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 2019

The Current Transcript for October 1, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

You know I just couldn't believe the volume being produced. There was huge piles of these drugs that were drying out and it was all on the up and up too. All of it was legal.

LAURA LYNCH: Author Ben Westhoff was astounded to see the insides of a fentanyl factory in China. Product ready for export to North America where it's feeding an overdose crisis killing so many. We'll talk to Ben about the startling and scary business of fentanyl in half an hour. We will also check in on today's increasingly violent protests in Hong Kong. After that.

SOUNDCLIP

I would hope that questions of indigenous justice and interactions with non-indigenous society would be more front of mind. But it's only appeared once or twice so far in the first debate.

LL: We've brought together First Nations voters to discuss what they are and aren't hearing from leaders in this campaign. But first up the election and immigration, a divisive issue for voters and for federal parties. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Irregular border crossers aren't 'real refugees,' says Conservative candidate

Guests: Ahmed Hussen, Jenny Kwan, Arpan Khanna

SOUNDCLIP

ELIZABETH MAY: We are as a party very much in favour of immigration.

ANDREW SCHEER: Under Justin Trudeau a record high number of candidates believe that immigration should be reduced.

MAXIME BERNIER: If you're saying that our policy is racist, you are saying that 49 percent of Canadians are racist because Forty nine percent of Canadians want fewer immigrants.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: A Liberal government will make family reunification at the core of its immigration policy.

JAGMEET SINGH: So our immigration system has to balance the great need that we have for people to come to our country. We also need to make sure that we balance that very important need with security.

LL: The issue of immigration divides Canadian politicians and Canadian voters. Ottawa accepted more than 300,000 immigrants between last July and this July, one of the highest numbers ever. The United Nations ranked Canada fourth on its list of the world's most welcoming countries. Yet polling shows more than half of Canadians don't want higher refugee numbers. Three quarters think our immigration policy should be focussed instead on skilled labour. We've invited three candidates to discuss their party's positions on immigration. Jenny Kwan is the NDP candidate for Vancouver East. She's in Vancouver. Arpan Khanna is the conservative candidate for Brampton north. She is in Brampton Ontario and Ahmed Hussen is the Liberal candidate for York's Southwestern. He is in Toronto. Hello to you all.

GUESTS: Hello and good morning.

LL: Ahmed Hussen, I want to start with you and then the last government. You were the Immigration Minister and one of the Cornerstone policies that helped the Liberals win that last election was a more welcoming immigration policy especially towards Syrian refugees. Recent polling though is suggesting there is a shift going on that more Canadians support highly skilled immigrants, not more refugees. How significant do you think that changes?

AHMED HUSSEN: Well first of all I mean I'll make two points about that. Number one the request for Canadians who sponsor more refugees is as high as it's been in 2016, even higher. And the numbers are there to present. And secondly, I know that it's not a surprise for me that there was a drop in the support, considering the fact that over the last four years a number of political leaders in this country have spent their time fear mongering about refugees and demonizing them, and putting them against regular other immigrants. And so of course that has an impact. But the fact is the generosity of Canadians and their requests to sponsor refugees is as high as it's ever been. In fact higher in some cases.

LL: For people who want to sponsor them, but the new People's Party of Canada is making immigration a central issue in its campaign. The leader Maxime Bernier says the focus should be on meeting labour needs.

SOUNDCLIP

MAXIME BERNIER: We need to have more economic immigrants and now our immigration policy must be there to fulfil our economic needs. And right now it isn't the case because only 26 percent of our immigrants are coming under the rubric of economic immigrants. We need that person for some jobs.

LL: Okay. Arpan Khanna, Mr. Bernier wants to cut Canada's overall immigration numbers at least in half and reduce refugee approvals, extended family reunification. Where does the Conservative Party think immigration policy should be focussed?

ARPAN KHANNA: Thanks for the question. As we've seen you know Canada is a very generous country when it comes to immigration. And you know as a proud of immigrants I believe our country needs immigration to help sustain our growth. You know we believe that our system should be fair. It should be compassionate and it should be orderly and you know we want to see that. And we have not seen that in the last four years with a Liberal government. So for us we'll made make sure we do which we work hard to attract the brightest the best to come to our country while making sure that those that need help the most, the genuine refugees that are facing persecution across the world, have an opportunity to come to Canada and not through loopholes that we've seen from the Quebec border.

LL: Talk to me more about that. What loophole? I mean these are people who are crossing irregularly.

ARPAN KHANNA: Exactly. And there's a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement which the Liberals have failed to close which has put a huge burden on our system.

LL: How did you close it? How would you close it?

ARPAN KHANNA: Well we're going to make sure we work with our U.S. partners to close that loophole. So we are going to enforce those borders to make sure that no one is crossing.

LL: I don't hear you saying how you would close the loophole, though. And I want to come back to you on this. I also want to ask Mr. Hussen about this but I want to bring Jenny Kwan from the NDP into the conversation. Jerry let's start there with the Safe Third Country Agreement your party has a different view on that.

JENNY KWAN: Absolutely. We think that these safe third country agreements should be suspended. In fact the agreement itself is forcing people to cross into Canada irregularly. They're risking life and limb to do that. It's creating havoc frankly at the border communities. And it doesn't have to be this way. If we suspended the Safe Third Country Agreement people would be able to cross over into Canada in an orderly fashion. They will be assessed through that process with, the IRP the Immigration Refugee Board, to determine whether or not they asylum claim would be a valid one. And so the Liberals refused to do that. The conservatives effectively are arguing that we should simply close the border for asylum seekers.

LL: But, Jenny Kwan, I think that the concerns of some voters watching what has been happening is particularly at Roxon Road in Quebec where a lot of irregular crossings have taken place. In two years slightly fewer than 50,000 people have crossed and claimed asylum, claims refugee status at that crossing. A lot of people think that is uncontrolled, that there's a problem with that. What do you say to them?

JENNY KWAN: Well it is a problem in the sense that people are being forced to cross over irregularly. They are crossing over because of the Safe Third Country Agreement would not allow them to make regular crossings. So if we suspended the Safe Third Country Agreement then people would be able to cross over regularly.

LL: But they wouldn't be turned back to the United States.

JENNY KWAN: Well they wouldn't be turned back to the United States but they would be assessed to determine whether or not they have a valid refugee claim here in Canada. If they don't they would be turned back. And right now even if they cross over irregular irregularly they will still be assessed to determine whether or not they have a valid claim.

LL: Now I want to turn to Mr. Hussen and give him his say on this. I know Mr. Hussen you have said that you were trying to negotiate changes to a safe third country agreement. Nothing has happened for months. Where's that at?

AHMED HUSSEN: Well before I respond to your question. They reach for the Conservatives to talk about helping refugees. They kept them in limbo for years.

LL: I'm asking you about your government's record, Mr. Hussein.

AHMED HUSSEN: They cut 390 million dollars from CBSA and therefore they really don't have credibility on this issue.

LL: What about your government's record on this youth. You've said for months that you were going to get changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement. We haven't seen anything.

AHMED HUSSEN: Well the fact of the matter is it's a bilateral agreement. It requires - any changes required or any modernization of the agreement - requires the consent of all countries. The United States and Canada and that work is ongoing. But it's bigger than that. It's also about making sure that we resource our border officers adequately, it's making sure that we have resource the Immigration and Refugee Board and fill the vacancies but also resource that body for the actual number of asylum seekers in Canada and do all of that work. We've done that. We have finally closed the gaps that the conservatives left behind in terms of-

LL: There still is an enormous backlog though.

AHMED HUSSEN: Well precisely because those vacancies [unintelligible] of resources from the IRP in the 10 years that the Conservatives had an opportunity to do something about.

LL: Arpan, I want to come back to you on this because you just heard Mr. Hussen say there's two parties to the Safe Third Country Agreement. And I guess he hasn't been able to bring the other side to the table. What could you possibly do differently?

ARPAN KHANNA: I think first of all it's absolutely shocking to see the foreign minister talk about blaming other governments. We had four years to take action and they failed to do that. our a leader in our party has taken a very very strong stance on this and has made this a priority. What is happening is that we're losing out on helping real genuine refugees.

LL: Mr. Khanna, I didn't ask you about that. I was trying to ask you why how you could get the U.S. government to come on board to change the stay through country agreement if they don't want to play the game?

ARPAN KHANNA: Absolutely no. This is where we have to have a sit down with them. Have an actual leadership role, not blame other governments which we have seen from Ahmed Hussen, to make sure this is a priority and we have to get things done. It takes leadership and we haven't seen that. All we have seen is blaming others and what was left from this is a backlog. It's got a cost on taxpayers. And Andrew Scheer makes sure the system is fair, that it's compassionate to help those that need help the most and that there's order. What we don't see right now.

LL: Who are those who need help the most Mr. Khanna?

ARPAN KHANNA: So when Andrew Scheer and I went to India we met with Afghan, Sikh and Hindu refugees. These are real refugees who are facing persecution for their faith in other countries. Look Canada is a very very compassionate country. We're Canadians and we should be helping those that need help the most. So look at these Yazidis who're facing persecution every single day. Those coming from upstate New York thanks to a tweet that the Prime Minister put out saying Welcome to Canada are not real refugees. And they made a mess of the system and there's a back [unintelligible] entry that's happening now and Canadians are tired with that.

LL: Jenny Kwan, what do you say to that?

JENNY KWAN: Well with all due respect the fact of the matter is that with a Trump administration where asylum seekers trying to flee gender based violence or gang violence they have been told in the United States that they are not eligible to make an asylum claim. These are people who are trying to get to safety. We see the images on TV where children are being separated from their parents forcibly. Children are being put in cages. Children have died and these individuals are trying to get to safety by crossing over irregularly to Canada. And you know according to the conservatives, these are people from upstate New York somehow they're not real asylum seekers. And I just find that extremely offensive. They are vilifying refugees and they are trying to paint them as people who we should demonize, that they're not deserving to have asylum support. The Liberals on the other hand, what they have also done is sneak in dangerous changes to asylum seeking system, in a 397 seven page omnibus bill, just before the election, by declaring that those who have already made a claim in the United States in the five I countries and that includes the United States would not be eligible to make an asylum claim here in Canada.

LL: Why wouldn't they want their claim heard? Why wouldn't they want their claim heard in another country that Canada considers safe?

JENNY KWAN: Because the United States, there has been instances where they don't provide legal assistance to these individuals, because the United States has already declare outright that anyone who's trying to make an asylum claim - if they face gender based violence - that they're not eligible. They've already declare outright that if you're faced with gang violence that you're not eligible. So these individuals continue to try to get to safety. I met a man, a LGBTQ two plus men who crossed over to Canada in the dead of winter, lost [unintelligible] of his fingers due to frost bite.

LL: We know that story, yes.

JENNY KWAN: And you know what? She was found to be a valid refugee here in Canada under our independent our IRP process. If this law was in place back then, he would have been not eligible.

LL: Okay. Let's turn to another topic because there's a lot of topics when it comes to immigration. Ahmed Hussen, the Liberals have pledged to speed up the family reunification process. Why?

AHMED HUSSEN: Well because it's a priority that Canadians identified for us. And we have- the conservatives kept families apart for years. We have dramatically reduced the wait times for family reunification. And at the same time eliminating backlogs that we inherited from the conservatives. family reunification is very very important. It is important to Canadians to sponsor their loved ones. We will continue to work that to continue to reunite families. If you have the opportunity and got re-lected.

LL: But then again you're actually creating another class of immigrants when people are saying they want to focus on skills, people who have skills, being brought into this country.

AHMED HUSSEN: No you can do both. In fact according to our [unintelligible] level plan a book. But by the end of 2021 we will have 72 percent of all the permanent immigrants coming to Canada who will be in the skilled economic category. That again reflects the needs of the Canadian economy, employers, the Conference Board of Canada. Many many different communities and mayors and provinces have asked us to increase the numbers of skilled immigrants coming in. But at the same time we can also reunite families and meet the demand of Canadians who reunite to their loved one, We can do both.

LL: Arpan Khanna. What do you think about that?

ARPAN KHANNA: You know obviously you know we have a huge need for economic immigration. There's a huge labour shortage in our country, whether it's some of the students coming in, whether it's skilled labour coming in, we have to fulfil. When comes to family reunification, obviously you know we want to ensure that families are reunited with their families. But what we've seen with liberals, well there was the grandparents sponsorship program which closed online in seven minutes. The Liberals again have failed to show any leadership on this. You know this system has proven to be broken. We had stories of folks that were barely opening up their laptop and the online portal had closed. It was not equal opportunity for those to apply and now they're stuck within the next lottery.

LL: What would you do?

ARPAN KHANNA: We'll make sure that the system is actually accessible to everyone. If there's flaws with online systems then people cannot go to consultants who pay the big amounts to help log in. We'll make sure there's a process in place that they could apply directly in-person or a paper and we'll review some of these shortfalls that's come up. We had a system before. Our party started the supervisor which helped united parents with their families a lot faster as well. We found ways to have a streamlined approach unlike the Liberals who close off opportunities for some of those families. I think you know it was unfair and it's something we're going to be looking at greatly closely.

LL: Jenny Kwan I'm wondering what balance would the NDP strike between Labour needs and humanitarian needs.

JENNY KWAN: Well I absolutely think that that we can do both. And so in terms of labour leads, Canada actually the full range of workers; high skill, medium skill, and low skill. And so what we should be doing is bringing in immigrants from all of those categories. We used to do that by the way but we have now stopped really effectively bringing in that full range full balance of workers that are needed here in Canada. I'll use one example. The people in the hospitality industry are desperate for workers. I have people in the restaurants who are desperate to hire chefs to hire workers and they're not able to expand their business because they don't have the workers to fill those positions. So we should be expanding that range of workers that are needed here in Canada. That's what Democrats would do. We would also recognize for example for caregivers, people who've come to take care of our children and our loved ones, you know they are being so penalized in our current system that they are separated from their own families for some as long as 10 years. It's broken up their families. And why do we do that? Our immigration policy has created a system that breaks up families. And I would say that for those workers if you're good enough to work here, you're good enough to stay.

LL: We've only got a couple of minutes left. I just want to touch on another issue that I know you've all looked at over the years and that is the question of immigration consultants. The people who bring in immigrants to this country who help refugees and labour immigrants come into Canada and a lot of them are not very honest. And there has been calls to the government to take over the regulation of immigration consultants the government hasn't yet done that. Why not Ahmed Hussein?

AHMED HUSSEN: We looked at that model and not only is it more expensive it actually doesn't work as well as the model for all the other professionals. Most professionals in Canada of self-regulated with strong [unintelligible].

LL: But there is there are lots of indications that it's not working that there are too many dishonest layers in there.

AHMED HUSSEN: We introduced a strategy, 52.9 million dollar strategy that will resource CPSA to do more investigations, set up a new college for Immigration and Citizenship consultants with much stronger disciplinary processes complaints processes, a compensation for the first time. Our approach will work and is already starting to get results.

LL: Jenny Kwan I'm coming to you next because I know you're on the committee that was studying this. What do you say?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well I am sorry. I think the minister as well the committee actually recommended unanimously that the government should go to a regulated system. There's just far too many people who feel cheated in this system and the system has not worked. The crooked consultants as I call them have created so much pain and suffering for people who needed their help.

LL: I need to give Arpan Khanna the last word here. What do you say to this issue?

ARPAN KHANNA: It's unfortunate that there's some folks in the industry who are profiting off by supporting the hopes and dreams of newcomers. And we see that not only here in Canada but across the world as well. So absolutely our government, when we are, in power before we really care we try to crack down on the consultants to ensure that those that are relying on their services are not being taken advantage of. It breaks your heart to see some folks [unintelligible] and I hear all these stories.

LL: So would the Conservatives take over the industry? You've got about five seconds.

ARPAN KHANNA: Yeah you know for us we're going to to make sure that the system is fair that there is no fraud that we crack down, that there punishment for those who break the law.

LL: We have to leave it there. Thank you to all three of you for a very spirited discussion.

GUESTS: Thank you so much for your time.

LL: Jenny Kwan is the NDP candidate for Vancouver East. She's in Vancouver. Arpan Khanna is the conservative candidate for Brampton north. He's in Brampton Ontario. And Ahmed Hussen is the Liberal candidate for York's Southwestern. He is in Toronto. The CBC News is next. Then:

SOUNDCLIP

They're probably one of the most successful aquatic invaders in the world. They're widespread in Canada. They continue to be reported in B.C., in Alberta, in Ontario, in Quebec and so on.

LL: Who or what is that very successful aquatic invader? We will find out in our next half hour stay tuned. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Fentanyl once thought too 'risky' to become a widely used drug, says author

Guest: Ben Westhoff

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come. They're not from around these parts. So how did these creatures wind up in Canadian waters. But first; a dangerous drug business with a deadly impact.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press and the Minneapolis Star Tribune today that music legend Prince died from an accidental opioid overdose in April. The superstar according to reports self-administered fentanyl.

VOICE 2: So this was fentanyl. It's 10 milligrams right here.

VOICE 3: Alex's death was ruled accidental. The cause: the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl.

VOICE 4: Welcome to Welfare Wednesday in Vancouver. All that cash on the streets mean fentanyl dealers are busy and first responders are in high demand.

VOICE 5: A new study from the CDC found Sentinel related deaths between 2011 and 2016 increased more than one thousand percent, more than 36,000 Americans died with it in their system.

LL: There's a good chance that even a few years ago you'd never heard of fentanyl. But the powerful opioid has been used in the medical system since it was first synthesized nearly 60 years ago. Now thanks to the overdose crisis, Fentanyl has become a household name synonymous with death. Investigative journalist Ben Westhoff has been trained has traced the history of the drug from its origins in a Belgian laboratory to clandestine factories in China to the streets of North America. His new book is called Fentanyl Inc. How Rogue Chemists are Creating the Deadliest Wave of the Opioid Epidemic. Ben Westhoff is in St. Lewis, Missouri. Hello.

BEN WESTHOFF: Hello. Thanks for having me.

LL: Fentanyl has had a terrible reputation now because of its implication in the overdose epidemic. But why was it created? And how is it actually used in medicine?

BEN WESTHOFF: Fentanyl was created as a legitimate hospital drug. It was made by a chemist from Belgium named Paul Janssen. And for a long time it was used in open heart surgery and it's still very important today used in colonoscopies for man, epidurals for women in childbirth. But what we hear about is not this hospital fentanyl. The fentanyl that's killing people is made illicitly.

LL: But the one that's used in the hospital it's used mainly for treating pain, is it?

BEN WESTHOFF: That's right yes for chronic pain, people with cancer. There's a patch that's often administered.

LL: Okay. So when did fentanyl first make its way into the illicit drug market?

BEN WESTHOFF: In 1979 and then in the next few years in Orange County California, authorities began hearing about people who had overdose and died. And they had heroin paraphernalia with them. They had track marks on their arms. But tests showed that they didn't have any heroin in their system at all. This was the first appearance of fentanyl. And at the time it was completely unknown as a street drug. And it very slowly started to become popular as a street drug. In fact as recently as 2015, the American DEA said they didn't think fentanyl would be a problem at all, that it was too powerful and that it wouldn't catch on with addicted users.

LL: No that's not true. So you use the story of an 18 year old from Grand Forks South Dakota to put a human face on the conventional crisis. Tell me who Bailey Hanke was and what happened to him.

BEN WESTHOFF: Bailey Hanke was an 18 year old kid. He had recently graduated from high school and he got into fentanyl when a friend purchased it off the Dark Web. Bailey tried it and died instantly and it inspired this huge investigation called operation denial which was spanning the U.S. and Canada, all over the world and arrested scores of people. But what they found was that the people at the very top of the drug pyramid, the Chinese chemists who are responsible for the fentanyl that killed Bailey Hanke could not be arrested because China refused to extradite them.

LL: But there were arrests were there not?

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes Bailey's friend who sold the fentanyl was arrested. The dark web dealer who is actually from Portland, Oregon, who sold it to him, was also arrested and lots of other people as well.

LL: And this story had a Canadian connection.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes it was actually a man who was in prison, in a Quebec prison I believe, who was dealing fentanyl while inside prison from the dark web. And so the Dark Web is this sort of scrambled Internet protocol where it's impossible to tell who's running these sites. And this guy's name was Daniel Vivas Ceron. And he managed to make a lot of money doing this actually until he was finally caught.

LL: And he was doing this from prison.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes it's kind of boggles the mind.

LL: You touched on this briefly but I just wonder if you could talk some more about this. Why were drug enforcement officers caught so flat footed about fentanyl?

BEN WESTHOFF: Most everyone didn't think that fentanyl would become the scourge that it is and the reason for that is because it's so powerful. It's 50 times stronger than heroin and it only takes about two grains of rice worth to overdose and die. And so authorities just thought that people wouldn't engage in such risky behaviour. But it turns out that was incorrect. There are a lot of people who have been heroin addicts for decades, and they don't get high anymore necessarily. They just are able to get rid of their withdrawal symptoms from shooting up heroin. But fentanyl is so much stronger that it gets them high again. And that's part of the reason it broke through.

LL: Where is all of this illicit fentanyl coming from you? You spoke about China before.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes it's almost all manufactured in China. China has a huge chemical and pharmaceutical industry, the biggest in the world, and most of it is legitimate. But there is also a great portion of it that is dedicated to making fentanyl and different types of fentanyl called analogues. And until recently whenever China banned one type of fentanyl, these rogue chemists could just slightly tweak the molecular formula and then they would have a brand new type of fentanyl that was now legal, but just as potent or even more so.

LL: You say until recently, what happened?

BEN WESTHOFF: In May China agreed to ban all fentanyl analogues. And so that was seen as a good first step. The problem is that China's enforcement really lags behind and it's one thing to have these laws on the book. But there isn't the infrastructure, there aren't the people on the ground who're enforcing these laws.

LL: Is that a matter of choice?

BEN WESTHOFF: It's hard to say. People have a lot of different theories about why China is doing this in fact. From my book I actually found out that China is just not only failing to suppress this industry, they're actually encouraging it through all sorts of tax code breaks, including for exporting drugs like fentanyl companies get a tax break. So it's hard to know exactly what's going on with the Chinese government.

LL: Yes that's a bit of a mystery. I mean that was my next question. How does the fentanyl from Chinese labs actually enter the United States and Canada?

BEN WESTHOFF: Through two different ways. One is directly through the mail. And it's surprisingly easy to order these drugs online. You can find these chemical companies and they will send it directly through U.P.S., FedEx or the regular mail system and the other way is through the Mexican cartels. So the Mexican cartels buy huge amounts of fentanyl and fentanyl ingredients which are known as precursors and they make the finished fentanyl and then they send it up through the southern border. Some of the fentanyl in Canada that comes through the mail, comes down through the northern border but almost all of it originates in China.

LL: And how big is the flow?

BEN WESTHOFF: It's hard to know exactly but judging and based on seizures it's tremendous. In fact in Mexico recently there was a bust of 23 tons of fentanyl which is just a staggering amount.

LL: I just want to go back to China for a moment, because you actually infiltrated a Chinese fentanyl lab. Is that correct?

BEN WESTHOFF: That's right. Yes they went to two drug operations in China.

LL: And what did you see?

BEN WESTHOFF: Well I was expecting to see sort of underground facility, a seedy place with guys holding AK 47 and guarding the door but it wasn't like that at all. One lab I went to was outside of Shanghai and from the outside it just looked like a regular suburban office park. There was a big fountain. There was a regular parking lot and the buildings didn't give any indication what was inside. But when the lab owner took me in what I saw was this big lab that was, making types of fentanyl making types of synthetic cannabinoids and you know I just couldn't believe the volume being produced. There was huge piles of these drugs that were drying out. There were other huge glassware that was synthesizing the chemicals before my eyes. And it was all on the up and up too. It was, all of it, was legal according to the Chinese law.

LL: So they didn't have any hesitation having you come in and having a look?

BEN WESTHOFF: Well there was some hesitation. The chemist I originally contacted him on the Internet and said I was a drug dealer and he vetted me when I arrived in Shanghai. He really he kept asking me if I was a journalist and kept saying no. But eventually I went over his trust and he showed me. We were accompanied by this big sort of beefy guy who I was worried was the operations muscle. So it was a little harrowing, but I got in and I got out.

LL: And they only recently found out that you were in fact a journalist.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes. Well he's still this chemist was still in touch with me over Skype until recently. He Sent me emojis of a birthday cake on my birthday, but no I still haven't come clean with him.

LL: How do they do business? They're people they're taking orders. How do they manage to make their exports?

BEN WESTHOFF: Well when I went to a different operation they were selling fentanyl precursors. And so these are the most important ingredients to make fentanyl. You can't make fentanyl without the precursors. And so this other operation I went to had literally hundreds and hundreds of sales people in cubicles. These were mostly young recent college graduates. They were behind computers. They were communicating with customers over social media, Skype, all sorts of things. And what I determined from my research for the book was that this company is called Yuan Chong was selling more fentanyl precursors than any other company in the world. And their biggest clients they told me were the Mexican cartels basically, U.S. drug dealers. And it was this huge operation just operating right there in plain sight.

LL: Is one of the reasons why this this is seemingly not a huge priority for China that China's still, the Chinese population still, isn't seeing bad consequences from fentanyl themselves?

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes a lot of people think that's the case. China has its own drug problems. A lot of people are addicted to maths and heroin and even ketamine, but fentanyl is not a big problem in China. And so that's why a lot of people believe they're not devoting the resources to crack down on this industry.

LL: Now you didn't limit your research to fentanyl you looked at the burgeoning world of designer drugs. How is that changing the landscape of illicit drug use?

BEN WESTHOFF: Well 100 years ago we only had a handful a couple handfuls of different drugs and they all came from plants. And the drugs we probably are used to cocaine, heroin, marijuana, these all come from natural plants. But these new drugs are all synthetic. They're all made in a lab. And so what that means is that there's sort of this endless possibilities for new drugs, new variation. So when one thing gets banned, these chemists make something different. And some of them, the worst drugs that come out of this scene are called synthetic marijuana. That's what they're known as or synthetic cannabinoids. You may have heard of K2 or Spice and they're really not like marijuana though. Whereas marijuana will make you kind of more relaxed and maybe have the munchies. These new synthetic cannabinoids make your heart beat fast. They make people overdose. They're really awful drugs.

LL: And you actually made contact with a dealer on the dark web. What can you tell me about him?

BEN WESTHOFF: I talked with a few different dealers on the dark web and even met one in person and he was an opioid user. He was addicted to opioids. His whole purpose, the way he sort of justified selling these types of fentanyl on the Internet, on the dark web, was that he was giving addicted users an affordable way to maintain their addiction. And so he had actually had a nasal spray that produced the type of fentanyl and he showed it to me. It looked just like something you might get at a local drugstore, like totally legit, but you know it was dispensing this ultra-powerful fentanyl.

LL: Did you have any moral qualms about this? Did he understand that people are dying from fentanyl?

BEN WESTHOFF: He understood yes. You know as an addictive user himself he also wanted to support his family and his day job wasn't doing it. But other people I talked to said that the problem is it's so dangerous because making a solution of these types of fentanyl, something that's safe, you know, that's almost impossible for just a regular person to do that doesn't have access to all the the pharmaceutical equipment.

LL: But so what did he say about that about people dying and putting him possibly being behind their deaths?

BEN WESTHOFF: Well like I said he saw himself as someone who is helping the average person who is addicted to opioids fight back against Big Pharma, for example. So whereas people might have to pay huge money to get OxyContin or other pills to maintain their opioid addiction, he said that he was providing a service to help them do so much more cheaply.

LL: You spoke to a chemist also and his name is David Nichols. What can you tell us about his role in the emergence of these designer drugs?

BEN WESTHOFF: David Nichols was purdue professor in Indiana. So he's totally legitimate. He worked for decades trying to design new chemicals that would help people. And so his round was actually psychedelics. He tried to develop new psychedelics to be used as medicine to help people with traumatic experiences in their past or maybe to stop smoking or or other addictive behaviours. And back in the old days when scientists like him would publish a paper, it would just be in some university laboratory. But in the Internet age all these papers came on to the Internet. And so now the rogue chemists, the people who are trying to make drugs to sell in the streets, they just have to go on the Internet and look at all these old papers where they find out about these chemicals developed by this people like this scientists David Nichols. And so what happened with the chemicals he developed was that the rogue chemist started making them as drugs and selling them on the street. And as a result a bunch of people died and he felt really awful.

LL: Yes. Tell me more about that. Well what did he say to you? Because he essentially provided the cookbook.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yeah exactly. And so when you think in particular about LSD that is a psychedelic that's really safe. No one has ever died of an overdose from LSD. Maybe someone is like jumped off a building while they're on LSD, but LSD is safe. The drugs he was coming up with were had this this kind of unfortunate name N-Bombs and they were a new psychedelic. And he was studying how they worked. He never meant for anyone to take them. But it turned out that these rogue chemists started marketing N-Bombs, these new drugs, as LSD. And so people who are intending to get LSD instead got these N-Bombs and lots of people started dying. And David Nichols obviously felt horrible for creating these drugs. At the same time, he's a little defensive too and thinks that the users ultimately had responsibility also.

LL: That's what he said to you.

BEN WESTHOFF: Yes exactly.

LL: It's got to be hard to live with all of that. You actually highlight an example of how drug enforcement can actually produce unintended consequences. Tell me about what happened when police shut down an LSD lab in a missile silo.

LL: In Kansas in the year 2000 there was this random missile silo that was built during the Cold War and long since abandoned, but it was taken over by these LSD chemists who had what the DEA called the largest lab in the country. And they were making tens of thousands of doses of LSD. Now one of the chemists got increasingly paranoid and turned on the other one and agreed to turn him over to the DEA in exchange for his own clemency and so the DEA raided the facility. And what happened was after shutting down this lab that was making so much LSD, that the amount of LSD on the streets plummeted. In fact in the years following it was really hard if not impossible to find LSD. And so what happened in the wake of that was that people started using this fake LSD as other psychedelic I was just talking about called N-Bombs. And so the problem is that, like I said, LSD is safe but the N-Bombs are not. And so by cracking down on the LSD people began taking these new psychedelics, the N-Bombs, and lots and lots of people began dying.

LL: I'm wondering then after all of this how did your work on the book affect the way you perceived drug enforcement?

BEN WESTHOFF: My belief is that decades and decades of war on drugs policies have not gotten us anywhere. For example when Pablo Escobar was killed that didn't stop the flow of cocaine from Colombia. In fact there's more cocaine from Colombia than ever before. The imprisonment and trial of El Chapo has not slowed the drug supply from Mexico. And I believe that even if we crack down on China, even if we get China to control this industry, it's just going to migrate to other places including India where there's already a lot of fentanyl being made. And so I believe we have to start at home. We need to work on figuring out why so many people are using these drugs? How we can help them do it more safely? And how we can reduce the demand?

LL: Ben I appreciate you writing the book and all the work that you put into it and the risks you took. Thank you.

BEN WESTHOFF: Well thank you Laura.

LL: Ben Westhoff is the author of Fentanyl Inc.: How Rogue Chemists are Creating the Deadliest Wave of the Opioid Epidemic. We reached him in St. Lewis. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current. You may have heard about those two piranhas pulled out of a lake in the name of British Columbia but there's no need to panic just yet about some kind of super species of her own a migrating north. One scientist has a simple explanation about the uninvited guests lurking about in Canada's ecosystem.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

Hi I'm Anthony Ricciardi. I'm a professor of biology in the Redpath Museum, McGill University and I study biological invasions. I study introduced species and aquatic systems and those species include for example goldfish. When people hear about introduced species like a goldfish or a piranha in a lake what they don't realize is that there is no natural mechanism by which a goldfish - or a piranha or various other species that are found well outside their natural range - can ever have found their way into this into the lakes without human help. We're talking about something called Pet release, where species are released from aquarium because pet owners for whatever reason decide to get rid of their pets and they released them into ponds or lakes or rivers. And sometimes, sometimes, these species are introduced to conditions in which they are adapted and can proliferate. One of these is goldfish. They're probably one of the most successful aquatic invaders in the world. They're widespread in Canada. They continue to be reported in B.C. and Alberta and Ontario and Quebec and so on. In the Great Lakes there are dense populations of goldfish in Western Lake Erie and in Hamilton Harbour. The reasons people should be concerned about goldfish, if you care about the environment, is that while feeding at the bottom of the pond or lake the goldfish will stir up sediments and thus cloud the water with suspended particles. And when a dense population of goldfish does this the water can become quite murky, can reduce Lake transparency and harm submerged aquatic plants. In fact the goldfish can uproot the plants while scouring the bottom for food. And other species that depend on their vision to find food will be at a disadvantage. The goldfish can compete with them for food. The suspended particles can absorb heat faster than the water would normally and thus cause the water to warm. This change of temperature further alters the environment a favourite goldfish. So goldfish can do all kinds of things to an environment. Most people think of them as being innocuous but they're not. And there have been some studies that showed that goldfish can basically evict some other species, like spotted newts for example, by altering the conditions and the rules of existence for everybody in the lake.

[Music]

So the next time you read about a piranha, or let's say an Asian Hornet, or a wild boar or some other invasive species do not think of it as some isolated monster story. Think of it as an example in which our activities are rapidly altering the ecological landscape by providing mechanisms by which species can jump across continents and can potentially cause ecological disruptions which can affect biodiversity, the normal functioning of ecosystems, the availability of natural resources, in some cases even human health.

LL: Anthony Ricciardi is a professor of biology at the Redpath Museum at McGill University in Montreal. Well coming up in our next half hour it's all pomp and circumstance in Tiananmen Square in Beijing today. The Chinese government brought out the big guns, literally, to mark the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. But the streets of Hong Kong are not nearly so under control. We'll talk to a Globe and Mail reporter on the ground about the continuing protests. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

Violence in Hong Kong

Guest: Nathan Vanderklippe

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music, noise]

LL: A huge military parade rolled through the streets of Beijing today marking the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. It included 15000 troops and a formidable display of weapons like the new hypersonic drone and intercontinental ballistic missiles. As well, there was a promise from the President Xi Jingping that no force can shake the status of this great nation. Meanwhile in Hong Kong.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Noise and gunfire]

LL: It was a very different scene where protesters openly clashed with police in what was described as a tear gas engulfed battlefield. And for the first time in the almost four months of pro-democracy protests police shot a protester with a live round. Nathan Vanderklippe is the Globe and Mail's Asia correspondent and we've reached him in Hong Kong. Hello.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Good morning.

What can you tell us about the police shooting of a protester today?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Well I think it's fair to say that what we've seen today have been the most violent and the most serious of the clashes over the course of this protest movement and there were a number of occasions today in different parts of Hong Kong when protesters clashed quite directly with police. We have seen protesters attacking police with sticks. We've seen protesters attacking a police vehicle. And at one point we saw a small group of protesters, according to video that was shot by a local television station, surrounding an officer in riot gear one of whom appeared to be armed with a metal rod, and swinging that right towards the officer who had his pistol out and that officer then shot that protester quite close range. We understand that the protesters is now in critical condition.

LL: So this is clearly an escalation that you're seeing on the streets.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Indeed yes. And it started this afternoon with what was an illegal but nonetheless peaceful protest by some estimates 50,000 people took to the streets on a march that had not been authorized by the police but nonetheless saw very little police presence. People marching peacefully then that soon degenerated into quite violent clashes and police moved very quickly to try to disperse crowds using water cannons, using all of sort of the arsenal of crowd control tools that they have used over the summer. But in quite aggressive fashion. We saw elite teams of police rushing at quite high speed to arrest the demonstrators and to push them away from certain parts of the city. Lots of tear gas, lots of firing of rubber bullets and beanbag rounds and pepper balls and the rest. The clashes there are quite serious.

LL: And certainly not what the president of China's using ping would have liked to have seen today on what was supposed to be a celebration. Is there any word from the Chinese government about what happened today in Hong Kong?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: No. And we won't see work on that port for some time.

LL: What message do you think the protesters were trying to send today?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Well I mean it was effectively a message of you don't control us, was meant to be the message. And we are not under your thumb. We are not under your control and we in fact want to be less in your control. There are some portion of the protesters who are openly calling for independence from China. Hong Kong course is Chinese territories. A large number of protesters believe that they have been promised a greater measure of autonomy even as part of China. And that's the sort of thing they're fighting for. And there is a very deep sense among many of the protesters this is a sort of a last stand in terms of trying to demarcate what Hong Kong is and the sort of place Hong Kong is, and the sort of place China is. And then that has been a powerful motivator.

LL: Tell me about the term Chi-Nazi.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Yes. So this is a term that I'm not sure what the exact origin of it is, but there was a book that was published last year by quite a famous Chinese dissident writer who lives in the U.S. with that title using the comparison between China and the Third Reich. And it has now been taken on with some enthusiasm by protesters in particular this weekend. The term has been circulating for some time but this weekend, in particular on Sunday, we saw thousands upon thousands of people holding signs effectively that the Chinese flag with its stars either arranged into the shape of a swastika or the stars themselves replaced by yellow swastikas. And it's an attempt to just sort of draw a connection in the minds - I suppose of people in Hong Kong as well as whoever's watching from outside Hong Kong - between some of the practices of the Chinese government and some of the practices of the German Nazis. And I should hasten to add that Holocaust scholars have suggested that there's a lot of a lot of reason to question that comparison.

LL: And as we've talked about already things do seem to be escalating in a number of different ways. How successful do you think these protesters will be in getting their demands met?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: I mean it all comes down to what will Chinese authorities agree to. There have been a couple of successes on the parts of the demonstrators at the outset. They had they succeeded in sort of a suspension of this controversial extradition bill that that was the original reason that that people came to. The streets stay subsequently at the beginning of this month succeeded in having that bill completely withdrawn, cancelled. But many of their other demands including for an amnesty for protesters who have been arrested, including demands for universal suffrage a much greater democratic freedoms and the ability to choose a leader of Hong Kong, a chief executive of Hong Kong with, without that leader being pre-approved by Beijing. All of those things depend entirely on what Beijing decides. And Beijing has made very clear this is underscored again today by President Xi Jinping. And a speech at the military parade has made very clear that that it sees Hong Kong as its territory, a place that it governs. And we see no time from Beijing that of any change in that thinking.

LL: So what are you watching for next, then?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: I mean it feels as if I mean violence is now- What surprises me is the degree of acceptance for the violence that you see that, that has taken place. And I suppose if we have a protester that's now in critical condition, if we have more serious injuries of that nature or perhaps a death just given the nature of the clashes that are taking place, I wonder at what point there is a broader reconsideration of the value of violent tactics in terms of in terms of pressing the point. You know there has been a sense that violence has been the only thing that has accomplished anything. It is the only way to properly sort of fight against what they see as Beijing's grasp on Hong Kong. But to what degree is that support going to be maintained if we are talking about loss of life.

LL: All right Nathan thank you for your time and stay safe there. Okay?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Thank you.

LL: Nathan Vanderklippe is the Globe and Mail's Asia correspondent and he is in Hong Kong. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM. I'm Laura Lynch.

Federal parties aren't really listening to First Nations communities, says Indigenous voter

Guests: Liana Wolf Leg, Dave Randall, Veldon Coburn

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We eliminated 87 long term boil water advisories in Indigenous communities and are on schedule to lift all of those that remain.

[Cheers]

ANDREW SCHEER: It's very important that federal government works in partnership with First Nations communities. I've got a great relationship with a grand chief Perry Bellegarde. He actually comes from my home riding of Regina Capelle.

JAGMEET SINGH: We shouldn't be taking indigenous kids to court. They deserve respect and dignity. That's what reconciliation is all about.

ELIZABETH MAY: You can't treat indigenous Canadians as though they were an interest group or a lobby.

LL: Back to our election coverage leaders of the political parties speaking about Indigenous issues on the campaign trail. Four years ago indigenous voters turned out in record numbers. But in this election cycle some of the same issues aren't at the top of the agenda. If that translates into lower indigenous turnout it could have consequences for what's shaping up to be a close ballot. Three indigenous voters are with me to discuss this election campaign. Liana Wolf Leg is a member of the Siksika Nation in southern Alberta who works for the reconciliation pipeline. She's in our Calgary studio. Dave Randall is a pulp and paper worker. He is in Gibsons, British Columbia and Veldon Coburn is Anashinabe assistant professor at the University of Ottawa's Institute of Indigenous research and studies. He's in our Ottawa studio. Hello to you all.

DAVE RANDALL: Hi how are you today.

VELDON COBURN: Good morning.

LIANA WOLF LEG: Hi good morning.

LL: Veldon I want to start with you and just get you to touch on this report that has come out from from Quebec into the way Indigenous people have been treated in the province by public service, including police, social services et cetera. It is a very strong report that is calling for an apology saying that the province has failed to meet the needs of First Nations and the Inuit. I'm wondering just generally what your reaction is to it and how that might play in the election campaign.

VELDON COBURN: Well I'm not too sure how it might play out in the election campaign. I am indigenous and I'm Algonquin and I live in Quebec on my home territory. I think the inquiry the reporter was instigated or initiated because of complaints by Algonquin women and other Northern Indigenous women just outside of our door into complaints about their treatment by the police there. So it expanded in scope a mandate to examine and investigate how Indigenous people in Quebec are treated in terms of receiving provincial services, particularly policing. So my reaction is that it's one of a number that are mounting to say that systemic discrimination is present almost everywhere in Canada. As Canada's waking up to it. And it's an issue that they have to come to come to grips with. It's well-known within Indigenous communities.

LL: Well then in that sense do you see these issues being discussed enough in the campaign?

VELDON COBURN: Not a whole lot. No. No. And sadly because this is the second report within the last calendar year mostly. Just that the national inquiry into missing murdered indigenous women and girls coming out in just June that I would hope that questions of indigenous justice and interactions with non-indigenous society would be more front of mind. But it's only appeared once or twice so far in the first debate.

LL: Okay. Liana, I want to turn to you. The indigenous voters turned out in record numbers in 2015. How would you describe the enthusiasm among indigenous voters this time around?

LIANA WOLF LEG: The enthusiasm in indigenous voters this time around is something that's really big at this moment. In 2015 it was completely huge because we had a lot of things that we saw that was wrong with the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper. However now it's more of a 'we're looking for a change for Indigenous rights and sovereignty'. So I believe that there will be a bigger indigenous voter turnout in this sense.

LL: Interesting. Dave Randall, we want to bring you into this conversation. You live in Gibsons you but you're not status Indian.

DAVE RANDALL: Yes I'm non status but I am indigenous.

LL: Okay. From your perspective then what's changed for you since the last federal election?

DAVE RANDALL: A lot of things were promised but nothing was really delivered on. You know we all saw what happened with Jody Wilson-Raybould and she was - I feel she was just not being allowed to speak whatsoever. She was muzzled and it's just kind of terrible what happened because a lot of people had a lot of hope.

LL: What about you?

DAVE RANDALL: Yeah it's just kind of turned you know turn me a little darker I guess because, you know, we were promised so much but nothing was delivered on. And now it's going to be reflected I feel in the next election.

LL: Veldon Coburn, we'll come back to you. We're now at the halfway point in this election. Can you tell me more about what issues you want to see the party leaders talking about that you're not hearing about?

VELDON COBURN: Well they've all spoken in their platform. So just this past weekend that we saw the Liberals release their platform and somewhat costed out, but it repeats longstanding issues that have never been quite adequately addressed. So though there's much to the Liberals credit that they've done more than, perhaps any government in its Canadian history, for Indigenous issues it's still far behind. It was promised quite a bit. And indigenous peoples invested a great deal political capital with their votes and ideas of reconciliation hope and all these promises that were floated in 2015 at this time. But we've hardly seen a lot of issues surface mostly because, again, they're long term and lingering such as socioeconomic outcomes and the gaps between Indigenous people non-Indigenous people is still an issue that should be addressed. There's still issues of justice such as the recognition of Indigenous rights, honouring and respecting treaties. So it's the same as it always has been. The gaps just weren't closed under Trudeau and he had promised quite a bit.

LL: Liana,the pollsters say the cost of living, climate change and immigration are the biggest issues for voters. How are those issues reflected in Indigenous communities?

LIANA WOLF LEG: Well if you look at a lot of indigenous nations, especially the ones who are up north, there's a lot of food insecurity, not only because everything's priced so much higher and we do have a lot of socio economic standings in our First Nations groups where we don't have that revenue that's coming in. We're very behind in that sense. And not because that we're not trying. Every Indigenous group has tried to make sure that they get this economic prosperity. However we don't see much of that. Now climate change of course is huge in every Indigenous community. A lot of people believe we come from the earth and from my standing through my culture that's where I believe I come from too.

LL: And immigration, that wasn't generally a big issue for voters. Do you think a big issue in Indigenous communities as well?

LIANA WOLF LEG: There are a lot of things that have not been done for Indigenous people that a lot of immigrants do you get to see beforehand. And that's not to say that that's a bad thing some of them are fleeing from very very horrible circumstances. However, we do need to start taking care of the people who were within this country. Immigrants are always welcome here we just need to find that balance where we take care of the people who are here and the people who are coming in.

LL: Dave Randall what do you think the biggest issues are in this election?

DAVE RANDALL: I'd like to just comment that I absolutely agree with the last comment that she made; like legal immigration is great. We need to get people working. We need to just integrate all of society here as a whole, get us all moving in the same direction.

LL: So beyond that what issues do you see as the biggest ones in this election?

DAVE RANDALL: Now the economy. I'd like to get people working I like to put money in people's pockets. Just be able to buy homes and get ahead and just keep the economy moving.

LL: And you're worried that the economy is not moving right now?

DAVE RANDALL: Things are slowing down. Things are getting bogged.

LL: All right. I want to turn now to Justin Trudeau and the brown face issue. Veldon Coburn we've all seen these photos by now. What did those images and the revelation of those images say to you, Veldon?

VELDON COBURN: Well you know the mask reveals the man. Oscar Wilde who once said that give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth. And it's not necessarily hiding behind the mask, it's the mask he chose. It tells me that you know he's making light of taking access or making access or gaining access to brown-black skin and using it as a source of ridicule again too. So it's a painful kind of stings. I mean I have children who are I guess you would say Brown is as Indigenous kids. Perhaps they weren't necessarily targeted but we do feel solidarity with those who have delivered every day and they can't wash off this skin colour. They can't move through social spaces where there're white and the privileges that that bestows. And I think Trudeau was good to acknowledge that. But it is kind of painful. And the multiple instances too. So it seemed to be more of a pattern and habit than something of a one off.

LL: And you as you said he did apologize that he did acknowledge. I'm just wondering, Liana, how those images affected how you will vote?

LIANA WOLF LEG: Regardless of the images that showed up, what I'm looking for is honesty through and through and the ability to recognize mistakes when they're made. The fact that Justin was able to willingly admit that he made a mistake. And yes those have come up again and again. He has made that same mistake time and time again. But I want to see the willingness that he will change. And the fact that he had to hide it rather than becoming open and honest about it, it does somewhat affect my viewpoint.

LL: You mean coming forward with it before the media reported it.

LIANA WOLF LEG: Exactly.

LL: Dave Randall what did you take from those pictures?

DAVE RANDALL: I was quite embarrassed. These have gone worldwide and it's just makes a mockery out of everyone. And those, Ironically, those were most of his supporters were like the people of colour. And just to know that he's kind of like snickering at them behind the scenes it's early disheartening.

LL: All right let's talk about this and reconciliation. Veldon Coburn, it's become an umbrella term that captures a lot of different issues. Do you have a sense that reconciliation is being addressed in a meaningful way in this campaign?

VELDON COBURN: Not in this campaign. No. There are a few that have made some overtures that suggests that they do care about it. But it's hurtful to say that over the last four or five years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission wrapped up that the governing Liberal Party is kind of embrace the term and and turned it into something superficial, and without the depth and sincerity and genuine feeling that in the spirit of it that the survivors themselves or families or nations, communities extended as an olive branch to the rest of Canadian society. And now you hear reconciliation being branded on the most trivial and tangential sort of issues that come up.

LL: Such as.

VELDON COBURN: Well you know you might have a photo op with one of the ministers, whether it's Indigenous services Canada, or Carolyn Bennett who's proffered the term so many times that it's almost lost its meaning. It's that, no, you just can't go and build a school and at the same time be on your eighth non-compliance order from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for further violations of indigenous children's human rights land.

LL: Liana, the Liberals are clearly running on their record. But what are they above the other parties? Do you hear anything from them on reconciliation something tangible?

LIANA WOLF LEG: So in regards to reconciliation - and I'm just going to be point blank blunt about it - we can't achieve that until we start the truth part. We have been coming out with our truth, talking about residential schools, talking about economic insecurity, talking about the state of the land that we're living on right now, talking about our state of housing but nobody's truly listening. Once I start hearing that somebody is going to take into account all these indigenous issues that continue to happen, from the time of colonization to this moment, I don't believe that we're gonna have that true reconciliation.

LL: All right. Dave Randall I think you're voting, planning to, a Conservative this time around.

DAVE RANDALL: Yes.

LL: What is what does that mean? What does Andrew Scheer say to you about reconciliation?

DAVE RANDALL: I'm more concerned about the actions. Like Justin Trudeau he talked a lot about the clean water and whatnot. But I don't see a lot of actuality going on. I would like to not just have promises. I'd like to like let's get people up. Let's get people fixing the water. Let's get things happening. Anyone can make promises but it's not- it's just it's action time, right.

LL: All right well let let's get to this issue of the pipeline. This is the the pipeline that the government bought, the twinning of the pipeline to Vancouver, to Burnaby suburban Vancouver. Dave Randall you're on the West Coast. It's a major issue for Indigenous communities. Where do you stand on Pipeline development?

DAVE RANDALL: If they can do it right. There's already a pipeline there. So if they twin it it's not like they're taking pristine wilderness and doing so. I mean let's be clear it's already there. So they're going to be expanding it. So I'm for that. But we have to get away from like we're so energy dependent on these foreign countries and these foreign countries aren't our friends. The people we're buying the oil from they are people that have like backwards ways of doing things, you know the way they treat women and whatnot aren't human rights. And the way we do things that we should be supporting our way. Like that's how we do things. We can do it clean. We can do it, good jobs for people. That's what I would rather see rather than getting it from foreign countries that do not have our standards.

LL: Veldon Coburn what's your perspective on how the pipeline issue has been handled?

VELDON COBURN: How it has been handled by the federal government, it rubs me the wrong way. Actually quite deeply irritates me. Just because well I mean there are a lot of First Nations along the corridor that support the expansion of it but there's also a lot that don't. It really turns me off from this government. And you know I'd like to support those who would have say over their sovereignty. As self determining people they should have say over the territorial integrity of the lands that they have.

LL: But you know that the indigenous community in the Lower Mainland and in parts of B.C. are split on this.

VELDON COBURN: That's right. Yes. So but I don't support one indigenous community overriding the next Indigenous community too for example as sovereign nations, irrespecting their sovereignty and territorial integrity sorry, doesn't give the neighbouring nation the right to say we're going to put it through anyways just because we feel like it.

LL: Liana, what what's your view on the pipeline?

l: So of course I am working in the area of the pipeline. I'm currently on project reconciliation and that's pushing for Indigenous ownership of the TMX pipeline. Now in regards to this of course I'm going to have some areas where I do think pipelines are taboo. However, it's the beneficial part that can come off of it. There's areas where we can start gaining revenue from that rather than having to be stuck in this economic insecurity over and over and over again.

LL: So Dave you're on the record here. You're voting Conservative. I wonder, given all we've discussed today, Liana do you know where you're going to be voting forÉ.

LIANA WOLF LEG: Somebody who recognizes that Indigenous sovereignty is important, indigenous ownership, indigenous economics and people who are really looking for the truth part of the reconciliation. I'm still listening out to see which party will fully support that. And I know a lot of people are doing that the same as well.

LL: And Veldon Coburn, you? Have you decided?

VELDON COBURN: I thought I have decided and I think I have the same sort of sentiments as that I want these parties to respect indigenous sovereignties and none of them have. I'm probably gonna vote for a party that I still find deeply problematic especially their stance on Quebec and being called often within come back is the NDP.

LL: I thank you for all three of you very much for for talking to us about these issues today.

DAVE RANDALL: Thank you very much.

LIANA WOLF LEG: Thank you.

VELDON COBURN: My pleasure.

LL: Liana Wolf Leg as a member of the six second nation in southern Alberta who works for the reconciliation pipeline. Dave Randall is a pulp and paper worker in Gibsons B.C. and Veldon Colburn is an Anishinabe assistant professor at the University of Ottawa's Institute of Indigenous research and studies. That is our program for today. Stay tuned though to Radio 1 for q. Now we are marking the life of the fabulous Jessye Norman today. The American superstar Soprano died yesterday at the age of 74. She was honoured this year with the prestigious Glenn Gould prize. We will leave you with the story she told Q guest host Laurie Brown back in February. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

And this was the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War Two and I was singing in Hebrew in Berlin. And suddenly I saw in my mind a newsreel, that whole catastrophe in Germany.

[Opera singing]

I hadn't planned that. I haven't even thought about it. I hadn't expected it. It just happened. And friends of mine, afterwards, said to me where did you go in your mind when you were singing the Kaddish? Because you weren't on that stage and we could see that and it was a little frightening for those of us who know you. And I said I don't know where I went but there was a newsreel of what happened to people. And that was a very strange experience. I had never had anything like that before since.

[Opera singing]

Tuesday October 1, 2019 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode