anything you hear on the program, call Talkback at: 416-205-5687. Or email us at aih@cbc.ca.

The AIH Transcript For February 6, 2025

Social Sharing