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 2016

The AIH Transcript for January 26, 2017

Hosts: Helen Mann and Chris Howden

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello I'm Helen Mann.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight.

HM: Underprepared for overdoses. Last year, a 20 year old B.C. man died after ODing on opioids in an addiction treatment center. And today the jury at a coroner's inquest issued 21 recommendations to prevent similar deaths.

CH: Up for the wall or up against it. U.S. President Donald Trump says he'll put a big, beautiful wall on the border with Mexico. But one of our guests thinks that's too much. And the other thinks it’s not enough.

HM: Read ‘em and stop the weeping. A report on Canada's deflating media industry has some bold recommendations to pump it back up, including a $100 million dollar investment from Ottawa.

CH: Weaving together the strands. For two decades, an unsolved murder has tormented an Ontario detective. And now he's turning to a new technique that creates a picture of the suspect from DNA.

HM: High otter-mark. A fossil discovery in northern China reveals a species of prehistoric otter that was much like our modern version, except even more terrifying because it was the size of a wolf.

CH: And up close and poison-al. An Australian zoo needs funnel spider venom to make anti-venom. So it's requesting a favor from the public. If you see one of the horribly dangerous things in your home please pop it in a jar. As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that finds all this terrible jarring terribly jarring.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Overdose clinics inquest, media industry report, funnel web spider

Overdose clinics inquest

Guest: Michelle Jansen

CHRIS HOWDEN: Brandon Jansen was one of 914 people in British Columbia who died from a drug overdose last year.
Last March, staff at a private drug treatment center found Mr. Jansen dead in his room. He had gone there to make his eleventh attempt at recovery.
Yesterday, a coroner's inquest into his death was released. It includes 21 recommendations for improving care at drug treatment centers in the province. Last November, when the coroner's inquest was announced, we spoke with Brandon's mother, Michelle Jansen. We reached her again today, in Coquitlam, British Columbia.

HELEN MANN: Ms. Jansen, first of all, my condolences for the loss of your son.

MICHELLE JANSEN: Thank you. Thank you.

HM: What do you think could have prevented Brandon's death at that treatment center last March?

MJ: Rules and regulations governing how the treatment center runs. Security measures, proper medical attention, proper lifesaving medications on site, and basically some are keeping an eye on him, which didn't happen.

HM: Were those things that you assumed were in place at the time?

MJ: Yes absolutely. I was under the understanding that Sunshine Coast Treatment Center was one of the provinces are highly touted treatment centers and certainly from paying almost $40,000 for his treatment, I assumed that they would be on top of things like this and at least take care of the basic foundation of treatment. But unfortunately that wasn't the case. And ultimately, my son died there.

HM: There are 21 recommendations in today's report. What are the key ones that you are pleased to see on that list?

MJ: Well I'm pleased to see that Suboxone is being recommended as the preferred treatment for opioid addiction. Suboxone is the medication that prevents relapse, controls the craving. I'm pleased to see that Naloxone is being recommended for schools. Naloxone is a life saving device. I was horrified to learn in November that Sunshine Coast Treatment Center didn't have Naloxone onsite, and had they had Naloxone, they could very well have saved my son's life.
In terms of, you know, regulating the treatment centers, I mean that's key. That's paramount. Right now they are not being regulated. They're being regulated by the health care authorities under the Residential Care Act which is not geared for addiction treatment centers. It’s geared towards care home and child care facilities. I mean, an addiction treatment centers is a very very different animal. And for it not to be regulated and safeguards just attest to the fact of how it's possible that my son died.

HM: In the recommendation, there's also some about developing and improving substance abuse treatment facilities, specifically for teenagers. What kind of difference do you think that would make?

MJ: Well it's going to make a huge difference, because right now in the province of B.C. there’s very few. You know, I think there's really only two, which are always full. Four to six months waitinglist. And basically, that's where drug addiction starts. And if you can't get a handle on that drug addiction while they’re a youth, then they just continue to spin into adulthood and the addiction grows even stronger and even greater. And then it's even more difficult to overcome that.

HM: One of the most striking things which you know you have pointed out, we've already discussed to some degree, is the fact that your son died at a private treatment center at a time when he was trying to get better. What do you want those who operate those treatment centers to know?

MJ: I want the treatment center providers to know and to understand that when a family member is putting their loved one into their care, that the expectation is that once their loved one is accepted into their care, and they know what the addiction is, that there is an expectation that their center has that correct medicine, that correct treatment personnel, nurses, doctors, treatment, programs that the treatment center has the adequate security to keep drugs out, that treatment center has measures in place to ensure that the other clients within their center are not actively using drugs, and that that is enough supervision, especially for new clients to come in who are at a huge danger of relapse.

HM: Do you think there's been much progress given all the focus that we've had not just in B.C. but across the country on fentanyl and opioid use in general. In the last year, have things improved in any way?

MJ: Well now, doctors are able to prescribe Suboxone, however part of that is there are so many doctors out there that don't have the training. So they're not prescribing Suboxone. Now I understand that Suboxone is free to those earning less than $42,000 a year. But those things have just come into play just within the last few weeks. So for it to have taken this long, I think it's completely negligent. I don't think there's enough being done. I think there's a lot of political optics and posturing in terms of forming task forces and committees to discuss the problems, and with the number of fatalities increasing every month, there is no luxury of time. And I take exception to the fact that the government in my opinion, is not moving with haste.

HM: And what level of government do you point the finger at?

MJ: I point to here in B.C. I definitely point the finger at the provincial government. I think there's… you know they've been very very slow to react. I think the federal government as well. This is a national crisis and it is landing on their doorstep momentarily. So there is a federal responsibility as well. And I know Prime Minister Trudeau has promised federal funding for mental health. Now that they are lumping mental health and addiction into the same pod, if you will, those monies are going towards mental health. They’re not being directed towards addiction specifically. And that is what needs to be done.

HM: Your other son Nick was also dealing with fentanyl issues when we spoke with you in November. How is he doing now?

MJ: He's doing really well. You know, I thought I was going to lose another son. He didn't deal with Brandon's death and he spiraled into the same addiction. I was able to put Nick into a smaller private center that had recently opened, and he was successful in his recovery. I mean recovery is a lifelong thing. But in terms of, you know, he's on Suboxone and will continue to be, you know who knows at what point he will come off. Right now that is, that is a stabilizing drug, and Nicholas, case in point, is a true testament to that. He's doing really well. He's working with the Brandon Jensen Foundation that I created in my son's name. He's giving speeches and talks and facilitating a number of different forums and participating in helping others. And he's doing really, really well.

HM: It's good to hear he is doing better. Thank you very much Ms. Jensen, I appreciate you talking to us.

MJ: Of course. Thank you for having me.

HM: OK bye.

MJ: Bye bye.

CH: That was Michelle Jansen. She's in Coquitlam, British Columbia. A coroner's inquest into her son Brandon's overdose death was released yesterday. It includes recommendations for making drug treatment centers more regulated -- and for increasing access to opioid maintenance drugs.

[Music]

From Our Archives: Michael Applebaum

CH: In a Montreal courtroom today, the former city mayor, Michael Applebaum, appeared to faint. And that was before the verdict was handed down.
Once he had recovered, Mr. Applebaum was told he was guilty on eight charges of corruption. He'd been accused of asking for cash kickbacks in exchange for approving development projects, back when he was the mayor of a Montreal borough.
Michael Applebaum came to power as corruption scandals engulfed the city. We spoke to him when he became interim mayor of Montreal in 2012, after the resignation of Gerald Tremblay. He was the first Anglophone to be mayor of the city in 100 years.
Here's part of that interview, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL APPLEBAUM: I have to tell you that yes, I'm an Anglophone. At the same time, I grew up in Montreal, and I'm a proud Quebecer. I'm a Canadian. Yeah I do make some errors once in a while but that's OK. I think we have bigger issues than a few mistakes. Maybe my accent.

CAROL OFF: Truly you have bigger issues and you're inheriting a city that is reeling from a scandal that mayor Gerald Tremblay has resigned in the midst of all these corruption allegations and the talk of mafia running the construction industry. Did you know that that those things were going on?

MA: Well first of all, I have to tell you that I was elected with Gerald Tremblay in 2001. I wasn't put on the Executive Committee until 2010, and that was only once certain people like the President of the Executive Committee left, which was Frank Zampino. If you take a look at what they're saying in the Charbonneau Commission about collusion and corruption, that stopped around 2009. And I became the president of the Executive Committee in 2010. So we’ve put in many measures in place to stop collusion and corruption. And there's still a lot more work to be done and this is why I wanted to be mayor of Montreal. I want to regain the support of Montrealers and they're being proud to be a Montrealers.

CO: Well you’re certainly making history. But at the same time you are going to see this corruption inquiry, the Charbonneau inquiry, is going to continue while you are in office. More allegations, more is going to come out. In fact they say the worst is yet to come. How are you going to ride that?

MA: I'm going to do the job that I have to do. What I'm looking to do also was to put together a committee of recognizable people, important people that will be able to look at how do we recoup our money, how do we clean up the city of Montreal, and how do we establish the confidence that Montrealers should have in their elected officials. Not only that, but I stated very clearly that I will not be running for mayor in 2013, I havea job to do. It's an objective of mine is to clean things up, but we're going to go into an election campaign. And once again, politics will come into play. As an independent Mayor, I will not get involved in the politics. My objective here is to serve the citizens, and I'll be above the political wrangling back and forth.

CH: That was Michael Applebaum back when he was made the interim mayor of Montreal in 2012. Today Mr. Applebaum was found guilty on eight corruption charges. He had faced a total of 14 charges of conspiracy, breach of trust, and corruption.

[Music]

Media industry report

Guest: Edward Greenspon

CH: It's no secret that there is a crisis in the news media. For years, traditional journalism outlets have been struggling to stay profitable in the shifting media landscape. Today, a report commissioned by the federal government is recommending some drastic changes to help shore up the industry.
Edward Greenspon is the president and CEO of the Public Policy Forum, which released the report. He previously worked as the editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail, and as a senior executive for the Toronto Star and Bloomberg News. We reached Mr. Greenspon in Toronto.

HM: Mr. Greenspon, just this week, Post Media, Canada's largest newspaper chain, laid off more people, 15 positions at the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette. Where do you see the industry headed at this point?

EDWARD GREENSPON: Well the industry is heading only in one direction and that’s down down down. So I think we'll see much more of what we have seen if we don't begin to think about our policies.

HM: Now as part of the report, you surveyed hundreds of Canadians on their views about the media. What kind of things did you find?

EG: You find that they care about news, they interact with news, a lot of the news they get is on Facebook. Except if it's really important. If it's really important, they want to go back to traditional media, from brands they know, to journalists they know. They trust traditional media more than they trust social media. And then they don't really understand that there's a crisis. They kind of heard of, some of them, about newspapers being in crisis, and then they have such a high reverence of journalists and the role that journalism plays in democracy that they are bothered by the idea of government subsidizing journalism. They're bothered and think that somehow or another will interfere with that independence, even if you happen to point out the CBC to them, they still have that concern.

HM: So you're calling for $100 million dollars in federal investment. What would that accomplish?

EG: So the $100 million is just seed money to get a fund started. We essentially have a sort of double recommendation that tries to keep this process as independent as possible, as distant as possible from government. So one is a reform of the tax laws that exist for news media. Because there have been special tax laws, Section 19 of the income tax act, since 1965 to modernize it for Internet age and to produce some revenue off the distributors of news, the platforms that do not also invest in Canadian journalism. This is a principle that has insisted for a long time with the cable levy that supports film and television production. So we say, do that, produce a pool of money that's not reliant on government but that comes in from advertising and from the industry itself. And then put that money into a fund that would be ultra-arm’s length from the government, a greater arm's length than in fact that CBC is, because it would have a board of directors that’s not actually appointed by government, and give it the mandate to begin to help certain sectors of the system, particularly for democracy enhancing journalism and for general innovation.

HM: But the hundred million dollars in seed money from the government. How does that differ from the idea of, in some ways, the bailout is that these people said that they don't like.

EG: It's just a way to get it started so that, you know, it can hire its executives and get going before the money starts coming in. We asked to see the money amounting to 300 to 400 million dollars a year, that will come from the 10 percent levy that we're talking about, because it would be close to $4 billion of advertising that we think would fall out of the Section 19. And then you know you don't have to go back to the government.

HM: One of the other recommendations involves the CBC being barred from selling online ads as well as changing its news focus to something you describe as civic function journalism and something that would actually be provided free to other publishers. It sounds like it had visions, CBC is almost a news service for other parts of the industry.

EG: Yeah. So you know there's three recommendations there that directly affect the CBC, and they're based on the idea that the CBC is the most important news institution in the country, has the most journalists, and is a provider of trustworthy news in a time and place, in a country and in the world where we're seeing more fake news in the system. So we want to actually lean a little bit more heavily on CBC. First thing we say is, in CBC’s budget, within its mandate is supposed to inform, enlighten and entertain, and we say let's get you know a little bit heavy up the informed piece of that equation.
Second thing we say is, let's get out of digital advertising for cbc.ca, so very small small piece of the CBC budget. But digital advertising distracts the CBC from its core mission of serious journalism. It makes everybody who chases digital advertising follow a little bit of a click mentality. Let's get more clicks.
And then finally, as you say, we get something called the Creative Commons license. And we say let’s experiment with that. Let's make the CBC into a public provider of high quality information to the Canadian media ecosystem.

HM: Doesn't that risk making news even more homogeneous and less diverse?

EG: Well in and of itself, it could do that. It's really just distributing the news around more. But you know, there's other recommendations as you'll see, to have the Canadian press take a mandate to supply local news in the country. There's recommendations to support Indigenous news. Now there's an area of democracy where you have a lot of other than the Aboriginal People’s Television Network, which is a substantial news organization. You know it's almost all two and three people shops covering the democracy of indigenous communities. So in of itself, yes, but we actually are really trying to create a much more diverse system. And the fund that we would create would hopefully help nurture some of the smaller digital only organizations that have got started in this country that just can't seem to quite get enough scale, they can't kind of make it up the hill far enough. And this is meant to sort of give them that little push up the hill.

HM: Now CBC, of course, has its own ideas about changing the funding model with the senior manager suggesting an extra 400 million dollars be given to the organization in exchange for going ad free, and that includes the online advertisement you're talking about. So do you support their initiative?

EG: Well I certainly support the part of the initiative which is about digital advertising. The television side was really, I kind of thought, a little bit outside our mandate. Very little of television advertising has to do with news. Television advertising doesn't seem to have the same kind of clickbait problem that we see in all sites across the world. So we just said, you know, we're going to leave that Madame Joly, the Culture Minister, has a another review going on vis-à-vis cultural industries, and we thought that would be more appropriate for them to deal with.

HM: What's at stake if something isn't done to change the situation and how we're heading?

EG: We're heading in a poor direction for democracy. And our mandate wasn't to save the news industry. Our mandate was very decidedly to figure out how is democracy best served by news? News and democracy have been closely related to each other for 300 or 400 years. And I think that at some point, on the trail we're going, they'll have to be a form of support, or else accepting that there'll be a far less robust new system looking at our democracy.

HM: All right. Edward Greenspon it's good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

EG: Thank you.

CH: Edward Greenspon is the president and CEO of the Public Policy Forum, which released a report today proposing wide-ranging recommendations to help the drowning news media industry. He is a former editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music]

Funnel-web spider

CH: “If you see a deadly spider, catch it and bring it to us.” That's the request from a zoo in Australia. The Australian Reptile Park has put out a plea for adults to catch funnel-web spiders to replenish their stores of anti-venom.
Tim Faulkner is the general manager of the Australian Reptile Park. We reached him in Somersby, Australia, north of Sydney.

HM: Tim Faulkner, we here in Canada, aren't too familiar with this kind of arachnid. What do funnel web spiders look like?

TIM FAULKNER: Funnel-webs are a pretty classical, cliché looking dangerous spider. You know they are a deep, rich black. They’ve got burs all over their body. They’re a dumpy spider, meaning they’re quite heavy shit. You know, and they look, if you like, rather scary.

HM: How big are they?

TF: They're not a massive spider. So they're not like the size of a tarantula. But I guess you could say that one would just comfortably fit in the palm of your hand.

HM: But maybe not so comfortably for me.

TF: Yeah… nor me. But for the imagination, you could seat it on the palm of your hand.

HM: Now tell us why you want these spiders.

TF: OK so the funnel-web spider has a very strong venom. It’s very painful but it also has a really strong neurotoxin, and essentially, you know people do die, have died. 76 minutes was the quickest bite to death. So in 1981, the reptile parking guys with an organization called the Bio CSL, CSL stands for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and began to make anti-venom. Now that's a two stage process. One is to get the raw venom from spiders. You have to milk the spider. Once you've got that real venom, then you send it off to the Serum Laboratories where they turn it into anti-venom.
Now we need funnel-webs, male funnel-webs – they’re five times more venomous than the females – to extract their venom.
Now we can go out on expeditions and try and catch a bunch of… it doesn't work. But the Sydney funnel-web which is the one we're particularly interested in, it lives in our most populated part of Australia. So there are so many eyes and ears out there that after a good patch of weather, are going to bump into these spiders. So we need community support and essentially, we have drop off points within about 200 kilometers of the reptile park. Veterinary clinics, hospitals etc. So you know, the irony of it as well is though, is that, to catch the spider, which means just to flick it into a jar gently with a ruler or a wooden spoon. It's actually safer than trying to squish it with a thong, or you know, a shoe, because if you hit it with a shoe, and you miss, you know, so ironically you’re safer trying to touch the spider then you are trying to kill it.

HM: But you're talking about one of the world's most dangerous spiders. If you flick with that spoon, and it lands somewhere that you don't expect, you know, couldn't something goes seriously wrong?

TF: Something could go seriously wrong. However, we have done this for the last 35 years and nothing has gone wrong. So that would indicate that it's a reasonably sound process. Funnel-webs, as I mentioned earlier, they're heavy set. They’re thick-bodied. They don't jump. They don't run. They're a really distinctive spider with big fangs. They’ll sit up and show their fangs. So when you use a wooden spoon, you don’t put your other hand any way near it. You put a container on the ground and you gently… I mean when you touch the spider, it will go in there. So it’s a reasonably simple process in that capacity.

HM: Do you throw the spoon out immediately afterwards?

TF: No, no need. There's no need. I mean, again I would never suggest this, but hypothetically, if there was some venom on the spoon or something and you touched it, as long as it doesn't get into a cut or anything, like there's no problem. It doesn't come with… the likelihood of that again is very very small.

HM: Do you have any pushback from people who are saying gee this is this is ridiculous. You know what could go wrong here? Someone's going to get hurt, maybe?

TF: No not at all. I mean look, we often get asked the question “Is it dangerous?” But the thing is, you have to consider that anyone that's likely to bring us a funnel -web means they live in an area where funnel-webs are, which means they are a candidate to get bitten by a funnel-web, which means they might need the anti-venom one day. And I asked you to put the shoe on the other foot and consider that it’s your child that’s bitten by this spider, and within an hour they’re dropped into a coma, and you've got a choice now of anti-venom, or a fight much worse. And I live with that, and I get beautiful notes from families that have had young children in particular that have been bitten and survived because of anti-venom. So you know, if you have a look at what's more dangerous: to be bitten by the spider and not have anti-venom, or to flick the spider into the jar. And that will put it in context.

HM: Have you yourself milked one of these spiders?

TF: Yes, all the time. I've milked them for the last 12 years.

HM: Have you ever been bitten?

TF: I certainly have not. Now I’ve also milked Australia’s most venomous snakes for the last 20 years, and no I haven't. I've had many a close call, but a very healthy respect for wildlife. If it’s biter snakes or anything in between. You know, I've also never had a serious car crash, and that, in the same context, is… yeah, I drive with the stakes. I'm aware of my surroundings, I apply myself to what I'm doing. Things like that are avoidable with a healthy respect.

HM: Thank you for reminding us yet again that Australia is a whole different world.

TF: Yeah, well in saying that it is. It is. And you know, I visited North America, Canada, Alaska last year and I mean, it was beautiful. You guys have moose and bears. What do you do? How do you stop one of them becomes I’ve lived, you know, in and around the bush in Australia my whole life. I walk barefoot. I walk in shorts. I catch snakes. I play with spiders. But I’ve never been bitten. So for outsiders and such, I think, I think we like the romanticism of the fact that we have these deadly creatures. But you know crossing a set of lights in a major city after a few beers is far more dangerous than our wildlife.

HM: Mr. Faulkner, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I wish you luck in getting more of those spiders.

TF: Yeah. Thank you very much. Good on you. And yet we hope to continue it for many many years to come.

HM: Nice to talk to you. Bye bye.

TF: Bye.

CH: Tim Faulkner is the general manager of Australian Reptile Park in Somersby, Australia. That is where we reached him. And you can at least catch some pictures of the funnel-web spider on our website, cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Mexican wall: rancher, Mexican wall: dual Mexican-U.S. citizen

Mexican wall: rancher

Guest: John Ladd

CHRIS HOWDEN: Less than a week after he was inaugurated, President Donald Trump has announced that he'll make good on one of his most frequently repeated -- and chanted -- campaign promises.
Yesterday, the President signed an executive order to build a wall along the border with Mexico. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed that Congress will move ahead with the plan. Mr. McConnell estimates it'll cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars.
John Ladd is a cattle rancher whose property meets the Mexican border, south of Bisbee, Arizona. That's where we reached him.

HELEN MANN: Mr. Ladd, you have a wall on your property as I understand it, you're right near there now. Can you describe it for us?

JOHN LADD: Well we've had a steel wall since 2006, between ten and 14 feet tall, and they're rebuilding a seven and a half miles of that wall with an 18 foot Ballard wall. Well it's six inch by six inch tubing and it's grouted with concrete and rebar and then at the top five feet of it is a piece of sheet metal. So it eliminates anybody trying to get a handhold or it's a slick area where they, a ladder won't stand up against it, can't hook a rope on it or anything like that.

HM: How often are people getting through that wall on your property in the area around you?

JL: Everyday. Right now it's what they call OTMs other than Mexican, mostly South Americans. They climb it, cut it, do whatever they want with it.

HM: You’ve expressed some concern I guess in the past that some of these people are coming through because they're running drugs, is that right?

JL: Right. And that that's the Mexican cartel, and that is the big concern right now. There's two or three loads of backpacker meals, you know, 50 pound bundles backpacking through, three times a week, that that's happening.

HM: How do you know that?

JL: Well, the Border Patrol, they're successful in a lot of times catching the drugs, but the people get away, that are packing it. But then I see it once in a while, when they come through the ranch, they just cut all of my barbed-wire fences. I've got three East-West fences, different pastures on the ranch, and they just cut my fences and get to the highway and load up in a vehicle and go wherever they're going to go. What I was keeping track of it, from 2012 to 2014, we had 54 full size trucks full of dope come through the ranch. Two of them, they got stuck in a ditch and they found the truck full of dope. But the 52 others got away.

HM: What effect does this have on you personally?

JL: The big thing is, is I spend 50 percent of my time fixing and checking fences, waters, gates. Make sure my cattle are on the ranch. We've dealt with this for 30 years and still bad for my wife. When our kids were growing up, you know, you had to make sure you knew where your kids were all the time. You know, it's a huge deal. Then about five years ago, Rob Krentz got killed, one of our neighbor ranchers. Illegals killed him on his ranch. And after that happened, everybody really were very aware of our surroundings now.

HM: Were those people caught and convicted?

JL: No. No.

HM: How do you know that migrants were responsible for his death?

JL: Where the Krentz ranch is, is a big corridor for drugs. And they go north up the I-10, the freeway, drop their load of dope, and then they steal from all the ranch communities coming back, going to the border town of Douglas.

HM: Why are you convinced President Trump's proposal will fix this problem?

JL: Well I think that the biggest benefit so far is that he's addressed the illegal immigration. Everything he said about the border, in my opinion, is true, and that's what we've experienced. And building the wall, is either a physical wall or is it going to be a wall of tariffs or you know, just a figure of speech, but build a wall economically to make Mexico more aware of the people that they're sending to the U.S.

HM: So for you, is the wall more symbolic then, than an actual real actual structural wall that you're looking for?

JL: I think so. You know, one of the things I’ve said is, if Border Patrol was allowed to patrol the border, you know, and our Congress has not allowed that to happen. They want to put them every place else except right on the international boundary. The fact is, that if you put agents on the border, in line of sight with each other, you don't need a wall. You need a fence, to keep livestock from going back and forth, but you wouldn't need a wall. And then if we enforce our immigration laws and have consequences for people getting caught coming illegally, I think it would stop.

HM: If the government were to actually go ahead and build an actual wall, do you think it would be worth the 10 to 15 billion dollars that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, says it would cost?

JL: I don't. I think that's a waste of money. I would be prepared to be involved in that 10 to 15 billion dollars, if manpower and other avenues. But I think the wall is a waste of money. If you're not going to patrol someplace close to a town, a wall might be a benefit. But if it's in a remote area, and there's nobody on the border to watch it, it's worthless.

HM: Do you have sympathy for some of the people you talked about earlier, who are coming up from Central and South America and Mexico, and who are just wanting to find a better life?

JL: Well I used to. The last four or five years, I won't deny anybody help. And we've helped a bunch of people. But at this stage of the game, it's if you're coming illegally and you don't understand the position you're putting yourself in by coming this way. That's your fault. It's not a humanitarian issue anymore. It's a constitutional issue with me. And if you don't have legal papers or go through the right process to become a citizen, I don't have any sympathy for you.

HM: Do you support deportations?

JL: On the criminal element, I do.

HM: And everybody else?

JL: No, you know our Ag economy is dependent on illegal workers right now in America. Americans don't want to do that kind of work. And if those people don't have a criminal record and they're trying to assimilate into our society and they got a job. I’d promote getting them legal status, I don't know if they'd ever become a citizen or not but they could be here legally.

HM: Do you think President Trump understands all of that?

JL: I don't know. I haven't ever heard him… I I've heard him talk about deporting everybody, but I know that would cripple our Ag industry if we deported everybody in that.

HM: So if you had his ear today, what's the heart of the message you want to get to him?

JL: Well I'd tell him to take a hard look at the Ag industry, and that I agree with him on the deportation. But the big thing that we need that would solve a lot of the illegal immigration is to have a legitimate work program.

HM: Mr. Ladd, I appreciate you taking the time to talk with us today. Thank you very much.

JL: Well thank you, and thanks for keeping this in the forefront. Bye.

CH: John Ladd is a cattle rancher whose property meets the Mexican border south of Bisbee, Arizona.

Mexican wall: dual Mexican-U.S. citizen

Guest: Jeanice Guzman

CH: 50 kilometers east of Mr. Ladd’s property is the town of Douglas, Arizona. It's also situated directly on the border, and Jeanice Guzman has lived there for 13 years. She's a dual Mexican-U.S. citizen. We reached her in nearby Bisbee, Arizona.

HM: Ms. Guzman, all throughout the election campaign, we heard President Trump supporters yelling “Build that wall.” Egged on by then, Candidate Trump. What was it like yesterday to see the president actually following through on the first stage of that election promise?

JG: Well it was not surprising at all. I mean, he did build his whole campaign on two things. Persecuting Hillary, and the other one was building a wall. So if he couldn't go forth with one, I think he was going to stick to his guns and see what he could do about the second option which would be building the war.

HM: You live in Douglas. That is right on the Mexican border. So when the president's proposal comes up in your town, what kind of things do you hear? What are people saying?

JG: It's a very unspoken understanding between my friends, my community, my family, that it’s just a big project to take on. You know, where we live, it's a bi-cultural place. It's a bilingual place, it's bi-racial. And so a wall would just disrupt the daily life of thousands of individuals that live right along border cities or border towns.

HM: There's a wall just down the street from you right? I mean, an existing wall.

JG: It's a fence. It's a steel fence. If I step out of my house onto the street, I can see it. It's literally 10 blocks away from my house. I think it's about 20 feet tall.

HM: Do you find you're aware of it or is it just begun to blend in?

JG: It's blended in. I mean you know just living on a border, you don't think about it. You grow up around it. And I cross the border, you know, once or twice every week. The fact that it's not a wall, the fact that you can see through it, allows for that blending of language and culture and lifestyle.

HM: What is your own family's story? Can you share a bit of that with us?

JG: Yes. My family decided to move to Douglas about 13 years ago. My two siblings and I, we are U.S. citizens. We were born here, but we grew up in Mexico. And my parents decided that since we are citizens, that we are entitled to certain rights. The most important one that they saw fit at the time was education. And so they decided that it would be best for us to move here.

HM: We just spoke to a cattle rancher who lives south of Bisbee who said that the current fence that you've described to us is really ineffective. How easy do you think it is? I mean you say you pass back and forth once a week. But in terms for people who are undocumented, who are crossing back and forth, how easy is it to get over or under that wall?

JG: Oh it's so easy. I mean, it's a tall steel fence right by the ports of entry, but it's almost virtually nonexistent when you travel outside of town for about 30 minutes or so, it’s just a little steel fence. It won't stop either drugs or people crossing. And building a wall will not stop that from happening either.

HM: Why not? Why would a war be ineffective in your mind?

JG: Because a large physical barrier right on the border won't fix the issues at their core. There’s so much more that goes beyond somebody's crossing over the border, or somebody sending drugs over the border. So building a wall is not being effective.

HM: The rancher we spoke with acknowledged the economic role that undocumented migrants play, especially in the agriculture industry. But he also said that he has people crossing onto his land, that includes drug smugglers, cutting through his property and that it's concerning to him and his neighbors and his family. What do you say to that?

JG: I do believe that. But at the same time, you know, these people, the ones at a disadvantage that are crossing the border, I do know that most of them do not mean harm to the ranchers, and I do think that some of these concerns can also come from a place of prejudice.

HM: Have you actually had a chance to speak with some of the people who crossed this border?

JG: I have, yes. The most recent one was last year and it was a little boy. He was 10 years old and he was roaming the streets in Douglas. And it was late at night. I stopped because I didn't know if he was lost, and his story is basically his mom is living in somewhere in Illinois, and he was trying to make his way to his mom.

HM: Do you know what happened to him?

JG: No money, no food, no water. I do know what happened to him. He was approached later that night by police, and he was taken into custody, and then he had to go to court. I think about a month or two later, he was released to the custody of his mother.

HM: If you had a chance to speak with Donald Trump directly, what would you say to him about your concerns and how he might balance those with the concerns of people like the rancher we spoke to?

JG: Well you know, I wouldn't try and voice my opinion as much as I would rather have him come down and see for himself what it is to be here. You know it's one thing to live right in the middle of this controversy then just be calling the shots from miles and miles away. And so if he were to see that, I would only hope that it would change the way he perceives what a wall means, or it would mean, for people like us.

HM: Ms. Guzman, thank you for taking the time to talk to us.

JG: Thank you.

HM: All right, goodbye.

JG: Bye bye.

CH: Jeanice Guzman is a dual Mexican-U.S. citizen who lives in Douglas, Arizona, a town situated on the Mexican-U.S. border. We reached her today in Bisbee, Arizona.
For more on this story, including some photos of that existing border wall in Arizona, go to our website, cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

From Our Archives: Maher Arar Anniversary

CH: Ten years ago today, the Canadian government issued a formal apology to Maher Arar. They also put a price on the unbearable pain he suffered in a Syrian jail: 10.5 million dollars -- the largest compensation package the federal government ever awarded.
You're likely familiar with Mr. Arar's story. In 2002, the Syrian-born Canadian was detained and interrogated by U.S. authorities and sent to Syria. The 10 months and 10 days he spent in a Syrian jail were a living hell.
In January 2007, Mr. Arar was still waiting on a formal apology from the U.S. government. He had also filed a suit against the U.S. administration under former President George W. Bush.
We spoke to him about that suit in December 2008. Here is Maher Arar speaking with Helen, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

MAHER ARAR: The actions that the US officials took when they decided to send me to Syria distorted and destroyed my life, and they are the ones directly responsible for these actions. And I think they need to be held to account. They didn't only do this to me. They've done this to hundreds of people. The only difference in my case is that I am the only person who was rendered or sent to Syria from the U.S. All the other cases happened outside the US. And I think, in that respect, I have a very strong case here.

HM: So what would be for you an adequate to indication that they are being held to account? What is it that you want the court to do?

MA: At the minimum, I would like to hear that what was done to me is wrong. And hopefully they'll give instructions to the government to apologize. And hopefully, by them making a favorable decision, this would deter future administrations from engaging in the same kind of policy.

HM: Would then an apology be enough for you? And would it be an official government apology? Would it be apologies by the individuals, Homeland Security, the CIA?

MA: No I think I think it's sufficient to hear from the government. If you remember the many many members of Congress apologized to me last year. In fact some of them were from the Republican Party and I very very much appreciated their gesture then, and at the end of the day, I think it's very important for me and my family to hear this from the government directly.

HM: Now, have you ever been tempted to say you know, enough already, I'm done with this and walk away?

MA: Well some days yes. I'm a human being. I do have days where I say well, you know what, it's enough. You know, I have to stop here. But when I sit down and think about what this administration, this current administration has done about other people, I say to myself well it's my moral and human duty to keep doing what I'm doing. This has to stop. And this is not only affecting the lives of innocent people, but also the image and reputation of the American people.

HM: You're still not allowed to travel to the United States. I'm wondering whether, if those restrictions were to be lifted you could see yourself traveling there. Would you be comfortable in the U.S?

MA: I'm asking for them to remove my name from the from the no-fly list but I'll have to wait and see whether my psychological state will change by then, when once they remove that. But as of today, I do not feel comfortable traveling down there.

CH: That was Maher Arar, speaking with Helen on this show in December 2008. Mr. Arar never got a formal apology from the U.S. government. He is also still believed to be on the U.S. no-fly list.

[Music]

Wolf-sized otters

CH:"Who would have imagined a wolf-sized otter?"
That's the question Denise Su asked this week in an article in the Guardian. Not coincidentally, Ms. Su is the co-author of a new study on prehistoric wolf-sized otters. And before this week, the answer to her question was no one would have imagined them, except for the people who run, and visit, wolf-sized-otters.tumblr.com. But now, lots of us are imagining wolf-sized otters. And our feelings are mixed.
On Sunday, Ms. Su and her fellow researchers published their study. It describes an otter that lived more than 6 million years ago, in what is now northern China. It had a powerful jaw and big teeth, probably for crushing clams. It weighed about 46 kilograms, or 110 pounds. It was most likely the biggest otter that ever lived -- about the size of, say, just for comparison, a wolf.
Paleontologists had found a few of this ancient otter's teeth before, in Thailand. But in China, they found a complete skull, and mandible, as well as parts of skeletons of three different specimens. That discovery helped us understand the true size of the long-extinct creatures. That true size being: the size of a wolf.
Now as I said, the research is impressive, but also confusing. Because regular, otter-sized otters are already a weird combination of totally adorable and savagely cruel.
So imagining them more than twice their current size makes them doubly cute, and doubly nasty. Plus, we were still struggling to come to terms with the fact that wolves are the size of wolves.
Still, congratulations to the scientists for their work reconstructing these creatures. We'll never forget what you've done. Although some of us might try pretty hard.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Sudbury cold case, doomsday clock, mining claim

Sudbury cold case

Guest: David Toffoli

CHRIS HOWDEN: Almost two decades ago, a brutal murder shocked Sudbury, Ontario. In 1998, twenty-three-year-old Renee Sweeny was stabbed to death behind the counter of an adult video store where she worked. Her killer has never been found.
But now, Sudbury police have turned to a new technique. They've managed to create a composite image of a suspect -- based only on DNA recovered from the scene.
Detective Sergeant David Toffoli was a lead investigator on the case. We reached him in Sudbury.

HELEN MANN: Detective Sergeant David Toffoli, after all of these years, how often do you think about the Renee Sweeney murder case?

DAVID TOFFOLI: Quite often, everyday. It's a case that I've been involved in, in one way or another, for the past 19 years. So I think about it often, I'm asked about it often, when I'm at work and when I'm not at work. People are always inquiring about how about the murder and will it ever be solved.

HM: Is it unusual for you to think of a case that you've had in the past that often?

DT: You know, it's one of the most violent cases I've come across in 29 years. It was a violent attack on a totally innocent person. And I've never seen anything else like it.

HM: As much as you can ,can you tell us exactly what happened to Renee?

DT: Renee was working alone in an adult video store, and the suspect came into the store sometime between 11:15 and 11:30. There was some type of physical confrontation between them in the center of the store. She was stabbed in that area. It looks as if the suspect then went to clean up in the bathroom, assuming that that Renee was probably deceased. Renee was able to crawl back in behind the counter most likely in an attempt to get to the phone or to hit the panic button, and that's where the suspect attacked her and eventually killed her, was behind the counter.

HM: How did it affect people living in Sudbury?

DT: People were in fear. It's something that didn't happen, doesn't normally happen in Sudbury, and it's really left a scar on the community. Most people know about it and most people want it solved and want to know why it happened.

HM: You have now released a composite image which looks remarkably realistic. It feels like I'm looking at a photo here. Can you tell us a bit about the science behind it?

DT: What Parabon does is they look at genetic information in the DNA, at different DNA markers. And, in looking at those markers, they're able to determine the physical appearance of the individual and the end result of it is the composite that they've created for us.

HM: And who is Parabon?

DT: Parabon is the company that we submitted the DNA to.

HM: How accurate can an image like this be, considering that it's only created with DNA? Do you have any evidence as to how these things have actually performed in the past?

DT: Parabon has a number of examples where they've done the same things. It's been successful in the States in solving a number of homicides. And it's often used on found human remains. They can develop the same type of profile from the DNA. The science behind it has proven to be successful and we're confident that this composite definitely has a resemblance to our suspect.

HM: So how did it feel for you to see the image appear after you'd been thinking about this case so often for so long?

DT: Yeah, it was very satisfying to see it. I really think it's accurate. It's not a picture of the suspect, but there will be a definite resemblance between this composite and this suspect.

HM: Can you describe for listeners what this image looks like. Just describe what we're seeing? We are going to post it on our website, and maybe just for people listening now.

DT: OK, Parabon, when they when they do the DNA testing, they're composites all based on the suspect being 25 years old, with an average body mass index of 22. Now Parabon has provided us with skin color, advising that it's light to fair, eye color which is most likely blue, hair color that is a light brown, light blonde, and most likely very little freckling. They've told us that the suspect is 99 percent likely to be of northern European descent.

HM: Have you had any tips?

DT: We received over 100 tips in the first 24 hours, and the tip lines are still ringing?

HM: So what does Renee Sweeney his family think of this?

DT: We've only spoken to her sister. Her mom and stepfather are both deceased. Her sister is happy that we're proceeding with this and trying to get this information out there to get some more tips and solve this.

HM: Given this new effort and the tips, among other things, how confident are you optimistic at this point that that you're going to be able to solve this case before you retire?

DT: I'm optimistic it's going to be solved. How quickly? I don't know. DNA technology is improving at a rapid pace. This is really early technology as far as creating a phenotype composite. I think it'll get better in the future, and eventually between that and improvements in the DNA databank, I'm confident it'll be solved at some point.

HM: Detective Sergeant Toffoli, thank you very much for talking to us.

DT: Thank you.

CH: We reached Detective Sergeant David Toffoli in Sudbury, Ontario. You can see the image of the murder suspect, and read more about this story, on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Doomsday clock

Guest: John Mecklin

CH: It is two-and-a-half minutes to midnight. That's not the actual time. It's the figurative time, according to the minds behind the Doomsday Clock. It was created in 1947, to symbolize how close we are, as a planet, to global disaster.
Today, the clock was set forward by thirty seconds. It's now the closest it has been to midnight since 1953.
John Mecklin is the editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the group that controls the clock. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

HM: Mr. Mecklin, why have you decided to move the doomsday clock up by 30 seconds today?

JOHN MECKLIN: It is a combination of reasons. The situation in regard to nuclear weapons and climate change, our science and security board felt that that alone had gotten worse during the last year, and then some of the statements and appointments, nominations that President Trump made between November and when he took office just a few days ago gave the board further pause. They felt that that further endangered the security of the world. And you know, but at the same time the president has only been in office for about a week, so most of this was pre-him taking office, that 30 seconds was the best move.

HM: So when we're talking about being two and a half minutes to midnight, what does that mean?

JM: Well the closest that our board has ever set the clock was two minutes to midnight. That was in the wake of the United States and then the Soviet Union both exploding their first hydrogen weapons, H-bombs. And that was at the start of the arms race. So setting this at two and a half minutes. This is the closest to midnight the clock has been in 64 years. And the situations are different. I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but our board views the world situation today as very nearly as dangerous as it was then.

HM: You mentioned broad global concerns. Who are some of the world leaders who have you concerned right now?

JM: Well the board's statement, and in my judgment, I mean more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, are held by two countries, the United States and Russia. Leaders in both those countries have made extremely careless statements about nuclear weapons, nuclear use and those should stop immediately. It's very concerning that this kind of cavalier, you know, just sort of throwing out the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons, can create the atmosphere in which countries misunderstand actions that are taken. It can lead to literally to a nuclear war. These weapons are the most terrible weapons ever created. And even if the whole world is incinerated, which would happen if both Russia and the United States launched their full arsenals at each other, essentially of life as we know it would just end. And if that happened… but even with much lower levels of nuclear weapons use, truly catastrophic things would happen in the world. And the leaders of both countries need to go look in the mirror and understand they are threatening every person on earth.

HM: Are there other leaders though? I mean President Obama reportedly told Mr. Trump that he thought his biggest concern was going to be North Korea.

JM: Well there are obviously there is a set of nuclear countries, and all of them could be a concern. North Korea is obviously, they have a nuclear capability. They keep testing missiles, and are eager to acquire an intercontinental ballistic missile. And sooner or later as they proceed, they will. So that is certainly a real concern. Also the continuing tension between Pakistan and India is of real concern. I mean that is judged by many experts to be the most likely place for a nuclear war to break out.

HM: Now I always thought that the Doomsday Clock was based on this fear of nuclear confrontation. At what point did climate change begin to factor into the calculations you're making?

JM: You know because bulletin is a scientist based organization, it has been concerned about climate change for a long time.

HM: Given the timing of your move, are you concerned that people might just dismiss this as partisan hysteria?

JM: No, a because we're not partisan. The scientists and policy people on our board are truly both concerned about the appearance of partisanship, and they're actually not particularly partisan. In the idea that people would consider it hysteria… I mean I think anybody who actually reads the statement will realize that it's not. It's very, very solid, based on the facts. I mean it is completely the opposite of hysterical. It's what we're talking about is indeed scary but that's a real scariness. That's a factual reality.
Once a year, we have this clock statement and it has become something that works to remind people that there really are dangers that are bigger than others. Real threats that, if they're not managed properly, could literally end civilization.

HM: Can you give us some hope? What will it take to dial the clock back again?

JM: Well it really takes exactly the sorts of things that were going on after the Cold War ended. Sometimes people forget that the clock doesn't move just one way. It moved back to 17 minutes before the hour in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia and the United States were making agreements to reduce weapons and to generally just dial back a threat levels. And those same things can be achieved. There is actually nothing stopping the United States and Russia from immediately starting arms control negotiations again. All it really takes is a will to achieve them that is not magic. And yes there is hope. But the world community has to pressure the leaders of the nuclear countries to sit down and negotiate to reduce risk to reduce threat.

HM: Mr. Mecklin, thank you for speaking with us.

JM: Thank you. It was a joy.

HM: Thank you.

JM: Bye bye.

CH: John Mecklin is the editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. They are the group behind the Doomsday Clock. Today, the clock was re-set ahead to two and a half minutes to midnight. We reached Mr. Mecklin in Washington, D.C.

[Music]

Daily Transcripts

CH: And now some good news for those of you who've been frantically typing along at home. If you've been doing that from the beginning, congratulations on an impressive run. You've transcribed nearly fifty years of "As It Happens" episodes, word for word. We applaud your mighty archive -- and we may need it when all our hard drives crash. But it's quitting time. You can finally sit back, relax, soak your hands in Epsom salts, and just enjoy the program. We've got you covered.

HM: As It Happens is now publishing daily text transcripts on our website. We post them to our webpage the day after broadcast. In fact, if you check our website right now, you'll find a full transcript of yesterday's show.

CH: Plus, as if that wasn't sweet enough, each transcript has an audio player embedded right onto the page so you can read along as you listen.

HM: It's a great way for folks who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to access CBC Radio content, and a useful tool for English Language Learners.

CH: If you know someone who could benefit from this project please let them know. We've posted all the details on our website: cbc.ca/aih. And big thanks to the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund for their support with our ongoing initiative to make CBC Radio accessible to all Canadians.

[Music]

Mining claim

Guest: Bev Sellars

CH: She's been telling. Now, she's decided to show. A former First Nations Chief is taking matters into her own hands to raise awareness for more responsible mining in British Columbia. Earlier this week, Bev Sellars staked a mining exploration claim on private property owned by B.C Minister Bill Bennett. The process was surprisingly easy -- which is exactly what she was trying to demonstrate. Bev Sellars is the former chief of the Xat'sull First Nation at Soda Creek. We reached her in Vancouver.

HM: Ms. Sellars, why did you stake a mining exploration claim on this private property owned by B.C.’s mining minister Bill Bennett?

BS: Well our organization, the First Nations Women Advocating for Responsible Mining, have always have had an issue with this with placer mining and you know mining in our territories in general. And we were trying to bring it… we're trying to bring attention to, you know, the lack of regulation on placer mining, and also how easy it is for anyone to go online and stake it. I did it in less than an hour, and when if I wanted to stake it again, stake another property again, I could do it in less than five minutes.

HM: Did you expect it to be that easy?

BS: No. I was told how easy it was and I kept expecting something to block me because it is private property. Not only Mr. Bennett's, Minister Bennett's property, but the properties around there. And so I thought it can't be this easy. And I kept expecting something to block me. I don't know what it would have been, but nothing blocked me. I just went on and because I believe it was my first time registering as a free miner, I had to actually go into an office but now I don't need to anymore. I can just go online and stake wherever I want.

HM: What kind of information did you have to give as you were making this application?

BS: Nothing. I just had to prove… I just got to give some identification to get a free minor certificate. That was all.

HM: And the fact that it was private property didn't raise a red flag for them?

BS: No not at all no. The fact is that I now have rights on his property. So you know, I could… I mean this is the thing that bothers us, our organization is you know like, if I ever decided to exercise whatever rights I would have on his property, I mean he, and the other private property owners would be there watching every move I made. But the thing that bothers us is in the territory, in our territories where there is no one to keep an eye on the placer miners, that's where the real problems occur. And I'm not saying that all placer miners are not responsible. I'm sure there are many that are, but for sure there are some Yosemite Sams out there that create a real mess in our territories and you know, go into sensitive aquatic habitats and you know, there's never enough sufficient reclamation and there's all kinds of problems. They used mercury. There's nobody out there watching them and keeping an eye on them.

HM: This is, I guess you've obviously done this to be provocative. Is it just because you really have not had enough attention before this?

BS: We've been trying to deal with placer in our areas and when I was chief of my community, we actually went down to Victoria to try to do something about it. And we brought a map and delivered it to the Minister of Mines. And what we did in our community was we put all of the mining activity on in our in our territory on a map and we were amazed. The whole territory was covered, and when we went down to Victoria, we delivered it to the Minister of Mines and they were amazed. They didn't, you know, they didn't realise it was you know there was that much staking, because they deal with one placer mine you know at a time. They don't do the cumulative thing. And so we did. And so they asked to keep our map and we let them have it.

HM: Yeah. If you were to actually exercise your right to mine on Mr. Bennett's property, what would that involve?

BS: Well I you know, there are some exceptions to entering private land. But I have the option of exploring for placer minerals. I have the option to explore, develop, and produce placer minerals you know, on a claim. So yes that's what I could do. And it's kind of funny because since it has hit the news, I've had all kinds of offers of people, from people, offering their equipment to come and mine, mine the property. So you know placer mining is an issue for many people, not just for our First Nations warm.

HM: And have you had any response from Mr. Bennett?

BS: No I haven't heard from Mr. Bennett, and that's the other thing, you know. Like there was no requirement for me to contact him, and you know, he will respond to me if I ever decide to file a notice of work.

HM: Now as I understand it, there is an option here for Mr. Bennett to complain to the ministry to cancel your claim if it's considered nuisance staking. Do you think that's likely?

BS: Probably not.

HM: Why?

BS: Well it's not a nuisance claim. It's a political statement and it's so hard to get people to listen to our concerns in our territories. And whatever way that we can do this, we're going to do it. This is not just for First Nations people. This concerns the general public as well, because all these placer mining people out there, there's enough that the environment is at risk.
I mean in our territory, the moose population is down by 50 percent. The salmon that are coming up the river are not healthy anymore. There are so many things that are happening in our territory and nobody is paying attention to that. It’s not a nuisance claim. I mean I wanted to go and be a nuisance, I would serve him a notice of work or whatever.

HM: Is that a possibility if you need to get even more attention to the issue?

BS: I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm leaving all my options open.

HM: OK Bev Sellers, thanks for joining us.

BS: You bet.

HM: All right. Bye bye.

CH: Bev Sellars is the former chief of the Xat`sull First Nation at Soda Creek. We reached in Vancouver. Earlier this week, she staked a mining exploration claim on private property owned by BC Minister Bill Bennett. We contacted Minister Bennett for his response, but he wasn't available for comment.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Jan 26, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This