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 2018

The AIH Transcript for July 31, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Hello, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay, sitting in for Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglass. This is “As It Happens”.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

PC: Downloaded weapons blocked. A Texas gun enthusiast was hoping to make his 3-D gun blueprints legally available to download tomorrow. But late today, a federal judge issued a restraining order.

JD: A loss for words. The head of Washington State’s Whale Museum tells us the latest on a grieving orca named Tahlequah — who refuses to abandon her newborn calf, a week after its death.

PC: Right-hand Manafort. On Day One of The Trial of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, we'll find out what a fraud conviction could mean for him, and for the U.S. president.

JD: A hole in the heart of the city. St. Catharines, Ontario is grieving after a plane crash kills three members of a prominent local family — whose generous philanthropy changed the look and the feel of the community.

PC: Raiders of the lost shark. San Antonio police tracked down a missing critter from a local aquarium, thanks to surveillance footage clearly depicting some Finny business — a guy wheeling a shark baby out in a human-baby stroller.

JD: And… all butts are off. When cicadas are infected by a fungal parasite, they don't notice the effects. And new research suggests that's because of powerful chemicals that allow them to ignore their missing rear ends.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Tuesday edition. Radio that guesses that must be the bottomless pits.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: 3D gun lawsuit, Paul Manafort trial, aquarium shark theft

3D gun lawsuit

Guest: George Jepsen

JD: Starting tomorrow, Americans legally download blueprints for building 3D-printed guns — just by visiting Cody Wilson's website. Mr. Wilson is a Texas gun-rights activist, who recently settled in court with the U.S. government. Previously, he'd been ordered to take those blueprints off his website, but the case against him was dismissed. Now, Attorney-Generals from a handful of states have filed lawsuits, calling on the White House to halt Mr. Wilson's plans. For the latest on today’s restraining order, we have reached Attorney-General George Jepsen in Hartford, Connecticut.

PC: Attorney-General Jepsen, what is your reaction to this latest ruling?

GEORGE JEPSEN: I'm thrilled by the judge's order. It is clear, and we thought it was clear, that there could be what we call an irreparable harm, which is the foundation for a temporary restraining order. And the irreparable harm in this case is that if downloads can take place of designs and blueprints of guns that can be made manufactured through 3D printers. It gives wannabe airplane hijackers the means to get through security without getting caught with a gun. It means that people who want to disrupt public events, whether it's a political rally, or a sporting event, or some other crowd event where there is security capacity to get through and kill people or assassinate people. So there should be a hearing on the merits, and that's what we're going to get. And we are looking forward to it.

PC: This is a temporary injunction. Do you know how long it is in place for?

GJ: It's in place really as I understand it, as it should be, until the issues that we state Attorneys-General have raised can be decided on the merits. And that could take place in a period of weeks or months. It might be several months, but it means that everything is frozen so that the court can take a look at the merits of that issue.

PC: What are the biggest risks in your mind of Americans having access to building 3D printed guns?

GJ: Keep in mind that the people who would want to build 3D guns are the people who can't get guns legally. And so they want to do something bad, but they can't legally get the means to do it. This gives them the means to do it. And the thing that scares me the most is somebody smuggling a plastic gun undetectable onto an airplane. But also, you know if there are crowd events, whether it's a political rally or sporting event where there may be security, the opportunity to get in and either assassinate someone specifically, that’s what they want to do. And this gives them the means to do it.

PC: The most popular blueprint is for a 3D printed pistol. Cody Wilson's second most popular is for an AR 15. And that blueprint has been downloaded more than eighteen hundred times since just this past Friday. When you hear that you think what, Attorney-General Jepsen?

GJ: It disturbs me terribly. I've been a long-time advocate for gun safety laws that work in Connecticut. We have a sensible gun safety set of laws. And so our gun homicide rate is about 40 per cent of what it is in states that don't have laws like Connecticut. And so I know that these things work. And these guns that can be printed it undercuts the integrity of our laws. So I'm deeply disturbed. Another fifteen hundred assault on the street may be small, and there's a couple million out there in private hands, but I can't help what's happened in terms of the fifteen hundred downloads. But if we can prevent more going forward, I think we’re advancing the advancement of law.

PC: Now back in 2013, the U.S. government ordered Cody Wilson to take these blueprints offline. He sued the government back, and just recently the government settled with him and dismissed the case altogether. What do you think prompted that change of heart?

GJ: I have no idea how the Trump administration thinks because they do things that I think are just crazy. And nothing more crazy than this is a case where they won in court. They had supported the policies up until a few months ago of the Obama administration about keeping these kinds of 3D printed guns trying to keep them off the market. And they reversed course, turned 180 degrees, for reasons that are completely inexplicable. And it's frustrating, but we have to deal with it.

PC: What's your opinion about why the Trump administration may have done this?

GJ: Well, first of all, I think the President Trump’s Twitter seemed to suggest that he had no idea that this had occurred. And why he won’t raise questions about is inconceivable to me. I don't think there's any way that Secretary of State Pompeo would have done a 180 degree reversal on policy of significance without vetting it and running it past the White House. And so I just can't speculate as to what dark forces might have motivated a 180 per cent about face by the Trump administration with providing no reason whatsoever. So not only having won the case in court did they turn around and settle the case and hand victory to the group that they had just defeated. But that they voluntarily paid the legal fees for that. It's unbelievable. I've never seen anything quite like it.

PC: The tweet you're referring to came earlier from President Trump, and talking about 3D printed guns potentially being sold to the public. And he tweeted that it doesn't make much sense. So does his opposition at least from today give you any hope even though it was his administration that cleared the way for these guns that they may now approach it differently?

GJ: You know anything can happen in Trump World, so I suppose it's possible. But whatever moved the administration to reverse their own policy, and the policy Obama administration, it's hard to see them reversing once again — very difficult. This is perplexing beyond belief that offering no substantive justification for the change in policy. They abruptly turned 180 degrees, even after they had won the case in court. It's just unfathomable.

PC: Attorney-General Jepsen, thank you for your time. I really do appreciate it.

GJ: Happy to do it. Thanks.

PC: Bye bye.

GJ: Bye.

JD: George Jepsen is the Attorney-General for the State of Connecticut. We reached him in Hartford.

[Music: Indie rock]

Manafort trial

Guest: Philip Bump

JD: On one level, the trial has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Russian collusion. But some politicians and politicos are acting like it could be the beginning of the end for the President. This morning, in Virginia, former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort went on trial for tax evasion and bank fraud. The accusations aren't about Mr. Manafort's work for the current U.S. President. They're about money he made while working for Ukraine's corrupt former president. Philip Bump is a national reporter for the Washington Post. We reached him in New York.

PC: Philip, how does Paul Manafort seem to be planning to defend himself?

PHILIP BUMP: Well, it looks as though he's got a two-track strategy, according to opening statements. First is that he is going to claim ignorance of the law — that he didn't realize that he needed to file income taxes on income that he had made from overseas. And then secondarily, to suggest that his former business partner and former Trump campaign deputy chairman Rick Gates made a deal with the federal government that was based on falsehoods. That Gates essentially tried to save his own by saying untrue things about Manafort.

PC: So to put it in layman's terms, to throw Gates under the bus?

PB: Exactly.

PC: Why is this trial getting so much attention? I know, as everyone does, that Paul Manafort’s name is at least in the news linked with Donald Trump. But Mr. Manafort isn’t accused of colluding with Russia or of doing anything wrong as chair of Donald Trump's campaign. So why is this trial getting so much attention?

PB: Well, he's not accused of those things in this trial. That is true. What he is accused of in this trial are various financial crimes that are linked to his relationship with a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska in work that he did in Ukraine. And that in part is why this is so interesting to people because that work overlaps with the interests of the Russian government, which also overlaps with the fact that he worked for the Trump campaign. More broadly this is of interest to people because people are trying to keep an eye on what evidence might come out that shines some light on what Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking at and/or already knows. You know there's a lot of tealeaf reading in regards to the Mueller investigation, and this is going to dump a lot of tealeaves out into the cup for us to look at.

PC: Through opening statements today by both the prosecution and defense, they laid out their strategy for the trial. What's the prosecution's intention during the trial?

PB: Very simply they just want to prove the charges. And the charges are a broad range of financial crimes, including tax evasion, but also including things that get to money laundering essentially. There is already a lot of evidence of that is out in the public domain as a function of the indictments that were brought against Manafort by Mueller’s team. So we can expect that we're going to see a lot of discussion of various purchases that were made using illegal money. Allegedly purchases of real estate, purchases of luxury items. You know there is also, of course, an aspect to this which is just pure titillation in terms of you know the story that's getting a lot of play today is that Manafort had a coat made of ostrich feathers that cost something like eighteen thousand dollars. We’re going to have a lot of those sorts of details that people just take a natural interest in anyway.

PC: Yes, much has been made of Mr. Manafort’s expensive tastes, including clothes and cars that prosecutors plan to use against him. The question though is use against him how?

PB: Well, I mean again, what is at stake here are charges of particular financial crimes. There was some discussion prior to the trial getting underway that Mueller was hoping to use these charges in part to try and get Manafort to reveal what he knew about possible conspiracy or collusion with the Russians during the campaign. At this point, it seems less likely the man is likely to start cooperating with Mueller because the trial has already started. We will see what happens over the course of the trial. And if, for example, it becomes apparent to Manafort and his attorneys that they are not going to win this case, that may change things as well. But beyond that, what the prosecution is trying to do is what prosecutors do all the time in similar cases: simply prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Manafort violated these particular criminal statutes.

PC: If this trial doesn't go well for Mr. Manafort, what might that mean for Donald Trump and for the Russia investigation?

PB: Well, it may mean, as I said, that Mueller is able then to sort of twist Manafort’s arm and get him to cooperate with the broader Russia probe. Manafort at this point seems pretty clearly willing to hold out and fight this thing out. But that may change if the circumstances of the trial change. Then, of course, there also may be evidence that is revealed over the course of this that shines more light on what exactly Muller has in his quiver in terms of investigatory tools and information that may give us some sense of what else he knows about what happened between Russia and Trump campaign if anything. You know, and then, of course, the other question is if Manafort actually is convicted of any of these federal crimes, if he receives a pardon from President Trump, which may suggest that Manafort’s allegiances instead of switching over to Mueller have switched to President Trump. So there are a lot of cards that both sides have to play here.

PC: And one other option what could it mean for the Mueller investigation if the prosecutors fail to make their case against Mr. Manafort stick, in other words, if he wins?

PB: Right. I mean that's a great point. And you know I think the immediate effect of that will be a lot of chest thumping by President Trump and his allies that Mueller and his allegation are invalid, don't have the evidence that they claim to have, and I think we'll put some significant political pressure on Mueller to wrap things up more quickly than he might otherwise because people will suddenly be skeptical about his ability to carry through an investigation. I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion, but I think from a political standpoint, it's a natural one.

PC: Over the next few days, what are you going to be keeping your watch out for?

PB: I mean this is a fascinating thing to have happen — a former campaign chairman for a presidential candidate to have been caught up in this sort of investigations and brought up on criminal charges. But the real issue here for the American public is what we know about the Trump campaign and Russian interference in 2016. And so those are the things that I'm paying the most close attention to. What are we learning from this trial that we didn't otherwise know about that investigation? And what does that mean for that investigation?

PC: Philip Bump, good to talk to you. Thank you.

PB: My pleasure.

PC: Bye bye.

JD: Phillip Bump is a national reporter for The Washington Post. We reached him in New York.

[Music: Indie rock]

Aquarium theft

Guest: Jenny Spellman

JD: I would dearly love to see the napkin this plan was sketched out on. I picture a kind of cartoony drawing of a stroller, sloppy map of the aquarium, a blob of ketchup perhaps, and the cryptic phrase "SHARK EQUALS BABY?" Question mark afterwards? Well, however it came together, the heist was not successful. Yes, on Saturday, a man in San Antonio, Texas is alleged to have stolen a shark from the local aquarium — using a baby stroller. But yesterday, police recovered the shark — and now, that man has been charged. Jenny Spellman is the general manager of the San Antonio Aquarium.

PC: Ms. Spellman, on the day of the theft, how did you first realize that something strange was afoot at the aquarium?

JENNY SPELLMAN: Well, I was in my office, and I got a call over the radio that we needed a manager to the front entrance. So I met up with the employee that saw the thief come out of our employee back room. And they were dripping water everywhere. They left kind of a trail where they went. So we walked out and followed them to their car. And I did have a conversation with them at their car.

PC: What did you say? What did they say?

JS: Well, I stopped them and I said there have been some reports of a theft, and it looks pretty suspicious that they had some water dripping. And I needed to do a search of their vehicle. And the man I spoke with said they were dropping water because his Yeti cup spilled into the stroller, and they needed to leave right away because his son was sick. They did have a baby with them at the time.

PC: You mentioned a stroller. What can you tell us about how exactly this shark was smuggled out of the aquarium?

JS: Yeah, one of the men was reaching in trying to catch the shark with his hands. And when he realized that wasn't working, he pulled a net out of the front of his pants that we saw on video that he put down the front of his pants. He just pulled it out and pulled the shark up with it, wrapped it in the net, took it into the back room with an accomplice. We had a bucket for sanitizing tools. That was a 5 per cent bleach and water mix. They dumped that in to another exhibit filtration system. And I don't know if you know bleach is really bad for animals. We were able to neutralize that, thank goodness. But they filled that bucket full of water from our back area and wrapped the bucket and a towel or a bag — I'm not sure quite which — and stuck it on the very bottom of the stroller. They held the baby for the rest of the time. It was the woman that was with them that was holding the baby.

PC: I’ve never snatched a shark, but I imagine they're a slippery animal. How hard is it to snatch a grey horn shark out of a tank?

JS: Well, it's definitely not easy. Of course, nets do make it easier. I mean they're aquatic animals; they do best in the water. So if you're trying to grab them with your bare hands, they can typically get away. Now this one has been trained to be friendlier. We’ve done a lot of work with our animals so that they can both be hand-fed and not be afraid when people are going to pet them. But yeah, it’s definitely not an easy feat. I don't know if you've seen the surveillance footage, but he tries for a good while — probably less than 10 minutes — but to actually grab it pull it out of the aquarium.

PC: And all this time there are other people visiting the aquarium walking by him and stopping to see what this guy and these sharks are up to?

JS: Well, our aquarium is a fully interactive aquarium, so it's different than a lot of places in that you can touch most of the animals that we have in there. And we do have employees typically watching to make sure everybody is okay at all times. They did wait until an employee was called into a different room to help assist the customer. So most people that were around him until the point where he actually pulled the shark out of the water probably didn't notice anything was suspicious.

PC: And how big is this particular shark?

JS: She's about 16 inches.

PC: Does she have a name?

JS: We've named her Helen.

PC: Helen. OK. So that's how the heist goes down. You go and confront the alleged perpetrators of this crime at the van, and they say look my kids sippy cup or whatever — Yeti cup — fell and that's why my stroller is so wet. Then what happens>

JS: Then then the man who pulled the shark out of the aquarium he got in his car immediately and drove off. Meanwhile, one of our very smart employees managed to get his license plate number. He left the other two people behind. I believe the baby was already loaded in the car. And I guess he came back to get the other two later. But at that point, we had no concrete evidence. So immediately, I went up and watched the security tapes, and we saw what he had done and called the police.

PC: And how did they react when you contacted them and said look, someone stole a shark?

JS: I think I had to repeat myself several times. I don’t think they believed me at first.

PC: Have the police given you any idea why this man or this group of people wanted to take the shark?

JS: We don't have concrete reasoning why. I know that in their garage, they had some pretty extensive set ups where they had areas for sharks of this size, and they had some other animals that were pretty large. The officers said that the tank that we pulled Helen out of was about a 900 gallon, open-topped tank. And then they had an even larger one next to it. So it looks like they were either collectors or just kind of wanted that shark. That’s all just speculation though.

PC: This theft happened just at the end of Shark Week 2018, didn’t it?

JS: Yes, but it's a happy ending for us for Shark Week though.

PC: I'm glad you say that because I'm curious about the condition of Miss Helen, the shark. What is her condition?

JS: Right now, she's doing great. We have her in our quarantine area, which is where we put any animal that comes in just to watch for illness, or disease, or parasite. She'll be in there for an indeterminate amount of time. Typically it's a few weeks, just to see how she's doing, to make sure that she's eating properly, that she's not having any adverse effects, and then will put her back on exhibit. But she's doing well as of right now.

PC: And as you said earlier, your aquarium is interactive — we're allowed to go in and touch the animals and stuff. How do you prevent something like this from happening again?

JS: Well, we're just going to have to make sure that we've got at least one employee in there at all times that can't leave. We have employees around all of our other exhibits at all times, and we're definitely beefing up security.

PC: It has been good to talk to you, and nice to hear a happy ending for Miss Helen in this story. Thank you very much.

JS: Yes, thank you.

JD: Jenny Spellman is the general manager of the San Antonio aquarium, in San Antonio, Texas. And if you would like to see video of this shark heist, check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Violin]

Cicada parasite

JD: You're always groggy after waking up from a long nap. It takes a while to get your butt in gear. But imagine what it's like for cicadas infected with a Massosppora spore fungus. They wake up after naps of 13 or 17 years. And when they get their butts in gear, they just fall right off. Now, we already knew Massosppora did that. If a cicada comes in contact with it, the fungus eats its internal organs, and in the words of the Atlantic’s Ed Young, quote, “Converts the rear third of its body into a mass of spores.” Unquote. Hence, its rear end just drops off. But somehow these cicadas survive, and they don't seem to notice their rumplessness. Now Matt Kasson, fungi researcher from West Virginia University, believes he knows why. When his team analyzed the infected cicadas, they found psilocybin — as in the hallucinogenic compound in magic mushrooms. And cathinone, an amphetamine. And the theory is those drugs may keep them going, even attempting to mate a lot, even though they have neither rear ends nor genitals. So these cicada’s butt falls off, but the parasite also produces mind bending drugs, which may be why the cicadas continue spreading its spores becoming, in the words of Matt Kasson, “flying salt shakers of death”. Or why they don't fall behind, despite their fallen behinds.

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Orca update, plane crash obit

Orca update

Guest: Jenny Atkinson

JD: Last week, we told you the story of an orca mother known as Tahlequah, or J-35. If you heard it, you remember it: her newborn calf died on Tuesday, and for days after, Tahlequah has been pushing its body through the waters off the coast of Washington state, refusing to abandon it. Now, researchers who have been tracking the whale have captured a conversation between Tahlequah and other orcas.

[This is sad with context: a whale funeral]

JD: Jenny Atkinson recorded that orca communication. Ms. Atkinson is the executive director of the Whale Museum. We reached her in Friday Harbour, San Juan Island in Washington State.

PC: Ms. Atkinson, what are we hearing in this sound that you have recorded on Sunday?

JENNY ATKINSON: So that's a recording that we got from the water. And what you're listening to are members of J-pod, which is a family group within the southern resident community of endangered Orcas. And they had been foraging and traveling along the west side of San Juan Island. And, all of a sudden, this sub pod known as the J-17s tat Tahlequah is a member of decided to make a move. So they are now starting to swim north, and more aimed directly at our boat so that the sounds are projected forward. And you're hearing them communicate with one another. They use a series of calls and whistles to communicate. And then you'll hear a clicking noise that's echo location. And they use echolocation, which travels through water, and they use it to pick up their food source, as well as map their underwater environment. So when echolocation hits an air pocket like a swim bladder on a fish, or a dense surface like a rock, it bounces back and gives the orca a signal and helps it create a mental map.

PC: And so when you're listening to this, is it at all possible that this recording has anything to do with Tahlequah mourning her baby at all?

JA: It is possible. We picked up some calls earlier in the week, and we did hear things that sounded more like a very urgent call. So we think maybe you know we're at a place you know if you think of going to a wake for a family things can go on for multi days. And the grief is still deep, but the emotions kind of soften. So now they seem to be moving more in a typical travel pattern — more foraging. By the end of the day, she's starting to look pretty laboured as far as her breath is more laboured-sounding, her dive style is more intense and deeper. So she's probably pretty tired by the end of the day. But we do know that the family is sharing the responsibility of carrying this calf. That she's not always the one carrying it. That they seem to take turns.

PC: What do you mean by carrying it? how are they helping her out?

JA: So she carries it in a variety of ways: either across the rostrum, which is the front part of their head, just forward of the blowhole. Periodically, she's carried it on her back, or she may carry it in her mouth. There have also been times where she's kind of left it in the water where it might start to drift in the water column, but then she goes and does something and then she'll come back and get it. So while we don't have photos of the other whales carrying it, because we've seen her so many times without the calf, we know that somebody else has it. She and the others have been carrying her calf like this for more than a week now.

JA: Correct.

PC: Why do you think she's still doing this?

JA: You know I'm not I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the answer, and I can only try to look at this from my own perspective. And I know that grief affects individuals in different ways. And I can imagine that a mom develops a bond with the baby that she's carrying, right? But then once the baby is out, perhaps that bond deepened. I think of it too in terms of like a wake, or somebody lying in state, or a potlatch in a tribal community that ceremonies can go on for days to honour and mourn the loss of a loved one. But it's also saying that even though this calf isn't still with them physically, emotionally, and spiritually, this calf will always be a part of this family group.

PC: But we do know that this is a long time — a week now. And I'm curious about how long do you think she could carry on doing this for?

JA: So that's the other curious thing is you know as humans, we think it's a long time because we've never witnessed anything like this. But we also don't watch them 24/7. So what I would argue instead is because we've never seen it go on this long, we think this is a long time. But this is a population that's thousands of years old. And this may be a tradition in their community that we're just now having the opportunity to witness.

PC: Is Tahlequah in any way putting herself at risk by continuing to expend her own energy holding up her calf? I know she's sharing it with other orcas.

JA: That's an excellent question and a great thought, and it's one we're really concerned about. So orcas are involuntary breathers; they have to come to the surface to breathe, and they only rest their brain half of it at a time — it's divided into two halves. So there's probably part of her that's staying awake longer than she normally does. To also help stay in position to be able to carry this calf. And she's not spending as much time as foraging. We do know that they prey share in this community — that orcas will bring fish to one another, and they will share pieces of fish. So there is a hope that her family is helping her feed. But there definitely is a concern for her physical and emotional condition.

PC: As you've been hearing, people around the world are just heartbroken after seeing and hearing about this story. Why do you think it has resonated with so many people?

JA: You know I think part of it is if you think about the range of emotions, and if you've ever seen an orca in the wild, is that there's this amazing animal that is up to 30 feet long, and it's quite large, so maybe the size of a general bus. But it can launch its entire body out of the area. And a lot of people equate that scene with joy. And we get great joy from watching these animals in the wild. So from the extent that you can experience joy, you can have that polar opposite of experience grief. Watching what she's going through, most people have been through some level of grief and have had some situation that this touches because they can understand losing a child — losing a calf — and how heart wrenching that is. And to not be able to do anything when humans like to take action, we like to be able to do stuff. Sometimes the hardest thing is to sit back and give respect and be a witness to a situation.

PC: Ms. Atkinson, thank you so much for talking with me today. I really do appreciate it, and we hope for the best for Tahlequah.

JA: Thank you. And we really appreciate the opportunity to share her story with you and your listeners. Thank you so much.

PC: All right. Bye bye.

JA: Bye.

JD: Jenny Atkinson is the executive director of the Whale Museum. We reached her in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island, Washington State.

[Music: Folk]

Dateline: pier fire

JD: Dateline: Southend-on-Sea, England.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: 7:30 P.M. Last Friday. 22-year-old Thomas Watson is strolling down Southend Pier with his partner and his young daughter. Suddenly, he spots an impending disaster. And his quick thinking may have saved lives, or saved a small part of the pier from minor damage. Either way: when he saw potential danger, he zipped into action. He unzipped into action. Is what I should have said. Mr. Watson caught sight of smoke rising from the planks — a lot of smoke. He told the BBC, quote, "I looked at it and the wood was proper charring away, like white with an orange glow." Unquote. The three of them were the only people left on the pier. Thomas Watson knew it was up to him to act, and act quickly, which he did. In his words, quote, "Using my initiative, I decided to empty my bladder." Unquote. His partner had already called emergency services, but by the time they arrived, it was out. The fire, I mean. The fire was out. And while officials say they're confident the sprinkler system would have taken care of the smouldering, they have expressed their gratitude. A spokesperson invited Mr. Watson and his family free access to the pier, but said, quote, "[We] kindly ask that he keeps his trousers firmly secured on this occasion." Unquote. Well, very funny, Southend Pier spokesperson. But never forget: if that pee-er hadn't shown up, your pier might be gone.

[Music: World music]

Basic income

JD: Thousands of people living on low-incomes in communities in Ontario were taking part in the program. But today, the province's new PC government announced that it would be ending the basic income pilot project. It was supposed to run for three years; as of now, it's been running for 15 months. Lisa MacLeod is the minister for Children, Community and Social Services. Here's one of the questions she was asked by a reporter at a press conference earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: I'm wondering if you can explain why you know that the basic income pilot project wasn't working, and isn't providing what it's meant to do if the research isn't done?

LISA MACLEOD: So here's the situation: when many parts of my ministry were repatriated, and I started to receive briefings, and there was a great deal of disjointed, patchwork policies that really weren't communicating with one another. What we have seen, however, is that the program isn't doing what it's intended to be doing and it's quite expensive. And so we have decided that we will wind the program down. I'll have more details at a later date on how we plan on doing that. But I want to assure Ontarians who are on the pilot project right now that we will do it ethically.

REPORTER: But what data, or proof, or examples do you have that wasn't working? Your press release and your statement say that it wasn't working, it's not effective. And what data is there if you're not allowing the pilot project to play out?

LM: Well, look, I'll simply say this: for the amount it was costing the province of Ontario, and the impact it was having, it was certainly not going to be sustainable. And we feel that there is a better way to proceed. So today, I'm here to announce a one-point-five per cent increase in rates. That we are pausing the Liberal plan. That we are going to wind down the basic income pilot project. And that in 100 days, we'll be able to report back with a sustainable plan that brings all of the different projects within my ministry together in order to best lift Ontarians up. But let me be perfectly clear, to spending more money on a broken program isn't going to help anyone. This is a tough job. This is probably gonna be one of the toughest jobs our government's gonna have to face, but it's necessary. And it's necessary because we have to be there for the people of Ontario who need us most. And that is our vulnerable people.

JD: Lisa McLeod, Ontario's Minister for Children, Community and Social Services, speaking at a press conference earlier today. As she mentioned, there will also be a one-point-five per cent rate increase for people on some welfare programs, which is approximately half of the 3 per cent rate increase the previous Liberal government planned to institute.

[Music: Ambient]

Plane crash obit

Guest: Carmen Adair

JD: Some people say it's hard to imagine St. Catharines, Ontario, without the Robertson family, which is why the city is reeling today. Because three members of that family — Joe and Anita Robertson, and their daughter Laura — died yesterday, when their small plane crashed in the state of Maine. Today, we're learning more about them — and about the mark they made in the Niagara region. Carmen Adair was a business partner and long-time friend of the family. We reached him in Vancouver.

PC: Mr. Adair, I'm so very sorry for the loss of your friends.

CARMEN ADAIR: Yeah, thanks, Piya. For me, it's somewhat therapeutic to talk about Joe after his passing and somehow a tribute to him via talking about it.

PC: How did you hear what happened to the Robertson’s?

CA: How did I hear? I got a call from a reporter yesterday morning asking for my name and if I knew Joe Robertson, and they indicated there was a small plane that had crashed that had took off from Pembroke airport in Ontario, heading for Prince Edward Island. Three people on board a twin engine Aerostar. So when I heard that, I didn't breathe for about 20 seconds because that’s pretty definitive that it must be Joe and his family. And that’s when I first heard.

PC: It's early days, and the investigation is underway. But what have you heard about how the crash happened?

CA: I heard that Joe had sent out a distress signal. He had diverted to a small airport called Greenville in the state of Maine. And he was definitely in trouble with the plane. I heard and eyewitness account that said that he made one pass over the runway, and turned around to attempt a landing it looked like. And the plane just went into the ground short of the runway, so a pretty catastrophic failure. I heard that there was a power failure on board, and maybe he lost all instrumentation there or who knows. But I can tell you that Joe is the most meticulous person on the planet, and most safety-conscious. So I would be very surprised if it was pilot error. He’d had quite a few hours on the plane, and pretty intense training from a fellow that had 21,000 hours in the plane as his trainer, do pretty competent.

PC: Beyond being a pilot, your friend Joe was also on the board at Brock University. He and his family were very involved in philanthropy and other endeavors in the Niagara region. Tell me more about Joe, how would you describe him?

CA: Well, he's not only brilliant, but he's a nice guy I guess is the simplest way to say it. He's educated Harvard MBA honours program. Right away in 1989, when we became partners, I knew he was something special. There was something special about him and Anita. And you know he was just a combination of brilliant, and we ended up doing pretty well in business together. But that doesn't always mean you're a nice person. And, in his case, He is a nice person, and they are nice people. And that's what makes it all the more tragic.

PC: And what about Anita?

CA: Anita was a very devoted partner with Joe. She did work at the business part time in the beginning. She you know supported the family. She I think was the one that guided Joe into the charity work and the support of the community. In their name more recent years, she I think drove that. And Joe you know became part of it with her.

PC: When was the last time you'd spoken to Joe?

CA: I spoke to him the morning he took off for Prince Edward Island. He was going to call me when he got there, so pretty shocking. I'm still thinking he's going to call, but I know he won’t. So yeah, I talked to him just before he left.

PC: What did the Robertson family mean to St. Catharines and the Niagara region?

CA: Well, with our company Arcona, at one point, we had 905 employees and their families, so that was probably 3,000 people employed there and across Canada. So we played a big part in a lot of people's lives. And after Arcona, he was involved in a number of different businesses, and friends, and charity work through their friends and family. So he's touched the lives in a positive way of a lot of people in that region.

PC: Joe and Anita had three kids. Their daughter died along with them in that plane, but there are two sons that they've left behind. Have you had a chance to connect with them to talk with them?

CA: Yes, I’ve talked to both Clark and Taylor briefly. And, of course, they're you know super shaken up, and they they're still in disbelief. And, of course, losing their dad, and their mom, and there sister all in one go was about as hard a thing you can imagine to have happen to them. So we're trying to support the family and the families all in Niagara-on-the-Lake right now together. And they're with their cousins, and aunts and uncles, and I know they're getting lots of support.

PC: As you said, this family gave a lot to the community in which they lived and the surrounding areas. What do you want us Canadians to know about this family, and the mark that they've left?

CA: Well, I would want them to know that, as I said, they’re not just great business people, and Joe in particular, but giving back the community. So they didn't just make some money and then sit on it. They're spending the money, and they're taking the passion that Joe had for the business and converting that or using that energy into passion for helping other people. So I think if you interviewed any of the many employees that we had at Arcona, the company that we mutually owned, they would say good words about Joe, and good things about Anita. And we’re all super saddened by the loss.

PC: Mr. Adair, again, I'm sorry that you're having to go through this, and we're thinking about you. Do take care, OK?

CA: Yeah. Thanks very much. My pleasure to chat with you.

PC: OK, bye.

CA: Bye then.

JD: Carmen Adair was a long-time business partner and friend of the Robertson family. Three members of that family — Joe and Anita Robertson, and their daughter Laura — died in a plane crash in Maine yesterday.

[Music: Sombre]

Alan Alda

JD: You might know him as "Hawkeye" Pierce from M*A*S*H. Or as Senator Arnold Vinick on "The West Wing". But today, actor Alan Alda appeared as himself on CBS “This Morning”, to make a personal announcement. Here's some of what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

ALAN ALDA: I haven't said in public until now that I've been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. And the reason that I want to talk about it in public is that I was diagnosed three-and-a-half years ago, and I've had a full life since then. I've acted. I've given talks. I help at the Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook. I started this new podcast, and I noticed that I've been on television a lot in the last couple of weeks talking about the new podcast, and I could see my thumb twitch in some shots. And I thought it's probably only a matter of time before somebody does a story about this from a sad point of view. So this is not where I am.

HOST ONE: So this is the first time you're revealing publicly that you've been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease? What was that diagnosis like when you got it?

AA: Well, I asked for a scan because I thought I might have it. I read an article by Jane Brody in The New York Times that indicated that if you act out your dreams, there's a good chance that might be a very early symptom where nothing else shows. By acting out your dreams, I mean I was having a dream that someone was attacking me, and I threw a sack of potatoes at them. But what I was really doing was throwing a pillow at my wife.

HOST ONE: Wow.

HOST TWO: Wow. So what other symptoms did you start to notice?

AA: I didn't have any symptoms. The doctor said why do you want to scan? You don't have any symptoms. And I said I want to know if there's anything I can do? I want to do it before things start to show up. And so, months later, a little twitch in my thumb, you know? And the third thing I want folks to know, and this is not to shortchange people who are suffering with really severe symptoms, you know symptoms can get very bad, and their families can suffer. But in the very beginning, to be immobilized by fear and think the worst thing has happened to you. It hasn't happened to you. You still have things you can do.

JD: That was Alan Alda on CBS “This Morning” earlier today, revealing he has Parkinson's disease.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

July 31, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode