Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The AIH Transcript for January 25, 2017

Hosts: Helen Mann and Chris Howden

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello I'm Helen Mann.

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

CH: Tonight:

HM: A breath of fresh air. Before her transplant, an Ontario woman was kept alive for six days without her lungs – and now, months later, Melissa Benoit's life is one long sigh of relief.

CH: Getting the general idea. We ask former General Andrew Leslie to share his marching orders, as he becomes the parliamentary point man on relations with the U.S. under Donald Trump.

HM: Taking their temperatures. The new president targets the Environmental Protection Agency in the early days of his administration – and that's just the tip of the shrinking iceberg.

CH: Casting the net too wide. Australian authorities install nets along one coast in an effort to save people from sharks – but wind up killing hundreds of other marine animals in the process.

HM: Who could take a nothing day, and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile? We'll pay tribute to an actor, producer, and activist whose signature role transformed television: the late, great Mary Tyler Moore.

CH: And... he's really putting the "I" in "island". Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg likes his new Hawaiian property, but not his neighbours – and now that he's built a wall and filed hundreds of lawsuits, the unfriending is mutual.

As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that guesses their relationship status is "It's complicated".

Back To Top »

Part 1: No lungs survivor, EPA changes, Zuckerberg Hawaii

No lungs survivor

Guest: Melissa Benoit

CHRIS HOWDEN: It doesn't just sound unorthodox. The procedure doctors at Toronto General Hospital used to say. Melissa Benoit life sounds impossible. They removed her lungs for six days. Ms. Benoit lived without her lungs, kept alive by machines, until she could receive a lung transplant. It's believed to have been the first procedure of its kind. Well that was last April. And tonight we reached Melissa Benoit at home in Burlington Ontario.

HELEN MANN: Melissa let's start with how you were when you first landed in the hospital. What kind of state were you in?

MELISSA BENOIT: I was not great but I was conscious and still walking. I had become very short of breath over the previous few weeks with contracting the H1N1 influenza on top of having lung infection related to my CF. So when I first went in I was very aware of what was happening. But the shortness of breath continued to get worse and it became very scary, and then things started to go even quicker downhill to the point that my carbon dioxide levels had risen so high that I was unconscious and unaware of everything that was happening around me.

HM: Now you had had cystic fibrosis your whole life. How did it get to this point where it became such a crisis?

MB: What put me over the edge with the influenza. I had actually been relatively stable and quite healthy as a CF person. It was much more complicated when we threw influenza into that mix and that is what pushed me over into respiratory distress and eventually respiratory failure.

HM: And as you said you were unconscious when it hit the crisis point. What guided your family as they had to make these really important medical decisions on your behalf?

MB: Living with a chronic illness, you're faced with that every day. You have no choice but to think of, you know the inevitable or something that could happen in the face of having CF. Yes. So we were always open and honest that I would want to try everything possible to have a meaningful recovery should something happen and they had to rely on previous conversations knowing my personality, and they were absolutely right because that is what I would have chosen.

HM: And you were really close to death when this decision was made.

MB: Within hours. It's a very fine balance on deciding OK, is now the time where we remove her lungs? Because the procedure may not even work. So essentially it could have been a death sentence, trying this procedure, or they could have let me have a compassionate passing in the intensive care unit. So I was within hours when the decision was made to approach my family, say OK, listen, it's never been tried before but here's our plan. Do you agree?

HM: And when you talk about them removing your lungs, normally one would think they have another set of lungs ready to put in you, and of course that is not the case here. Tell us about this procedure and what was done to keep you alive.

MB: Yes. They removed my lungs without me being on the transplant list. They had no donor lungs to replace my nth stage lungs. The reason I couldn't go on the transplant list was because I became septic. That's when the induction takes over the bloodstream and you are not eligible for transplantation when you are in sepsis. And the option for them was let's remove the source of the infection, which were in my lungs, and we'll see if the substance gets better, and if it does then we can put her on the transplant list and wait for lungs. And that's what happened. And I sat for six days in the intensive care unit in a medically induced coma waiting for a suitable pair of donor lungs to come my way. And six days later they did. And I am thankful for the decision for that donor to register and for that family to honor their wishes because without those donor lungs, I wouldn't be here today.

HM: And during those six days, while you were waiting for those lungs, I mean as you say you were unconscious, but you were being kept alive by machinery. How did that work?

MB: That was a very state of the art, as far advanced as they could possibly have, to keep me alive. I was attached to what's called an ECMO system. It's a system that takes the place of your heart, pumps the blood out and removes the carbon dioxide which is dangerous, and then re-oxygenates the blood and then pumps it back into the body. After the double pneumonectomy, I then needed something to perform the act of lungs. So they hooked me up to the machine called the Novalung, and this system relies on the heart to be the pump and it pumps the blood out of the body goes through an oxygenator which filters in fresh oxygen to the blood, and then it's pumped back into the body. So I had these two circuits both working at the same time to keep me alive.

HM: And how, during this whole time, did doctors know that you know, your brain was being kept alive, enough to be allow for full recovery?

MB: That was a little touch and go for a while. We did the double pneumonectomy procedure, and in the ICU I was not responding to painful stimuli. Even when someone is unconscious, you have these fundamental reflexes and I was not having them. So the question was, does she have a brain function to proceed with the transplant, or are we done here? And for days testing was done and my mom actually tried to get me to stick out my tongue because I wasn't strong enough to squeeze hands. I had lost all muscle strength. So she kept yelling in my ears “Melissa if you can hear us. You stick out your tongue. Just stick it out.” And she repeated this over and over again. And she said it took a good 20 minutes but there was the very faintest hint of me trying to open my mouth and stick out my tongue.

HM: Wow.

MB: And that showed the doctors that I did have brain function. I was still in there even though I was unconscious, I was still there. And the doc said OK, get her those lungs.

HM: Wow. Now how does one react to learning after all of this, I mean that you've been kept alive by machinery for six days? No lungs.

MB: Yeah. I actually didn't believe anyone. I am a nurse by vocation and I had never heard of this before so it must not exist. Like how can you possibly take somebody’s lungs out and they can survive. It made no sense. And I will be honest, I'm not even sure to this day I fully realize what happened. It just seems so science fiction. But it worked and it gave me the second chance that I so desperately needed.

HM: I can hear the emotion in your voice when you were talking about your gratitude about the donor family who let you have these lungs. What does breathing feel like now?

MB: Breathing feels brand new. I've never experienced breathing in my entire life. It was always a struggle. It always felt like I was breathing through a straw. And the very first time I was taken off the ventilator, and my tracheotomy was removed for the very first time, I took a deep breath. And I could feel the air rush in to the very depths of my lungs and it was a feeling that I had never experienced before and I don't think anyone will ever appreciate how I can describe it except those who had lived it. It felt amazing.

HM: Yeah I can well imagine. An amazing, amazing story. And I'm so happy you're able to tell us about it. Thank you very much for talking to us.

MB: Thank you so much for having me.

CH: We reached Melissa Benoit, who spent six days without lungs, at her home in Burlington, Ontario. And you can find more on that story on the As It Happens website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

EPA changes

Guest: Liz Purchia

CH: Yesterday the Twitter account for Badlands National Park in the U.S. went rogue. In a series of four tweets, it issued a pointed attack on the new president Donald Trump. The tweets weren't personal, they were just scientific facts about ocean acidity and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The tweets were later deleted. The National Park Service said they had been sent by a former employee, who wasn't supposed to have access to the account. But their timing and content was deliberate. The new president's administration has already issued a series of directives that severely hamper the actions and communications of the Environmental Protection Agency. Liz Purchia is the former director of communications for the EPA. We reached her in Des Moines, Iowa.

HM: Ms. Purchia, how do President Trump's actions on the EPA in his first few days in office compare with what you might have expected?

LIZ PURCHIA: Well you know I think we all hoped that when he came into office that they would take their job a little bit more seriously and understand the weight of the work that the federal agencies do and the important role that EPA plays in protecting our public health and the environment. And unfortunately, you know, I think what we have seen in just three short days of them being in office is they have taken just step after step up trying to hobble the agency. Everything from preventing the staff from communicating with the public to putting a freeze on all contracts and grants that go out to local communities, to a freeze on hiring. So I think it's not a great sign of what the common he may be attempting to you know fulfill what he promised on the campaign trail which was to get rid of the agency.

HM: Well, as a matter of fact, you just said you would like to have thought they had a better understanding. Is it is possible it's not a question that they don't understand it, but they just completely disagree with its mandate?

LP: I think it's both. I mean, I really do feel like the people that they have coming into the agency as the so-called beachhead team, you know, these are a groups of political people who are now, all of a sudden put in charge of the science agency and they don't have any background in these issues that they're supposed to be representing. These are people who have spent the last eight years of the Obama administration actively fighting and suing the agency that they are now all of a sudden going to be in charge of. I think Scott Pruitt who is nominated to be the head of the EPA has about 14 lawsuits against the agency. They have repeatedly implemented campaigns to hobble the agency by continually suing or trying to basically just prevent the agency from moving forward on implementing a lot of the things that we were trying to do under President Obama's leadership.

HM: We've been told that the EPA has been ordered to cease communicating with the public. Now Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, denied that today. He said there wasn't a directive to silence EPA employees. What is your understanding of what's going on?

LP: Well it's pretty plain. I mean they put out a memo which you can find online where they specifically say no press releases are allowed to come out from the agency, no social media posts or blog posts are allowed to be posted by the agency. So everything is basically on hold.

HM: There is also a freeze on assigning new work to EPA contractors. What does that mean? What kind of impact might that have?

LP: Well EPA, you know, relies on contractors and state agencies and non-profit organizations to do a lot of the work that the agency does on the local level. For example just in 2016, EPA provided California with $182 billion in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Those are all funds that go to small and large communities to help repair their aging systems. That type of money helps prevent situations like we saw in Flint Michigan. And so there are real direct impacts to what they're doing.

HM: The Trump administration has said that these are temporary moves, that they are just trying to get up to speed on how things are done and get a sense of the work that's out there. Does that make you feel any better?

LP: You know I think with any new administration, they have a right to kind of come in and try and get their ducks in a row, and figure out what issues they want to focus on. And you know, they may not want to cover, continue the same programs that were involved in the previous administration. But I think that the way that they have gone about this is just so drastic. Even if they are just, you know, trying to take a temporary freeze. You know we're this is day three, and they have kind of already set up this antagonistic relationship between themselves and the thousands and thousands of career staffers that work for them at the agency. It kind of shows a lack of trust and respect for the staff.

HM: Scientists here in Canada also felt that they were muzzled back in 2006 by the previous government in this country, and it was a number of years before they were voted out. So I guess I'm wondering what you think might be lost in the four years or more of a Trump administration if they continue on this path?

LP: You I mean it's... I know that scientists at EPA and other agencies, you know, are really nervous about the years of work that they have spent on research and reports they have put together. And I think they have they have every right to be, and I think that it's going to really require a combination of efforts of them, you know, being steadfast and believing and continuing to do the work they do and also relying on an outside groups as well as the business community. You know I think the business community sees the writing on the wall. You know, they know climate change is happening, because it affects their bottom lines. Like they see the impacts of sustainability issues, or rising seas might have on factories and manufacturing plants. So, they know that we need to kind of keep moving forward in this direction. It's just, you know, it's unfortunate that our president at this point in time is not fully behind the business community or the environmentalists and public health officials.

HM: Ms. Purchia, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. We appreciate your time.

LP: Thank you for having me.

HM: OK. Bye.

LP: Thanks.

CH: Liz Purchia is the former Director of Communications for the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. She was in Des Moines, Iowa. To read more about President Trump's tussles with environmentalists, and to see those rogue tweets from Badlands National Park, head to our website, cbc.ca/aih.

Zuckerberg Hawaii

Guest: Kaniela Ing

CH: A few years ago, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife went on vacation, to the beautiful Hawaiian island of Kauai. Like many before him, he fell in love with the place. Unlike everyone before him, he bought the place.
Mr. Zuckerberg reportedly spent one hundred million dollars to purchase seven hundred acres of land. But some say the social media multi-billionaire isn't being very neighbourly. He put up a wall. And now he's launched lawsuits against hundreds of Hawaiians who might have small claims to land within his new estate.
Kaniela Ing is a Hawaii State Representative. We reached him on Maui.

HM: Mr. Ing, I understand that you have just gotten back from taking a look at Mr. Zuckerberg’s property. What is it like?

KANIELA ING: Well it's a gorgeous, enormous chunk of land. It's 700 acres; it's roughly a square mile. There's like a six foot wall surrounding the property to not allow locals to walk through it. Other than that, it's breathtaking.

HM: So has Mr. Zuckerberg been there for a while?

KI: He purchased the property 2014 and I believe he moved everyone… or he brought family over to visit last year in the holidays. But I'm not sure exactly how often he is there. That seems to be the crux of the problem really.

HM: Why is that an issue to you?

KI: You know, the larger issue in all… all the legal nuances aside. Who really needs 700 acres? It just seems sort of excessive no matter how much money you make, especially when you're talking about an island community, that's going to be very disruptive to your neighbors. So you know the least you can do is go into the community, and culture a little bit. Explain to your neighbors what your intentions are. And you know, Mr. Zuckerberg did none of that. You know, the first communication that a lot of the folks that own the Kuleana parcels received was a letter stating that they've been sued.

HM: OK, let's talk about this lawsuit. What is it about from your point of view?

KI: So Hawaii used to be under the reign of an actual oligarchy, where five missionary families control our economy through sugar, and our government. And you know, some argue that that's still the case. But the Sugar Barons used the same legal mechanisms that Mark Zuckerberg is using today to displace thousands of Hawaiian families from their ancestral land. So you know, regardless of whether his intentions are good or bad, he really needs to be more cognizant of that history.

HM: Mr. Zuckerberg says, as you know, that the this is a good faith effort on his part, to find owners of parts of his land that, you know, he's suggesting they may not even know they own some of the land that he is trying to purchase and that he just wants to properly compensate them. How do you respond to that?

KI: There are ways to find owners, identify owners of the land, without suing them. The only reason why somebody would initiate a quiet title action would be to make sure that local people aren't walking through his property, that he had complete unfettered private access. And that you know, it seems a little unreasonable when you're talking about 700 acres. These people don't want to… they’re not paparazzi, they don't want to disrupt them at home. They just want to get to the beach.

HM: You know one of Mr. Zuckerberg neighbours quoted in The Guardian is saying that that they think the purchase of the land is actually not that bad relative to this potential for somebody building a giant housing development. So is that maybe a good thing?

KI: Yeah absolutely. I think if Mr. Zuckerberg really has intentions that he’s claiming to have and wants to respect the native Hawaiian culture then we should welcome those efforts. But he needs to back up those words with some action. And you know, first thing he could do is actually drop the lawsuits. So you know, while we welcome his newfound openness to talk and his statement of aloha, you know we need to stand guard until his actions follow those words.

HM: Right. So Mr. Zuckerberg, just to be clear has said that based on feedback from the local community, we are reconsidering the quiet title process in discussing how to move forward. So you're still a bit skeptical?

KI: Well when Mr. Zuckerburg says “We are discussing how to move forward,” who's “we”? Why isn't the community involved? Why isn't the public officials and lawyers who have defended client families against these sorts of cases involved? You know, let's put our money and our actions where our mouths are.

HM: Some people on the islands have said that this is his actions are tantamount to neocolonialism. Do you go that far?

KI: Oh I have gone that far. I’ve said, look we have 200 years Sugar Barons and Mars developers exploiting this loophole, this quiet title action in order to displace Hawaiian families from their land. It used to be 23,000 acres and little by little, it's down to just a few thousand. So when you see a billionaire with the best attorneys in the world, the best PR firm in the world, coming in and talking slick, and suing the hundreds of locals, you get worried. And if it's really outside money tilting the scales of justice here in Hawaii.

HM: Mr. Ing I appreciate you talking with us. Thank you very much.

KI: No, thank you. OK.

CH: Kaniela Ing is a Hawaii State Representative. We reached him on Maui. You can read more on this story, and see some pictures of Mark Zuckerberg's property at cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Canada/US trade: Leslie, no shark nets

Canada/US trade: Leslie

Guest: Andrew Leslie

CHRIS HOWDEN: Andrew Leslie would appear to have a battle ahead of him. The retired lieutenant-general is now a Liberal MP – and he's just been named the Parliamentary Secretary who'll deal with the United States under Donald J. Trump.
That is not the former general's exact title. The official one says something about Foreign Affairs. But there's been a lot of talk about Andrew Leslie knowing the military men closest to the new U.S. President. And he has just returned from a cabinet retreat, aimed at getting Mr. Trudeau and his government ready for a new chapter in Canada-U.S. relations. We reached Andrew Leslie in Ottawa.

HELEN MANN : Andrew Leslie, how would you characterize the challenges that Donald Trump’s presidency poses for your government?

ANDREW LESLIE: Well I think there's challenges of course but there's also opportunities. And I think that Prime Minister has done a very prudent and careful analysis of what's required, and he's repositioning some people and assets to cater to the changed circumstances south of the border.

HM: Donald Trump as you know has said he wants the United States to follow two simple rules. To buy American, and hire American. This is Canada's biggest trading partner, so how do you address that challenge?

AL: Well you’vr brought up an excellent point. So some facts. 35 states have as their largest trading partner provinces and Canada. There's 9 million jobs directly dependent on the interaction with the Canadian economy. And of course, last year we in Canada bought more stuff from the Americans than they bought from us so we're a customer and we are part of an integrated supply system, an integrated manufacturing system, and of course they're our closest friend and ally. So absolutely there's work ahead of us, and we must never take friends for granted. But the philosophy we're operating under is. Keep calm, carry on.

HM: We know that Mr. Trump has said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA, at least. I mean some people say maybe he'll withdraw altogether but he's talking about renegotiating. He says that from now on cars and trucks sold in the states should be made there. So what does that mean for the auto sector in this country?

AL: Well it's too early to say. By the way, let's not forget that President Obama came into office saying he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA as well. We all understand the imperative. And you know the program itself has been in place for many years and some changes are probably required on both sides of the border. But let's not forget that President Trump has not yet had the opportunity to get more than half his, or actually less than half of his cabinet through. So it's still very early days.

HM: You speak of opportunities on both sides of the border. What might Canada gain by reopening NAFTA?

AL: Well it's we are going to of course, interact with the American authorities when it's appropriate to do so. Immediately after the election, senior advisers in the Prime Minister's office were in literally day-to-day contact with senior advisers on President Trump's team. And of course the Prime Minister had called him right away and he’s had at least one other discussion that I know about. So there's a very constant flow of exchange of ideas, of shaping, of influencing in both directions. Cabinet ministers are getting involved with their opposite numbers as they are confirmed, and there's been a whole series of people who have made the voyage in both directions. I mean we just have Steve Schwarzman up at the cabinet retreat in Calgary. And he is, if you would, one of the preeminent thinkers and opinion shapers around President Trump's economic team, and he had very nice things to say about the current trading relationship.

HM: Well he said publicly, Canadians don't really have any reason to worry because we're viewed favorably by Mr. Trump. But what message did do you think he took back from your government to Mr. Trump?

AL: Probably, well I won't presume to speak for him, but I'll try to answer your question. I think he probably took a message back that the Canadians are, like all good friends willing to work hard on maintaining and nurturing a friendship, that we are open for business as always. And that as a society, our supply chains are very closely integrated, and matter of fact, certain products, especially the more complicated ones, they can cross the border seven, eight, nine times before they actually get to the final customer. That's how closely our economies are integrated.

HM: We talk a lot in this country about even more open borders with the United States, and today we are seeing Mr. Trump apparently followed through on many of his campaign pledges with regard to tighter controls on things like immigration. Isn't there a risk to this country that we will be under pressure to maybe change our own policies about refugees and immigration to make them feel more secure that the border is safe.

AL: Well the United States and it is their prerogative of course we'll decide on those internal control measures which their president and their elected officials, and eventually the electorate, consider just and fair and right for them. Canada has no intention of abandoning its interests and values. We will continue to maintain our inclusive city of reaching out to those less fortunate than ourselves and giving them a hand where it's required.
We are close friends and allies but we are, in many ways, slightly different. But overall I think the commonality of purpose, a shared border, defense alliance that go back literally multiple generations.
My first time down the United States as a young Canadian soldier I bumped into Americans, who were like me, lieutenants or Junior captains, who are now generals or, good heavens, cabinet ministers. And that experience is replicated across a multiplicity of levels not only amongst the military of course, but amongst civil society. So we've been friends a long time and we're going to be friends for a long time in the future.

HM: Mr. Trump seems to have a fondness for generals or former ones anyway. Do you think your background might help?

AL: Well I have nothing wrong with heads of government or heads of state who have fondness for generals. Perhaps my background can help and that once again points out the chess game that Prime Minister Trudeau is playing. An important one where he's redirecting assets to best take care of the needs and interests and values of our nation. Chrystia Freeland is Minister of Foreign Affairs. She maintains the trading responsibility because they're so inextricably linked between our two nations. Marc Garneau, as you know former astronaut, is the chair of the Canada-U.S. Committee. He's redeployed a very senior staff member from his prime minister's office over to global affairs to remain seized of this Canada U.S. relationship. Much more modestly of course, he's give me specific instructions to give a hand wherever I can. And the list goes on, and I think that's a very prudent, wise thing to do.

HM: Does that redeployment maybe not send a signal that we're worried?

AL: Not a question of being worried. It's a question of making sure that our interests are taken care of and that we maintain open lines of communication in a variety of venues; peacekeeping, war fighting. Where I and many others like me have been deployed over the years, it's so much easier to pick up the phone and call someone when you actually have a relationship with them and it's so much easier to solve complex problems when you're talking to a friend.

HM: Andrew Leslie thank you for joining us. I appreciate it taking the time.

AL: My pleasure. Thank you Helen.

HM: All right. Bye bye.

CH: Andrew Leslie is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was in Ottawa.

[Music]

Vader sentenced

CH: Travis Vader maintains his innocence. But Justice Denny Thomas was unmoved. Today, the Edmonton judge handed Mr. Vader a life sentence, for the deaths of two Alberta seniors who were last seen six-and-a-half years ago. Mr. Vader was convicted of two counts of manslaughter last year, for the killing of Lyle and Marie McCann. Their bodies still have not been found.
In Melbourne, Australia, the McCann couple's eldest son Bret hit the road at 2 AM local time to watch the sentencing through a video conference call. He spoke to reporters in Canada during a break in court proceedings. Here's what Bret McCann said:

SOUNDCLIP

BRET MCCANN: This was such an unbelievable relief. I tell you it's a six and a half years of this roller coaster. And last we went to bed early not knowing which way it’ll go. Sort of cautiously optimistic that this would be the result. But I mean you never know. And to hear him actually say that and so quickly into his sentencing was such a relief.

REPORTER: Bret, this gets asked over and over again by media. But is there any degree of closure for your family now for six and a half years?

BM: I don’t think that I could ever use the word closure. What I would say is that this is a chapter, and this is definitely a chapter closing. You know, this won’t bring our parents back. I'm very hopeful that someday you'll say where my parents are. But it's a terrific closing and we're moving on, we're going to make an attempt to move on with our lives.

REPORTER 2: Bret, what did you think when Travis Vader spoke, addressed the court and said he will continue to fight to clear his name?

BM: Well I was surprised actually. I thought he’d go into his “I’m a victim here and woe is me.” I don't think you can expect any more from him. He's denied this from the beginning and has never expressed any sense of remorse.

REPORTER 3: Fred what's your reaction to no chance for over seven years. Would you like to have seen more than that or is that suitable?

BM: I need to fully understand this parole arrangement. But you know, from my point of view, I hope that he never attains parole. I hope that if the parole board sees that, you know, he doesn’t deserve parole until he expresses remorse and says where my parents bodies are. And I'm doubtful that will occur. I'm hopeful that will occur.

REPORTER 4: Bret, you’ve carried this… seemingly carried the burden of waiting and watching hoping for justice. Do you feel sort of that weight being lifted. I know I know it's not closure for you.

BM: No, I think a huge weight’s been lifted. I think justice has been served. I also want to say a huge thanks to my family and friends. It's really helped us get through.

CH: That was Bret McCann reacting today to the life sentence a judge gave Travis Vader, the man who was convicted of killing his parents Lyle and Marie McCann in 2010. Mr. Vader continues to maintain his innocence.

[Music]

No shark nets

Guest: Justin Field

CH: The ocean is the realm of sharks, and sometimes they don't appreciate having human visitors. And, occasionally, they express their displeasure at the intrusion with their teeth. In New South Wales, Australia, authorities have tried to solve the problem of bad human-shark interactions by installing shark nets along the coast of some northern beaches. Which has created another problem entirely. Justin Field is an MP with Australia's Greens Party. We reached him in Sydney.

HM: Mr. Field, how are these shark nets supposed to work?

JUSTIN FIELD: Well, basically you've got a 150 meter long net, quite a traditional gill net that’s strung up about 400 metres offshore from city beaches in the metropolitan area of New South Wales. The idea originally was that they were supposed to stop sharks forming territories, not to prevent them from accessing the beach and swimmers and surfers, but we now know that sharks aren’t territorial So there's real question marks about the efficacy of the meshing program and its ability to keep people safe because of course the beaches are much longer than 150 meters, and sharks easily swim easily swim over or around the nets.

HM: Besides your concern about the efficacy of them what's the other problem?

JF: Well they cause a huge amount of collateral damage on the marine environment, on marine animals. I'm talking about turtles, dolphins, nonlocal sharks of which we have many in Australia, and stingrays in particular. And hundreds are killed every year. And in the last 12 months, we've seen a dramatic spike in the number of marine animals captured and killed in the nets. And I mean, these are the animals that we enjoy sitting on the beach and watching.

HM: Is there any indication why they are catching more of these creatures recently?

JF: No and science is a bit unclear about that. I think some people would argue that we're seeing a restoration of the health of their marine environment, generally. We are better at protecting the water from pollution, we’ve controlled fishing levels. So I think that's part of the story. But we do know now the real numbers that are being killed in it and it's quite dramatic.

HM: You mentioned a number of species of animals. Are any of them considered to be at risk?

JF: Oh absolutely absolutely. A large percentage of the animals the court and killed either threatened or protected species. I understand that people are fearful of great white sharks but they are a protected species in Australia. And for the first time I’ve seen some nets up on our northern beaches, up near Byron Bay, for a couple of shark bites there last year and a couple of deaths unfortunately.
But the community are really concerned. It's is very well known marine habitat. Dolphins are plentiful, turtles are plentiful, and in the first month of the netting program, 12 animals were killed including a highly endangered green turtle, and one other favorite bottlenose dolphins up there.

HM: Is that engaging people more the fact that animals that are charming and that they like to watch like bottlenose dolphins are being captured by these things? Well I won't deny the fact that there is a very legitimate concern and fear amongst the community on the north coast. There was a string of bites and science is unclear about why we had that spike over the last 24 months. And so there are some people that just want something to be done. But we know there are non-lethal approaches to shark management that do work to keep people safe. We have to take a sort of a different attitude towards the marine environment than just expecting we can go out whenever we want.

JF: So what are the non-lethal methods, the alternatives to these shark nets?

HM: Well it's actually some really light technology methods such as a community observer program. It worked really successfully in South Africa. They've got great whites over there. Basically you’ve got life guards with binoculars on the beach watching for sharks, and have a really simple signaling tool to be able to tell people that are using the water that day. And then people are able to make their own decisions about where and how they use the water.
But increasingly, there are personal deterrent devices that are starting to be shown to be effective against some species, and I believe including great whites and there are things that you can attach your surfboard or carry with you when you’re diving into to try to deter sharks. So there's a range of technologies that are probably a lot cheaper than the program that the government's rolled out. So we've really been pushing for those.

HM: Yeah that’s what I was going to ask you, because as we know governments are always looking for the most cost effective options. These efforts would be cheaper you think than the netting program?

JF: I think the scale of the netting program is now that yes it would. I think partly this is the public relations exercise. It looks good when there's helicopters in the sky running surveillance programs, which we have currently got, and boats out in the water and the nets are being deployed, and people have that sense of safety. But it’s a false sense of security and it's coming at a pretty high cost that could be redirected I think more, much more effectively.

HM: Now as you know proponents of the Shark Net say they're working. The Department of Primary Industries claims that 72 percent of marine animals were successfully released. Why are they so committed to continuing with the nets?

JF: One of the reasons is the many programs have been running for such a long time and I think within the department, there is a degree to which they want to protect their own work. They don't want to admit that it’s a failure. We’ve had 20 odd bites at netted beaches over the last two decades. So you aren’t guaranteed safety. It is guaranteeing we're going to kill our marine life.
I'm not the minister. I could imagine a minister would be very reticent to remove nets because if there was to be a bite at that beach, the media story around it does make it very difficult.

HM: Have you yourself ever encountered a shark?

JF: Yes. I had a quite close encounter up at Byron Bay when I was swimming quite a popular swim between one of the headlands in the main beach. And quite a large shark swim right between me and a friend that was swimming and they said it was between three and four meters which is quite a decent adult shark and probably a great white. Look I’ve dived with sharks and seen them in the many, many times. That's just the nature of the marine environment overhere. And sharks aren’t out to attack humans. We’re not on the menu, and I think for most people who are in the water most of the time they recognize that that's the nature of the place.

HM: Justin Field, I appreciate you talking with us. Thank you.

JF: No worries at all, thanks.

CH: Justin Field is an MP with the Greens party in Australia. We reached him in Sydney. And there's more on that story on our website, cbc.ca/asithappens.

[Music]

Henry Burris

CH: He says the "next chapter is about to start". But it's the chapter that's ending that has Canadian Football League fans feeling melancholy.
After nearly two decades, star quarterback Henry Burris officially announced his retirement yesterday. He's going out on the latest of a series of high notes – including three Grey Cup wins. Two with the Calgary Stampeders. And one just last year with the Ottawa Redblacks – five months after his 41st birthday.
Earlier today, Mr. Burris looked back on his career with the CBC's Robyn Bresnahan. Mr. Burris, who is originally from the U.S., also spoke about his family's love for the city of Ottawa. Here's part of what he had to say:

SOUNDCLIP

HENRY BURRIS: Pretty much everything we look for in a city, opportunity wise, a place to come and set up a foundation, to give back to those who would truly be thankful for it, Ottawa has presented all that to us and we felt friendships like yourself and you know we look forward to continually being here for a long time.

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: OK so that answers my next question, you're going to stay.

HB: Oh yeah. We’re staying. This is home. I do have to ask you, considering what has just gone on in the United States, does that factor into your decision at all?

RB: It was ‘Uge.’ It was huge. Bigly, bigly, you know the fact that you know the move down there had a tremendous effect on our decision. But honestly even before, even before the elections that just occurred… we wanted to be here because there is just something about being in this country, the togetherness of Canadians is something that, when you talk about the ultimate dream, you fill it here. To meet people here together, as one, more so than what it is in the U.S. and the thing is, I wouldn’t want to raise my kids as far as within the atmosphere of what's taking place, the aura down there right now. It's not positive. And of course that's not in entirety, but this entire city here in Ottawa it's a very positive place to be. A lot of great vibes and a great place to raise a family. And why not?

CH: That was three time Grey Cup champ Henry Burris speaking with Robyn Bresnahan, the host of CBC's Ottawa Morning. The long-time CFL quarterback has announced that he is retiring. In an article in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, Mr. Burris’s wife Nicole Burris said they're in the process of getting permanent residency in Canada. Their two sons are dual citizens. They were born in Calgary.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Carl Reiner on Mary Tyler Moore, El Chapo Chicago, NWT junior curlers

Carl Reiner on Mary Tyler Moore

CHRIS HOWDEN: Week after week, she spun around on a Minneapolis street, and threw her hat in the air – where it stayed. And that freeze-frame at the end of that opening sequence of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" felt like a metaphor for the character herself. And the woman who played her.
As we told you earlier in the program, we have some heart-breaking news: comedian and actor Mary Tyler Moore has died at the age of 80.
Of course, she was more than Mary Richards. Among her many other honours, she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress in 1980, for her performance in Ordinary People. But way back in 1961, before she got her own show, Carl Reiner discovered her – and cast her as Laura Petrie on "The Dick Van Dyke Show".
We reached comedy legend Carl Reiner in Los Angeles.

HELEN MANN: Carl Reiner First of all I'm so sorry for your loss.

CARL REINER: Yes. As is the country.

HM: Yeah. How did you discover Mary Tyler Moore?

CR: In the most obtuse way. I was casting for The Dick Van Dyke Show. I had Dick Van Dyke already and looking around, I auditioned actually 23 girls and didn't know what I was looking for. And I told Sheldon Leonard, he said “You'll know when you'll find her.” Anyway, she came into my office and didn't want to come she said because she had failed in two interviews that week. She walked in and soon as she walked in I looked at that face and that hair and those legs and I gave her a page to read. She read the first line and there was a ping in the voice and I said “This is it.” And when Sheldon said to me “You'll know when you hear her,” I made my hand into a claw, the kind you see in an amusement park that picks up candy and I walked across the room, and she thought I was going to accost her. I grabbed the top of her head and walked her down the hall to Sheldon Leonard's office, the Executive Producer, and I said “You're right. I found her.”

HM: Wow. Her character, Laura Petrie, that was a pretty trailblazing character. Not just how it was written by you, but also how she played it. So what… how do audiences respond to her?

CR: Well she was different in that she was totally graceful. The fact that she started as a dancer never left her. She was grace from head to toe. Her voice was graceful, everything about her was graceful. The way she moved, the way she delivered lines. And of course my favorite shows are any time we can get of reason for Dick and Mary to do a soft-shoe or dance across the stage. It was… it was magic.

HM: Yeah. She was so funny too.

CR: Yeah. She said that was the thing. She was unlike… Lucy was maybe the greatest comedian that ever worked on television but their family was two against each other. And my group was, my wife and myself, two against the world. We were… they were compatible. When they had little arguments, they patched them up pretty easily. But they had children, a child, and anything that happens in a family that is normal happens in every normal family.

HM: She became a trailblazer later in helping develop her own show and a production company.

CR: She made the women equal demand by doing that great Mary Tyler Moore Show. When she threw her hat in the air, she liberated women. She epitomized the ability of women to compete in the world of… in the working world. I mean as has Ed Asner called, “You've got a lot of spark.” That was the first time we had a woman who is, not only equal to a man, but sometimes, most of the time, superior in behavior in an output.

HM: Can you remember a time when she really cracked you up?

CR: She made me smile all the time. Every rehearsal… she never she never made a bad move, she just couldn't. It wasn't in her to be bad.

HM: After she ended the Mary Tyler Moore Show, she went on to that movie Ordinary People and it was very different, a very serious role.

CR: Very serious role and beautifully acted. I mean, it was it was not a surprise to me because anything she attempted, she did well. She never did anything that didn't turn out well except marrying the first time. Very sad. That was… the early part of her life was so sad. Her parents were not really parents to her. Her mother was an alcoholic, died, her father never spoke to her. The only compliment they ever gave her was on our… when she went to her prom night and he called her he said “Mary you look very handsome.” That was just that was the only compliment that she ever got from her father. And then married badly, her son killed himself. That was a very sad beginning to what became a very beautiful life.

HM: Do you remember the last time you spoke with her?

CR: Yes it was sad because we were at some event wearing a tuxedo and gown, and I went up to her and she had, you know, this diabetes which robbed her of her sight and she didn't recognize me. I walked up to her and she didn't say hello until I said… until I said “It’s me, it's me, Carl. I didn't realize that you couldn't see me.” It was very sad.

HM: How are you remembering Mary Tyler Moore today? How do you like us to remember her?

CR: That she turned the world on with her smile and that we are we are better for having her programs playing on television, streaming across the network in color. No she's… she's somebody who is unforgettable. Unforgettable.

HM: Mr. Reiner, thank you so much for sharing your memories with us.

CR: You're quite welcome.

HM: All right. Bye bye.

CH: That was Carl Reiner in Los Angeles. He was remembering his friend and former colleague Mary Tyler Moore. She died today at the age of 80.

[Music]

North Korea Defector

CH: Thae Yong-ho won't say how he got from London, England, to Seoul, South Korea. But eight months ago, the high-ranking North Korean diplomat disappeared, along with his family, from his post at the country's embassy in London, England.
Mr. Thae says to discuss details of his flight would jeopardize the escape route for other potential defectors. But he told the BBC's Steve Evans about his hopes and fears for his family still in North Korea.
Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

THAE YONG-HO: I am sure that my relatives and my brother and sisters’ families by now are all sent to either remote, closed areas or prison camps you know. So that really breaks my heart. That's why I'm very much now determined to do everything possible to pull down North Korean regime. To save you know not only my family members, but the whole North Korean people from slavery.

STEVE EVANS: Do you think you'll ever see your brother again?

TYH: I am absolutely sure. And this is my dream, to walk back to my home town.

SE: If, when Kim Jong-un gets the bomb properly, and missiles to deliver, is he capable of pressing that button and destroying Los Angeles?

TYH: Kim Jong-un knows quite well that a nuclear weapon is the only you know, guarantee for his rule. And Kim Jonu-un I think will press the bottom of this dangerous, you know, the weapons when he thinks that his rule and his dynasty is threatened, you know to be collapsed, yes.

SE: He would destroy Los Angeles even though the retaliation yes would kill him?

TYH: Yes. Because he knew that if he lose the power, then it is his last day. So he may do anything, even to attack Los Angeles.

SE: How do you think Kim Jong un will end his days? Is he going to die peacefully in his own bed?

TYH: No I'm sure that Kim Jong’s regime one day would collapse by people’s uprising.

CH: That was Thae Yong-ho, a former senior official with the North Korean regime, speaking with the BBC's Steve Evans in Seoul, South Korea. Eight months ago, Mr. Thae fled with his family from his post at North Korea's Embassy in London, England and defected to the South Korean capital.

[Music]

El Chapo Chicago

Guest: Thomas Shakeshaft

CH: The long-anticipated criminal case against Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman is set to be heard in New York. But two of the star witnesses are brothers from another city: Chicago. That's just one factor in the argument that the case should be heard in Chicago – where the Mexican drug lord is Public Enemy Number One.
Mr. Guzman was extradited to the U.S. from Mexico last week. He's facing more than a dozen drug-related charges for allegedly smuggling drugs through his Sinaloa cartel.
Thomas Shakeshaft is a former federal prosecutor who led the Guzman indictment in Illinois. We reached Mr. Shakeshaft in Chicago.

HM: Mr. Shakeshaft, what makes El Chapo Guzman Public Enemy Number One in Chicago?

THOMAS SHAKESHAFT: Well you know, he was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, who probably had about an 80 percent market share of the drugs game into Chicago. And as anybody who reads the news knows, there's a huge gang problem in Chicago and most of that gang violence is associated with, you know, the drug war. So Chapo was the guy who ran the organization in Mexico who brought most of the drugs into Chicago who in turn created this drug war, that led to a lot of young kids getting killed over turf wars that involved drug violence in Chicago.

HM: Yeah and how intensive is that? I mean how many people are we talking about? Not just being killed but being drawn into this, do you think?

TS: I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but the Chicago Crime Commission and the Chicago Police Department have gang… gang numbers… hundreds of thousands. You know there are people who either need help, haven't gotten help. You know, the entire drug network is feeding on people who have addictions that they can't solve themselves. So it's a really really complicated societal problem.

HM: And why Chicago? The cartel uses Chicago for the same reason that FedEx does and Coca Cola does. It’s centrally located. It has two international airports. It's got the largest railroad yard in the United States. There are a lot of reasons that this is a centrally located, really convenient distribution.
I mean narcotics are nothing other than a commodity. They’re like tomatoes. And if there was an insatiable demand in Canada for Caprese salad, you would need a place to distribute tomatoes from. Chicago is that for the United States and frankly it goes into Canada too. If you if you are a cocaine use or a heroin user, or a methamphetamine user, or a marijuana user, and you live in Minneapolis or Toronto or Boston or Chicago, it probably came from Chicago.

HM: And you're talking like tons of cocaine right?

TS: Yes. My two principal cooperators were bringing in 2000 kilos of cocaine a month.

HM: Wow. And other drugs as well?

TS: Yeah. Heroin, marijuana.

HM: So given how central Chicago has been then to the Sinaloa cartel, why is El Chapo being prosecuted in New York?

TS: He was the prize. We all wanted him. We all built really good cases against him. I spent eight years of my life building a case against that guy. I think that Loretta Lynch was the best attorney in the eastern district of New York and she became attorney general of the United States. And you know–

HM: You think it's politics?

TS: She made the decision. Yeah it’s politics.

HM: Do you think that you'd have a better case if it was presented in Chicago given what you've built against him?

TS: No. I know a lot of people in the eastern district of New York. I am quite certain that they will convict him there. I suspect they will probably use some of our witnesses and once he's convicted he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail. And once that happens, that's in the best interest for all of us. And we need this guy behind bars so that the next guy who thinks he's going to come in knows that he's either going to end up dead or in jail too.

HM: So when you say that you think the prosecution in New York will use some of your witnesses, does that include these two Chicago brothers Pedro and Margarito Flores.

TS: Yes.

HM: Who are they? Give us a sense of who they are, where they are now?

TS: They are in the witness protection program. They are Mexican-American kids who grew up in Chicago and spent a lot of time with him. They were the, by their own account, and by most people's accounts, the largest drug dealers in Chicago history, which is saying something. There's a lot of cocaine and a lot of money.

HM: And how will they be able to link that to El Chapo?

TS: Because they talked to him on the phone and we have him on tape.

HM: Right. So they worked directly for him.

TS: They worked for El Chapo, they worked for Zambada, they worked for Arturo Beltran Leyva. They were intimately involved in the Mexican drug trade. You know, if Chapo and Mayo were the wholesalers for the Colombians, Pedro and Margarito were the principal retail outlet in the States. And when they decided to cooperate with us, and when they decided to make recorded phone calls, they were a big deal.

HM: How hard was it to convince them given the history of violence that follows Guzman around?

TS: Not that hard. They were put in kind of an untenable position when both Arturo and Chapo and Mayo gave them an ultimatum and said you know, “You work with us or you work with nobody.” They really didn't have anywhere to go. And so they decided to work with us.
Once they decided to turn the corner and become cooperators instead of being drug traffickers, they were really really good. You know, I stick by that.

HM: So how long do you think this case is going to take two to get through the court?

TS: You know, I have no idea whether he's going to go to trial or not. I don't know what his defense strategy is. For the life of me, I don't know what his defense is. So just based on historical precedence, I would say nine or 18 months?

HM: And how much is it going to reduce the influx of drugs you've laid out for us?

TS: Probably not a lot. You know I've said this before. I'm not naive. So long as there's money to be made in the drug world, it will continue to flow into the United States. And it will continue to flow into Canada. The addiction is there, so long as the money is there to feed it, people will keep doing it. So what we really need is a comprehensive rehabilitation program where people stop doing it. You know, it's not… it's no different than alcohol. I would say that, you know his influence, will be felt for a while but it's not only his influence, it's the influence of the organization. That's not going to end anytime soon.

HM: Mr. Shakeshaft, thanks for talking to us.

TS: Thanks Helen. Nice to talk to you.

HM: OK, bye bye.

TS: Bye bye.

CH: Thomas Shakeshaft is a former federal prosecutor who led the indictment in Illinois against Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. We reached Mr. Shakeshaft in Chicago.

[Music]

NWT Junior curlers

Guests: Joe Sturgeon, Nick Kaeser

CH: They've been preparing for this moment for half their lives. Which is phenomenal – even though, in this case, that isn't really a very long time. Because none of the players are old enough to be driving yet.
The North West Territories junior men's curling team is competing at the under-21 Canadian Junior Men's Curling Championship this week. And they're one of the youngest teams ever.
We reached curler Joe Sturgeon and his coach Nick Kaeser in Victoria, B.C.

HM: Hi Joe.

JOE STURGEON: Hi.

HM: So Joe, how old are you?

JS: I'm 14.

HM: 14. And how did you get into curling?

JS: I was friends with Sawer, our skip, and he curled before me so he showed me to it, and then Nick, his dad, was his coach and then he became my coach and I just liked the sport a lot. So I continued.

HM: And how old were you when you started?

JS: I think I was six or seven.

HM: Wow. That's a pretty young age to start curling, or is that fairly common among the people you're with today?

JS: Sawer started a bit before me, just because it was in his family. But I think that it's a pretty good age just to start learning the basics.

HM: Right. Now what about your teammates? How old are they?

JS: The skip, Sawer is 14, like me. Tristan MacPherson is 13 and Garrett Minute who is 12.

HM: How long have you been training as a team for this tournament?

JS: We've been training like three times a week. On Monday and Thursday we practice with our team and on Saturday we play against the Hay River Team work or practice with them.

HM: And are they good competitors?

JS: Yeah it's good. And on Wednesday and Friday, we face adults too, at night.

HM: Do you beat them a lot?

JS: Yeah, yeah. Sometimes we will, sometimes we don’t, but most of the time we beat them.

HM: Some of the men that you're competing against at this tournament… they are men. They're 21.

JS: Yeah.

HM: What is it like for you guys being the youngest team?

JS: When we went to the Optimist U18 and we were the youngest team there, so we kind of know what it feels like. We aren't expecting too much, but we are just trying to win by end by end, trying to get a point on them when we have hammer, and try to limit their points.

HM: Are they intimidating? I mean are they much bigger than you?

JS: They are definitely bigger but I think that's not too intimidating. It's just like curling so we know what to expect and we know that they are stronger and stuff, but we’ll give them a good game.

HM: How do they treat you?

JS: Yeah they treat us really well. They gave us tips and they don't beat us too hard if they are much better.

HM: How is Team Kaeser doing?

JS: Well we haven't won a game yet. We did get a close game, five to five, at the last end and then they won by a point.

HM: Was that the most exciting game of this championship?

JS: Yeah.

HM: And who's the star player on that on your team right now?

JS: I think it's pretty even. But in that game, we had Tristan MacPherson wasn't feeling well so we had a spare, Ryan and he definitely helped us out and showed us tips. Yeah.

HM: So has this been a good experience do you think in terms of started getting you set up for future tournaments?

JS: Yeah, I think it has been a great learning experience, to know what it'll be like and what to expect and it's good to go back to a tournament. It's nice.

HM: Thanks Joe, good to talk to you. Could you please pass the phone over to your coach now, Mr. Kaeser.

JS: Yes. There you go.

HM: Thank you. Mr. Kaeser, Joe's just told us about that game that was so close. What stuck out for you about their play in that one?

NICK KAESER: One of our players was sick so we had a spare come in from B.C. and he was just phenomenal and he pulled out the best in our players, and our players actually shot high percentages during the game and they were just phenomenal. Back home we don't… there’s only our one team and we're really really young so we don't actually have older players to mentor from. So with Ryan helping us out it was just great for the team, just great for the team spirit.

HM: Are they doing as well as you had hoped?

NK: Yes they are. We had just simple goals. One of our goals was if we have the hammer, let's try to get our one point. If they have a hammer, let's try to limit their points to two. So when we really look at the great schemes of things, from end to end, we are doing quite well like for our personal goals, so.

HM: So you had a strategy heading in there.

NK: Oh yeah. One of the teams that leave here is going to be going to the worlds… like they’re world champion curlers here.

HM: Is there a different way of approaching an event like this when you've got such a young team?

NK: We have a couple of fictional characters. Positive Penny, Negative Nick, and then Realistic Grik. So we make sure all the characters are talking to us, so we know what we’re coming into.

HM: All right. What do you think the biggest lesson has been for the boys?

NK: Oh just the gameplay. How many games we have to play. After tomorrow, we would have been 10 games in six days. So like just the stamina is great.

HM: What's next for the team?

NK: We were reading one article in the newspaper and at the end of the article there it mentioned that the next year’s tournaments over in Quebec and then right away all four kids comes right up and said “I hope we're putting the team into the territorials.” So we’re already heading… we're already looking forward to next year.

HM: Well it sounds like you're having a lot of fun and the boys are really getting somewhere with this so I appreciate you talking to us.

NK: Well great. Thank you.

HM: Thanks Mr. Kaeser. Bye bye.

NK: Okay bye bye.

CH: Nick Kaeser is the coach of the North West Territories junior men's curling team, competing in the under 21 tournament. Joe Sturgeon is the oldest member of the junior men's team, at the ripe old age of 14. We reached them in Victoria, B.C.

[Music]

Dateline: North Dakota Centre?

CH: Dateline: Center, USA.

[Music]

CH: The town of Rugby, North Dakota, has a fair bit riding on being accepted as the geographical centre of North America. That's because 85 years ago, it staked that claim in stone – in the form of a four-and-a-half-metre-tall monument proclaiming itself as such. Ever since, Rugby has welcomed an untold number of visitors from far and wide, who come to confidently plant their feet at the very centre of the continent.
So imagine Rugby residents' collective dismay when the town of Robinson – 160 kilometres due south – issued a counterclaim to their long-held title.
"By our calculations, the center of North America is in Robinson, North Dakota," Bill Bender, Mayor of Robinson recently told the New York Times, "a couple feet outside Hanson's Bar." As it happens, as well as holding Robinson's top office, Mayor Bender also owns Hanson's Bar.
Now some might argue – especially in this day and age – that America is big and bold enough to be home to not just one, but two, geographical centres of North America. Not Peter Rogerson though. Mr. Rogerson is a scientist. He is not interested in alternative facts, no matter how much they may matter to one side or the other. For Mr. Rogerson – a professor of Geography and Biostatistics at the University at Buffalo – there is one true geographic centre of North America. And, according to his calculations, it isn't in Rugby. And it isn't in Robinson either. It is, in fact, 230 kilometres southwest of Rugby, and 145 kilometres west of Robinson, in a town called – believe it or not – Center.
To reach this conclusion, Professor Rogerson what's known as azimuthal equidistant projection – which eliminates distortions in distance and direction common in traditional, non- azimuthal mapping.
Meanwhile, Mayor Bender of Robinson has trademarked the phrase "Geographical Center of North America" for his bar – after Rugby's registration of that same phrase lapsed in 2009.
Meaning that, ultimately, the official centre may not be determined by science – but by what truly makes the world go 'round.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Jan 25, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This