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 2024

The Current Transcript for January 11, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JEAN CHRÉTIEN: In Parliament. He was always very civilised. He was never nasty.

BRIAN MULRONEY: Ed Broadbent was a giant of the Canadian political scene. He would have been Prime Minister; had he been leading any other party.

JAGMEET SINGH: He was someone I called right when I became leader. I asked for advice. He never said no to me. He was very actively a mentor to me.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: When I think of him, I think of the era that we went through at that time. It's a sad moment for me. I was shocked when I got the news.

MATT GALLOWAY: In a moment when politics can often feel partisan, nasty and personal, Ed Broadbent was a throwback to a different time, respected by all sides of the political aisle. Even those he sparred vigorously with. The longtime leader of the NDP died yesterday. He was 87. In just a moment, in a final interview, Ed Broadbent reflects on being part of some of the biggest moments in Canadian political history, on the political polarization today, and on whether it is still possible to disagree politically without being disagreeable. Also this morning, the science of touch: why a hug can make you feel better and maybe even help you catch... avoid catching the cold. Plus, chaos in Ecuador, armed gangs taking over a live TV newscast, a jailed gang leader vanishing into the crowd. In an hour, how drug gangs have threatened that country and its young new president. But we begin with the death of a singular Canadian politician. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader, dies at 87

Guest: Ed Broadbent

MG: Canada has lost one of its elder statesmen. Ed Broadbent, former leader of the federal New Democratic Party, was part of some of the biggest moments in Canadian political history. He was a lifelong champion of social democracy, of working people, of making life better for ordinary Canadians, and he was often called the best prime minister this country never had. Ed Broadbent died yesterday. He was 87. I had the chance to speak with Ed Broadbent about his legacy just two months ago. It was his last national broadcast interview, and he'd just released his book: Seeking Social Democracy: Seven Decades in the Fight for Equality. Here is my conversation with Ed Broadbent:

MG: You say in your book that you discovered early on that pleasure and socialism were not contradictions. So, did you manage to have fun in politics?

ED BROADBENT: I did indeed. Mostly off camera though. Politicians, I think, appropriately try to risk being funny in public. It usually backfires. So your humorous, pleasurable, fun-filled time is normally off camera with staff, and I did a lot of that with my own staff. That was a way of maintaining sanity is to kid around a bit.

MG: Let me ask you about Oshawa, Ontario. You are from that town. Automaking town. Long time Union stronghold, home of General Motors, known as the motors, in Oshawa. And your family was involved in the union movement there. How did that, growing up there, how did that shape who you are today?

ED BROADBENT: No. It's fundamental. I saw what it meant to live in the town that was highly unionized. You could see the benefits all around you. Day in and day out. And the highlight of the calendar year was the then UAW subsequent CIW picnic. A great gathering of all the families of workers in which they gave away two or three cars to employees. I grew up knowing that collective action, if you like, the benefits that the workers had didn't come because there was a benevolent General Motors that said, we'll just give these away. As the recent negotiations have revealed, there's a real power struggle that goes on and the union does represent the workers. And in the case of Oshawa, it provided absolutely wonderful benefits for, oh, three or four decades anyway.

MG: What was it about the idea of--and the ideals of--democratic socialism that you found attractive at that time?

ED BROADBENT: Well, the ideal is to build a society in which everyone has the possibility of living a life of dignity but more than dignity, excitement and joy in their lives as well. It takes you willy-nilly in the direction of, well if you believe that's desirable for everyone, what kind of political institutions do you have to make that possible? And for me, they are social democratic to the core. You provide benefits like home care, national pensions, health care as citizens’ rights, so that the ordinary men and women don't have to struggle, you know, for higher income all the time to get those. They become your rights of citizenship. So that's a key element of equalizing conditions. Because the market is inherently unequal. So social democracy comes in and says, well, we have to equalise conditions. And that's one way of doing it. We provide those benefits. We take them out of the market and say, hey, everyone as a citizen, works hard. You contribute your labour and you get, in return, these collective rights. And that's made a big difference. And without unions in Canada, as in Western Europe, social democracy would never really have emerged.

MG: Do you still consider yourself a socialist?

ED BROADBENT: Yes.

MG: One of the things you write about in the book is that, and the NDP is in many ways two different things at the same time. It's a party that wants to get elected, but it's also a movement. And in that inherently there's going to be tension between the two. Which one wins out, do you think?

ED BROADBENT: Well, it depends on the issue. Take the War Measures Act. There's immense pressure on all my colleagues at that time to support the War Measures Act. But we didn't. And Tommy Douglas, a very important, remarkable leader, went and met privately with then Prime Minister Trudeau and said, what what's your evidence for an insurrection going on? And he didn't provide any new evidence whatsoever. So when Tommy came back to the caucus, we made probably the most unpopular political decision in my life, as to say to oppose the War Measures Act as an infringement of liberties. But it turned out we were right. So, there was, you know, a real tension before the vote. Do we vote with our conscience to vote against the application of the War Measures Act? Or do we take the expedient, popular role? And we took the conscience rule. And that happened two or three times. But more often than not, there's no great tension about voting for your conscience over pragmatism. Uh, but occasionally it comes up. And if the party's worth anything, it's got to be prepared to take a stand. If not, it should just fold itself into another party and struggle from within them.

MG: You pressured the government to replace the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act. Why was that important to you?

ED BROADBENT: I believed, and it turned out other parliamentarians believed after the experience of the War Measure Act, that we needed an act that had more provision, protective provisions. And we got that. And when we had that invoked by Trudeau, the younger, if I can put it that way. In recent history, it first of all, it applied to unlimited regions of the country. Um, secondly, there was a very important reporting back mechanism that the government had to justify its act through an independent inquiry after and so on. So there was a big improvement in the act that was subsequently used by Trudeau's son. Uh, so there was a necessary change that came out of the original War Measures Act.

MG: What did you make of the use of the Emergencies Act as protests rolled across this country? There are people, there are many people in this country, who still say that that was an example of government overreach and worse. And that the fissures in society have in some ways grown in the wake of the use of that act. What did you make of the use of the Emergencies Act?

ED BROADBENT: I supported it. Uh, no doubt it was a difficult process that Mr. Trudeau went through. But I was in Ottawa during the horrible days of the convoy, and I live right near the centre of the city. And you could hear this astronomical banging of pots and pans or whatever they used to make noise, day in and day out. Needlessly in this case. And there was, of course in Alberta, a convoy.

MG: At Coutts.

ED BROADBENT: Yes, at Coutts. And again, in violation of any reasonable norm of civil liberty. So, I supported the action of Mr. Trudeau and the present government. I think on balance, they did the right thing. And the inquiry after found the same thing.

MG: You were also deeply involved in designing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And one of the things that people think about now when it comes to the charter is the notwithstanding clause. What was the thinking behind the inclusion of that clause?

ED BROADBENT: Well, it was necessary. At the time, I was intimately involved in negotiations with Pierre Trudeau on the content of the charter. Those of us who believed most seriously in the need for the charter were, I think, without exception, at the time opposed to the notwithstanding clause. But it was a necessary change in a constitutional package if it was going to be accepted by a majority of the premiers. And finally, I came around to it, as did Trudeau, that if we were going to get all the good things out of the charter, this notwithstanding clause was going to be something we had to accept politically. And that was done and became part of the package and passed as part of the constitutional arrangements.

MG: What do you make of how it's being used now? You have Saskatchewan using it in relation to parental consent regarding a child's gender identity. You have other provinces, Ontario, certainly Quebec, New Brunswick, others that have looked at it as well. What do you make of how that clause, reluctantly included um, is being used today?

ED BROADBENT: I'm--very real concerns about it.

MG: What concerns you the most about it?

ED BROADBENT: Well, the Saskatchewan example is one of using it to deny, in effect, children's rights. Premier Moe of Saskatchewan, he's abusing the situation because he, I'm sure he believes it's right. But most of us concerned with civil liberties, I think would take the view that it's not been used appropriately.

MG: Let me ask you about one final issue that you've been deeply involved in. One of the final acts that you had in elected office was committing the federal government to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. Obviously, that didn't happen. Why do you think that is? Why is this such an issue that is so stubborn to address in a truly meaningful way in this country?

ED BROADBENT: Children don't vote. And if they had the pressure there as voters do in parts of the country, we've seen already in terms of programs to deal with the environmental crisis, the liberals have backtracked.

MG: Well, when it comes to the price on carbon. Yeah, just in the last few days.

ED BROADBENT: And the reason was that they lost in a precipitous fashion support in Atlantic Canada. So those votes matter. And in a democracy, it's terrible. No children should be going, in, our country should be going to bed hungry, getting up hungry, going to school hungry. But I repeat, I think if kids could vote, the situation would be different.

MG: You say in your book that liberals run on the left and rule from the right. Does that include, from your perspective, the current Trudeau government?

ED BROADBENT: Well, to some extent, yes. Uh, the issue we've just talked about, carbon pricing, came under intense political pressure in Atlantic Canada over the summer. So, what did they do? Did they stand by their agenda and maintain a coherent policy across the country? No. And they've got themselves and to some extent the country in a real mess as a consequence.

MG: Do you support the supply and confidence agreement between Justin Trudeau and the NDP?

ED BROADBENT: Yes, I did. Jagmeet Singh used his political muscle to the extent possible for benefits to the people of Canada, and notably the pharma care and dental care, which because of the pressure of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh in particular, the liberals have reluctantly agreed to do that.

MG: What has it given the NDP? Because there are people who will say that in propping up this Liberal government and allowing that government to--and these are criticisms from the NDP itself. Allowing the Liberal government to take credit for some of those moves, the NDP is, has, sold itself in some ways to the liberals. What does the NDP do you think get out of this kind of agreement?

ED BROADBENT: It gets out of it what it wants to do. If, as a result of this agreement, this comes to families and children in particular across the country, to the millions who can't afford either dental care or pharma care, then the NDP has fought the good fight for and got a good result from it.

MG: Does that open the door to a more formal alliance between the NDP and the liberals? People have mused about this for decades as a way to not split the left of centre vote. If you see that success in an arrangement like this. Why not just bring the parties together?

ED BROADBENT: Because you use all efficacy in doing so. Uh, Trudeau senior once said to me he liked having the NDP presence in Parliament because he could use our presence as an effective mechanism to persuade the right wing in his own party to do the right thing socially, or they would lose out support to the NDP and lose their government. So for the NDP to be effective, for example, as a conscience of Parliament, it has to come forward as a political threat. If it doesn't constitute a political threat. I say with great conviction, if it doesn't threaten the established political order, it won't have an impact. If we just went in with the liberals and got absorbed by them, then the efficacy of independent voting strikes in The House would disappear. And before long, we'd just be absorbed in one big liberal, well, I don't know what. But it would not be good for the people of Canada when it comes to social policy.

MG: You're in Vancouver. I mean, do you see the NDP government there or the newly elected NDP government in Manitoba, as in many ways, the present incarnation, the future incarnation of that party?

ED BROADBENT: Absolutely. I mean, we look at the most recent election in Manitoba. It literally brought tears to my eyes. Uh, to see Kinew form the government. All those indigenous people that were brought right in, in not only the political system but right to the top of the cabinet. Three young women, indigenous women who are cabinet ministers. Never before in Manitoba. Um, never before in Canada. So, the party in different its regent elements is doing well.

MG: Let me ask you about the other side of the ledger. You ran against Progressive Conservative leaders Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. How are they different from the current conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre?

ED BROADBENT: Oh, well, they have a much more cohesive view of society. You know, yes, they were conservative about a number of financial policies. But they had a view of Canada and the community that is holistic.

MG: What do you what do you mean by that? A cohesive, holistic view of the country.

ED BROADBENT: Well, I mean, you don't have a policy that is deliberately designed to divide in order to win votes. And it's very important, I believe, to maintain the society that way, or we'll get into the terrible politics of the country south of us. I wish that the Conservative Party would get back into the Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney mode, if you like, to take on policies that see Canada as a whole and not try to divide us the way the current conservative leader does.

MG: When you hear the leader of the Conservative Party, for example, say that Canada is broken, what do you think?

ED BROADBENT: Well, I think it's exaggerated rhetoric. Um, for example, in its attacks on the Prime Minister, are, on one level, just ludicrous because they're so exaggerated. But when politics is personalized the way he did this and has done that about the Prime Minister, that is what can lead to deeper divisions that go beyond the existing Prime Minister. There has to be a serious attempt in politics to keep the personality out of the criticism. Make the policy the object of criticism.

MG: When you left politics, one of the things, people will remember this, that you left, in part, to care for your late wife who had been diagnosed with cancer. And that this was a personal decision for you, that you needed to to leave this thing that had been such a huge part of your life, because this other part of your life demanded your attention, demanded your time and your presence there. There's a huge personal cost to personal life and public life kind of coming together. Do you think that there's still an appeal for people to go into public life?

ED BROADBENT: Oh, yes. Yes, I do. You know, the unpleasantness, uh, of public life as it is in many respects right now, is as old as democracy. If you look at the debates in 19th century Canada between the political parties and the leaders, then, they were every bit as bad as they have been recently. So, there's a cycle where there's a greater degree of civility at one time, and then it will fade and then come back. So, I'm--I remain optimistic because I've seen past history where the democratic impulse in Canada has been very good. And part of that impulse is to respect the dignity of your opponents. So, I fully expect that to return and fully expect the continuing embrace of political life by many Canadians.

MG: Is that optimism hard to find? Sometimes I think of that letter that Jack Layton wrote to Canadians, um, when he died. And he talked about optimism being better than despair. Um, that love is better than anger. But there's a lot of anger that's out there right now. There's a lot of despair as well. And I just wonder from your perspective whether that optimism is hard to find?

ED BROADBENT: Yes, it's difficult, but it's quite possible. I mean, that's why I come back to policy options, uh, that are necessary of a social democratic nature in Canada. We need that. And if families are continually pressed for pennies, as they are increasingly now, that's not good for democracy. So, we need more social and economic rights to lay the foundation for more liberty, for more people. And that's what we should be struggling for.

MG: Ed Broadband, the former federal leader of the NDP, died yesterday. He was 87 years old. A remarkable figure in this country. And our best wishes to his friends and family. Your CBC News is next. And then the power and benefits of human touch. Why we could all do with a hug. That's coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

The incredible power of a hug

Guest: Michael Banissy

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. It was 2004, and an Australian who goes by the pseudonym, Juan Mann, was feeling a bit depressed. He got the idea to stand in the middle of a busy shopping area in Sydney with a sign, and the sign said, "Free Hugs."

SOUNDCLIP

JUAN MANN: I was going to stay for one hour, hug as many people as I could, and then I was going to put my "free hugs" sign away. And the first lady that hugged me told me about her daughter dying a year ago that day, and her daughter's dog dying that morning, and how, you know, just seeing me standing there with a "free hug" sign gave her hope and cheered her up a little bit on, you know, this, the saddest day of her year. And I kind of stood there and thought, I'm doing this for fun, but if it means something to her and it's just fun to me, then it wouldn't be really nice of me to stop.

MG: So, he kept going, and that day he stayed for eight hours and gave out hundreds of hugs. But even then, he couldn't stop. He came back every Thursday afternoon for weeks and then months. And as word got out, a free hugs movement spread around the world.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER 1: Everyone needs a hug now and then. You don't know what anybody's going through, so just one hug can change somebody's day, can impact somebody. That can even change their life. So that's why I'm out here.

SPEAKER 2: Okay. [unclear] in the house, willing to give free hugs to strangers. [unclear]. It's happening. Are you shy?

[Music: Joyful instrumental].

SPEAKER 3: I certainly enjoyed my hug. Thank you very much indeed.

SPEAKER 4: Yes, and I enjoyed my hug, too. I think free hugs is a great idea and it makes me want to hug my friends.

SPEAKER 5: Aw. Hugging's good.

SPEAKER 4: I'm serious. It's addictive. It's cool.

[Music: Joyful instrumental fades up]

MG: So, what is it about a hug that can feel so special? What can some human touch, even from a stranger, do to make a difference in our lives? These are questions that Michael Banissy tries to answer in his latest book. He's a professor of psychological science at the University of Bristol, and that book is called: Touch Matters: Handshakes, Hugs, and the New Science on How Touch Can Enhance Your Well-Being. Michael, hello.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Hi, there. Hi. Thanks for having.

MG: Thanks for being here. I want to talk about the book in a moment. But go back to the guy who's handing out free hugs and had the sign saying, "free hugs." You came face to face with somebody who was offering free hugs when you were in Australia. What was that like?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah, it was um, it's quite a powerful memory, actually. It's, uh, at the time and it was around a decade ago now, but, um, I'd actually broken up with a long, a long-term relationship had come to an end. And, um, I'm one of these people who, in those scenarios kind of often buries themselves in work. And that Australia trip was maybe the first time after a long flight where I had time to really process and be thinking quite a lot. And I was just walking around the city, and I just saw out of the corner of my eye and in one of these parks for someone with this "free hugs" sign. And I thought, you know, why? Why the hell not? And, uh, that hug in that moment. Um, yeah. It's still one of those hugs I remember as, you know, one of the significant ones in my life because it just kind of...yeah. It was just a moment of, I suppose, support and, um, mutual connection with somebody in a place where I was a stranger. Yeah. It just had a powerful effect.

MG: What do we know about that? I mean, this is a huge part of this book. What does the science tell us about why a hug makes you feel better?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. I mean, it's one of those interesting things. Like a lot of us, I think will kind of naturally know that, yeah, if someone gives a supportive hug it can feel nice. But we don't often stop and think about what it might be doing to us at a biological level or, you know, in a more kind of psychological way. And actually, research now is increasingly showing that these kind of simple, supportive, tactile behaviours like hugs, they can do things like reduce stress and anxiety. So you can see changes in things like people's cortisol, which is the stress hormone. It can lower blood pressure and it can even boost our immune system. Um, and there's been quite a few studies on this now, but one of my favourite ones actually was a study that happened in the US. It was based in the kind of Pittsburgh area. The researchers tracked how often people had hugs for two weeks. And then they brought people into the lab after that two-week period and they gave them the common cold. They gave them a virus, effectively. And they just monitored how did the symptoms develop? And they found that those people that had had more hugs in the two weeks beforehand were less likely to develop symptoms. They were less likely to get sick. Um, and some of this is, you know, thought to be because actually hugs reflect social support. Um, hugs can have physiological effects on us. And all these combinations can then have positive effects on our health and our well-being.

MG: What's going on within us when, I mean, social support is one thing, calling somebody up or checking in on them. But when you have...when you are touched by another human being, what's actually happening within us?

MICHAEL BANISSY: There's different ways in which this plays out. But you often find that, you know, when you have these supportive social touches, um, be that a hug, be that somebody holding your hand, uh, be that a kind of gentle caress on your arm, you see release of a whole mixture of hormones that play a role often in calming us. So, one of the major ones is one called oxytocin. Uh, people often talk about this as a kind of, it's a bonding hormone. But oxytocin also has an impact on our parasympathetic nervous system. If you think about scenarios where maybe you have a scary environment, you might trigger a kind of fight or flight response. You kind of want to--your body's ramped up. Your parasympathetic nervous system actually often kind of tries to bring a sense of calm and bring us back to rest, relaxation, baseline states. Um, you also see release of other hormones that are often involved in the processing of rewarding environmental stimuli. So you see things like dopamine, you also see things like serotonin, which is often connected to happiness. So, you see a whole mixture of biological responses playing out, all connected to this idea of calm relaxation, but also something that the body finds rewarding and positive.

MG: I mean, you can imagine, and that's the scientific response, just in terms of how people feel, they respond differently when it comes to thinking about you know, as you said, holding somebody's hand or getting hugs from somebody or what have you. You asked in this study; you asked people to think of three words that describe the meaning of touch in their lives. What did you learn from that?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. So, this was a study which we did in the early part of 2020. We had around 40,000 plus people worldwide taking part. And, you know, there was lots of questions in it. But this very simple one of: what does touch mean to you? And we asked people to come up with the three most common words, um, that they thought. Single words. And what we saw across people was a surprising consistency. Because words like warmth, love, support, cooperation. These words just came up time and time again. They came out across different world regions. They came out across different genders. They came across, sort of, whether people had health conditions or not. There was a whole range of factors that played out there. And I thought this was quite informative, really, because it's absolutely true to say there's a lot of variability in what touch can mean from one situation to another, or from one person to another. It is nuanced. But at the same time at its heart, so, for the majority of us, that idea of touch being this kind of supportive sense is there.

MG: When do we start to figure that out? That physical touch actually is something that can be beneficial? When in our own lives do we start to notice this?

MICHAEL BANISSY: The data on this shows that even from some of our first moments, touch can play this really powerful role. I mean, you often see this in babies that are born prematurely. So, there's a lot of data showing there the, just being kind of held and having body to body contact or even things like gentle kind of massage can see these babies put on more weight and be released from hospital earlier. They might cry less. And they have better sleep patterns. So...

MG: And just generally when babies are born, I mean, that whole idea of skin contact, right?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So, you see the evidence of it very early. Now this is where it becomes interesting as we get older because we probably start to learn it's more complicated than that, to be fair. Because I think that's where this kind of, you know, sadly, you know, we see more often than not recently how touch has been abused by many people and many parts of society. And so, I think it rightly maybe builds more a sense of us questioning the meaning of touch.

MG: Do you understand why? I mean, you said when you saw the person with with the free hug sign, you said, why the hell not? Um, and you'd been going through a break-up, and you went over to the person. Do you understand why some people might run screaming from that person with the sign?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Oh, yeah. Absolutely, absolutely. And there's many reasons for that, right? I mean, prior experience of touch is one. I mean, to be honest, I was surprised I actually went for it. I'm a pretty reserved British guy.

MG: [laughs]

MICHAEL BANISSY: So, I was pretty surprised at myself. But in that moment, in that context, you know, often when I talk about it, people say, well, I'm just saying I was on holiday, you know, there's nobody near me. Um, but it's interesting to us. Would I have done it my own country? I don't know I would have. I mean, so there are...

MG: And maybe people get divided, right? You could say, are you a hugger or not? And...

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah.

MG: ...that's like a loaded question, but it also tells you a lot about who the person is or isn't.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. No, for sure. And I think that's the key. And I think it's also really important that we recognize that when we're talking about the ways in which touch can be beneficial. Because it's one thing to, you know, your partner may be holding your hand or giving you a hug before a stressful event, but you might feel very differently if that was a random stranger, for instance.

MG: Mm.

MICHAEL BANISSY: You know, I might really appreciate my partner giving me, you know, a kind of massage on my shoulder or something like that when we're relaxing on the couch. But if my partner came and started doing that just randomly in public, I might not feel so comfortable about that, right? So, there can be nuances even within that same person. So, there's a lot of nuances to touch. And I talk about this quite a lot in the book. I think we do have to really balance, you know, as an individual, our personalities may interact with our preferences for touch. Our prior experiences will interact with our preferences for touch. Even things like our age, our gender. All these factors can play a role.

MG: Let me talk about a couple of specific settings. Um, outside of on the street with the person with the sign. One is, this is so interesting in the book, you take a look at sports. And what happens, what we can learn about touch, particularly from the NBA: the National Basketball Association.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. So, this was um, yeah, there's some really interesting work on touch in sport. It's one of the few places we see it so publicly so often, actually. And work on this has actually shown that if you look at, um, teams that touch more during preseason, at least in the NBA. Um, there was some work done on this from um, researchers based in Berkeley in the US. And what I found there was that the teams that touched more during the preseason, um, went on to win more games. They were certain types of touches. Right? So, they were things like fist bumps, high fives, the kind of hands-in. So, placing hands on one another...

MG: Yeah.

MICHAEL BANISSY: ... And lifting those hands out. So, those signs of team cohesion. And of course, we have to really balance the results there because, you know, you're asking, is it the touch that then leads to the better performance? Or is the touch just a sign of the team being more well connected and more cohesive? So, it's difficult with those types of studies to unpack that. But you don't just see this in things like, um, the NBA. So other studies have shown things like, if people have handshakes before they engage in negotiations, often you'll find that people, when they're negotiating will lean in more together. They will come to more common outcomes, like joint agreement. But if they don't handshake, they're less likely to. So, you know, subtle touches are having these impacts on our daily interactions all the time. And they can really play out. Certainly, in business settings, in quite powerful ways.

MG: Tell me more about that. In the workplace, in particular. Because, I mean, that's--you know, the court, uh, is where the NBA players work. I'm working in a studio. If you were here face-to-face with me, you know, I'd shake your hand before we talked, and I'd shake your hand after. But that's a different kind of touch than other sorts of touch. Particularly between employees. And that can be tricky for all sorts of obvious reasons, including abuse and harassment and what have you.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Absolutely.

MG: How does this play out? How does touch play out in the workplace?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah, I mean, as you relate to, I mean, touch in the workplace, it's a sensitive matter. And um, and I think it has to be approached with care because, you know, there's all sorts of reasons. Not just in terms of the workplace norms themselves, but obviously individual preferences. And so, um, there is evidence that, you know, subtle touches can have beneficial impacts. So, you mentioned handshaking. There's also evidence that even, you know, simple touches like somebody kind of placing a very brief hand on someone's arm, uh, then just taking it away can lead to more positive appraisals of that person in terms of their trait judgement. So, there are these effects there. But of course, there's a nuance to that, because in those scenarios, you know, those touches are often perceived as being appropriate. And of course, if someone's placing a hand on someone's arm and it does not feel appropriate it can have a very opposite effect.

MG: Hm.

MICHAEL BANISSY: And so, this is one of the challenges. Because I think, you know, in what if, for instance, we're in the same workplace right now and, you know, one of our colleagues was crying in front of me. Do I just stand back and be completely passive, or do I give him a hug?

MG: Which is what often happens now because we're afraid.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah.

MG: If you were to give that person a hug, that could be interpreted poorly. You could find yourself in hot water. It's trying to figure out what the, you know, consent and permission and what's appropriate in those spaces.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Exactly, exactly. And I think, you know, in the end, you know, if we're ever uncertain about consent or physical consent then I think, you know, my general view for people is don't engage in the behaviour until you're really confident on that. And also, it's perfectly fine to ask, you know.

MG: Can I ask you about, just briefly, about non-human touch? I mean there's...

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah.

MG: ...a lot of talk about robots. Um, I also think about haptics. Like I have a watch on which will buzz for any number of things. And that's a kind of touch, right?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. It is. And it's actually increasingly, I think, um, kind of become a big part of our world. So, people talk a lot these days about a branch of technology called haptic wellness. And so, this is things, for instance, like your watch where you watch my, um, be...it might buzz at a certain frequency. Um, that might help to induce a slow, relaxed heart rate...

MG: Mhm.

MICHAEL BANISSY: ...to reduce your anxiety. Itt might be slightly more than that. It might be that, going back to the notion that if you have a hug from somebody else, a physical hug, that might help your health and well-being because that person is showing you social support. Well, what if you're in a relationship where you can't have that? I don't know, because your family and friends live miles away. You know, and what if instead, you know, those same family and friends could still show you social support by sending you, to your watch, a supportive buzz on your wrist?

MG: Does that do anything for us? Does that do--you talked about what the hug would do--it's different than a hug. But does it give us anything similar?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. Well, this is the thing. So, this is where the research is starting to look. Because there's now even things like shirts you can wear that give you a hug [chuckles] that is sent by other people. And people are now trying to look and say, well, do this work as effectively as real physical touch? And the data is a bit mixed on it. There have been some studies showing some benefits there, but there are also some that don't find the benefits. So, it's very early. But on the flip side, there are other examples where people might interact and touch robotic pets. So, this is often worked in care homes where people are particularly looked in elderly, in the elderly. And seeing that, you know, sometimes actually getting the elderly members of the care home to engage in stroking robotic seals [chuckles] um, can lead to similar benefits as touching real pets, um, and stroking real pets. So, you can think about touch in two ways: one being the recipient, but two, also being active. Um, and we know that, you know, engaging in active touch to things that we find supportive in our environment can also benefit things like our stress response and our health and our well-being. And so you see it there, too.

MG: What happens if we don't get that touch? I mean, I think, and you mentioned health and well-being of what we all went through during COVID, where I certainly wouldn't be shaking your hand, and I wasn't giving people hugs. Um...

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah.

MG: …even close, close family members where we stood on the other side of a room if we were even inside. What happens to us if we don't get those modes of touch?

MICHAEL BANISSY: There's two elements to not getting enough touch. One is when you're completely touch deprived. And that can lead to some very serious negative outcomes in terms of health, wellbeing. Um, and then another example is where you do have some touch in your life, but you're not getting as much touch as you desire. And we call this touch hunger. So when the amount of touch you have doesn't align with the amount of touch that you desire, you have this feeling of touch hunger. And people have found that, particularly Kory Floyd, who's a researcher at the University of Arizona, um, has done quite a lot of work on this and shown that increased feelings of touch hunger can be connected to increased feelings of loneliness, increased anxiety, depression. So a series of negative mental health outcomes. And we did, during the COVID lockdowns, not just, you know, my own lab, but also other labs in Europe and in the US, found that actually there was an increased incidence of touch hunger, perhaps not surprisingly. And a number of groups have connected this to, again, kind of negative mental health outcomes. There's a link between them. Um, but it's also important in this, just to note something, which is a lot of that work has looked at kind of frequency of touch. So how often are you getting touch. And that was the early part of the work. But the work nowadays kind of suggests it's more about the quality...

MG: Mm.

MICHAEL BANISSY: ...necessarily, over the quantity. Because for one person, you know, maybe you only need that one person that gives you that supportive touch. And that's going to be the right amount. But for another, perhaps it needs to be multiple areas where it's coming in.

MG: We talk a lot about loneliness and the crisis of loneliness. And how this is, yeah, it has real physical health impacts as well as mental health impacts. Are we in a crisis of touch, do you think?

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah. I mean, I think this is, um, this is one of those questions where I, I'm always never sure quite how to answer it. And it's partly because I feel like when people talk about crisis and epidemics, I kind of feel that...I'm a psychologist. I'm not the person [laughs] best placed to kind of pin down, um, where we're at with those. But...

MG: I guess the question, in part, is important because of how we communicate these days. I mean whether it's--we aren't seeing, even outside of isolation times, people are communicating more virtually. People are using chat bots.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yeah.

MG: People are, and you're not actually seeing somebody. You can't give somebody a hug because the person isn't there in front of you.

MICHAEL BANISSY: And I think this does cause a big shift for us. And that for me, I think is then about us getting a greater awareness about what is that quality of touch that really matters to people. Um, you can have lots of people around you sometimes and still feel lonely. You can have lots of touch around you, still feel lonely. And I think we just need to kind of think about those nuances of it and get conversations going around that. Um, and so to maybe answer your question more directly about the crisis side of things, I do think there are certain examples where we're teetering on the edges of what, personally, whether we want to define as a crisis, or whether we wanted to define it as a real, a point, an important point for reflection of: have we gone too far? When I was writing the book, I came across a story, um, about, it was a school in the US where two children, they got in a fight then, and perhaps naturally, you know, they were suspended from school. But then what I was then explained to, was the reason they were suspended was not because the fight, but because afterwards they hugged the teacher. And there's this view that, you know, you shouldn't be hugging in school.

MG: Hm.

MICHAEL BANISSY: And those types of examples worried me a bit. Right? Because there's a real balance there. I mean, I think naturally we are more mindful and more careful of touch...

MG: Yeah.

MICHAEL BANISSY: um, in society. And I think there's been lots of very important conversations around this, and we still need to be mindful of it. But at the same time, we don't want to go so far that, you know, we are, we're removing those moments where I think if there is a, you know, for instance, a child is very upset in front of you, interacting with a teacher, what's the balance there? How do we strike that?

MG: What should we, just finally, what should we be thinking about? I find the older I get, um, I see my friends and I hug them. I don't-- that that's the first thing we do.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Yep.

MG: And that's because we're old and [laughing] we're happy to see them. And we're happy that they're there to be seen. If people feel like there is not enough of that human contact, um, in their lives, what should they be thinking about? What can they do about that?

MG: Yeah. I mean, I think there's different ways to...that people can approach it. I mean, I think one is voicing up about our desires and preferences. Because, I mean, how often do we actually stop and ask someone or try to understand whether they are getting that touch or that physical connection in their lives? You know, even if, for instance, you've got a long-term partner around, when was the last time you checked that the type of physical comfort you give them is the same type of experience that they desire now that they desired years ago.

MG: Yeah.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Um, so there's that side of it. But then, you know, you might find yourself in a situation where you're just very isolated. You don't have those people around you. And there it's kind of important to remember a few things. So one is potentially looking for those opportunities where you might bring it in. A really good example could be something like a social garden, actually. So some of the community gardening. Because there, you're going to get tactile interaction because you're going to be touching plants. You're going to be doing this. You can bring it into your own life that way. But you're also going to potentially get the chance to connect with others, interact. Right? The other thing that I think is important as well about touch, is that, when I spoke about the work on hugging and that you can get benefits from supportive hugs from other people, you can also get benefits from supportive touch that you give yourself. So there was a really nice study on this recently that compared the impact of somebody giving themselves a supportive hug, themselves, before giving a stressful talk, or if they had a hug from a friend or partner before that talk, or if they had other forms of touch or no touch at all. And what they found in this study was that, at least when it came to cortisol levels, so that release of the stress hormone, the self-touch, as well as touch from other people, when it was supportive, was beneficial. So, there are ways that we can, you know, provide self-soothing touch, as it were. That can be helpful for us too.

MG: This is really who we are, right? I mean, we're social beings.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, fundamentally, I think, you know, we are, our social world is so important, um, to every aspect of our lives. And you know, that is somewhat, for me at least, very much a nature of humanity.

MG: I'm really glad to talk to you about this, Michael. Thank you very much.

MICHAEL BANISSY: Thanks for talking.

MG: Michael Banissy is a Professor of Psychological Science at the University of Bristol. His book is called Touch Matters: Handshakes, Hugs, and the New Science on How Touch Can Enhance Your Well-Being. Coming up after your regional update:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: People are very, very scared. People are...aren't exiting their homes. I feel that, for sure.

MG: Ecuador is in a state of emergency this week after a dramatic surge in gang violence. For some, that feeling of fear has been building for years. All of this in a country that, until recently, was considered one of the safest in South America. We'll find out what's changed in 90 seconds. My name is Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Upbeat instrumental]

Violent chaos in Ecuador

Guest: Isabel Chiriboga

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds: Shouting, gun shots, screaming]

MG: Those are sounds from a TV station in Guayaquil, the biggest city in Ecuador. A group of armed men stormed in during a live broadcast, holding staff at gunpoint. The president of Ecuador has declared war on drug gangs after an escalation of violence this week spread through the country. All of this happened as riots broke out at several prisons, where guards have been taken hostage and police officers kidnapped. The president, Daniel Noboa, has given military special powers to combat 22 criminal gangs that he calls terrorists. He's also introduced an 11 p.m. curfew. Freelance reporter Kimberley Brown is in Quito and spoke with people there. Camila is a graphic designer:

SOUNDCLIP

CAMILLA: It's actually been, like, really scary. We've been hearing news on the radio, on TV. We've been trying not to go out so much. I've seen it change. It's kind of drastic for me because I've lived here my whole life. It used to be really, like normal to go out on a walk at like 7 p.m. or stuff like that, but I don't do that anymore. I try not to go out alone. I feel more vulnerable as a woman. I've seen more violence in public spaces during daytime. We've seen people with knives. We've seen, uh, people getting, uh, robbed. I actually don't feel safe in places where I used to be okay. I can tell you about my mom. She's a doctor. She worked at a public hospital. There have been, uh, some threatening to the place where she works. Yeah, it scares me, too, because she's my mom, of course. I hope violence decreases. And drug dealers, criminals and stuff go to prison. Some of them have to go back to the countries where they come from. And the ones that are here have to stay here. But in prisons, because it's really easy to get out of prison here.

MG: Others have moved to Quito from more violent areas in Ecuador. Jordan is a 23-year-old soccer player. Astrid is 32 and a new mom.

SOUNDCLIP

JORDAN: [Speaking Spanish]

JORDAN (TRANSLATOR): I mean, I'm worried because I'm from the coast. My family's there, so this has me worried because I live here alone, and I feel bad.

JORDAN: [Speaking Spanish].

JORDAN (TRANSLATOR): I mean, the neighbourhood I come from is dangerous right now. It's not worth going there much because they are killing people. I was worried about my family there. Yes, it's more dangerous there than here. It's not worth going into my neighbourhood, even if you are from there. Armed groups are still doing searches and robbing people. They're doing everything. I mean, my family, yes, they are fine. But still I am worried about my childhood friends. Some of them were killed this year. I'm worried about that. I hope everything gets better because it's a bit complicated here. I just want things to improve for all of us to be well and in peace and everything.

JORDAN: [Speaking Spanish]

CAMILLA: [Speaking Spanish]

CAMILLA (TRANSLATOR): I work in a restaurant as a manager. I'm Venezuelan and have been living here in Ecuador for eight years. I lived seven years in Guayaquil and I recently moved to Quito because of the wave of violence there. And I have a small baby. So, I decided to move, and the job made it easier for me. I was calm until Tuesday. I felt a false sense of security in Quito. I felt more relaxed before. But now the tension is incredible. It's a tense calm and I don't like it. I try not to go out by car, not to take cabs. I prefer to walk, and I live close to my work, so that makes it easier for me. The place in Guayaquil where I was working was constantly being threatened and asking for extortion money to continue to work in peace. So, we decided to close up there and move here to Quito. I think they should have a firmer hand on these issues. Forget about the matter of human rights for criminals. They don't think about it when it comes to harming, killing, extorting, raping and beating. They don't care if we are children, women, the elderly. They have a purpose and a motivation, and we are defenseless.

CAMILLA: [Speaking Spanish]

MG: For more on this conflict, I'm joined by Isabel Chiriboga. She is assistant director at the Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht Latin America Centre, where she contributes to work on Ecuador. Isabel. Good morning.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Good morning, Matt. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. These are extraordinary, shocking scenes. This television broadcast taken over, as I mentioned, by armed men. You have family in Ecuador. What are they telling you about what's going on right now?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Yeah. You know, thank you for asking that. Um, yeah. As you mentioned, I am from Ecuador, and I've lived there my entire life and not based there anymore. But I do have friends and family and other loved ones in the country. And, uh, fortunately, they are safe at this moment. But of course, what we are going through is Ecuadorians, people that are inside the country and outside, is hard to put into words.

MG: Hm.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: I think those tapes right now, it, really sum up how we as Ecuadorians are feeling. But I think it's, you know, it's a mix of fear, anxiety, uncertainty and pain. You know, to see how a country that, um, is such an amazing place and has so much to offer is unfortunately faced with this incredibly dangerous situation and has been faced with this for the last couple of years.

MG: Tell me how we got to this point. The president, Daniel Noboa, declared a state of war.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Yeah.

MG: What would bring this country to this boiling point?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Yeah. You know, I think this is a very important question. It's important to contextualize the issue. Ecuador has seen staggering levels of violence since the end of 2019, and this has included a rise in homicides, extortions and kidnappings that are all related to organized crime. But nonetheless, we saw it get a lot worse last year when Ecuadorians had a sobering moment with the assassination of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio after making a couple of allegations against certain individuals that were linked to organized crime. But after that, you know, um, I think Ecuadorians, we saw a glimmer of hope towards the end of the year when Attorney General Diana Salazar led a large-scale investigation known as Metastasis, which essentially led to arresting more than two dozen individuals that were linked to organized crime across state institutions...

MG: Hm.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: .... which included, you know, the judiciary. And after that, she herself received death threats from one of the individuals of a criminal gang that recently skipped prison. And, you know, these lead us kind of like to the present moment with the prison riots and the state of emergency, the attack on the television channel and other, you know, levels of violence, including car bombs, kidnappings and other violent acts. Of course, President Noboa has declared the State of Emergency and the internal armed conflict. Um, but there's currently chaos in prisons with a total of 155 policemen and prison workers held hostage across seven prisons in the country. So fundamentally, the prison system in Ecuador has failed and has been failing for the past couple of years.

MG: Hm.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: And now, you know, the question is, there are over 380 individuals detained by the armed forces that are said to be linked to organized crime, and it's now called terrorists. But the problem is where to take them? So, yes.

MG: Let me ask you about some of those--the armed gang leaders--who are in prison, perhaps now no longer in prison. Who is? Fito is one of them? Right?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Yes, correct. Fito is one of them. So, he's the leader of a very dangerous criminal organization in Ecuador called Los Choneros. He escaped. And then, um, there's Capitan Pico, from, leader of Los Lobos, which is another criminal organization who was behind the death threats to the attorney general.

MG: How much power do these people have? Fito was kind of running his operation, as I read it, while he was in prison. Was able to put out music videos while he was still behind bars. How much power, did he, does he have? Um, while he is ostensibly supposed to be behind bars.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: I think yes, 100 per cent. I think the prison system, as I said, has fundamentally failed. And this means that a lot of the people that are there have privileges and have connectivity and have cell phones and have different things that, you know, people in their status are not supposed to have. So, I think that level of power that you mentioned from Los Choneros is very important, because what has been happening in the last couple of years, specifically to this, as it relates to this criminal group, is that they are in the process of migrating from a local criminal organization to an international drug cartel. And this is what makes it complicated, because of course, this increases resources, this increases their threat and their level of operation. And this is the, you know, heightened level of violence that we've seen from the group that has over 20,000 members.

MG: Where are the drugs going? I mean, Ecuador has become kind of a drug trafficking hub in South America. Where are those drugs going?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: So, it's a complicated answer, right? Because the reason why Ecuador is such a hub is because of the ports that it has in the coastal part of the country towards the Pacific coast. Uh, the recent report by the UNODC has outlined that, of course, demand for most of the drugs is into Mexico and also into the United States and North America. But more broadly, you know, it's also growing in Europe, in Eastern Europe and different parts of Africa as it relates specifically to cocaine. Um, so most of the receiver countries, of course, this is a two-part problem. It's supply. And we've [unclear] a kind of, try to control the problem from the supply side. But there's also a lot of demand that allows these businesses, illicit businesses, to exist.

MG: Daniel Noboa has been president for less than two months now. He's the youngest president Ecuador has had, as you mentioned, one of the other presidential candidates was assassinated in August. How much faith do the people of Ecuador have that he, Noboa, is able to handle this crisis that is unfolding right now?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: You know, I think a lot of people were very surprised by Noboa's win and the way that he has been handling the situation. We have in Ecuador a very fragmented National Assembly, it's last legislative power. But what we've seen in the last couple of days is truly historic. We've seen a level of unity and unanimity from the National Assembly and from many Ecuadorians, supporting President Noboa and his decision and decree to declare internal armed conflict and the State of Emergency. And this, of course, is complicated for many people. And it's, it economically impacts them. But we've seen, you know, people out in the streets giving water bottles and food to armed forces, supporting their long hours. So, I think that's the level of unity that we've seen and the level of urgency that I think most Ecuadorians feel into their, you know, their security being threatened. So, I think there's a lot of faith in him and his government in being able to solve this crisis in the next couple of months.

MG: We're out of time. But let me just ask you very briefly, finally. I mean, there are prison guards that are still being held hostage. You're in Washington. You talk about urgency. What sort of urgency do you want to see from the United States in the European Union, when it comes to helping to address the situation in Ecuador right now, or at the very least, supporting the president?

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Yeah, I think, well, Noboa has declared that 38 countries have offered support already in the form of intelligence, artillery, monetary assistance and even military deployment. Um, the United States Department of State yesterday released a statement saying that there would be high level officials from the INL and other state institutions travelling to Ecuador in order to kind of help address Noboa, help address the crisis that Noboa is dealing with. In terms of the hostages, you know, I think there needs to be open lines of communication between, you know, the people that are holding the hostages inside the prison and the armed forces that are trying to address it. And I think that's actually happening. But of course, I think it's going to be a point of no return where I think armed forces are going to have to go into the prisons and take control, which is essentially the main issue here.

MG: What an alarming situation. Isabel, I'm glad to talk to you about this. Thank you for the explanation.

ISABEL CHIRIBOGA: Thank you, Matt, for having me.

MG: Isabel Chiriboga is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht Latin America Centre, where she contributes to work on Ecuador.

[Music: Funky instrumental]

Why old-school explorers were ‘utterly mad’

Guest: Peter Rowe

MG: This is The Current. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

STOCKTON RUSH: I'd like to be remembered as an innovator. Um, and I think it was general McArthur who said you remembered for the rules you break. And, you know, I've broken some rules to make this. I think I've broken them with logic and good engineering behind me, the carbon fibre and titanium. There's a rule you don't do that. Well, I did.

MG: A bit of hubris there from Stockton Rush. He was chief executive of Ocean Gate and the pilot of The Titan submersible. In June, he and five of his clients died when Titan imploded deep in the Atlantic on an expedition to explore the wreck of the Titanic. That drive for adventure, despite the risk of death, is a theme in Peter Rowe's new book. It is called, and I don't normally say this word on the radio: Out There: The Batshit Antics of the World's Great Explorers. Peter Rowe is a filmmaker and explorer, and he's had some close calls himself, including, as you'll hear, one that has affected his voice. He's also a fellow at the Royal Geographical Society, the Explorers Club, the Royal Canadian Geographic Society. He's with me in studio. Peter, good morning.

PETER ROWE: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Do you have to be kind of 'out there' to be an explorer?

PETER ROWE: Probably helps people like the man you just played a clip from are very much like a blast from the era that my book is about.

MG: Hm.

PETER ROWE: 1800 to 1940. They did some mad things, utterly mad. Lots of really crazy people. But since World War Two, we're in what people call the great modern age of exploration, which is a lot more sensible, usually.

MG: I want to talk about those mad things. You have done some things as well, and I think people who are listening will hear your voice. And I'm asking, I want to ask you about your voice because...

PETER ROWE: Sure.

MG: Your voice, and the change in your voice is connected to one of your adventures. Right?

PETER ROWE: It is. And I have to apologize to your...

MG: Don't apologize.

PETER ROWE: ...listeners for it. Uh, but all I can suggest is maybe turn up the volume. But, uh, what happened was I was, I've climbed about 23 volcanoes, and on one of them in Vanuatu, in the South Pacific, volcanoes produce Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen sulphide gases. They combine with rainwater or even your saliva to create sulphuric acid. And on one of these volcanoes, it burnt out one of my vocal cords. You've got two. I've only got one, so. And so, I have to speak like this.

MG: You are an adventurer to your core. How do you think you compare to some of the wild explorers that you document in this book?

PETER ROWE: Well, I'm still alive.

MG: Which is a key and important factor.

PETER ROWE: Yes. Today we have two huge advantages. One is GPS, which means we know where we are. The other was aviation, which allowed the world to see what the world looked like. Until then, these guys were just trudging off into the wilderness, many of them with no knowledge of the dangers they were about to face. And they were lionized by the public. They were the rock stars, the sports stars of their day. They were featured in giveaway cards and cigarette packages.

MG: Why were so many of those explorers obsessed with Timbuktu in Africa?

PETER ROWE: Back in the 1500s or thereabouts, something like 40 per cent of Europe's gold came through Timbuktu, and it's so difficult to get to even today.

MG: What happened when you went to Timbuktu? What happened?

PETER ROWE: It's so insanely hot there. The guy I was travelling with, the driver, believed that air conditioning burned too much gasoline. So, I just disappeared to the back seat, stripped off all my clothes, wrapped my turban, took my turban off, wrapped it around myself loosely, and poured what water we had it was, by then, too hot to drink. So I poured it over myself to try and cool down. That resulted in me being steamed by the indigo blue dye that was for my turban, turned me into the [unclear] the blue man of the [unclear.] Anyway, our driver was equally demented and drove us into a sand dune. There was nothing around. But always, small boys show up, then later women, old men. They all started pushing us. Pushing, pushing, pushing. Well eventually I got out, started shouting demented, crazed commands at them because I was convinced having been stuck in many Canadians snowdrifts, that I knew how to get out of the African sands.

MG: Push your car out of the sand.

PETER ROWE: Yeah.

MG: Like you were stuck in a snowbank.

PETER ROWE: Snowdrift. Eventually we did. We eventually made it to Timbuktu, but on the way out. Let me tell you a quick story. On the way out, when we left Timbuktu, we heard that there were bandits that had heard about us that were gonna steal our filming gear, steal our money, maybe kill us. Who knows? So we put out the word that we were headed north. Wasn't true. We got up very, very early before even the morning prayers rang out and went south instead. And we didn't see any bandits. We did see a wonderful sight of a salt caravan of about 60 camels, so we made it south safely out of there.

MG: Tell me about the Canadian North and this Canadian Arctic expedition of 1913. This was, this attempt by explorers to claim part of Russia for Canada, is that right?

PETER ROWE: Yes, it is. A very nutty character, richly named Bill Stefansson, he was from Manitoba. He went to Harvard. He's somehow considered probably the greatest Canadian born explorer. And, um, well, at Harvard he changed his name to Vilhjalmur Stefansson to give himself some full Viking street cred. Stefansson decided that there's a big island owned by what was then Soviet Union called Wrangled Island--was the last home of the woolly mammoths. Today still exists, still uninhabited, largely. One of the great homes of polar bears. He put together an expedition, four young men to go up to claim this land for Canada. And, uh, these four guys, they had their own passport. They were Americans. He had to get a Canadian. So, he went to the president of UFT asked if this man knew of any bright young, scientifically trained, tough, strong, would-be explorers. And the president said he had someone named Jack Crawford young 24-year-old, something like that. So, he became the leader of the expedition. Off they went to Nome, Alaska. They chartered a ship, and they found a woman who became the hero of the expedition. An Inuit woman named Ada Blackjack. Ada, and the four of them, got up to Wrangled Island. They managed to live through two winters. But in the second winter, terrible, terrible, cold, awful place way up there. Jack Crawford decided they weren't going to make it through the winter. Not enough food. So, he took one of the guys and they tried to walk out. They got frostbite. They couldn't make it. They came back. They decided they would try again. The three other Americans and Crawford left the remaining American under the hand of Ada Blackjack. Poor woman was terrified of guns. She was terrified of polar bears. And she was also a bit terrified of these four white guys. But off they went. Never seen again. Stefansson got another ship, sent it to Wrangled Island, picked up Ada Blackjack. By now, the one last American had died on Wrangled Island. She was returned to Alaska. They put some more explorers on the island. Most of them were Inuit. Eventually, the Soviet government sent the Red October, a war shop, and smashed through the ice. Picked up those people. They were sent back to Alaska. Stefansson sold the island to a couple of rubes from Alaska for $27,000, back in the 30s. He no more owned it than he owned the Brooklyn Bridge or the Rideau Canal. But these groups bought it. In 2022, there was an election for the Senate seat in Alaska. The infamous Sarah Palin ran against a Democrat. Mary Peltola won. There was a third person running at this election. Promises that well, if he won, he was going to get Wrangled Island back for Alaska. Well, he only got 220 votes.

MG: You kind of have to be mad to be an explorer, right? I mean, that's kind of what comes out in this book, is that there are wild tales of people, but you sort of have to--you have to be willing to risk it all, and you have to be kind of willing to see the world in a bit of a different way. Right?

PETER ROWE: The quests they went on were mad.

MG: And drove them kind of mad, too.

PETER ROWE: Yes.

MG: Before I let you go, we're just about out of time. Tell me about Jacques Cousteau. Why is Jacques Cousteau the world's greatest explorer?

PETER ROWE: Jacques Cousteau is a truly modern explorer. He not only created, he found a whole new world, unlike the rest of them: the underwater world. Not just for himself, but for millions of people. Not just through the films that he made, but by creating the technology that allowed it. He's the man with his background, created scuba. The self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. There's 40,000 new, let's call them explorers, who are certified as divers around the world every month. And it's because of Jacques Cousteau. And before he could even do that, he had to fight the Nazis to do it. Because, you know, first off, he had to become a diver in the French Resistance. Then he created the underwater housing for movie cameras. Then he created this fantastic, wildly popular television series and movies. He is a great saviour of the environment, of the ocean. Not that we've saved it, but he's done a great deal towards helping save it. So, I have great admiration for him.

MG: Peter Rowe, it's great to meet you. Thank you very much.

PETER ROWE: Thank you, sir.

MG: Peter Rowe is an explorer. His latest book is: Out There: The Batshit Antics of the World's Great Explorers. That's The Current for this Friday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. Before we go, one final goodbye to Ed Broadbent. He was, as you know, a staunch defender of human rights, a principled politician. But as he said in our conversation, he also liked to have some fun. When Ed Broadbent returned to politics after more than a decade away, he needed to let Canadians know that he was back. And so he did something special. Here is Ed Broadbent's 2004 Campaign Wrap. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend and we'll see you on Monday.

[Music: Ed Broadbent campaign rap song]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Friday January 12, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This