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 7, 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: It's getting real. Justin Trudeau says Donald Trump's threats to take over Canada are, quote, "a real thing". Liberal MP Karina Gould says that's a real problem -- and insists she's a real contender for the party's leadership.

CH: Annexed door neighbours. The President and CEO of the business council of Canada was in the room when the prime minister talked Trump. He'll tell us whether Canada's business community is ready for a fight.

NK: Without support, it's insupportable. A P.E.I. nurse says the sudden freezing of U.S. foreign aid means that the people in the Kenyan town she's working in will go without life-saving HIV medication and care.

CH: Razing objections. A survivor of the deadly Grenfell Tower fire reacts to the U.K. government's announcement today that it will demolish the building altogether.

NK: It's all there in black and white. A film history student tells us about the final hours of his internship at an archive -- during which he discovered a silent film everyone thought was lost forever.

CH: And...hold that thud. In the past week, the odds of a specific asteroid smacking into the Earth have doubled -- but don't worry too much. Or get your hopes up.

CH: As It Happens, the Friday Edition. Radio that cautions: predictions like this are always hit-or-miss.

Part 1: Karina Gould, P.E.I Kenya Nurse, Lost Lincoln Film

Karina Gould

Guest: Karina Gould

CH: Justin Trudeau gave a pretty hot take on a hot mic. Earlier today the prime minister was addressing delegates and media at an economic summit in Toronto, when he asked reporters to leave the room. Then, with his mic still on, he said this.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Trump has it in mind that the easiest way to do it is absorbing our communities. It's a real threat in my conversations with him.

CH: In case you didn't catch that, that was the prime minister saying that U.S. President Donald Trump is not joking when he says he'd like to make Canada the 51st state -- and that the president's desire to control Canada stems from his desire to control its natural resources. This is happening while Canada is barrelling towards an election, and in the midst of a race to replace Justin Trudeau as Liberal Party leader and prime minister. And, as of this afternoon, Karina Gould is officially one of the people in that race. The Burlington, Ontario MP has confirmed that she managed to meet a fundraising deadline that she had previously called "very, very high" -- and has now paid a total of $225,000 to keep her name on the ballot. We reached Karina Gould in Burlington.

NK: Karina Gould, if that is what the prime minister is saying behind closed doors, has the government been downplaying the threat of annexation?

KARINA GOULD: Well, so, first of all, I'm not a member of the government right now, but what I can say is that I think we have to take everything President Trump says seriously. And as Canadians, and as the government of Canada, and as leaders in this country, we need to have a plan in place. And, of course, be very clear with the president that there is no world in which Canada becomes the 51st state. Our sovereignty is not up for negotiation. And we will do everything we have to do to protect our sovereignty, our economy, and our jobs.

NK: You want to become Liberal leader and prime minister in a span of just a few short weeks, really. What specifically would you do about these threats?

KG: Well, I think we have to demonstrate to the president that we're serious and we're not going to back down. And that everything is on the table. And that means not only retaliatory tariffs, but if it needs to be that, you know, we will cut the United States off from certain exports from Canada. I think what needs to be very clear for the president is that this is not a fight that we want. We would much rather be friends, allies, trading partners like we have been. But, but if you, you know, decide to mess with Canada, we also know how to take the gloves off if that's what's needed.

NK: A recent Nanos research poll you may have seen asked Canadians which leader or, you know,

leadership contender they felt would be best at negotiating with Donald Trump. Forty per cent said Mark Carney, 26 per cent Pierre Poilievre, 13 per cent said Chrystia Freeland, and one per cent said it would be you. How do you go about trying to change a number like that?

KG: Well, I think Canadians just need to get to know me. You know, for the last 18 months in particular, I've been standing up to Pierre Poilievre in the House of Commons every single day. I know how to stand up for Canadians. I know how to negotiate. And I know how to get things done in government. And so, for me, it's about using this time to really demonstrate to Canadians who I am, how strong I am, but also how smart. because I think when it comes to standing up for Canada, it's not just about showing strength, but it's also about our intelligence and how smart we are in terms of our response.

NK: We're speaking with you not long after you were able to confirm that your leadership campaign is still viable. It met today's fundraising deadline. How would you rate the difficulty of meeting that bar?

KG: Well, look, the party did set a very high fee, but I'm not deterred by challenges. And certainly, you know, it is a challenge. But I have to say, I'm so grateful and thankful to the thousands of Canadians who have supported my leadership bid. You know, my campaign doesn't have the deep pockets. It is powered by people. And, you know, over 85 per cent of our donations are $150 or less. And so, for me, this is a groundswell of support. It's really exciting to see that, you know, my message, my brand, the policies that I've put forward have resonated with Liberals across this country, and they're showing their support by making a contribution. There's another deadline in 10 days of another $125,000 that will have to be deposited to the party. So, there's still more work ahead. But feeling the momentum build, feeling the excitement, hearing from people across the country. You know, like yesterday after the housing announcement, I had a woman email me to say that she was so encouraged by how thoughtful, how thorough, how complete my housing plans are that it really motivated her to send in a donation. And it's stories like that that just really buoy me, and keep me excited and motivated in this race.

NK: So, you're feeling good about your chances of meeting the February 17th deadline?

KG: Yeah. I mean, it's going to be, it's going to be a challenge for sure. But, you know, I started this race just, just over three weeks ago, and have been able to meet each of those fundraising deadlines in a very short period of time and with small donations from thousands of people across the country. So, you know, is it, is it a challenge? Absolutely. But is it one that I can meet? A hundred per cent.

NK: In the past, you've talked about this fundraising threshold. You've had stronger words about it being, quote, extremely aggressive. You were concerned that a, quote, coronation would not be good for your party, unquote. But in those, those donations that you were talking about, 85 per cent of them, I believe you said, are under $200. If we, if we take all that into consideration, why isn't a candidate's ability to do that kind of fundraising the right kind of litmus test for whether they should be leader of their party?

KG: Yeah, look, it is a high fee. And that is something that I think has, you know, deterred some people who may have otherwise put their name forward from entering the race. But as I said, you know, I'm not afraid of the challenge, and I'm extremely motivated and encouraged by the number of people who have made those donations. And, you know, this is a great way for us to be able to have what should be a, you know, a debate of ideas. I stand by the fact that I don't think we want to have a coronation. I don't think that's good for the party. And I don't think it's good for any of the candidates. We should all be eager to have this debate of ideas. I mean, we're talking about not just who's going to be the next leader of our party, but who's going to be the next prime minister. And having that debate is a good thing. And it's a good thing because it's also a practice for us as candidates before we get into the general election, when we're going to have to debate someone like Pierre Poilievre, who just because I don't agree with a lot of his ideas and the way that he, he does things, he's a master politician. And I think we need to be able to demonstrate to our party members and to Canadians that we can take someone like him on.

NK: It's not news to you, certainly, that Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, who, who I believe agrees with you on the issue of, of making sure there's, there's a variety of candidates in this kind of a race. But, but both of those two candidates are widely considered to be the frontrunners in this race. So, so, why ask Canadians for those donations as much as they can spare to stay in a race that at this point looks like you're, you're unlikely to win?

KG: Well, you never know what happens until Election Day. That's something that I have learned over my decade in politics. And I have important ideas to bring forward. And I'm representing important voices in our party and in our country. And I think that that is something that people want to see. They want to see the diversity of candidates. I think we have, you know, three really strong people who are vying for the Liberal leadership who all bring something different and good for our party. And I think that only strengthens that. So, having a robust debate, having, you know, a conversation about our ideas and our vision for the future of our party and the future of our country is what democracy is all about.

NK: Karina Gould, glad to have you on the program. Thank you for your time.

KG: Thank you so much for having me.

CH: Karina Gould is a Liberal MP and a candidate in the federal Liberal leadership race. She's in Burlington, Ontario.

[ambient instrumental]

P.E.I Kenya Nurse

Guest: Nancy Macfadyen

CH: Donald Trump's decision to freeze USAID funding is leaving millions without access to lifesaving HIV medication. Since the end of January, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been frozen for a funding review. The mass majority of its staff are expected to be laid off. Elon Musk has referred to it as "a criminal organization". And today on social media, President Trump said he would like to shut it down completely. Now, all that has meant the world's largest donor is no longer providing foreign aid. And in places like Kenya, that can be the difference between life and death. Nancy Macfadyen is a nurse who works with the P.E.I. charity Farmers Helping Farmers. She has been in Kenya for the past few weeks, working with healthcare workers. We reached her in Meru County, Kenya.

NK: Nancy, what have people there been telling you? How have they reacted since this funding freeze was announced?

NANCY MACFADYEN: There is a really high level of concern. Major, major concern. All of the collaborating, and the meetings, and everything we've had the last two weeks, AIDs and HIV never came up even as a concern. It was diabetes, and hypertension, and TB because they've been so good at managing their people with, that are positive for HIV and positive for AIDS with help, of course, through USAID providing the medications for those things. Now, they were just told from one day to the next, different people I spoke to at different dispensaries and community hospitals where we were, they're basically fighting tears because they had so many people, that's their full-time job is managing these people that are positive with HIV and AIDS. And just right now, they don't know what the future holds. In this area alone, in the Meru County and the sub counties, for sub counties, there are 350 people this week that are out of work. If they have no medication, there's no treatment, there's nobody coming into the clinic. So, yeah.

NK: There's the medication issue, which, of course, is crucial. Then, there are the job losses, which you were just talking about.

NM: Oh, exactly.

NK: You were working in the '80s during the AIDS, HIV-Aids epidemic. How are you weighing that experience with this one?

KG: Exactly. oh, I lived the '80s. [chuckling] I live, we lived it when, you know, the young people, young, young people who passed away, that came in with superimposed infections. And, you know, many of them died of the PCP, like a pneumonia of AIDS and many other different kinds of infections. And, yeah, to think of, there's so much need here anyway. And so many lack of resources for the people in this area. I can only speak for the people that we've been working with. And now, to put this burden on top of them again, it's setting the country back 40 years.

NK: The U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, at the end of January, you know, initially, he was talking about what they called a humanitarian waiver to ensure that life-saving programs and aid would continue. Then this week, we heard the secretary of state questioning the accounts they were getting from local groups doing the work that you've been telling us about. And he said, quote, I wonder whether they're deliberately sabotaging it for purposes of making a political point, unquote. How do you respond to that assertion from, from Rubio?

KG: They don't need to make anything up. The people who are living here and trying to survive day-to-day, they don't need to make up any stories, or any stats, or anything like that. The people that I've been working for here are community health promoters. They are, and they have 100 households each that they're trying to help build capacity around family health and what have you. And these people are volunteers. They haven't even been paid for months. And this is just going to be so devastating to them.

NK: I heard your voice change when you heard that quote I read to you. It's, it's upsetting.

KG: It is, lacks any kind of, number one, compassion, or empathy, or any real knowledge of how people are living in this country and the need that there is there. And to just, you know, to cut it off from one day to the next, and make an announcement that's it, we're done. There's no weaning off, no chance for them to find other sources for the medications they give. Just, yeah, I, I can't even, as a Canadian who cares about what happens to other people in this world, I have no words for, for what's happened. And I dread the next couple of years coming back to see how AIDS and HIV is going to rear its ugly head in this country.

NK: Yeah. There are people, Nancy, as you well know, who support this U.S. administration and this move in particular. And even if, if they agree with you and have compassion for the need that is there and the importance of these programs, as you, as you, as you've described, even if they have that compassion, they might say we shouldn't be giving this money to other countries. There may be people across Canada who feel the same way. What would you say to them?

KG: You know, I, I can understand it to a certain extent. There's a lot of need at home. Yes, I know we have homeless people in Canada. We have many, many people that we need to support. But I don't know, I guess I have to look at it from my Christian point of view that we are made here to be in this world with all the privileges that we have. And, I mean, we have hot water. Tonight, we had hot water in our tap. That's the first time we've had hot water in the tap since I left home. And the people that we're trying to help never have hot water. And that's how basic, you know, the needs are. So, yes, you think that we have, and it has to be balanced. And the Kenyan government need to step up. I'm not saying that there's not more that they could do. It's just the way this was done, and to pick this, of all things, HIV and AIDS, which we know takes out the young people and is just going to go rampant. We're going to be back to these children being born HIV-positive again. And, you know, their life expectancy is very, very short. So, I don't know. It, it's not easy. And I'm glad I'm not a politician, but it was the way it was done, and I just really feel that if we don't help the people that need it the most in this world, then there's something wrong.

NK: Nancy, I appreciate your time. Please take care. Safe travels.

KG: All right. Goodnight.

CH: Nancy Macfadyen is a nurse with the P.E.I. charity Farmers Helping Farmers. We reached her in Meru County, Kenya.

[classic rock]

Lost Lincoln Film

Guest: Dan Martin

CH: It's any archivist's dream -- finding something believed to have been lost to history, discovering that it's in pretty good condition, and sharing it with the world. Dan Martin has achieved that dream -- and he did it when he was still an intern. These days, the film history student is working a six-month gig at the Library of Congress. But last summer, he cut his teeth at Lauro's Historic Films Archive in Greenport, Long Island. And that's where he made a discovery that's been making headlines around the world. We reached Dan Martin in Culpeper, Virginia.

NK: Dan, during your internship, how many boxes and reels of film, how many canisters do you think you've sifted through?

DAN MARTIN: Well, that's tough to say. Dozens, at least.

NK: And so, the day that you were assigned this particular task, what did your bosses ask you to do?

DM: Essentially, I was tasked with going down into the basement of the office I was interning at. And they had me going through these old film cans that needed identifying. And I find that sort of work a lot of fun because you don't know what you're going to be stumbling into. [NK chuckles] So, for the most part, a lot of it was old educational films, stuff like that. It was a lot of dry material.

NK: And so, as you're going through all of this, when did you realize that there was something different in this canister?

DM: Yeah. When I came onto these five cans that were labeled The Heart of Lincoln. Heart of Lincoln is kind of an inconspicuous-sounding title. So, I figured it was probably another print that was made for school distribution. And when I opened them up and inspected them, I came across the name Francis Ford in the credits as the director and the star of the film. And I recognized Francis Ford's name because I knew he was John Ford's older brother. He had appeared in some of John Ford's films, and I knew that he was a silent film director in his own right. So, I just figured at first it was some sort of well-known, well-circulated film of his. But upon doing some further research, I realized there really wasn't much information on this film out there. And it was, it was actually marked as a lost film.

NK: What were you able to find out? Because it was listed at the Library of Congress, right?

DM: Yeah. So, it's tough to kind of go back, and you almost have to do a lot of investigative work because there's two versions of this film that are out. There's a 1915 version and a 1922 version. And the version that we have was the 1922 version because it had a prologue and an epilogue concerning a young soldier returning home from World War One. So, what I found out was that either the film was recut with this footage added, or it's possible that it was an entirely new film, a remake of the 1915 version that was shot in the '20s. And all of this was kind of contingent on these old press releases that I found online talking about The Heart of Lincoln and talking about Francis Ford. And I also reached out to a couple of Francis Ford scholars. Kathryn Fuller-Seeley was a big help. But essentially, I was working with really very scarce materials to kind of pinpoint exactly what this film was.

NK: And at what point in the process did you go to your superiors and say, [chuckling] I think I have something special here.

DM: Pretty right off the bat. Because like I said, it was a lot of educational film. So, even just to come across the silent film was cool enough. And my boss, Joe, has a big index of films that were released during the silent era. And so, we went through this book, and there it was, Heart of Lincoln. And pinning that with minimum information I could find online, we said, well, this is kind of like an unknown film.

NK: I know it's been a while, Dan, since you've seen the film, but, but tell our listeners just briefly what The Heart of Lincoln is actually about.

DM: There's basically two stories that are intertwined. There's a story concerning a Union soldier and Confederate soldier and their romantic interests during the Civil War. And that's kind of pieced together with this other storyline which kind of looks at Lincoln's activities during the war. And kind of tries to put the Civil War both in a miniature scale and large scale, I would say.

NK: And who would have seen this? Would it have been in cinemas at the time?

DM: I believe so. I mean, the, from looking at the press releases, it seemed like Heart of Lincoln was a fairly big release. And Francis Ford was a relatively big name in Hollywood at time, who has kind of been buried under a lot of other names. Some of his contemporaries get a lot more recognition. If anything, Francis Ford is remembered for sort, of his big parts in John Ford's films such as The Quiet Man. But John Ford himself was his younger brother. And, you know, kind of look to his older brother, you know, as an influence in moving to Hollywood. And the two of them really shared this interest in Abraham Lincoln.

NK: We've talked about silent films on our program before and discoveries like this one. And that, you know, thousands, I think 7,000 silent films, were completely lost. So, it's always exciting for folks when, when something like this is discovered. You love to do this work -- film preservation. You're at the Library of Congress now. What is it that you love so much, not just about film, but, but old film?

DM: To me, they kind of serve as, you know, documents of their time and of their society they were, you know, released in. I mean, you could, to, to think that this film was made only 50, 75 years after Lincoln's assassination is kind of a crazy thing to reckon with.

NK: Dan, I'm really glad we could speak. Thank you.

DM: Sure, glad to talk.

CH: Dan Martin is a film preservation student and former intern at Lauro's Historic Films Archive in Long Island. We reached him in Culpeper, Virginia.

[funk rock]

Asteroid Chances

SOUNDCLIP

MAN: Is this going to hit us?

MAN #2: We're efforting that as we speak, Sir.

MAN: What kind of damage here?

MAN #2: Damage? Total, Sir. It's what we call a global killer. The end of mankind. Doesn't matter where it hits, nothing would survive. Not even bacteria.

MAN: My God, What do we do?

CH: A powerful scene from the classic-ish [NK chuckles] 1998 film Armageddon, in which the president learns of an asteroid the size of Texas that will obliterate all life. Side note: if you want to play the president in a disaster movie, you must first master the art of saying "my God." [NK laughs] Enough frivolity, though. This is serious. Sit down and I'll tell you why we're talking about fictional asteroids. It's because of a real-life asteroid called 2024 YR4 -- which is not the size of Texas, or even the size of Prince Edward Island, or even the size of Charlottetown. It is a mere 55 metres -- or 180 feet -- in diameter. But here's the good news/bad news scenario: last week, the Center for Near Earth Object Studies reported that there was a one in 83 chance that this asteroid might hit the Earth. This week, the CNEOS has announced that the odds of impact had nearly doubled to one in 43 -- a 2.3 per cent chance. Now, is that good news or bad news? I mean, I think it's bad news. I'm pretty sure. It's been a long week, so I'm like 70-30. But the good news -- as asteroid hunter David Rankin told Space-dot-com -- is that, quote, "That means we are still at 97.7 per cent chance of a miss from this asteroid." Unquote. Although maybe that's the bad news? No, that’s, that’s good news -- 68 per cent sure. Whatever the case, 2024 YR4 isn't going to be in our galactic neighbourhood until the year 2032. Plenty of time to train a ragtag group of oil drillers to be astronauts and put a nuclear bomb in the asteroid. That's the most obvious plan, anyway. We'll keep you posted over the next seven years. But we'll only update you, of course, when the numbers become...striking.

[disco]

Part 2: Economic Summit: Hyder, Grenfell Demo

Economic Summit: Hyder

Guest: Goldy Hyder

CH: We weren't supposed to hear it. But now, we've been hearing about it all day. As you heard on this program a half-hour ago, this morning, Justin Trudeau said that Donald Trump's ambition to swallow up Canada is a, quote, "a real thing". The prime minister's comments were picked up on a hot mic, as he addressed a summit full of business and labour leaders who'd gathered to address the Trump administration's economic threats. Goldy Hyder was at the summit. He's the president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. He joined us in our Toronto studio.

NK: Goldy Hyder, what signal do you think it sends to Canadian business leaders where the prime minister of Canada says the U.S. president is not joking when he talks about, quote, absorbing our country?

GOLDY HYDER: Well, look, I think that this is a rallying cry for Canada. In some ways, the president's comments should galvanize us as they have, should unite us, as they seem to be doing, should be a catalyst for action, should be a catalyst for us to reflect on the fact that when somebody says, you know, no serious country outsources your national security or your border, or frankly, allows itself to be beholden to a single customer, I don't blame them. I think they're doing us a tremendous favour by saying, hey, get your act together. So, the wake-up call that this is generating in Canada is something that I think we may look back on and say that's when Canada really figured out that it has what the world

wants, and it'd best figure out how to get it to them.

NK: What was the reaction in the room? Obviously, the speakers outside after media left picked up a bit of what the prime minister said. That's what we've been talking about. What was the reaction? Because people could write it off, right, And say, Trump says these sorts of things. The prime minister says it's serious.

GH: Yeah, it's one thing to write it off if somebody, you know, says something about it once or twice. It's a pretty consistent drumbeat, so you don't take it seriously. I don't think the prime minister needed to say or not say what he did because it's already being said by the president. I think in that room what happened is, is a recognition that we had best get our own act together. That we have got to use this as a moment for action with some urgency being driven by the facts. It was very rewarding for us in the business community who have been championing pipelines to hear that this is now finally again a place where Canada can talk about it in an adult way driven by facts. To hear a prime minister say I'm a huge fan of nuclear, when, in fact, the government had done everything but support nuclear for the longest period of time. When we want to build this infrastructure, the permitting that we're speaking about, the need to expand our ports, our airports, our bridges, our roads, our train tracks. These are the things that will help Canadians have the kind of quality of life and standard of living they want because they bring about prosperity.

NK: There are certainly listeners who will be concerned by those particular topics that you hear, that you mentioned there.

GH: Sure, and it's okay! Can I just say it's okay.

NK: But discussion is one thing?

GH: Yeah, it's okay. I mean, somehow, we've gotten to the place where, you know, you're not allowed to disagree. I said, well, you know, in a marriage, you disagree. In your family, you disagree. In your neighborhood, you disagree. But somehow, we can't disagree. It's okay. But let's have a fact-based adult conversation about these issues. The thing about the facts is, Nil, they just keep coming back. They don't change. They're consistent. And this is the moment to acknowledge that the envy of the world is Canada. We have what everybody wants. It's incumbent upon us to get out of our own way internally, position ourselves to, yes, still work with the United States and Mexico to strengthen North America, but also leverage our access to the rest of the world.

NK: We've also started to see already layoffs announced this week, and press releases blaming those layoffs and job cuts on the Trump tariffs, just the threat of them even. And there are reports of other businesses moving investments south. What are you hearing from your members about the realities they're facing in this, in this holding pattern that they're stuck in?

GH: Let's be clear. There is, you know, one thing [chuckling] that business likes is certainty and predictability. And we have neither. And the threat of these tariffs is having the same effect as if the tariffs were in place. I actually think that pressure on the tariffs may come down a little bit over the course of the next 30 to 60 days. I think that the opening salvo was, give it all you got and scare everything, and that clearly worked. But let's assume that there will be some tariffs of some kind in a targeted way. Tariffs are taxes on people. Whether the Americans pay it or we pay it, it's not good for our economy. We can't sustain a long term tariff war with, you know, with the G-1. So, take a look at our own economy. We have, by the way, we had a good month. We had 76,000 jobs created. And most of it is happening because the United States economy is doing well. And so, we have got to recognize that we're so attached to them that their success is our success, and our success is their success. But we also need to pivot, pivot to capitalize on our strengths. And we have to do it with some urgency. My greatest fear, and the fear of our members, is that we're going to have this moment. It'll have some, you know, some, some gatherings and some summits, and we'll do a great Canadian conversation and then nothing. We can't afford to let nothing happen. We must do something, so that we don't allow this moment to just be an opportunity to return to regularly scheduled programing one day. America and, is changing. And with it, the relationship with America, not just of Canada, but of the world, is changing. So, that's, that's just how life is. We have to adjust to that.

NK: The prime minister said there were three major things to work on at the summit today. Internal free trade, which we've mentioned, making Canada-U.S. trade work, and leveraging the deals we have with Europe and the Pacific Rim. That's certainly a lot to tackle in one day. Was there really any tangible progress so far?

GH: Yeah, I think the greatest opportunity, the lowest hanging fruit, and probably the one with the greatest economic short-term immediate impact is the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. Minister Anand, who's been charged with the file, happened to have a meeting with her and a number of our members just yesterday, is very optimistic, and really being aggressive in that optimism, and saying I think we can bring these things down. It's a matter of a country that says we either mutually recognize our own laws and regulations. We allow for, for labour mobility to occur. I mean, do you know we wouldn't let a nurse move into another province during the pandemic? In Europe, there's 27 countries that are finding a way to allow that to happen. But we are, you know, blocking that. So, I feel optimism about something as low hanging as that. And by the way, it has a big impact. Four per cent of our GDP growth, it's estimated, is trapped in those. What is a trade barrier except a tariff on Canadians?

NK: Why is it taking this to force the hand?

GH: Canada! Canada! The answer is Canada, Nil. I mean, this is a country that has just become too comfortable, too complacent, and we have to be shaken out of our shackles of that. And I think, you know, in many ways, we will look back at this moment if we seize it to say, you know what, we were worried, but it became a blessing in disguise because we're stronger today, and tomorrow, and for the future because we use this moment to realize you can't rely on a single customer. You can't believe that America is going to look out for you. You have to look out for yourself.

NK: Goldy Hyder, glad we could speak. Thank you.

GH: Thank you for having me.

CH: Goldy Hyder is the president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. He was in our Toronto studio.

[folk rock]

Marmot Scale

CH: A lot of us don't like stepping on the scale. I’m not sure how marmots feel about it. But, if you're going to try to weigh a marmot, it's best to make sure the device doesn't feature any reflective surfaces or bright whites. Better to use wood, and scuff up the aluminum. That's what Vancouver Island University technicians Michael Lester and Devin Ayotte have learned, after spending nearly two years building an electronic weigh scale for Vancouver Island marmots. They work with researchers focused on the recovery of that endangered species. Michael and Devin told the CBC why they're doing this. Here's Michael.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL LESTER: I think body weight is a really good indicator of, of the health of individual marmots. But it's also, if we can see how best to help them with body condition, especially with females. If a body, if a female has good body condition, it means she might be able to have more pups. And even if, say, the average number of pups per female was, say, three, and we could increase that to 3.2 or 3.3 on average across the population, then that might be the difference between recovering the species or not.

JASON D'SOUZA: Tell us how you're conducting the study, Michael.

ML: This, this study by the Wilder Institute, the research on body condition and supplemental feeding has been going for a few years now. But in the past, they've been doing, they've been capturing the marmots and weighing them, so it's like a snapshot once or twice at the beginning of the season and opportunistically throughout the summer season. What we've been doing is trying to build a weigh scale which is positioned outside of burrow, for instance, where the marmots can climb on top and marmots, just by their very nature, like to perch on top of things. So, we make a weigh scale, which is about the size of, say, like a laptop case, and they'll stand on top of that just to get a better look around. But that, we, we weigh them and then keep those weights and record them, so that the researchers can get more and more snapshots. Every time a marmot goes on the weigh scale, there's a weight that has been recorded. And that is less stress for the marmot, and is also a lot more data-rich.

JD: Well, and Devin, I understand you took a scale that Michael had built and began modifying it. Tell us about that.

DEVIN AYOTTE: Well, we started with Mike's design. Our first attempt at the scale was a robust, lightweight, and durable scale that could be carried up a mountain. And like Mike said, left outside of a marmot den. So, from there, having tested that for a summer, the Wilder Institute tested that for a summer. We've taken our lessons learned and our findings from that. And we've started to try and make it lighter, stronger, and add an RFID reader to it. The Wilder Institute and the Marmot Recovery Foundation have tagged some of the marmots in the wild with an RFID tag. And by adding a RFID reader to this scale, the researchers will be able to go and look at that weight data and associate it with individual marmots that they've tagged.

JD: How do you attempt to perfect a scale that's so specific to an animal like a marmot?

DA: I think it has a lot to do with listening to the researchers. I'm not a biologist, so our source of information on what's working and what isn't is the biologists. But having gone up a mountain with them, I can tell you that weight is very important. When they see a mountain, they go straight up. They don't mess around. So, the lighter the better. Ultimately, it's what works best for them, what gives them the information they need, and what's easier for them to work with.

CH: That was Michael Lester and Devin Ayotte of Vancouver Island University, speaking with CBC host Jason D'Souza. Michael is a resource management and protection technician, and Devin is an engineering technician.

[hip jazz]

Grenfell Demo

Guest: Emma Louise O'Connor

CH: It was the deadliest residential fire in Britain since the Second World War. And now, more than seven years after London's Grenfell Tower went up in flames, the U.K. government says the remains of the high-rise apartment building will be demolished. Seventy-two people died in the fire in 2017. A subsequent inquiry found the deaths were avoidable, and that the building's residents had been failed for years by government, fire officials, and the private sector. In a statement today, the government acknowledged that residents are divided about what to do with the building. But it said engineers have determined that it's significantly damaged -- and its condition will continue to worsen over time. Emma Louise O'Connor lived in Grenfell Tower, and had to escape her 20th floor apartment that day. She continues to live in the area today. We reached her in London.

NK: Emma, I wonder how you're processing this news that after all of this time, Grenfell Tower, and that, that green heart that the people who've been to London see as they drive by, that, that's going to be taken down?

EMMA LOUISE O'CONNOR: I feel disappointed of the way that it was announced. Because they've, all through the years, there's been a serious lack of communication.

NK: You were at the meeting with the deputy prime minister, as I understand it. And in the statement today, the government is saying that, that, you know, they admit there's, there's no real consensus on what should happen ultimately to Grenfell Tower. But said it's committed to keeping the voices of you and others who were affected at the heart of this process. It seems, though, from what you're saying, that, that you don't feel there was adequate consultation, in your view?

ELO: Yeah, there's definitely not enough. They only seem to be contacting certain groups who have the loudest voices.

NK: Putting aside the, the, the, the lack of communication you mentioned, what does its demolition, what does its ultimate demolition, mean to you?

ELO: To me, personally, it means that it will be out of sight and out of mind to those who have actually caused this to go ahead. The government are just trying to get rid of the standing reminder, so they can focus on what they believe is other important stuff.

NK: There are discussions and plans for a memorial. They haven't landed on what that should be yet. What, ideally, would you like to see erected in its place?

ELO: Ideally, I would like my friend's design that he put forward to be selected. It would be four poles, which is joined at each, like, put off at each corner of the tower. And erect a giant heart at the top of that. So, it's a standing reminder, but it will just be the, the framework. And then, the top of the building would have the giant green heart. And that would be a fitting memorial tribute to those who, sadly, we lost.

NK: You've also spoken publicly and written about how the disaster impacted you. You've talked about your panic attacks, you know, getting into elevators. How are you doing today?

ELO: Today as in, like, right now?

NK: Today, but also --

ELO: Okay and focused. So, I'm okay and focused. And I've also set up a petition that is just around 24 hours old, and it's already nearly hit 200 signatures.

NK: And what does that petition say?

ELO: It's to actually delay the, the demolition of the tower until we get justice served. And that justice is for not only our bereaved and survivors, but it's for the whole world, because these fires are happening so often that we really need to stand up and be tall, and fight these people that are taking no notice of our lives.

NK: What would justice look like to you?

ELO: To me, at this stage, justice would look like a confirmation from the government that they will not touch any more fire stations. And that the petition is successful in halting the decision to start, to start the demolition process, which apparently will take two years. But I don't think we should be put through that just yet when we're still waiting for the police investigation.

NK: You said you're focused today. How, overall, has what you survived impacted you? How does it impact you now, all of these years later?

ELO: I still can't be in the public space with, when fire engines are going past, I, I tend to panic if I'm outside. But if I'm driving, I, I'm perfectly in control. It's just when I'm outside. And it usually gets worse around, around the evening time because of, because it was the evening time when the fire happened. So, for example, when, when they go past my, when they go past on the main road, I see blue flashing lights, which for some reason, they decided to go past right now while I'm on the, on the line. I tend to look out the window until they've gone. Yeah, it's, it's quite a miserable thing to have to keep going through, but it's all worth it in the end if we get the, if we get what we need. [clears throat]

NK: I'm sorry, Emma. Are you okay having seen that just now?

ELO: Well, yeah, yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I just had to cough.

NK: Understood. I know you live just about 10 minutes away from the tower now. Are you able, I mean, is it part of, when you do go out, do you pass it regularly? Are you able to pass it? What do you, what do you feel and think when you look up at it now?

ELO: When I look up at it now, like during the day, and I drive past it, it's actually a couple of times a week that I have to actually drive past it. I just feel that used to be home. But, and then nighttime, just, it's incredible the way it's lit up because the, the four reflecting sides actually have 72 hearts projected onto the big green hearts on each side, which is a really, really fitting, fitting thing to do.

NK: How do you take care of yourself now, Emma?

ELO: Well, my partner looks after me a lot. He's actually my full-time carer, and he's also like one of my best friends.

NK: Well, I'm glad you have that support, Emma.

ELO: Yeah. Thank you.

NK: I appreciate your time. Please take care.

ELO: Yeah. Thank you so much. Have a good evening.

NK: You too.

CH: Emma Louise O'Connor is a survivor of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire. We reached her in London.

[folk]

Bonhomme Ice Palace Tour

CH: There are any number of attractions worth visiting year-round in Quebec City. Chateau Frontenac, the Grande Allée, The Plains of Abraham, the Musée national des beaux-arts. But some sights are more seasonal. And when it comes to the Palais de Bonhomme, you've really got to get it while it's hot…cold. The Ice Palace is an essential -- and ephemeral -- part of the city's annual Carnavale de Québec. And as this year's festival gets underway today, the CBC got a tour from general manager Marie-Eve Jacob -- and ice sculptor Marc Lepire.

SOUNDCLIP

MARIE-EVE JACOB: It's 4,200 tonnes of ice. So, a lot of ice. It's a, it's almost 3,000 blocks that the team will work with. And it's a team of only 12 person. So, it takes them 17 days to build the Ice Palace, including the time they are putting in the sculpture inside of the Ice Palace.

RACHEL WATTS: And can you tell me a little bit about the, the Ice Palace history? Why is this the centrepiece of the festival?

MEJ: Actually, the Ice Palace have been there since the beginning, the very first edition. So, it's, it's part of the tradition. There's a symbolic being in front as well of the parliament. So, it's the symbolic. You know, Bonhomme received the key of the city. He takes over the city during the carnival. So, there's all this symbol around the Ice Palace. And while it's something that is well-known, it's kind of the highlight of the carnival. Every Ice Palace has been different for 70 years.

RW: And there are over 2,000 blocks, you said?

MEJ: Yes, there's almost 3,000 blocks, actually, of ice. Each block is 300 pounds. So, lots of big parts. And it's a team of a woman And men that build the Ice Palace for the last couple of years.

MARC LEPIRE: The ice is come from here in Quebec.They make a block full of ice for us, and they just bring ice here. And we just start from the beginning. And it looks like a house, start the basement, and go up with the scaffolding and everything.

MELINA LEVESQUE: And I know last year, and this is kind of an ongoing conversation about the impacts of warmer weather, unpredictable weather. How are you keeping that into account through and during construction or in the long term?

ML: It's very tough because ice is ice. If it's over minus five, there will be some damage then. Because of last year and the year before, now, we have some trick to put the castle fast way to the sun. Then, we just need to check one or two wall and maybe rebuild during the, the festival. But it's not all the castle we need to check very well. It's just a few wall that we will need to check and maybe repair.

CH: Marie-Eve Jacob and Marc Lepire are with the Carnavale de Québec, which begins today. They spoke with CBC reporters Rachel Watts and Melina Levesque.

[hip-hop]

Part 3: Former Jordanian Minister, Lucy Letby Doctor

Former Jordanian Minister

Guest: Jawad Anani

CH: This morning, thousands of people across Jordan marched in protest of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to resettle Palestinians in their country. The region has reacted with outrage, as President Trump has doubled down on his comments to take over Gaza -- a move that’s repeatedly been called ethnic cleansing. Israel's defense minister has ordered his army to prepare for the "voluntary departure" of residents from Gaza to nearby countries like Egypt or Jordan. Both of those countries have rejected any plan to displace Palestinians, and reiterated their support for an independent Palestinian state. Jawad Anani is the former foreign minister of Jordan. We reached him in Amman.

NK: Jawad Anani, what do you expect King Abdullah will tell the U.S. president when the two meet next week in Washington?

JAWAD ANANI: Well, I think that, first of all, that, you know, we don't think that the issue of construction and the technicalities which accompany the presence of people in Gaza should really become the issue. The issue is what is the meaning of that? And how, what guarantees do we have that people will return, assuming that such a thing can go through? Secondly, King Abdullah is going to remind Mr. President that Jordan is a very strong ally, not only of the United States, but also of NATO. And that Jordan has already absorbed about 3 million extra refugees in the last 10 or 11 years, which had made Jordan's population equal to almost 13.5 million. And thirdly, that Jordan has difficulties in providing basic amenities or human life ingredients like water, energy, and so on. And fourthly, Jordan is already fraught with economic difficulties such as unemployment and poverty. So, anyway, Jordan is in no position to accept that. And if you add to that the most important element, basically that we think that in the long run, we cannot award the aggressor, which is the current Israeli government, by making life, its life, easy. That they can go and disrupt, and destroy, and kill people and children. And then, at the end of the day, that other countries will take the, will take the debt off Israeli shoulders. That is not what we are for. And we don't expect such a treatment from our allies.

NK: Given the realities in Jordan that you talked about there, and given that Jordan receives close to $1.5 billion in U.S. military and economic aid, how much power does Jordan, does the king, have to push back and say no if, if the U.S. administration decides to, to, to push this idea?

JA: Well, first of all, let me remind everyone that there is no such thing as a free gift under the sun or free dinner. You know, what we are getting from the United States has already been proven its worth. Remember when the Iranian attacked Israel, we said we are not going to allow Jordanian territory, not Jordan space to be used for, for war. And we actually went in stepped, and stepped in, and shot down Iranian rockets and so on. So, in a way, we have respected our commitments. I think that the king is going for humanitarian reasons, for medical reasons. We will take some people on the provision that they are guaranteed to go back once they're, they're healed or they are treated.

NK: Reuters is quoting three unnamed senior Jordanian officials who say King Abdullah will tell the U.S. president this idea is a, quote, recipe for radicalism, unquote. Do you agree with that assessment?

JA: Yes, ma'am. The most important lesson we have learned is that when you have a radical government is to the right, it breeds exactly the same feelings on the other side in the Arab world. You know, if Israelis go to the right, and they become, they, they have such a government as the one we have right now, which is extremely religious, extremely aggressive, does not recognize the rights of Palestinians, does not recognize international law, then we expect that the people on the other side will want to go that way. So, in a way, yes, it does. For sure, it does, you know? Radicalism from both sides, they, they reinforce each other. They feed on each other.

NK: I wanted to ask you what you think that, that, what is, what was said, you know, by, by the U.S. president, what that might mean for Jordan's peace agreement with Israel?

JA: No. As far as the peace agreement between Jordan and Israel, we have not yet referred to that as, as, as a, as a, as a card that we want to use at any time, to be honest with you. When we sign a treaty of peace, we would like to respect that. You know, without the peace treaty with Israel, we probably could not have convinced some Israelis to allow Jordan to send aid into Gaza. So, anyway, I don't think that any Jordanian would really heed as seriously if there is a cause to end the peace treaty, or use it as a weapon. Not now. Not now, unless something very, very drastic happens. And, and we will be, it will be the last resort, the last absolute resort.

NK: I spoke with Ghaith Omari, a former advisor to Palestinian negotiators. He was our guest on our program earlier this week, when all of this first was said in Washington. You know, he said that, that the signing of letters by Jordan and other countries, talking won't be enough. That the countries, including Jordan, need to to vow to put money into Gaza, to be part of the reconstruction, and to work with the Palestinian Authority to deal with corruption. How do you respond to that? Do Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, wealthy countries, need to be stepping up here?

JA: Well, yeah. Well, first of all, you know, I think that when it comes to finance, nobody does say that Israel should be also penalized to participate because it was the Israeli guns and Israeli airplanes which have really demolished Gaza beyond recognition. But, certainly, you know, we, we are not going to wait for the Israelis or somebody to force the Israelis to do so because I don't think that the Arab countries are in a position to do that. But what I would, would like to say that allow the people of Gaza also to participate in the reconstruction of their own country. Moving them out denies Gaza a huge potential of labour force, of young people, young people who are really desperate to rebuild their own city and relive there. And so, therefore, you know, we are willing. We, Jordan and has already had many conferences on how to reconcile, what, what role can Jordan play in the reconstruction of Gaza.

NK: Jawad Anani, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

JA: Thank you very much for having me.

CH: Jawad Anani is a former foreign minister of Jordan. He's in Amman.

[glassy guitar riff]

NL Drake Fan

CH: Drizzy Drake is very much still alive. I know, that's the kind of thing I say a lot. But don't take my word for it: those are, actually, the words of Drizzy himself. The very words Drake said to the audience as he closed out Night One of his Australian tour this week. It's his first time touring that part of the world since 2017 -- and the first public statement he's made since Kendrick Lamar won two Grammys for his brutal Drake diss track "Not Like Us" -- the latest, and apparently final, chapter in the historic rap war. Now, most of the people at that show are reflecting on Drake's defiant message that he is not actually dead. But Heather Sharpe is thinking about something else. She's from Portugal Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador, and now lives in Perth. She took a Canadian flag to the concert and caught Drake's attention. And then he picked her and another fan out of the crowd, and promised to give them $20,000 each.

SOUNDCLIP

DRAKE: But I did see you. I did see these two people right here with a flag from back home. Are y'all from Canada, or are you just showing love?

HEATHER SHARPE: Canada!

DRAKE: You said what?

HS: Canada. Newfoundland.

DRAKE: They're from Newfoundland. They're from Newfoundland. Y'all probably don't know what that is. But that's back home. But for both of y'all, I'm going to give you $20,000 each to go wherever you want in the world.

CH: Drake handing out money to two fans at his concert in Perth. And shortly after, Heather Sharpe told the CBC all about that surprise windfall.

SOUNDCLIP

HEATHER SHARPE: I'm still pretty shocked, actually. I never thought that it was going to happen to me. I was just so proud to represent back home because he's Canadian and, well, I'm Canadian. And, yeah, and not that I was, every time he walked by, I was taking the flag, and I kept waving the flag and saying, you know, Canadian, Canadian. And I looked at my partner, and I was like, he hasn't seen it yet. [chuckling] I was like, I'm not going to stop trying. And then, yeah, I was, I was shocked. I was waving the flag, I see, you know, he pointed out Canadian, Canada. And I was just proud for that. And if you said where are you from? I was like, Newfoundland. And where he knew where it was, that was amazing. There's a lot of people who don't know where Newfoundland is. And, yeah, and then, when he said about the $20,000, I just couldn't believe it. I still can't. I'm still kind of shocked about it all. I'm like, is this real? [chuckling] Is this actually happening? I don't know, it's, it's hard to explain. Like, I just, like, I don't think it still has hit me yet. [chuckle]

ALEX KENNEDY: So, you haven't gotten the money yet. Has he reached out to you?

HS: Yes.

AK: Right, gotcha. What do you plan to spend it on?

HS: I've been thinking of a few things. I'd love to come home, seeing family, of course. Because I don't get, I get home every couple of years, you know, living here now. And, honestly, I would love to take my mom and my brother Luke here to visit Australia. They haven't been yet, so I would love for them to see this place.

CH: That was Heather Sharpe speaking with the CBC's Alex Kennedy.

[brisk instrumental]

Lucy Letby Doctor

Guest: Shoo Lee

CH: It was a horrific murder case that gripped the U.K. Except now, a Canadian doctor says he believes the medical evidence is clear: there were no murders. In 2023 and 2024, nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of the murders of seven infants and the attempted murders of seven more, at the Countess of Chester Hospital in northwestern England. Ms. Letby is currently serving 15 life terms. But this week, an expert panel of 14 doctors announced their conclusion: that none of the babies were murdered. Dr. Shoo Lee chaired the panel. He's a retired neonatologist, and the president of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation. We reached him in Hay Lakes, Alberta.

NK: Dr. Lee, Lucy Letby, as you know, was convicted back in 2023. What has convinced you at this point that, that something went wrong here in terms of the evidence in this case?

SHOO LEE: It started because the defence asked me to look at some evidence that was based on a paper I had written in 1989. And when I looked at the evidence, it wasn't consistent with what I had written. So, clearly, there was something wrong with the evidence that was used to convict her. And that's how it got started.

NK: And how, as briefly as you can explain for our audience, how was it misinterpreted?

SL: So, the paper I had written was about a very rare condition called embolism in the neonate. And it described how this condition presents in babies. The prosecution had come to the conclusion that the babies had died from embolism because they collapsed and had certain skin discolorations. These skin discolorations were not specific to embolism. And so, you cannot conclude that it's due to embolism, just that these skin discolorations can occur in any baby with hypoxia. So, I felt that the conclusion that they drew was wrong. After her appeal, there was no further avenue for her to go except to something called the Criminal Case Review Commission, where the bar is very high. Essentially, you know, if you are charged, you are innocent until proven guilty. But if you are convicted, you are guilty until proven innocent. And that was when I suggested to counsel, the solicitors, that I would be prepared to look at the rest of the evidence. Because, at that point, I only saw a little bit of the evidence regarding discoloration of the skin. And that if there were concerns about if, I had concerns about the rest of the evidence, I could convene a panel to look at medical evidence and to give an opinion about what might be the causes of death or injury, on condition that we would release our results regardless of whether it was favourable or unfavourable to her.

NK: And the other condition you had was, was that none of the names of the, of the 14 panelists from six different countries would be revealed until the work was complete.

SL: That's correct. Because I did not want them to be interfered with. I didn't want a media circus around them, so we could work quietly to look at the evidence to see what it told us.

NK: And so, you've all been, been doing that. How did you go about analyzing each case, one-by-one?

SL: So, what we did was we assigned each case to two of the experts, and they were asked to work independently. First, to decide for themselves what was the cause of death. Secondly, to examine the statements made by the expert witnesses. And thirdly, to write a independent report. The reports were then sent to me as the chair of the panel. And if the two reports from the two experts who looked at it independently were consistent, were the same, then they would be accepted as a final. If they were deferred, then we would ask another person, a third person, to review the case, and then they would have to come to a consensus of what is the cause of death or injury.

NK: During the trial, as you likely know, medical experts testified, and they would likely disagree with, with your findings. Was there a lot of disagreement among these panelists during this process?

SL: There were only two cases where there were differences in opinion, and it wasn't about whether there was malfeasance. They both felt that it wasn't malfeasance, but they had different causes for the cause of injury or death. The reason for that was that it required expertise that was beyond neonatology. For example, in one case, it required a surgeon's input. And similarly, in the other case, we needed a pathologist.

NK: If, if the medical evidence you looked at, in your view, does not show that these were murders, then what do you believe caused all of these deaths?

SL: The medical evidence that we saw showed that all these babies died or had injuries resulting from either natural causes, or errors in medical treatment. And, you know, it is quite clear when you look at the evidence that those were the reasons. So, it gave us no evidence to suggest that malfeasance was involved.

NK: If it's so clear, how did this case get to this point?

SL: I don't know. I didn't go to the first trial. I suspect that one of the problems was that the defence did not call any medical expert witnesses. My understanding is that the expert witness, and they had no expert witnesses. And the only witnesses that they called was a respected character reference for the defendant. Now, I cannot answer any question about why that was the case. The other, of course, is that whether or not the expert witnesses for the prosecution were correct because they had never seen a case with embolism, for example. Yet, they were, you know, making pronouncements using my paper, which I had said was wrong.

NK: Yeah. And to, to underline for our listeners, though, Lucy Letby was found guilty based on lots of different types of evidence, medical records, but also text messages, statistical evidence, and handwritten notes by Lucy Letbly, some of which said things such as, quote, I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough, unquote. Do you feel that the evidence you reviewed is enough to say Letby is innocent?

SL: So, we only reviewed the medical evidence. We did not review the rest of the evidence because we're only doctors. You know, we're not other people. So, for us, the medical evidence said that there was no malfeasance. Now, if the court has other evidence to suggest that she killed them, well, that's for the court to decide. The only thing we can say is that if the babies did not die from some other, from a cause, we have medical reasons to believe why they died. And if they died from those causes, then how does the malfeasance come in?

NK: What would you say, Dr. Lee, to the families involved in this case who lost their children, who might be upset?

SL: Yes, I, we appreciate that. And as we started in our press conference, we said that our hearts go out to them. And we understand that they face a lot of anguish and distress. And this, reopening this case is very disturbing because they were initially told that the babies died from something, and then they were told that there was a murder. And now, they're being told that maybe it wasn't a murder after all. So, this is extremely distressing. I have looked after these, you know, babies like this for 40 years, my whole career. One thing I can tell you is that parents want to know the truth. And we offer them as much support as we can at this time.

NK: Dr. Lee, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

SL: Thank you.

CH: Dr. Shoo Lee is a retired neonatologist, and the president of the Canadian Neonatal Foundation. We reached him in Hay Lakes, Alberta.

[sad piano]

LR: More Cats VS. Dogs

CH: We can't just start a fire and walk away from it. So today, we're going back to Talkback, to hear from you once again on the incendiary question: cats...or dogs. James Rooney of Toronto wrote in with an extremely graphic retelling of what he calls a "cat assassination attempt." I'll spare you the gory details -- but he closes out his email by saying, "Cats are all vicious killers, totally lacking in scruples, and always looking for a way to turn everything into a meal." So you know what? I'm going to pencil Mr. Rooney in on Team Dog. And I'm going to suggest Katherine in Edmonton as his co-captain, because writes "Cats are of the devil...dogs read you, and have a service spirit, while cats are self-serving. Have you ever seen a 'seeing eye' cat? Or watched the Littlest Hobo? Thank you...point made." Some valid stuff there, Katherine, but it's kind of a low blow bringing the Littlest Hobo into this, okay? He was a hero. Speaking of the devil -- by which I mean cats -- a very famous one has just made a foray back into the public eye. Which might come as a pleasant surprise to some, because his time away from the limelight led many to assume the worst. For years, Palmerston served as chief mouser at the British Foreign Office, until his retirement in 2020. But now, he's made a political comeback: Palmerston is beginning a new life of feline diplomacy in Bermuda. This week, a post on his X account reads ,“I’ve been busy meeting very welcoming Bermudians.” Palmerston had many friends in his previous post as well. But he also made some powerful enemies -- including Larry the cat, longtime chief mouser at 10 Downing Street. The pair were reportedly seen fighting on numerous occasions. Larry was known not to suffer fools gladly. In 2022, for example, he fended off a fox that had made its way onto Downing Street. At that time we spoke to Patrick Roberts, who maintains the Purr N Fur Famous Felines website -- which features a detailed history of Chief Mousers and other political cats of the U.K.

SOUNDCLIP

PATRICK ROBERTS: Well, cats are very territorial, as I'm sure you know. And Larry saw this strange animal on his patch, and he wasn't having it. But I think it was quite courageous because foxes can be quite mean to cats. Maybe Larry didn't know that.

NK: Maybe Larry didn't know that. Maybe Larry didn't care because the fox came back a second time, and Larry was right back at it.

PR: He's had a go at pigeons before, although I don't think he's caught one, and he's had some spats with other cats that have ventured onto his turf. But for the fox, I think that's a first.

NK: For people who haven't seen Larry, can you describe what Larry looks like?

PR: Larry is a… he's getting on in years now. He's 15 years old, and he's just a fairly regular tabby and white cat. He's very handsome, yeah.

NK: We were looking at the Number 10 Downing website, Patrick, and it says, quote, Larry is contemplating a solution to the mouse occupancy of the house.

PR: That's right. That's right.

NK: I have a couple questions here. One, why does the Prime Minister's residence and office still have a mouse problem? But two, how good is Larry at actually catching mice?

PR: I don't think he's very good. [NK chuckles] He was taken on as Chief Mouser, but I don't believe he's actually caught very many mice. But he's sort of caught the public imagination, and the staff there are very fond of him. So he stays. He greets guests, inspects security defences and tests antique furniture for napping quality. [both chuckle]

NK: It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it, right?

PR: That's right. These are old buildings. And so, I think there are, you know, plenty of rodents around. But very often, the actual presence of a cat is sufficient to keep them away. So maybe there actually aren't all that many to be caught.

NK: I hope… I hope that's the case.

PR: Yeah.

NK: How far back, Patrick, does this tradition of having a cat serve as Official Mouser at the Prime Minister's residence go? How far back?

PR: That's hard to answer. There have been cats in various government departments for over a century, not continuously, but there have been cats in the Treasury, in the Foreign Office, in the Home Office, as well as in Downing Street. But the actual appointment of, if you like, a regular Mouser in Downing Street itself probably only goes back to about 1970s, I would say.

CH: From Our Archives, Patrick Roberts, an expert in Chief Mousers and other political cats. He spoke to Nil in 2022.

The AIH Transcript For February 7, 2025

Social Sharing