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 2021

The AIH Transcript for June 9, 2021

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[music: theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Ad hoc. Doug Ford will invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop third-party election ads, he says, in order to protect Ontario -- but one would-be advertiser says the premier is just trying to protect his political future

CH: Standing their ground. The CEO of a British mine-clearing charity says his team remains determined to help communities in Afghanistan, even after an attack by militants left 10 team members dead.

CO: End of the line. There is celebration now that the Keystone XL pipeline is officially kaput -- but our guest says there is no joy for Indigenous workers and investors, who finally had a chance to benefit from oil development.

CH: Diminishing returns. A new study shows that endangered North Atlantic right whales aren't just getting smaller in number, but in size as well -- and marine biologists say they think they know why.

CO: Putting it on the map. The National Geographic Society recognises a new Southern Ocean that our guest hopes will bring more attention to the unique ecosystem of Antarctica

CH: And Labour of lav… atory. After an uncomfortable wait, we finally know this year's nominees for “Canada's Best Restroom”, which celebrates the places you'll be most relieved to relieve yourself.

CH: “As It Happens”, the Thursday edition. Radio that knows these going places are going places.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Ford Notwithstanding, Keystone: Indigenous Pro-Pipeline, Nat Geo's 5th Ocean

Ford Notwithstanding

Guest: Harvey Bischof

CH: Doug Ford is about to become the first Ontario premier to invoke the notwithstanding clause. The constitutional clause is controversial because it allows governments to override Canadians' Charter Rights. But Premier Ford says he's got no choice. A court used the charter to quash a new law. That law banned a wide variety of third-party ads for one year before provincial elections. Premier Ford says that law is needed to protect Ontario's democracy from the kind of interest-group spending that influences elections in the United States. But the teachers' unions that defeated the law in court say they're not about to give up the fight. Harvey Bischof is the President of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation. We reached him in Bancroft, Ontario.

CO: Mr. Bischof, Doug Ford says that he is fighting for democracy. What do you think this fight is about?

HARVEY BISCHOF: Doug Ford's fear of the public discussion that will happen in the lead up to the next election. His fear that his massive failures handling COVID will be publicly part of the discourse. His fear that, you know, pre-COVID will be discussed. When he was attacking the publicly funded education system, and his approval rating sank to the lowest in the... in the country. I think that's what this is really about.

CO: And it sounds like that's what you're going to be going after, if you can, during this next 12 months?

HB: Certainly, I mean, we have a... we have a history of... of engagement in elections and would expect to continue but for a government that thinks it has the right to infringe on political speech.

CO: They fear that... they say they fear that we would see the same thing we see in the United States, these super PACs they have in the United States, where very wealthy individuals, corporations, interest groups, can spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections. It's something Canadians have said they don't want here. So isn't that a valid concern to stop that from happening?

HB: You know, Canadians don't want that, and I don't want that. I think that distorts the electoral process, and I'd like to not see it happen. And yet, there is not a scintilla of evidence that this government can point to. In fact, they introduced this legislation without a study. There's not a problem that they can point to that they're solving whatsoever. There has been no Ontario super PAC that has poured, you know, untold millions into third-party political discourse. So there's no reason to believe... there's every reason, in fact, to... to... as the judge who wrote the decision just a few days ago said, to be highly skeptical of this government's motives. And that's certainly the position we've adopted.

CO: But the idea, I guess, behind this is in order to stop groups like yours from the kinds of advertising that they believe is unfair, right?

HB: Yeah, groups like mine. Groups like, you know, environmental activists, groups like charities, potentially all kinds of groups. Any... any group of people who needs to pool their resources in order to be able to be heard above... above the fray in public political discussion. You know, democracy doesn't end at the ballot box. There's nothing wrong with us raising issues about public education outside of a, you know, a limited period. There was a law that had a limitation for six months leading up to the writ period. And that law limited government or political party activities, rather, at the same time. And that's the kind of level playing field that makes things much more reasonable. They have completely tilted the playing field in their favour. They want to limit us, but they do not want to limit themselves during that same period. And I think any reasonable person can read into the motivation behind an action like that.

CO: Do you think that there should be some limits on what third-party groups can spend?

HB: I do. I think there should be limits on third parties and political parties at the same time to level the playing field. You know, political parties are not the only ones who have an interest in electoral outcomes. Lots of groups, civil society groups, as I mentioned, you know, environmental activists, for example, care about things that affect our society, not just political parties who... whose platforms may or may not address these things.

CO: And what is actually going to replace this? Can you just sum up what exactly will happen with this notwithstanding clause law?

HB: Right. So... so then that will restore the act that they passed, which was found to... to infringe on Ontarians constitutional rights. It doubles the restriction period from six months prior to the writ period of an election to 12 months. It maintains a 600,000 dollar spending limit for third parties during that period. It doesn't double it. And it includes draconian definitions of what they term collusion. So if we use the same vendor as another third party, if we have the same interests, and surely the various education unions in Ontario may have an interest in class size, for example, or there might be two environmental groups who share an interest in keeping temperature rise below two degrees, well, then... then they are now grouped together and held under that 600,000 thousand dollar limit. So it becomes extremely restrictive where there are various voices that want to engage in that discussion.

CO: But doesn't this affect the Conservatives as well? Because they had a pro-Tory group called Ontario Proud in the 2013 election that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars going after Premier Kathleen Wynne. So doesn't it bite them the bum in the same way?

HB: Well, you know, you think of it, what it does allow is for the government to... political parties to spend in an unrestricted fashion during that first six months of the... of that restriction period. So, in other words, it massively favours the incumbents, which is currently Doug Ford and his PC party. And I don't think they've looked ahead to the next election after this one. They're looking at how they can save their hides right now, having failed so dismally over the last few years. So I think that's the kind of short-term thinking we're used to from them. And so, it doesn't have nearly the same kind of negative effect, especially at the same time as they've almost tripled the personal limits for donations to political parties. Who could afford to do that? Certainly not my education worker members who might be making 45,000 or 50,000 dollars a year. But the Conservatives well-heeled friends will have no problem tripling their contributions to the party,

CO: the notwithstanding clauses often referred to as the nuclear bomb in the political arsenal. And so is there anything you can do about this?

HB: Unclear as of right now in terms of, you know, we got the announcement yesterday, will be meeting with council and looking what our legal avenues are. Certainly, we're a law-abiding organization, and we will look to pursue legal avenues. And we'll look to do what we can publicly to make this appropriately rebound back against this party that has chosen to trample on people's right... people's rights in this egregious fashion.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Bicshof, thank you.

HB: Thank you very much for your time.

CH: Harvey Bischof is the President of the Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers' Federation. We reached him in Bancroft, Ontario.

[music: indie rock]

Keystone: Indigenous Pro-Pipeline

Guest: Dale Swampy

CH: The Keystone XL pipeline appears to have run out of friends. Yesterday, the pipeline's developer, TC Energy, and the Alberta government announced that they were abandoning the project. The pipeline was supposed to pump bitumen from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Gulf Coast in the U.S. for refining. Construction was already underway. But in January, the Biden Administration revoked Keystone's presidential permit. And now, TC Energy doesn't see any way to proceed. Dale Swampy says that isn't just bad news for Canada's oil producers. Mr. Swampy is the President of the National Coalition of Chiefs. We reached him in Calgary, Alberta.

CO: Mr. Swampy, as you know, Keystone has been in trouble before. It's often looked like it was down for the count, but it seems to pop back up again. Do you think this is the end?

DALE SWAMPY: Yeah, I'm discouraged that it's... it's likely going to be the end. I think it's similar to when I was on... working on Northern Gateway. And when that project was cancelled, we didn't see anything possibly able to move forward in the short run. I think with the KXL, I think, that's the end of it. I don't think we're going to see TC Energy doing anything further with it unless something extraordinary happens.

CO: And what does that mean for you and for those you represent?

DS: Well, it's terrible. I mean, we are in a position, First Nation oil and gas workers, we're in a position of advantage these days because the ESG guidelines that the corporations are following allow us to get more employment, more business opportunities and so forth. Keystone XL and Trans Mountain, when their expansions, if they would have come through, it meant not just, you know, operations work and integrity of work on a pipeline. It meant the expansion of the oil and gas industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC. And that meant... means more work, more workers being hired, and more First Nations being hired.

CO: And it's not just workers and First Nations being hired. It's also investments, right? Can you explain to me the stakes you've got as president of the National Coalition of Chiefs?

DS: Well, we have a lot of members who are, you know, interested in buying TMX. We were encouraged by the Western Indigenous Pipeline Group's partnership with Pembina just recently. We think there's a real chance for First Nations to get a good piece of equity on the pipeline, and I'm encouraged by that. We were encouraged when TXL was going to send, you know, several billion dollars worth of equity to five First Nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan. And that went south, and we're more discouraged now that the people of Canada themselves, at times too much sitting on their hands, so to speak, when... when things like this happen. I know Canadians, I know Pipeliners, they're good people. You know, they try to protect the environment. They try to put as much resources as they can into integrity systems within the operations of the pipeline. So they're very concerned about the environment and so forth. And, unfortunately, they're not... they're not willing to, you know, stand on a pedestal and speak about the injustices that happened with TXL.

CO: As you know, there are many Indigenous rights groups in Canada and the United States who opposed this pipeline, who believe that the extraction business in Alberta is bad for the environment, and they're cheering the end of Keystone XL. What do you say to them?

DS: Well, I say that they are not the communities that are directly impacted by the pipeline. They're not communities that are on the right away. TC Energy did a great job in getting First Nations on both sides of the border to work with them on, you know, building the pipeline and to, you know, draw up long-term agreements. And I think they did a great job in doing that and followed the regulatory requirements. So it was a political decision by a political figure who promised it in his election campaign and just wanted to... to do it without any regard for constitutional rights and the rights of, you know, international trade and infrastructure. It's discouraging.

CO: You're speaking of President Biden?

DS: Yes.

CO: The first day on the job, he cancelled this pipeline because it had become a symbol, right? It was a symbol of what people in the environmental movement and the Indigenous environmental network say is wrong for the environment. I mean, that this pipe... that pipeline became the symbol for what they were protesting in the oil sands, didn't it?

DS: Yeah, and they're going it in totally the wrong fashion. You know, the easiest picking in the whole world is your... your... your neighbours' industry. You know, they should be going after… going after China and to India and to Russia. They should be supporting Canada. We have the best record for environmental protection in the world. They need to devote more time to research to get the green energy system off the ground before we, you know, transition into something that doesn't exist.

CO: But that transition has been happening, right? I mean, it's for maybe a dozen years ago when this was first proposed. It made sense because this is what was happening with energy. But things have been changing, and... and the writing has been on the wall for... for this pipeline for some time now, right? Do you think that people... people put too much stock in it? People expected something when even the industry itself is... is considering where to move on to?

DS: Oh, yeah. I think that there's going to be a transition, definitely. And I think the industry, especially Canada's industry, is interested in working, you know, towards the green energy transition. And, you know, I think they're... they're doing it, you know, properly. They're doing it in an economically sustainable fashion, whereas the environmentalists just want to pull the plug.

CO: Keystone XL pipeline was... had huge investment from the province of Alberta, 1.3 billion dollars that they're on the hook for in Alberta. Other projects now seem doubtful. Do you think that the Line 3 and Line 5 that pump Canadian oil and bitumen to the United States? Do you think that they are the next to go?

DS: Well, they got to be... they got to be built. They got... they got to survive. We can't manage without them. The environmentalist movement, their goal is to make it economically, you know, unsound so that we have to force ourselves into the green energy system. And it's just not going to work right now because there is no green energy economy. It's not sustainable right now; 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now, it will be. But right now, we need gas in our tanks. We need our economy to move.

CO: Mr. Swampy, we will leave it there. It's... it's interesting to talk to you, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

DS: Thank you.

CO Bye-bye.

DS: Bye.

CH: Dale Swampy is the President of the National Coalition of Chiefs. We reached him in Calgary.

[music: ambient]

Nat Geo's 5th Ocean

Guest: Alex Tait

CH: Anyone who sails the seven seas knows there are only four oceans. But now, National Geographic has made waves -- by identifying a fifth. The Southern Ocean -- which encircles Antarctica and connects the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans. Alex Tait is a geographer at the National Geographic Society. We reached him in Silver Spring, Maryland.

CO: Alex, why identify this as a fifth ocean now? Why is this now the right time?

ALEX TAIT: Well, essentially, it's because of a building consensus that recognizes the unique ecological region of the ocean that is the Southern Ocean. So there is, of course, just one world ocean. It's all interconnected, but there are regions of the ocean. And traditionally, there's been four oceans named -- the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic. But scientists have been documenting the uniqueness of the Southern Ocean, and using that name and recognizing it as a place in the world. And so we felt that it was important, even though we've been putting that label on some of our maps and using it because of the science around it, we felt it was important to make it official so that we officially recognize five instead of four oceans. And it's really important for education and so that people learn about this region.

CO: Now, we know that the… it has been considered that the area in around Antarctica is the extension of other oceans, right?

AT: Yes!

CO That the Indian Ocean, Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean all flow into it.

AT: Mmm-hmmm.

CO: What makes it distinct? And what makes it an ocean?

AT: So, essentially, those other oceans are primarily divided by land areas. But the Southern Ocean is set off by physical conditions. So you have the circumpolar current that goes around Antarctica and really separates that water area. And then, equally importantly, our differences in temperature, colder waters, and salinity, there's actually less... slightly less salty water. So those are physical characteristics that really distinguish that ocean as separate from the rest of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans.

CO: And is it also different in the species of animals and... and flora and fauna that live there?

AT: Yes! There are a distinct set of primarily mammals, birds and fish in that area. And, of course, the smaller organisms that support all of those larger ones. So, yes, we have minke whales and other whales that are very important. And there is a distinct ecological habitat there with its distinct fauna.

CO: So why haven't we recognized it so far? [laughing] I mean, it sounds like a good candidate to be an ocean.

AT: Yeah, and there is an international organization that tries to get agreement on determination of the names and extensive oceans and seas. It's called the International Hydrographic Organization. But there's been some disagreements about names and extents of various different parts of the world ocean, and including the Southern Ocean. And they haven't agreed on a revised draft of this yet. So because there's some alternate names, including the Antarctic Ocean or Austral Ocean, and there's a variety of ways of defining the northern limit of this ocean. But there is a pretty good consensus on using Southern Ocean in English as the primary name. And we feel that using the limit that we've provided is one way of determining the northern limit of the ocean.

CO: So what does this actually mean? What will the National Geographic Society do with naming this ocean?

AT: so that... it means that on all of... all of the maps and atlases and books that we create that have maps in them, whenever we label oceans, we're going to be labelling all five. And when we provide educational -- we publish educational materials and provide educational materials online to schools and to the public -- and that it'll be an equal ocean, that you learn about the five oceans in the world.

CO: How do you think students, young people, might see the world differently if they recognize Antarctica area as having its own ocean?

AT: Well, I think there's some... some unique characteristics to it. It's an international area. There's a suspension of sovereignty in the area south of 60 degrees. And so, even though there are claimants to different areas, right now, it is essentially -- certainly, the seas -- are a world resource. And it's important that way -- also, its role in climate on Earth. So as climate changes, the role of the Southern Ocean may change, but it's a very important part of driving different types of weather around the world and having an effect on global climate.

CO: Most of the stories we seem to do about climate change lead one way or another to what's going on in Antarctica. How might this change how we study, how we look at that region and the impact it’s going to have on the whole world?

AT: Well, I think it helps in one way in giving people a better knowledge of what this area is, where it is and what makes it distinct. And its role in this system of ocean currents that circulates warmer waters and cooler waters around the globe is very important. This area plays a big role in how those waters move around the earth, and which, of course, has a big effect on climate. And as climate changes, some of those ocean currents are predicted to change as well.

CO: We know in the past when maps get rewritten and redrawn, it's usually… well, it’s almost always political, isn't it? I mean, it's war or something, some takeover. How often does this happen that it's a name change because it's just recognized as being necessary and missing?

AT: Well, in this instance for oceans, we've never added an ocean in the hundred over a hundred years of mapmaking that we've done in National Geographic. So this is a rare occurrence. I think that's why it's gotten some attention. We also feel that it's really important to bring attention to this area for conservation efforts. The birds and mammals are pretty well protected in the Antarctic region, but the fisheries, there is fishing in these waters, and we feel it's really important to establish these marine-protected areas. And we have a whole program at National Geographic Society called Pristine Seas that is working with world governments to protect areas for fishing and for... from fishing and for being able to re-establish fishing stocks. So these marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean are very important.

CO: Huh, so you may be able to shift some jurisdictional control and protect those species a bit better?

AT: So it is a matter of working with many different governments around the world on the Antarctic region because it is a shared region. So, yeah, it actually encourages cooperation in many ways. And the Ross Sea Marine protected area in particular, which is the largest in the world, was a multinational agreement.

CO: Very interesting. Alex, great to talk to you. Thanks.

AT: All right. Thanks.

CO: Bye.

AT: Bye.

CH: Alex Tait is a geographer at the National Geographic Society. We reached him in Silver Spring, Maryland.

[music: lullaby]

Canada’s Best Bathroom

CH: One nominee is praised for its "fresh yet familiar atmosphere". Another, slightly distressingly, for its "elements of surprise". And another for its "sheer grandeur". This week, Cintas Canada announced the five finalists in this year's Canada's Best Bathroom Contest. They are: the "sleek" ones in Borden Park in Edmonton; the "distinctively unique" ones in The Rooftop Restaurant in Calgary; the "playful" ones in Surrey Park, in Surrey, BC; the "fancy" ones in the Sweet Market Esso Station in Red Deer, Alberta; and the "visually stunning" ones at the Toronto Zoo. Now, it's tempting to try some kind of wordplay, like: "these nominees want to rock and roll all night -- and potty every day!" Or whatever. But you have to be tasteful. And -- unlike the toilets in these exemplary bathrooms -- one media outlet didn't really have a good handle on the situation. Now, I won't name this outlet, but it's based in BC, which explains its boosterism for the local finalist. But does not explain the headline. Quote: "Surrey Park bathroom strains for Number One." Unquote. Strains for Number One. Look: I see what you're going for there. We all see what you're going for there. But, if you're celebrating a relaxing bathroom, you don't want readers to think of kidney stones. So, in the future, maybe don't force it so much -- just let the ideas flow naturally.

[music: carnival music]

Part 2: Afghanistan Deaths, Smaller Right Whales

Afghanistan Deaths

Guest: James Cowan

CH: They were working to "protect lives and restore livelihoods", in the words of the Halo Trust website. But on Tuesday, 10 mine-clearing workers were killed at the compound of the British mine-clearing NGO in Afghanistan. Sixteen were wounded. Authorities originally blamed the Taliban -- but the Taliban denied it. And now, we're learning more about who may have been behind the shocking massacre. James Cowan is the CEO of The Halo Trust. We reached him in Sherborne, England.

CO: James, first of all, could you please pass on our condolences to the family members of those who were murdered?

JAMES COWAN: Yeah, thank you so much for your kind words.

CO: How is your charity coping? How are the members of those in Afghanistan dealing with the loss of their colleagues?

JC: Well, The Halo Trust is a charity set up to deal with the consequences of war. So, in some ways, sad as this is, these things happen. However, this is the worst atrocity ever committed against Halo in our existence since 1988. So it is a very serious event. Our people, though, are very resilient. They've been extremely impressive, courageous and have dealt with the situation in the most impressive way. And if I could just paint a picture for you, these assailants came into our camp. They demanded to know where the Hazara were. And for your listeners, the Hazara are a much-persecuted minority in Afghanistan. And the members of the camp refused to say who was Hazara. And, at that point, the assailants began to kill indiscriminately. In fact, killing the very people who had refused to say. So, in a way, they sacrificed their lives for their friends.

CO: And 10 were ten of them altogether who were... who were murdered. Were any of them Hazara?

JC: Well, in fact, a further person sadly has died this morning of his wounds. So, in fact, there are now 11 fatalities. This is the irony. Not a single one of them were Hazara. They were all Pashtun.

CO: These people have been, as you say, Halo Trust, anyone who has seen your work in Afghanistan, you've been there for decades, right? The Soviets withdrew and left behind these... these vast minefields. And the work has been done for some time. So you say you've never been attacked like this before. Who do you believe is responsible?

JC: Well, we have been attacked, and we have suffered fatalities before, but nothing like on this scale. I want to just stick to the facts. The facts are that these armed assailants came in, they denounced the Taliban, they denounced the government, and then they began to kill, and they wanted to kill Hazara. As the incident developed, the local Taliban arrived and chased them away. And later, the Taliban have denied responsibility. I'm inclined to believe the Taliban. And yesterday evening, ISIS claimed responsibility. I'm inclined to believe that as well. So it is my belief that this was an atrocity committed by ISIS and an attempt to kill a much-persecuted minority.

CO: This is something that we have heard other attacks by this ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan -- the girls' school was attacked for the same reasons. They have been hunting Hazara to kill. And these are Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan. The government, though, of Afghanistan blamed the Taliban, right?

JC: Yes, they did initially. And, you know, in this conflict, perhaps that was only human. But actually, if you listen to the messaging, they have stepped back from that.

CO: Is there a certain degree of respect or recognition for the work that you're doing in Afghanistan from groups like the Taliban?

JC: So, the nature of our work is about saving life and restoring livelihoods. And it is our duty as humanitarians to work in all parts of that country and to be neutral. The way we operate is through consent. We can't operate if someone wants to try and kill us. So we go to an area. We negotiate consent -- normally with someone who is called a community mobilizer. And then, with the support of that community, we can then hire local young people. We give them jobs. And for that reason, communities, whether they be supportive of the Taliban or support of the government or support of anybody else, normally like to have us. Because, you know, after all, we are doing a commonly regarded good. We are clearing land of explosive hazards. We’re stoping children; we're stopping women being killed. We're giving jobs to young men and to young women. And then, we can create sustainable livelihoods because people can then farm that land that was previously contaminated.

CO: Will you have to... are you thinking of reconsidering your work there in light of this attack?

JC: No, we're not. We actually were founded in Afghanistan in 1988 when the Russians were still there. We worked in Afghanistan during the civil war, the most dangerous period between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. We were there during 9/11. And we were there, you know, during the whole of the NATO war. Why would we leave? You know, we're there for the people of Afghanistan. We employ Afghans. Our duty is to help Afghanistan. It is also our duty, though, to make sure our people are safe. And, you know, we are playing a very important part in increasing safety in that country, but also in ensuring the safety of our own people.

CO: But lots of people are very worried in Afghanistan that this arrival of ISIS, it has really increased the danger of people in Afghanistan. Is that something that your charity can protect itself against?

JC: Well, I think what's so amazing about the people of Afghanistan is, A, how resilient they are. And, B, how they dislike outsiders coming in and harming their own people. And so, there is no support for ISIS. The people of Afghanistan have endured enough without this sort of thing. Cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder.

CO: Do you worry, though, with the withdrawal of U.S. troops in September that it will make it more difficult for aid workers of any stripe to be working in Afghanistan?

JC: So I think the international community has to ask itself some very difficult questions. If it wants to withdraw its military component, what is the strategy? What is the strategy to stabilize Afghanistan in the... after the departure of the military? I'm not seeing it at the moment. And I, as a CEO of a major NGO, I am calling upon the international community, on countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the United States and European countries to have a coherent strategy for Afghanistan, which involves organizations such as my own. And it is humanitarian, it is development-related, and it has stabilization function. And that's absent at the moment, and that worries me.

CO: Just finally, I know you say your workers are resilient, but how are the families of those who were murdered? How are they doing?

JC: Well, it's very early, and they're still in shock. I mean, this is a, you know, a truly awful situation in which young men, all sadly young men, have been killed. They were ordinary people. They're not important people. They're not rich. They’re not famous. They were just young men doing their job, and they've been killed in their beds in cold-blooded murder.

CO: James, we'll leave it there. Again, we're very sorry for what happened. But thank you for the work you do. And thank you for speaking with us.

JC: Thank you very much.

CH: James Cowan is the CEO of the British NGO, The Halo Trust. We reached him in Sherborne, England.

[music: big band]

Mini: Smaller Right Wales

CH: There's lots more coming up on the show. In a few minutes, we'll hear about what's been happening to North Atlantic right whales. Their population is significantly diminished. But the whales themselves are, too: they're physically shrinking. And the main reason for that is that they're getting entangled in fishing gear. An ocean researcher will tell us why those entanglements are affecting the whales' size -- and what that means for the already-dwindling species. And she's got a couple of ideas about how to fix the problem. So stay tuned for that.

[music: big band]

Change The Orbit Question

CH: Sometimes, someone asks you a question that's so out-there, you have no idea how to answer it. It can be a little awkward if that someone is a child, asking you in private. But it's significantly more awkward when that someone is a United States Congressman, asking you in a live-streamed hearing. Jennifer Ebelien is an associate deputy chief with the U.S. Forest Service. Yesterday, she appeared at a House of Representatives committee hearing. To discuss issues related to the U.S. Forest Service. Which is when Louie Gohmert -- a Texas Republican -- asked her this question.

SOUNDCLIP

LOUIE GOHMERT: I understand from what's been testified to the Forest Service and the BLM, you want very much to work on the issue of climate change. I was informed by the past director of NASA that they have found that the moon's orbit is changing slightly, and so is the Earth's orbit around the Sun. We know there's been significant solar flare activity. And so, is there anything that the National Forest Service or BLM can do to change the course of the moon's orbit or the Earth's orbit around the Sun? Obviously, that would have profound effects on our climate.

JENNIFER EBELIEN: I would have to follow up with you on that one, Mr. Gohmert.

LG: Yeah, well, if you figure out a way that you in the Forest Service can make that change, I'd like to know.

CH: Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert asking a U.S. forestry service official if her department could do anything to change the orbit of the moon or the Earth.

[music: jazz]

Smaller Right Wales

Guest: Amy Knowlton

CH: We knew North Atlantic right whales were threatened. But now we've learned it's not just their numbers that are shrinking. A new study shows the whales themselves are getting smaller. And the study suggests that human behaviour is to blame. The researchers say that if the trend continues, it could spell the end for the already-dwindling right whale population -- which currently sits at roughly 400. Amy Knowlton is a co-author of the study. She's a senior scientist at the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life. We reached her in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

CO: Amy, just how small are these right whales compared to what they were 40 years ago?

AMY KNOWLTON: Well, on average, we found that they're about one metre or three feet shorter than they were 40 years ago.

CO: And how are you sure? How are you... how do you know that?

AK: There have been a collection of... data collection over these several decades using aerial surveys back in the early 2000s, and then using a special camera to collect measurement data, photogrammetry data. And then, in recent years, the team has been collecting drone imagery, which can also measure the whale's length. So by combining these two sets of data from these different time periods, we were able to compare whales of the same age and these different decades and see that they're now shorter at the same age than they were back then.

CO: Was there a sense perhaps that these were just more junior whales, that they were just not fully grown, and maybe they were that size? Or how did you determine that they were actually they should have been much larger than that?

AK: Well, it was basically, you know, we looked at the whales of the same age and the different time frame. So we looked at a five-year-old in the early 2000s and a five-year-old in this recent decade and looked at all different ages because there was over 100... 100 measured whales for this study. So, basically, by looking at these different ages at the different decades, we were able to sort of plot that out and model that and show that, in fact, in this recent decade, they are just much shorter.

CO: Wow! And so, [chuckling] the important question, what's causing that?

AK: Well, we looked at a couple of different things. And one of the main threats that seems to be showing up is entanglements in fixed fishing gear, such as lobster gillnet, crab pot gear. Because Josh, the lead author, was able to... to review cases where there had been whales less than 10 years old and had attached gear for some duration of time. And then looked at female whales who had a calf, and that female either experienced an entanglement with attached care or had a severe injury from entanglement during the time that she was nursing the calf. So, basically, it's showing that they were needing to divert energy to either dragging the rope around because they were entangled or in the case of the females, diverting energy, you know, to focus on nursing her calf. But then that calf still wasn't able to grow as well as it might have if she could divert all her resources to nursing. Some had to be diverted to dealing with the entanglement itself. So it's sort of a balancing act for these whales.

CO: Are there other possibilities? I mean, concerning perhaps the diet, the availability of food, the stress of all the activity on the water that... that might be affecting their growth?

AK: Yes, there is a concern that food resources could be playing a role, but it wasn't as strong an indicator as the entanglement story played out. So it's… and right whales are getting entangled frequently. We've shown that over 85 per cent of the population has entanglement injuries. And that's, you know, based on scars or attached gear. That's over 1,600 entanglement events from 1980 through 2018 that this species has experienced. So it's a... it's a very chronic issue. And entanglements are getting worse in recent decades because ropes have gotten stronger, whales are shifting their distribution and fishing... the fishermen are shifting their... where they fish as well. So there's more overlap, stronger ropes, greater injuries and more... a higher frequency of whales with attached gear.

CO: We just did a story just recently about Snow Cone, that's the name of the whale that's been entangled. This one is just off New Brunswick, and they're trying to get Snow Cone untangled. So... but we also have been hearing from other interviews that there are mitigation efforts, right, For this entanglement, that the fishermen are aware, that... that they're changing some practices, that there's... there's an understanding of... this is an issue. Do you think that it is changing, and changing fast enough?

AK: I do think it's changing. I think there's been a huge attitude shift amongst the fishing industry, amongst the government agencies, both in the U.S. and Canada, to recognize that this threat... entanglements could lead to the extinction of this species. So I think there's a really... a much better understanding that things need to change and change quickly. And I think that, you know, the two main options that are being considered in both countries are ropeless fishing gear. So you don't have the endline going to the surface, which is the... the main issue they're dealing with. And then also, we've been looking at the idea of weaker ropes. We've shown that ropes because they've gotten stronger, seems to be exacerbating the problem. And if we could make ropes weaker, we've recommended a 1,700-pound breaking strength. If that could be employed broadly throughout the fishing industry, that might reduce the threat that the whales face from these entanglements.

CO: Some of these... these smaller sizes are the result of things that happened to them some years ago, right? So how long will it take you before you'll know if things are changing for the whales? Well, that's hard to say, but I think we'll continue to monitor entanglement events. And I think if we see a dramatic reduction in these serious entanglements, meaning either attached gear or severe injuries resulting from entanglement, I think if we see an elimination of those two factors, then I believe we would see the species begin to improve in general because that's really affecting their ability to reproduce and to thrive. So we'll be certainly monitoring for those changes every year. So it's careful monitoring and continuing to help the fishermen and women sort of shift the ways they do their practice. But still, be able to fish is the ultimate solution.

CO: All right. We will keep in touch. And it's good to talk to you again, Amy. Thank you.

AK: OK, thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

AK: Bye-bye.

CH: Amy Knowlton is the co-author of the study on North Atlantic Right Whales. Her research is published in the journal, Current Biology. And we reached her in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[music: world music]

Biden doses

CH: Joe Biden says his country has all the vaccine it needs. And now, he's willing to share. The U.S. President is at the G7 summit in Cornwall, England. Not surprisingly, vaccine availability is at the top of the agenda. And this morning, Mr. Biden announced a plan to buy and give out Pfizer doses to countries that need them most.

SOUNDCLIP

JOE BIDEN: We have contributed more than any nation to COVAX -- a collective global effort that is delivering COVID-19 vaccines across the world. We've supported our manufacturing efforts abroad through our partnerships with Japan, India and Australia, known as "The Quad". We've shared doses with our neighbours, Canada and Mexico. And in addition, three weeks ago, with America's vaccine supply secured and with confidence, we have enough vaccines to cover every American who wants one. We announced that we would donate 80 million doses of our own vaccine in-house now to supply the world by the end of June. Many of these doses are shipping to countries around the world as we speak. And today, we're taking a major step that will supercharge the global fight against this pandemic. In my direction, the United States will purchase an additional half-billion doses from Pfizer... Pfizer vaccine. And we'll donate nearly one hundred low and lower middle income countries. They will be the beneficiaries. Let me say that again. The United States will purchase a half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic. That's a historic step, the largest single purchase and donation of COVID-19 vaccines by any single country ever. Importantly, this is the mRNA vaccine, which is proven to be extremely effective against COVID-19 and every known variant of that virus thus far. These half a billion vaccines will start to be shipped in August, as quickly as they roll off the manufacturing line -- 200 million of these doses will be delivered this year, 2021. And 300 million more will be delivered in the first half of 2022.

CH: That's U.S. President Joe Biden, announcing that his country will buy and give out 500 million vaccine doses to countries in the most need. He was speaking at the G7 summit in Cornwall, England.

[music: hip-hop beat]

Part 3: Propublica Rich Tax, Puffins Return to Calf of Man

Green MP Floor Cross

CH: Jenica Atwin didn't get to physically cross the floor in the House of Commons. But that doesn't make the Green MP's virtual move to the Liberals today any less dramatic. Ms. Atwin achieved a historic win in 2019, becoming the first Green MP to win a seat in Atlantic Canada. She was one of three Green MPs to win that year, giving the party its best federal result ever. But in recent weeks, internal fighting among the Greens has spilled out in public. Specifically, over the party's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Last month, the Fredericton MP criticized her own party leader for not showing enough solidarity with Palestinians -- calling that response "totally inadequate". Here's Jenica Atwin today, speaking to reporters as a Liberal MP for the first time.

SOUNDCLIP

JENICA ATWIN: It's a good day. I think this is a positive thing for my community. You know, the past month, I've been at a crossroads. It's been, in a word, distracting. And so, I'm going where I can do my best work on behalf of my community and for the people that I care so deeply about. We can't also ignore some of the big things that's happened in our country over the past few weeks as well. I think about the discovery of 215 children's remains. I think about the terrible tragedy in London, the rise of... of hate and racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia. And it's really important that now we stand united to do what we can to make sure that there's a better future for our children. And that is always at the forefront of my work. And I will continue to do that work as the newest member of the Liberal caucus. Obviously, this is a day I had not anticipated, but I am very, again, optimistic and hopeful. To the people of Fredericton, this is for you. I have loved every minute of being your member of Parliament. I hope you allow me to continue that work, to continue to bring your concerns to Ottawa. And to the voters, I would say I'm still me, you know? And for me, it was always difficult really to... to choose, you know, which party flag to... to fly over my head. And it's just about the work. I've always wanted to do the work, and I want to continue to do that work, but to the best of my ability, in an environment that's supportive and collaborative. And so I'm ready to do that now. And I've learned so much over the last couple of years. And I'm going to use those lessons that I've learned to be as effective a member of Parliament as I possibly can for the voters of Fredericton.

CH: Former Green MP, now Liberal MP, Jenica Atwin, speaking from Fredericton. Annamie Paul is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada. Here's part of what she said in Ottawa today.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNAMIE PAUL: In 2019, the constituents in the electoral district of Fredericton, New Brunswick, made what I consider to be a daring and undoubtedly historic choice to elect a Green MP to promote progressive policies. Constituents, therefore, of Frederickton who chose a Green MP deserve to be offered the choice at the earliest opportunity to decide whether they now wish to be represented by the Liberal Party of Canada?

MARIEKE WALSH: What responsibility do you think you have in her decision today?

AP: You know, all I can say, Marieke, is that I take... I take Jenica at her word. She was asked that question today, and she said that her decision had nothing to do with me. I have never had anything but incredibly positive things to say about her. I was looking forward to campaigning for her in the next election.

MARIEKE WALSH: But she told reporters today that the discussion around Israel, the policy differences there, was,. quote, part of that. And she also said just the communication... communication method was lacking.

AP: Mm-hmm.

MARIEKE WALSH: So is she not also giving her view on your leadership?

AP: Well, I think that you would need to ask her that question. Again, what she said in English, which is her stronger language very explicitly, twice, is that I, myself and my leadership, was not a factor at all in her decision. Her approach to the Liberals well predated the events that you mentioned.

CH: That was Annamie Paul, leader of Canada's Green Party, answering a question from Globe and Mail's Marieke Walsh today. Ms. Paul was speaking in Ottawa about the defection of Jenica Atwin, one of her MPs, to the Liberal Party.

[music: folk]

ProPublica Rich Tax

Guest: Jeff Ernsthausen

CH: We've seen the stories during the pandemic: the world's richest got richer and richer, while so many around the world lost their jobs, got sick, and in some cases, died of COVID-19. And that dispiriting disparity is why a story by reporters at ProPublica is getting worldwide attention this week. The headline is: "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveals How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax." ProPublica said it made the findings about U-S tax filings after it obtained a "vast trove of IRS data" from an anonymous source. The White House has called the leak "illegal," and the IRS has said it's investigating. Jeff Ernsthausen is one of the ProPublica reporters who worked on the piece. We reached him in New York.

CO: Jeff, it's widely perceived that the mega-rich don't pay much in taxes, but you have the evidence, right? What does it show?

JEFF ERNSTHAUSEN: What we found for our story, it's a... sort of focussed on a very basic concept, right? And it's that you and I, or most people in the world, and certainly the United States, we earn wages or a salary. And every time we're paid, taxes are taken automatically out of that. For the ultra-wealthy, it doesn't work the same way. They're not in the tax system the same way. The bulk of what they bring in is in the form of growth in their stocks and other assets. So the bulk of their wealth grows outside the tax system until they decide to do something like sell it, at which point they would face a tax bill. And so what we found is that the ultra-wealthy have accrued, you know, vast wealth in recent years and paid relatively little in taxes on that.

CO: Can you give us some examples? There are some really stunning ones. Give us the names and the details, if you can?

JE: Yeah, I think people... certainly, we were surprised to see that Jeff Bezos paid no federal income taxes in 2007 and 2011. And Elon Musk, now the second richest man in the world, paid nothing in income taxes, federal income taxes in 2018.

CO: What number of people do you have data on?

JE: So we have records on thousands of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. We're talking the sort of top one per cent of the one per cent. That includes sort of household names like Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg.

CO: There's one particular paragraph that is really stunning about Jeff Bezos. In 2011, a year in which his wealth was steady at 18 billion dollars, he filed a tax return saying that he lost money, and that his... his kids got tax credits for 4,000 dollars each, right?

JE: Yeah, it's as a sort of as normal American household at that point. Although, normal American households typically can't get their bill all the way down to zero.

CO: Can you give us some other examples?

JE: Yeah, I think one of the sort of exemplars of what we've seen in our data would be Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is the sort of synonymous with Berkshire Hathaway, a conglomerate that owns a lot of large companies, some household names like Geico. Famously, Berkshire doesn't pay a dividend, right? And so, Warren Buffett's wealth grew by over 20 billion dollars between 2014 and 2018. And his tax bill on that was just over 20 million dollars, which means that he paid .1 per cent in taxes on his wealth growth over that period by keeping his income really low. He's one of these folks who's joined the giving pledge. He plans to give away most of his wealth before he dies. And, you know, one interesting consequence of that is that, you know, those charities, they may do a lot of good. It also means that he... his fortune might never be taxed because it will pass tax-free into the charitable foundations.

CO: You say that the point of the article, major centrepiece of it, is to compare what happens with wage earners in the United States compared to those who are making their money from their assets, right? So those who earn money pay taxes, those who gain assets don't, right? So can you just give us… and with numbers, it's hard to hear on radio, but just give us... you have a bit of a comparison about the numbers of people it would take to actually make as much money as these top 25. And what the difference in the taxes they pay.

JE: The figures we came up with in our story, it would take 14.3 million typical American households, typical by... by wealth, working American households, to equal the combined wealth of the top 25 in 2018. That year, the top 25 paid 1.9 billion in taxes. If you look at the taxes that would be paid by a group of 14.3 million typical wage-earning households who paid about 14 per cent in taxes. They paid about 143 billion in that same period. So I think one thing that we try to point out in the article is that really, when you want to compare, how do the ultra-wealthy compare to the normal person? The ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of what they're bringing in, you know, 80 per cent is in sort of untaxed gains on their assets, right? And for the normal household, untaxed gains are a very small part. They might own a house, and it grows a little bit. So really, you want to look at their income tax rate. And the typical household's paying 14 per cent on that. Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy are paying 3.4 per cent on what really matters for them, which is their wealth.

CO: Are they dodging taxes? Is anything of what the top 25... is what they're doing illegal?

JE: So our report focus entirely on... on what is legal. It's one of the points in our story is that you don't need necessarily illegal techniques to have a low tax bill. The system is set up in such a way that you kind of do it routinely. And there's an entire industry of experts that are out there that will help you do that.

CO: You gleaned all this from a vast trove of tax returns and records. We know that in the United States, like in Canada, people are very guarded. This is probably the best-guarded secrets in the world is people's taxes. And we know that from watching what happened with Donald Trump. How did you get all these records?

JE: I can't comment on how we got them. We don't actually know the identity, so I can't comment any further on that. What I can say is that we were very careful to verify that the information was authentic. We checked it with over 50 data points that we could find out in the world or that we're not out in the world related to the individuals that we're reporting on to verify that the data is, in fact, authentic.

CO: So you're not going to say how you got all the tax returns and all the personal data of these rich people?

JE: Oh, absolutely not.

CO: OK, but you've talked to everybody that you're reporting on. How did they react when you called them and said, hey, do you want to comment on this wealth you've got that you paid no taxes on?

JE: So, I mean, the general reaction was, look, we pay, what's legal. You know, we follow the law. We're careful to do so. And we pay the taxes that we owe. You know, we think this is... it's relevant what the wealthiest Americans, you know, who control over a trillion dollars in wealth, what they pay in taxes. We think it's relevant information as the country engages in debates about taxation and infrastructure spending and the kinds of things we can afford as a society.

CO: All right, Jeff, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

JE: Thanks for having me.

CH: Jeff Ernsthausen is a data reporter at ProPublica. He's in New York City.

[music: ambient]

Skye

CH: The report describes her as a bright, young Dene girl -- who "bubbled with energy" as a kid. But BC's child and youth representative says she didn't get the support she needed -- before her life was cut short at 17. The teen, known as Skye, is at the centre of Representative Jennifer Charlesworth's report called "A Focus on Belonging". The report, which was released today, tells the story of a girl taken from her mother's care at five, then moved from foster home to foster home -- and school to school. It also looked at the insufficient efforts to connect Skye with her family and culture. In 2017, she died of an overdose. Jennifer Charlesworth talked about Skye's story to reporters today -- and drew parallels to last month's discovery in Kamloops.

SOUNDCLIP

JENNIFER CHARLESWORTH: On the surface, these might seem to be unrelated stories, the recent heart-wrenching discovery in Kamloops and the tragic death of Skye. But, in fact, there are different chapters of the same continuing saga -- the story of colonialism and the devastating damage it has done and continues to do to First Nations, Metis, Innuit and urban Indigenous children, families and communities across Canada. The children found in Kamloops were separated from their parents, siblings, extended families, territories and culture as a result of the residential school system that ripped them from their homes and incarcerated them in abusive and dangerous facilities. Skye wasn't born until 2000, four years after the last Canadian residential school closed its doors. But she, too, was removed from her mother, sister, extended family and culture as she became part of what many have described as the modern-day residential school, the child welfare system. Both Skye and her mom face tremendous challenges in their lives. Skye's mom was removed from her family home as an infant and adopted to a non-Indigenous family during the period known as the Sixties Scoop. Skye herself was removed from her mother's care when she was five years old and never saw her again. Both could have had better lives, might have had a lasting relationship with one another and might have had different fates had they been better supported to deal with past traumas. There were many people who care about Skye and some who worked very hard to support her, and we've lifted them up in this report and acknowledge their good practice. But the overall response of the child services system led to what Dr. Martin Brokenleg calls unbelonging. Every human needs deep connections and to feel a sense of belonging. The way the system responded to Skye and her mother fractured that sense. So we looked at relational belonging, cultural belonging, physical belonging, identity and belonging and legal belonging. Our main finding is that a focus by the ministry on legal belonging or adoption came at the expense of all other forms of permanency and belonging for Skye.

CH: BC's child and youth representative, Jennifer Charlesworth, speaking today.

[music: glassy guitar]

Puffins Return to Calf of Man

Guest: Aron Sapsford

CH: There is hope in the air on the Calf of Man tonight. Puffins have been spotted landing on the island, which is just off the southwest coast of the Isle of Man. And they're arriving after porcelain decoy puffins were placed in the area to attract real non-porcelain puffins. Aron Sapsford is an ornithological warden at the Calf of Man Bird Observatory. We reached him on the island.

CH: Aron, what's it been like for you to see puffins waddling around the Calf of Man this week?

ARON SAPSFORD: Well, it's a bit of a dream, really. It's something that I don't think we ever thought would... would perhaps happen again. So, yeah, it's really quite exciting.

CH: And what's the significance of seeing the puffins on the Calf of Man?

AS: So they used to breed here in relatively small numbers. I think the maximum was about 65 pairs back in 1979. But the numbers then dwindled, and they were last recorded breeding here in 1997. So over the last 30 years, we've seen puffins around in small numbers during the summer months, but we haven't seen them coming ashore until the last few days.

CO: Wow! Can you tell us about what it was like to get these sightings?

AS: Well, the first sighting was actually reported to us by somebody who had been kayaking round the calf, and they'd actually taken some photographs of a couple of birds that were stood next to the decoy puffins that we have. So they sort of appeared in our inbox, and we were quite amazed by those to start with. But we went down to the area the following day and had actually managed to see the birds coming ashore. And we actually saw one bird carrying nesting material towards what we hope is where it's breeding.

CO: Wow, that's extraordinary! So they may be back for good?

AS: Well, yeah, hopefully, certainly, the last three or four days, we have been keeping an eye on what's going on there and there seems to be regularly four birds in that area. So, yeah, we're hoping... yes, it's a small number. But, hopefully, that number will build over the next few years.

CO: What happened to them? Why did they... their numbers disappear?

AS: So probably a number of factors that are involved, but probably the primary one was that we have had brown rats on the Calf of Man for many centuries. We started a program of eradication in 2012, which was run by Manx National Heritage, who own the Calf of Man. And that appears to have been pretty much successful in eradicating the brown rat. And that's allowed a number of seabirds such as the puffin and also the Manx shearwater to recolonize the calf.

CO: Wow! And you mentioned decoy puffins. What's the purpose of those?

AS: So in 2016, we decided to place some decoy -- they're porcelain puffins -- around at several sites on the calf. And the idea of that was to... to try and encourage birds that perhaps were passing the calf. And so we see birds occasionally on the sea around here. So it was hoped that that would encourage them to come ashore and think that it was perhaps a good place to… to… to nest.

CO: And what else have you done to try and lure the birds back?

AS: So we also have a speaker system which plays their call as well. So, you know, the combination of the two things. You know, they hear the call and obviously think there must be other puffins nearby.

CO: OK, so now, are there any threats to them? On this Calf of Man... it's not populated, right, with humans?

AS: No, so there's only four wardens based here, sort of March to October. We do have day visitors, but what we've done is to sort of cordon that area off. And we do ask anybody that comes to the calf to sort of stay to the marked tracks that we have here. And you can actually view the area quite well from the track. So all of the observations we've been making are a good distance away from where the puffins actually are. But you can see into that area quite well.

CO: And people go there because it's quite beautiful, right?

AS: Yeah, the Calf of Man is a very enchanting place. It's... the scenery is fantastic, and it has quite a few sort of rare and rare bird species and, you know, very good in terms of other fauna and flora.

CO: If the puffins come back, what else might come back to the Calf of Man?

AS: Well, there's a number of seabirds, certainly, the seabirds in the U.K. have been struggling over the last few decades. The numbers have been decreasing. So we're hoping that this is part of a success story. You know, we could potentially get other seabirds coming back. Certainly, this eradication of the brown rat has helped our Manx shearwater population, which had completely disappeared. It was extinct from here. But we've now got 600 to 700 pairs breeding.

CO: Great. And [chuckling] who brought the brown rats to the island?

AS: Unfortunately, they probably got ashore from a Russian merchant ship which ran aground here in the 1700s, so, they've been... they've been here for a long time. But obviously, that... over time, that's had a detrimental effect to the breeding seabird populations in particular,

CO: Right, not just the puffins?

AS: Not just the puffins, no. So most land birds. And so, the Manx shearwaters were completely wiped out. And, you know, there's other seabirds that we have here that were definitely affected.

CO: What will you be watching for this summer to see that would lead you to believe that the puffins are back for good and that they might repopulate?

AS: Well, obviously, were hoping that they are going to breed, they're a fairly lengthy breeding cycles, so it can take up to 45 days for them to incubate. So obviously, we've only been seeing... seeing them ashore for the last three or four days. So if they sort of get down to laying an egg fairly soon, it's still going to be a little while before we actually know that they've bred.

CO: Well, it sounds lovely. And I hope they do come back. It sounds like a good place for them. And thanks for speaking with us.

AS: No problem at all, it's been a pleasure.

CH: Aron Sapsford is an ornithological warden on the Calf of Man. He works with the Manx Wildlife Trust. You can read more about this story, and see some pictures of puffins, on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[music: ambient]

Amsterdam Robots

CH: A lot of us feel like we're on autopilot these days. And, increasingly, our vehicles are feeling the same way. Nary a day goes by without exciting news of some new self-driving car, truck, or dirigible. Or without disturbing news that one of these vehicles smashed into something, because we left the device to its own devices. Well, now that hands-off approach is getting a dry run, in the water. The world's first fleet of autonomous floating vessels is about to be launched -- or, I guess, about to launch themselves -- in the canals of Amsterdam. The robot boats are called Roboats. As in "R-O-B-O-A-T-S". It’s so cute. Almost enough to make you forget that we're talking about boats that pilot themselves through crowded canals. Let that sink in. I mean "let that float in.” The inventors say the roboats will be able to move passengers and goods, even collect garbage. The flat-topped vessels can also connect to create a floating bridge, or a stage, should you need one. It's easy to see why the researchers, who've spent years on the project, are excited to give it a try. And, as a layperson, I want to be on board with this. I'm just not sure I want to get on board. Not without some kind of back-up plan. Because no roboat passenger wants to find themselves up a creek without a paddle.

June 10, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode