Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for March 5, 2018

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Why aren't we living in front of that lake? All these moonias taking over our reserve. We could have our own cabins. There's nothing for Indians anymore.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Lyle Acoose was a candidate for the Chief of Saskatchewan's Sakimay Nation when he blasted the moonias or white people whose cottages on the scenic shores of Crooked Lake sit on land owned by his First Nation. Crooked Lake just east of Regina is a little pocket of summer serenity. But it is also the setting for a legal battle as those leases begin to expire. And that is emblematic of a larger issue playing out on lake and sea shores in other parts of Canada — pitting non-Indigenous cottagers against First Nations communities who see potential new economic opportunities in land that's grown in value. We're looking at the tension in an hour. Also today, when the world learned that Barbra Streisand cloned her favourite dog we were reminded that for many pets are as important as people. Just listen to this woman talking about her dog, Trouble.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: When my mom had passed away, I mean it was devastating. And then when Trouble passed away it was worse. I just couldn't even control my tears.

AMT: Cloning costs tens-of-thousands of dollars and doesn't guarantee a pet with the same markings or temperament, but it does come with a raft of ethical questions for the pets and the owners. We're wading into that in half an hour. But we're starting with the seeming whim of a president that's threatening to upend an industry.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We're going to be instituting tariffs. We're going to build our steel industry back and we're going to build our aluminum industry back. People have no idea how badly our country has been treated.

AMT: Days after saying that Donald Trump has begun his Monday tweeting on trade, singling out Mexico, Canada and NAFTA. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Canada 'must fight for exemption on steel tariffs'

Guests: Keanin Loomis, Daniel Dale, Colin Robertson

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The trickle effect will be huge. The biggest concern is, is this is just the beginning. What other things are they going to start putting tariffs on? The biggest thing to me is I guess NAFTA is dead.

AMT: You can hear it in his voice workers in the Canadian steel industry are worried. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would impose a 25 per cent tariff on steel imports and a 10 per cent tariff on aluminium shipments into the United States — a move that one U.S. trade expert says would be the most protectionist trade policy in a century. So far, there is no indication that Canada the largest steel and aluminium exporter to the U.S. will be exempt, though many are still pushing for that. But yesterday, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told CNN that Trump is unlikely to start excluding countries from the tariffs.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: As soon as you exempt one country then you have to exempt another country and so it's a slippery slope. So in the aluminum case we have a situation now where import penetration is over 90 per cent, we are literally on our last legs and Canada is 40 per cent of the market and if you exempt Canada then you have to put big ,big tariffs on everybody else.

AMT: And now Donald Trump’s advisors are also saying there could be individual companies that could apply for exemptions. It’s not really clear what that means. Ottawa is vowing to retaliate if the tariff does apply to Canadian products. And all this as the seventh round of NAFTA renegotiations wrap up today in Mexico. Many Canadian livelihoods and communities depend on the steel and aluminum industries. And steel is a vital part of life in Hamilton, Ontario, the traditional heart of Canada's industry, where it provides jobs for thousands of people directly and indirectly. For more on what's at stake for Hamilton and Canada, I'm joined by Keanin Loomis. He is the president and chief executive of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, and he joins us from our Hamilton studio. Hello.

KEANIN LOOMIS: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So I’m just looking at President Trump's tweeting early today. He says, “We have large trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. NAFTA, which is under renegotiation right now, has been a bad deal for USA. Massive relocation of companies and jobs. Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum will only come off if new and fair NAFTA agreement is signed. What do you make of that?

KEANIN LOOMIS: Well it's hard to keep up that's for sure. But in this case it's simply not true. Certainly when it comes to Canada we are fairly balanced across all industries, but specifically within the steel industry. We buy almost as much steel from the United States as they buy from us. So, Canadian steel is balanced. It's fair. We adhere to the highest environmental and labour regulations. And it's so deeply integrated into so many North American supply chains that it's going to be very, very difficult to disentangle the Canadian steel that goes into U.S. products and it's going to cause huge disruptions in the United States as a result.

AMT: What have you heard from Hamilton steel workers and their bosses over the weekend?

KEANIN LOOMIS: Well, everybody is very concerned. The Canadian steel industry has been at a tipping point for a while now. The input costs of making things here in Canada are just higher than they are anywhere else in the world. Labour costs, environmental regulations, and the cost of electricity here as well. So the industry has been insecure for a long time now and this could be the thing that just puts it over the edge.

AMT: How big of an employer and how big of a part of the city's economy is the steel industry in Hamilton?

KEANIN LOOMIS: Well a lot of people don't understand that as a result of the decline in domestic manufacturing we've had to diversify and gain strengths in a whole lot of other things and we are now Canada's most diversified economy, according to the Conference Board of Canada. So we've developed great strengths in life sciences, education, creative industries, agriculture, and we have a renaissance happening downtown that's leading to a building boom. But nonetheless steel directly employs 10,000 people here in Hamilton and through $2 billion in local procurement supports another 30,000 jobs. And more importantly of course is that Hamilton's identity is built upon steel and Hamilton built Canada and we're fiercely proud of that. And it's important to maintain that legacy.

AMT: So what would you like to see the federal government do at this point?

KEANIN LOOMIS: Well there are number of things that can be done. First of course — I think this is happening fiercely right now — we need to fight for an exemption for Canada. We also have to have a diversion strategy because it's anticipated that these U.S. tariffs will divert $13 million in steel, that will looking for a home and we are particularly susceptible to that. The government should also be preparing for retaliation. Again, as I said we buy as much steel from Canada as they buy from us. ArcelorMittal Dofasco buys a $1 billion worth of iron, ore, and coal from the United States to go into the making of steel. So we need to think about those pain points within the U.S. And then finally we do need to create a by-Canada government procurement policy. If there was a carbon element to the procurement of steel in Canada, Canadian steel would win every time. The carbon footprint of Canadian steel is about five times lower than that of a tonne of steel made in China.

AMT: So President Trump has tweeted that trade wars are good. What do you say to that?

KEANIN LOOMIS: Well, they're not. Certainly, not in this case. Certainly, not when it comes to a long-time ally. We've had a special relationship for a really long time. What's happening here is they are using Section 232, which ostensibly is about national security purposes. But they're stretching that definition to include economic security and jobs. They're ignoring the fact that, again, we've been allies and fighting in wars for a long time. We're deeply embedded into the defence supply chain. So in fact they are undermining their national security by doing this.

AMT: Keanin Loomis, thank you for your thoughts on this today.

KEANIN LOOMIS: Thank you so much, Anna Maria.

AMT: Keanin Loomis is the president and chief executive of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. He was in our Hamilton studio.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We are immediately going to go and reopen our shut production at Hawesville, Kentucky. That's the plant that makes the military grade aluminum amongst other products hire back a couple hundred folks um invest $100 million in some new technology in that plant so as far as we are concerned as you might suspect we think this action is a long time and coming.

AMT: Not everyone is upset by the tariff announcement. That's Michael Bless, the chief executive of Century Aluminum in the U.S., discussing his plans if President Trump follows through with a tariff. And while he says President Trump's announcement was a long time coming, many in the U.S. government didn't in fact see it coming, according to media reports. Since they heard the news, some Republicans have been clear that they don't support the president on this one. For his thoughts on what drove Trump's surprising move and how it's going down in Washington we've reached Daniel Dale. He's the Toronto Star's Washington correspondent. Hello.

DANIEL DALE: Hello.

AMT: What tensions have you seen in Washington since this announcement late last week?

DANIEL DALE: Well its intra-Republican Party tensions. You know trade is one of the only issues on which Trump is better aligned with many Democrats than he is with his own party. And in the Senate especially Republicans are still very much pro-free trade and tariff skeptical. And so we've had very strong and usually sharp push back from members of the Republican Senate Caucus who have said, "This is unwise. This is going to hurt the economy rather than help." And so it's been sharper push back than we've seen from the party on almost anything else.

AMT: What about the Democrats? They've been mixed. There's been some criticism. But some of them are quite tariff friendly. People like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Even Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, has encouraged Trump to get tough on what they say is unfair dumping of low cost steel by China. And even though China is only the 11th largest source of steel imports to the U.S., even though Canada is number one, Democrats are much more favourable towards it on the ground that it still will punish China in some way.

AMT: So what's the story behind how this decision came to pass?

DANIEL DALE: Well it was just pure chaos. I don't think we can really say it was a surprise because Trump has been talking about tariffs certainly for his entire campaign and even beyond that. If you go back to the 1980s he was talking about using tariffs and protectionism to re-balance what he called "unfair trade relationships." But the way he imposed these last week was just — there was no process. He seemed to be angry for some reason or another on Wednesday night and decided he was going to announcement the next day. No one was ready. The State Department hadn't been told. The Treasury Department hadn't been told. There was no paperwork ready. There was diplomatic plan ready. Trump just by all accounts said, "I want to do it and I want to do it tomorrow." Even after his advisers told the media, "No, no. There would be no announcement even though he says there will be." He went ahead and made the announcement. So we just don't see something as important as tariffs announced this way, but that's the way Trump operates.

AMT: And what role does Mr. Navarro play in this as a trade adviser?

DANIEL DALE: It's hard to tell. I mean by all accounts he's back on the rise in the White House. He's been put back closer to Trump's side than John Kelly, the chief of staff, had pushed him for a while. And we know that he's an influential voice in Trump's ear in general. In this case by all accounts this is what Trump has always wanted to do himself. This is one of the few things in which he has his own strong policy views. So you know whether it's Navarro when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross or just Trump being Trump we don't exactly know.

AMT: And you know he's tweeting today. I'm sure you're already well aware of his trade tweets [laughs]. You have a little Trump tweet alert every morning I'm guessing. But he's kind of linking it now to the NAFTA talks and to farmers. He's saying, “Canada must treat our farmers much better. Highly restrictive. Mexico must do much more on stopping drugs from pouring into the U.S.” He's got a lot of different trade issues on his mind there.

DANIEL DALE: He does. This is the first time that he's linked the steel tariffs to the outcome of NAFTA negotiations. Canada has been demanding an immediate exemption and threatening retaliation if it does not get an immediate exemption. Trump's now saying, "No exemptions right away. We'll see what happens with NAFTA." That's interesting. You know it sort of throws a good deal — extra pressure — into NAFTA negotiations. But it also means that if Canada follows through in its threats, we’ll have a trade retaliation while NAFTA negotiations are still going on and so it really, really complicates the relationship at least in the short term.

AMT: Ok. Daniel Dale, thanks for your time today.

DANIEL DALE: Thank you.

AMT: Daniel Dale is the Toronto Star's Washington correspondent. He was in Washington. Trade has of course been a contentious issue in Canadian politics too over the years. And the disputes around trade negotiations have had their fair share of dramatic imagery, including in this famous Liberal 1988 election ad, where the border between Canada and the United States is removed with a pencil eraser, by a fictional American official.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Since we're talking about this free trade agreement, there's one line I'd like to change.

VOICE 2: Which line is that?

VOICE 3: This one here, it's just getting in the way.

VOICE 4: Just how much are we giving away in the Mulroney free trade deal. Our water, our health care, our culture? The line has been drawn — which side do you stand on.

AMT: Of course, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives won that election, and the Liberals have since come on board with North American free trade. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement from that time went on to grow into NAFTA., but not without a lot of political drama on the public stage, and diplomacy behind the scenes. Our next guest knows firsthand how sensitive trade negotiations can become. Colin Robertson had a long career in Canada's foreign service. He was part of the team that negotiated the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. Colin Robertson joins me from our studio Ottawa. Hello.

COLIN ROBERTSON: Good to be with you, Anna Maria

AMT: Well where do we start here. Maybe let's go backwards. Let's just start with what Trump is tweeting today. Is he linking now steel to these NAFTA that are supposed to wrap up today?

COLIN ROBERTSON: It certainly appears that way, yes. And of course it comes on what would be the final day of the Mexico round — the seventh round of the NAFTA negotiations. It will be disruptive, as disruptive as was the announcement in the Ottawa round last year that they were going to take action in support of Boeing against Bombardier. That of course — we saw that through. That was a bump. So this has been probably one of the most remarkable one of talking with my friends who are negotiators — one of the most remarkable trade negotiators they have been involved with. I thought the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement had its ups and downs with shakes and shingles and softwood lumber and strawberries and steel and walkouts around dispute settlement and having to stop the clock at the last hour. But this one will certainly rival the first Canada-U.S. Free Trade negotiations for drama.

AMT: So you're saying that President Trump has done this before like raising an issue of tariffs?

COLIN ROBERTSON: Yes. Whether, it's simply an impulse or by design that's really hard for us to tell. The president — if there's one thing that's predictable about him it is unpredictability and as Daniel just pointed out not informing those around him. Normally the president of the United States acts with some process after having gone to the National Security Council into an agency process. This president does not do that and that makes things complicated not just for Canada but for all of America's allies and the rest of the world.

AMT: So what kind of an impact can an unexpected announcement like that have on the actual discussions?

COLIN ROBERTSON: Well I think in this case the negotiators — keep in mind the negotiators know each other really well. Many of them were part of the teams that negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership now called the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership at Canada's request. But this had been an Obama administration initiative. And so the negotiators themselves know each other. There are 30 tables of which we've probably made big progress and about 15 — these tables turn into the chapters. Things like technology, safeguards, and anti-corruption for example. And we've made a lot of progress on these because in fact we're going over territory that was discussed in as I mentioned the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Does this kind of thing have a chill? Absolutely. Especially because the American chief negotiator probably doesn't know where his president is coming from and will have to seek guidance from his boss. And that is part of the reason why we have not made progress on a lot of the truly contentious issues what call the big three: the dispute settlement, rules are origin relating to autos, government procurement the sunset clause, and some other issues as well; because we're not exactly sure where the Americans are coming from. We've put forward what we think are creative solutions often in tandem with Mexico who we really have joined together. And that is one of the actually positive I think coming out of this negotiation that the Canada Mexico relationship is really pretty strong.

AMT: When you say you're not sure where the Americans are coming from. You teach diplomats headed to the U.S. how to deal with American officials now. What do you tell them?

COLIN ROBERTSON: Well relationships are a big part of it. And we have put big emphasis from the prime minister and the president on down. Certainly this government has gone all out to not just use the administration as an entree into American policy-making, but on Capitol Hill as well. Every cabinet minister goes down also stops up on Capitol Hill. Of course the forays into Trump territory and the rest of America have been unprecedented. And it's not just the liberal government. We've heard Andrew Sheer down there. Rona Ambrose when she was leader of the Conservative Party. This has been at Team Canada Inc. The premiers have all been involved in this. Businesses have been down. Labour unions who have been talking to their counterparts and that of course will play into this latest dispute because the steel workers on the Canadian side are affiliate of the bigger union in the United States and in fact the American CEO of the steel workers is a Canadian and who was instrumental in getting an exemption for us when he was national director of the Canadian affiliate back in the early 90s in the Mulroney government. So that that is what we need to do is engagement. We have many, many allies in the United States. I think we have a good shot at getting an exemption because there will be so many people in the United States who will say this makes no sense just as an agriculture where the farm community has said, "Do no harm." We'll see I think similar on a lot of the manufacturing industries, certainly from the auto industry.

AMT: Now we're also seeing stories today that suggest that individual companies can apply for exemptions as opposed to countries getting an exemption. What do you make of that?

COLIN ROBERTSON: Well that's standard. There's usually under the process. The U.S. does have — being a very litigious society – it also has a process. So the process in this case seems to have been moved along fairly quickly. But whatever the president announces this week assuming he does make an announcement then there will be inevitably an opportunity for exemptions. So Canada is applying for a kind of wholesale exemption saying that we are a reliable ally use of this national security approach which is relatively unprecedented especially to apply against a close ally like Canada would be a first. The industry is deeply diversified as your first guest pointed out. And there will be a lot of those in the United States who will be making an application as well because normally this process to seek exemption would then involve those on the American side as well as you say companies and countries.

AMT: Can Canada diversify enough if Trump goes solid with this? Can Canada find enough of a diversion?

COLIN ROBERTSON: I think what will happen is that the tariffs will apply just as we’re finding with softwood lumber. There hasn't really been much falloff in what we're exporting in terms of softwood lumber because there is big demand in the United States. The other person you spoke to said well he's going invest $100 million to improve his aluminium capacity. That takes time. In the meantime the American industry especially its defence industry or the aircraft industries need that aluminium and Canada is the reliable supplier. So we will simply pass the cost on to the United States. Are we seeking diversification? Of course. This government, the last government the Canada-Europe trade agreement, the new Pacific agreement, looking at the Pacific Alliance and the Mercosur in Latin America, there is strong bipartisan support in Canada for further trade diversification because of the unpredictability now of the U.S. market.

AMT: Colin Robertson, we have to leave it there. Thank you.

COLIN ROBERTSON: Thank you, Anna Maria.

AMT: Colin Robertson is a former Canadian diplomat and one of the negotiators of the original NAFTA agreement. We reached him in Ottawa. The CBC News is next. Then...

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I don’t think I will ever be able to replace Trackr. He’s been such a special part of my life for many, many years. There is never going to be another Trackr.

AMT: Trakr was cloned. We’re talking about cloned pets next.

Fido 2.0: Is cloning pets bad for animal welfare?

Guests: Ron Gillespie, Jessica Pierce

AMT: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, tensions remain sky high in Saskatchewan between Indigenous communities and rural landowners since Gerald Stanley's not guilty verdict for the shooting death of Colten Boushie. But there's another sore spot festering in the province and across the country between First Nations and scores of cottagers who lease prime waterfront from them on their reserves. We'll hear from both communities, in a half hour. But first, from cloning Dolly to cloning Spot. Barbara Streisand doing a little reminiscing. If she wants to remember her late dog Samantha, she need only gaze into the eyes of her two new puppies. Miss Violet and Miss Scarlet are Samantha's clones. You don't need to be a famous star to clone your dog or cat. But you do need money. Cloning a dog costs about $50 thousand, and a cat runs about $25 grand. It's something Matthew Johnson, from the Toronto area, felt was worth every penny. Woofie had helped him survive a life-threatening illness. So when Woofie died, Matthew Johnson made it his mission to recreate her. Last year, he became the proud owner of two genetic replicas of Woofie: Woofie Junior and Blondie.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Like when we were first introduced to them, this one jumped up and barked at me, and looked me dead in the eyes, and I'm like "yeah that's Woofie." It's about having a dog that's in tune with me, that actually was in unison with how I am, if I'm sick, if I'm happy, if I'm sad, if I needed the dog to help me walk, with my past illness and stuff. It was more about companionship.

AMT: Like Matthew Johnson's bond with Woofie, James Symington had a special bond with Trakr. Trakr was a German Shepherd, and a police sniffer dog with the Halifax Regional Police. After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the pair headed straight to New York City to help. They worked with a team of firefighters, and they were getting increasingly anxious about finding survivors in the rubble at Ground Zero.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: But then, sometime on the morning of September 12th, we were working a particular area of the pile, and Trakr quickly got a hit. Which means his body started reacting, he started dancing, he has a bit of a ritual when he finds somebody, his ears go back, his tail becomes erect, his legs become stuff, and he starts stomping from left to right. And right away I knew that we had a hit, we had alive person buried beneath the surface. Later it was confirmed to us by some rescue workers that Trakr was in fact the one that pinpointed the location where the last survivor was pulled from the debris.

AMT: Police officer James Symington felt Trakr's heroics were so well, heroic that he entered Trakr into a contest in California, in 2008, to find the most clone-worthy dog. Trakr won.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Trakr is an extraordinary dog and he has a track record that speaks for itself. If even 70 per cent of Trakr's DNA that contains his intelligence and his drive is in this cloned puppy, then I guess I'm going to have to dust of my search and rescue gear and put him into training. The way they explained to me, is they're going to take a DNA sample of Trakr within the next 30 days, they're going to send it to the laboratories in South Korea, the magic happens over there, and by the end of the year I should have a little Trakr clone or clones, running around my house in LA. You know I think they're going to be a warm welcome, and I think I'm going to love them just as much, but there's never going to be another Trakr. For me, it's just a way to honour Trakr and have his legacy live on. It's truly the greatest gift I've ever received. I do respect that cloning isn't for everybody, but it is something that I need to do and want to do for Trakr.

AMT: Trakr's cloning resulted in five puppies. Pet cloning is still relatively uncommon, but it has been around for a while. The first commercially cloned pet was a cat named Little Nicky, produced in 2004 by a Texas company called Genetic Savings and Clone. Today there are a number of businesses that help pet owners in the steps to clone their pets. Ron Gillespie runs one of those companies. It's called PerPETuate. We've reached him today in Kona, Hawaii. Hello, Ron Gillespie.

RON GILLESPIE: Good morning.

AMT: What role does your company play in cloning pets?

RON GILLESPIE: Well there are two major steps. The first is you need to collect the tissue that contains the DNA and then segregate out that DNA, acculturate it, grow a number of cells, and then you have the cells that you need to produce a clone. And then we provide those cells to the companies that are doing the cloning. So ours is the first critical step. In some regards it's the most difficult one because we never know what the condition of the animal going to be that we're going to take a tissue from. But once we get the cells and their high quality cells, our batting average for cloning is very high.

AMT: So how do you actually get the cells? What do you take from say the dog?

RON GILLESPIE: Well actually I have a case going on in Toronto right now. The lady called me yesterday — her dog died during the day. So I provided her with the directions to take to her veterinarian and she's in the process of having those tissue pieces collected this morning. There are two small pieces of muscle tissue and they'll be put into a solution and then shipped overnight to our lab in Massachusetts and then when we get the tissue tomorrow morning we will begin to acculturate. In about three weeks we'll have the number of cells and the quality of cells she will need to go forward with the cloning.

AMT: You can take tissue from a live dog as well, can you not?

RON GILLESPIE: We prefer to take tissue from live dogs because then there's much less chance of problems as well as they're going to be more viable. So yes we prefer live dog tissue or live pet tissue. But in most cases people don't think about it or they think about it after it happens. So we have less than 50 per cent of our clients our cells from live animals.

AMT: And once you have it in the lab what happens?

RON GILLESPIE: Once we have it in the lab we digest it in enzymes and we segregate out the cells that we're looking for called "fibroblast differentiated cells." And then we'll take those and we will put them in a petri dish. We will bath them contamination controls. And we'll feed them proteins and stick them in the incubator and then we'll leave them until three or four days, then we'll take them out and examine them under a microscope. And if we see evidence of growth we'll then begin to encourage that growth until we have maybe one or two million cells. And then we cryo-preserve them. And when we cryo-preserve them we freeze them in a very low temperature — minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit. And we can keep them in that state for literally years. I had a clone produced last year from a dog that we'd cyro-preserved in the year 2000.

AMT: So then you take that genetic material and you put it in an egg eventually, right?

RON GILLESPIE: We take that genetic material and we will take the egg from the species we’re going to clone. We'll inoculate. We'll remove the entire DNA from that egg and then we will transfer the DNA from the cell that we have produced into that inoculated egg. And then amazingly with a shot of electricity it begins to multiply and as it starts to multiply it will form an embryo and then we'll transfer that embryo to a surrogate mother in about two months later she'll give delivery to the cloned puppy or kitten.

AMT: So you need a surrogate dog and you need an egg donor dog.

RON GILLESPIE: We need egg donor dogs and we need surrogate mothers, yes.

AMT: What kinds of risks are involved?

RON GILLESPIE: The risks that are involved would begin with the difficulty and dogs at least of collecting eggs because dogs produce very few eggs and produce eggs only when they're in heat. Usually one time a year. So we have to go and we have to collect eggs from spayed dogs or collect them using a scope. If it's spayed, then it's not particularly difficult. Well I mean there's no risk involved. The scope will probably give us more trouble than when they're spayed. With the surrogate mothers there's no risk involved in terms of you transferring the embryos and then when they deliver the puppies they are then adopted out often by the owner of the clone.

AMT: Do the cloned pets end up being identical physically and temperamentally?

RON GILLESPIE: They are twins and they are identical twins. First of all the code parents are not genetically determined. So if you've got spots on your pet, the spots are going to be there, but they're going to be in different places and maybe different sizes. But from that point on every physical feature is transferred and most importantly the intelligence is transferred. So when people talk about extraordinary or exceptional pets they're really usually talking about the level of intelligence of that pet. So what we see is that's transferred. Then it becomes the task of the owner to develop intelligence into behaviour that was similar to the dogs that they had before. However there are certain traits that are genetically transferred; say aggression or gentleness or some of the common traits that you hear when you talk about you would like to have a pitbull is probably because it would be a watchdog and that means aggression. So that will be there in the clone.

AMT: The Humane society of the U.S. issued a policy in 2008 about this, outlining its concerns with cloning practices in South Korea in particular. That's where we heard Trakr was cloned. It said that numerous cloned animals died in gestation or birth; survivors often suffered from pain and health issues. You've work with labs in Korea, have you come across problems

RON GILLESPIE: We had more trouble with Korean Dogs than we've ever had with those that have been produced in the U.S.

AMT: The biggest problem we found with Korean dogs was that dogs in Korea are produced for human consumption. So the dogs were come in off dog farms and they were handled as livestock would be handled. They had very little connection with people. So when they brought them into the facilities where the cloning was done, they were put into cages and they were treated again by standards that the Koreans had that are certainly not to the level that we have in Canada and in the U.S. The biggest problem was that surrogate mothers has never been around people and so when the little clone was born and the caretaker would go in to attend the clone the mother with the frightened of that caretaker and we had that fear transferred to some of our clones. They've improved upon that. They still are doing cloning but I do all of my cloning now in the U.S.

AMT: Why do you think people do this?

RON GILLESPIE: Sorry

AMT: Why do you think people want to do this? What do you clients tell you?

RON GILLESPIE: Well for the same reason that people want to breed their dogs and cats because they like the features of these dogs and cats. So they have the opportunity to breed them, they will. So they can get a puppy as similar to what they've had. And this is the ultimate breeding. You're able to get 100 percent of the genetics rather than 50 perbcent when you use natural breeding. And again all these dogs are exceptional. All these cats are exceptional. And there are a lot of emotional attachments that I think the man you just featured had with his dog or has with his dog. And so those weigh very heavily in their selection of doing this.

AMT: Ok. Ron Gillespie, thanks for taking us through it.

RON GILLESPIE: My pleasure.

AMT: Ron Gillespie is the founder of a genetic preservation company called PerPETuate. We reached him in Kona, Hawaii. Ron Gillespie's clients may be enthusiastic about cloning, but not all pet owners are. We heard a range of reactions at a dog park in Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Dog running]

VOICE 1: Hi Murphs... Murphy Murph. My dog's name is Murphy. He's seven-years-old. He's a rescue dog. And as far as cloning goes anybody that wants to do it, best of luck to them but I don't particularly support the notion. It's never going to be the same dog twice I don't think and so I think you're going to be somewhat disappointed in the outcome of that.

VOICE 2: Hey Wilson, get a treat here. I had him since he was six weeks, so he was a little pup. He is almost five now. He's great. I don't think I want to clone him though [laughs]. Sounds very expensive. He was also a pretty bad running as a young dog.

VOICE 3: He's a half bernese mountain dog and half golden retriever. Would I clone him? I don't it's ethical.

VOICE 4: Jet, come here. Sit, good girl. This is Jet. She is a labradoodle. Would I clone her? Well she's been a great dog so I will probably clone her, yes.

VOICE 5: Juno, come on...good dogie. There you do. My dog 's name is Juno and I would never clone her because she is a unique creature and I don't really agree with cloning.

AMT: Some dog owners at Trinity Bellwoods Park in Toronto. According to a Gallup poll from last year, 63 per cent of Americans surveyed considered animal cloning "morally wrong." Jessica Pierce is a faculty affiliate at the Center for Bioethics and Humanity at the University of Colorado, and the author of The Last Walk: Reflections On Pets At the End of Their Lives. She is in Boulder, Colorado. Hello!

JESSICA PIERCE: Good morning.

AMT: Well we're talking about this because Barbra Streisand has talked about cloning her, what you think of all this?

JESSICA PIERCE: Well I'm glad to see it getting some attention. And you know it's interesting to me is it's largely been framed in the media and also in what we've heard so far in this segment as a personal choice and a personal decision — albeit maybe a kind of quirky one — but really up to the pet owner. And I think what bothers me is the sense in which the dogs that are doing the actual reproductive work are invisible. We have this kind of underclass of dogs; the dogs who are the egg donors, the dogs who are the surrogate mothers, whose lives really don't have much value except in as much as they're caught in between the wheel of human commerce. And then you have this upper class of dogs — the pets — who people choose to clone. And you know I think it has broader implications than just a personal choice. It affects other animals. If the humane society suggests there are a lot of false starts and a lot of mistakes. You know there are a lot of cloned puppies who are not adopted because maybe somebody just wants one not five. And you know these more invisible aspects of the issue are not getting a lot of attention and I think they should.

AMT: We have spoken to you before, Jessica, about animal rights. And this falls in line with that issue of how we see animals: are they chattel or are they separate?

JESSICA PIERCE: Right. I think it's interesting to me because what it makes it quite clear is that different animals, in this case different dogs can inhabit very different moral habitats within the human mind and within our culture. So you have a group of dogs upon which we place extreme value: monetary and emotional. And then there's a whole other invisible class of ducks are really treated as objects. And I think it's symptomatic of deeper issues that we have in our relationship to pets. And I think that was the subject of our last conversation, the ethics of keeping animals as pets and really are we doing it because we're treating them like tokens or seminal objects. The emphasis is all about us. It's not really about the dog, the cat, or whatever animal that we're talking about. I think one thing that bothers me about cloning is this idea that there are some dogs who are exceptional and then the rest. And I think that kind of feeds into attitudes toward the so called purebred dogs and that somehow if you stand a lot of money and a dog you're going to get a dog that's more beautiful more intelligent more athletic better behaved. You're going to get basically exactly what you expect and what you want. And that's just not true and there are these sorts of false expectations about what it is that you're purchasing when you purchase a dog.

AMT: There's also the emotional aspect of this for pet owners, as we've heard. Zazie Todd is a science writer from Maple Ridge, BC, who runs a blog called "Companion Animal Psychology." Listen to her concern over cloning.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I have to say that some people may be trying to replace something that they've lost irrevocably, unfortunately, because the new pet is not going to be exactly the same as their previous pet. Life experiences, especially early life experiences are very, very important in shaping the later behavior of an animal. So especially for a puppy between 3 to 14 weeks, it's called the sensitive period for socializing. So by definition the new pet is not going to have the exact same experiences as the old pet did, so there will be some differences in the personality and behavior. Because it's not just nature and we used to talk about nature verses nurture, but now we know that both of them are intertwined.

AMT: Jessica Pierce, what do you think about the expectations people may be putting on new cloned cats to be an exact replacement for the old one?

JESSICA PIERCE: I agree with the clip that we just heard that I think there are expectations that a dog who has the same [unintelligible] as the original. I think in a way it's not really the issue because I've written in the past about cloning and not in very positive terms and so I get a lot of emails from people trying to convince me that I'm wrong and they do this by talking about the bond that they have with not just with the original pet, but the bond that they have with the cloned pet. They recognize the dog as a unique individual and they love this dog as much as they did the original. I don't think that gets us past the problem of needing to exploit other animals to get to that place. All things being equal and if there weren't any of these other ramifications, I wouldn't be quite so concerned about planning but it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

AMT: You have your own pets. You have dogs, am I right?

JESSICA PIERCE: I do and I know it's hard. I completely sympathize with people who have this very intense bond with their dog. And my older dog, Mya, she is nearly 15 and she's really reached a point where she's going through a lot of physical deterioration and the end is in sight. There is no avoiding it. It's awful to think about. I can't bear it. Even if I had a $1million at my disposal, I would never clone Mya not because she isn't exceptional because she is. She's unique and she's special and I think in a way one of the things that I have seen is these cloning and DNA banking services being marketed to veterinarians and to pet owners who are reaching that end of life period and what they're offering us is an illusion the illusion that you don't have to lose your pet and that's really unhealthy, as far as I'm concerned. It would be much better to deal with the client’s grief and get somebody involved like a social worker who can address issues of conflicted grieving and pet loss and really deal with it head on because denying death doesn't make it go away.

AMT: Ok. Jessica Pierce, thank you for your thoughts on all of this today.

JESSICA PIERCE: You're very welcome.

AMT: Jessica Pierce is a bioethicist and faculty affiliate at the Center for Bioethics and Humanity at the University of Colorado. She is the author of The Last Walk: Reflections On Pets At the End of Their Lives. She spoke to us from Boulder, Colorado. Would you consider cloning your pet if you could afford it? Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Comment on this story on our Facebook page, or share it with your dog and cat-loving friends or email us your thoughts about this, from our site, cbc.ca/thecurrent. Coming up in our next half hour...

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We got $17,500 that we need to come up within 30 days, or we won't have this.

AMT: Grant Singer is facing a hefty rate hike for the lakefront property he leases on Crooked Lake in Saskatchewan. The property is on reserve land operated by the Sakimay First Nation. After the break, a battle is brewing between cottagers and First Nations in Saskatchewan and across the country. We'll dive in. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, online on cbc.ca/thecurrent, on podcast, and on your radio app.

[Music: Theme]

Cottage culture 'erases Indigenous communities from the landscape'

Guests: Geoff Leo, Drew Hayden Taylor, Peter Stevens

AMT: I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current. Crooked Lake, Saskatchewan is a picturesque spot two hours east of Regina. Nestled in the rolling hills of the Qu'appelle Valley, it has popular beaches and a provincial park. For the hundreds of cottagers on the lake, it's a summer oasis. But of late, Crooked Lake has become a legal battleground with cottagers on one side and a local First Nation on the other. Geoff Leo is a CBC investigative reporter based in Regina, and he's been covering this story. Hi Geoff.

GEOFF LEO: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: What can you tell us about how the trouble started?

GEOFF LEO: Well I first learned about it from a guy named Grant Singer. And so back in 2007 he decided to release a lakefront property on Crooked Lake and there are hundreds of lots around this lake and they're on reserve land — more than 300 of them in fact — operated by as you say Sakimay First Nation. And it seemed like a great deal — $757 a year. And so he signed a 15-year agreement, bought an old farmhouse, trucked it in, moved onto the property, put in a basement, the septic system ran the electricity, and altogether cost him $45,000 to $50,000. And so his summertime dream was coming together. But then in late 2009 he got a letter from Sakimay.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: All of the sudden it was a surprise that we got a notice saying the rent increase had gone up for the next five years from $757 to $4,500 — six times what we had been paying. We were shocked. Absolutely shocked. For us it wasn't worth that. It just wasn't reasonable for us.

AMT: Ok, so that's an unpleasant surprise. What did he do?

GEOFF LEO: Well for starters he did find out he wasn't alone. As I said more than 300 cottages around the lake and all of them received similar notices with similar increases some of them were as high as 700 per cent. So they weren't happy about this and together launched a class action lawsuit saying this was an unreasonable increase.

AMT: You know setting aside the price hike — $4,500 a year seems like a pretty good deal for a waterfront lot.

GEOFF LEO: Yeah I mean this was the argument of Grant Singer's landlord Sakimay First Nation First Nation Chief Lynn Acoose who says the price of cottage property was soaring in Saskatchewan. And she says they were just looking to get fair market value out of the land and she notes the increased rate didn't come out of thin air. It was based on an appraisal.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: From my perspective, as one who lives at Sakimay First Nations and does not enjoy the use and benefit of our lakefront lands, from that perspective I felt it's fair. It's a hard adjustment for people to make, but ultimately, it's our land.

AMT: So the lawsuit, what happened with that?

GEOFF LEO: It went ahead and in 2016 the cottagers won. And the judge reviewing the evidence accepted the evidence of the cottagers’ appraiser rather than the one representing Sakimay. And so instead of that up to 700 per cent increase the judge set the increase far lower. In the case of Grant Singer his rate went up by 50 per cent. So from $750 to $1,150.

AMT: Ok, so that sounds as if the problem is solved at least from the cottagers’ perspective.

GEOFF LEO: Well, yes it does. But there is a bit of a gotcha. That decision was only for a very specific five-year period from 2010 to 2014. And then four years after that Sakimay is charging cottagers once again that same increase of up to 700 per cent. So they're going to need to fight these chunks of time in court separately. Now that percentage is based on the same appraisal that the court already rejected for that earlier period and so just this past December. Mr. Singer got another bill in the mail from Sakimay.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: So now we got basically $17,500 that we need to come up within 30 days or we won't have this. There's no payment plan nothing. 'We want our money.' And it just seems completely unfair.

AMT: What did he decide to do?

GEOFF LEO: Well he wrote a cheque. And the reason is because if he doesn't pay that amount his lease would have ended and that would mean that within 30 days he'd have to vacate the property. Remove all the buildings; remediate the property — 30 day deadline. So he wrote a big cheque instead.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We just didn't feel like we had any other choice. I mean — what else can you do? We own this house. We have the lease but the basement and everything else. The septic... All of the other moneys we put into this. Basically we're walking away with a basic loss on investment.

AMT: So he decides to bite the bullet. Does that mean it's done for him now?

GEOFF LEO: Well no. Couple other factors in the mix. First of all Lynn Acoose helped negotiated an agreement that would have seen the cottagers rate rise by 300 per cent, so a big increase but not as big as they were trying to get through court. But the band council rejected that at the last moment. A few years back thinking they could do better in court, they lost. Now they're appealing that 2016 decision that went in favour of Grant and the other cottagers. And so on top of that these hundreds of long-term leases are set to expire. They were over 40 or 50 years, but they're all expiring over the next two to four years.

AMT: Ok. And then what happens?

GEOFF LEO: Well so that seems to be a bit of an open question. Certainly the cottagers would like to renew these leases at their lower rates. If not under the terms of the leases the cottagers, like I said, would be required to move the buildings and remediate the land, so the band could actually end the leases and that would be the end of these relationships. In a letter Chief Acoose told Singer if the band does lose this appeal and doesn't get that higher rate they will move to end the leases.

AMT: So that means it would affect the cottagers either way. What is in it for the Sakimay First Nation? Why does it want to lose risking the tenants?

GEOFF LEO: Well I mean from the perspective of the Sakimay leadership they're not getting full value from the land. I'd like you to hear a little bit of Lynn Acoose, the chief, talk about that. This is from an election forum last summer. Super-hot issue for the Sakimay First Nation as you can imagine. Here she's talking about a recent study that the band did about the economic potential of these lands and you'll hear this is not just about economics.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We found out that we could make a lot more money if we opened seasonal campgrounds and developed a resort area. And it would also mean that our people would no longer be excluded from enjoyment of our lake areas. It would mean employment. It would mean increased revenue.

AMT: So there's a lot more here than rent money. There's much more going on with this land then.

GEOFF LEO: Yeah I mean certainly opportunity very broadly speaking for the First Nation. And you know for a bit of context you're, Lynn Acoose, who you hear speaking there, very measured on that point. During the campaign for Chief which obviously Lynn Acoose has won, one of her opponents Lyle Acoose took a very hard line on this issue arguing the ban should simply end the leases and you're going to hear in this clip coming up here Lyle Acoose uses the term moonias which means white people in Plains Cree.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We had a settlement down there. Now it's all moonias down there. We lost it all. There's nothing for Indians anymore on the reserve. So I say let’s get rid of them all. Let's do it ourselves. Let's create jobs. Never mind collecting rent. Anyone can do that.

AMT: Well those are strong words. Interesting ideas. Obviously it's their land. Where does it go from here?

GEOFF LEO: So later this year the judge is expected to rule on Sakimay’s appeal and as you've heard that decision is going to determine next steps for both sides. In the meantime as you could imagine this story is creating real polarization. If you look at the reaction on social media, it got a lot of people out there saying cottagers are still getting a great deal. And also you know they should have known the risks going in. They were building on leased land. But a lot of people of course agree with Grant Singer who says this is going to ultimately hurt Sakimay plans the way they're treating the current tenants is going to hurt their plans for more development. Not good for the band's reputation, in his view to treat tenants like this.

AMT: So what about Grant Singer? What is he going to do?

GEOFF LEO: Well I mean he says his cottage used to be an oasis for his family. But now he's frustrated, it's very difficult for him to even be out there. And so he's actually put the place up for sale.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It's for sale but I mean I can't see anybody that would be interested in stepping into this. You don’t know where things are going to land. You don't know where things are going to be five years from now.

GEOFF LEO: Now I did talk to the economic development officer for Sakimay about that whole reputational question and he told me Crooked Lake — the property is beautiful. And he says there's always going to be someone interested in being able to enjoy it.

AMT: And of course that's the point. The land is valuable and beautiful.

GEOFF LEO: Yeah, yeah it is.

GEOFF LEO: That valley is a beautiful place.

AMT: Well Geoff thanks for bringing us up to date on that one.

GEOFF LEO: You're welcome.

AMT: Geoff Leo is a CBC investigative reporter based in Regina. Saskatchewan is not the only place with disputes between First Nations groups and cottagers. According to the Federation of Cottagers Associations of Ontario, there are currently about 50 land claims underway in this province alone, and the outcome of these cases will directly affect cottagers. My next guest has seen these tensions, and brings them to the stage in his new play Cottagers and Indians. Drew Hayden Taylor is an Ojibway Canadian author and playwright from Curve Lake First Nation in Ontario. He joins us from Regina today. Hello.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: Good morning.

AMT: We're going from Crooked Lake to Curve Lake.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: [Laughs] Yes we are.

AMT: Curve Lake — you grew up there. Your roots are there. You've seen tension between cottagers and the Indigenous community there as well.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: More recently than when I was younger. The issue where I come from has to do with the planting of Mahnomen — wild rice. Gentleman from my reserve has been trying to reintroduce this natural plant — it's a grain — into the surrounding lakes where it used to grow prosperously in past years. In fact one of the lakes is named Rice Lake. And he's been receiving some difficulty or reluctance from local cottagers who feel this grain when it grows — it grows about a foot or two feet above the water line — makes all the lakes look marshy and it supposedly interferes with fishing, with boating, and swimming. Not only that they're afraid it affects the property or resale values of the cottage. So they've gone to great lengths to try and ban or remove the wild rice.

AMT: So this is the story that inspired Cottagers and Indians?

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: Yes it is. It's as they say ripped from the headlines. With one character based the gentleman from my reserve James Whetung and the local cottager arguing it out through humour and through drama on stage about the various issues involved in their head the head conflict.

AMT: Well it’s underway at the Tarragon Theatre in Toronto. We have a short excerpt of your play — let's listen to it.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I still remember jumping off this dock...it was like only yesterday...of course that was pre-wild rice infestation! Doubt you can swim much out there now.

VOICE 2: I protests your use of the word infestation!

VOICE 1: That's all you do...protest. I still rue the first time I saw that weed of yours appearing suddenly on our lake.

VOICE 2: Oh you rue that huh? And wild rice is not a weed!

AMT: Drew Hayden Taylor, what's happening in that scene?

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: It's the beginning of the conflict where we have Maureen Poole who is the cottager talking about how they bought this cottage 25 years ago and it was just beautiful and pristine and they're planning to give it to their kids and their grandkids; whereas which they come in one year and learn the lo and behold rice is suddenly growing up right off their shore and they feel it really inhibits the enjoyment factor of their cottage and of their time there. Whereas Arthur Copper the native character is doing this for what he refers to was food sovereignty. Native people — there's an incredibly huge amount of diabetes in First Nations communities. And part of his validation of what he is that he's doing his bit to try and stop the influx of pop, chips, french fries, and all these different things that are creating health hazards in his community by growing wild rice that he shares or sells to both his people and non-Native people to.

AMT: And of course she uses the word infestation and he protests the word of infestation and that really is the crux of it, right? It’s two different views of something.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: They both have conflicting views where he says at one time this stuff grew all along the lake system – the waterway. But they played with the water. There were all sorts of boating. There is bad stuff in water and so it died off. All these cottager people felt the need to import what they call wild rice from far away countries when it was growing right on their shores and he doesn't understand things like that.

AMT: Well you make the point that you ripped this right from the headlines. So how do you see this cottage disputes mirroring something bigger right now?

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: Well as native people drift more and more towards, not just foods sovereignty, but land sovereignty, I think stuff like this is going to get more and more common. I am not especially well versed in all the different aspects of Native and cottage interaction. I do know that many communities have had 25 year and 99 year leases for cottagers on their land and many of them are now beginning to expire. This is not the first disagreement I've heard. I know that in some places they've just literally shut it down and bulldozed the buildings over. So I think it's just going to continue, continue, and continue because they're just two different perspectives on the use of Mahnomen or land use.

AMT: I guess we can't forget too that like the Oka dispute all those years ago was about the expansion of a golf course. Recreational land is more emotional on one side when — there's a lot at stake here. There's a lot of emotion.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: For most Native cultures, who we are, what we fight for, where we come from, all goes back to the land. We had a very special and unique relationship with the land. And the old belief that — I mean it sounds kind of contradictory to what's happening — we don't own the land the land always owns us and it's up to us to look after that land for our children and grandchildren. We're just caretakers for the next generation.

AMT: So most people don't go to the cottage and think about land appropriation and ownership although perhaps we should all think about this. Your play puts a focus on cottage life. What do you want people to take away from that?

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: Well for instance I think there are over 630 First Nation communities in Canada. A good chunk of those communities are having severe housing issues. We're all very aware of the problems in places like Attawapiskat where the housing is very, very precious and difficult to get and it's creating social problems within the community. And then you have these situations where — in Toronto people that have a very nice house on a big lake who travel a couple of hours to go to another very nice house on the shores of a smaller lake. Some of us just sit around and go, "What's wrong with your first place?" Or they some of these cottagers have time share. So it's like how much time has been in your own house in this city?

AMT: It's all connected and all things we should have done in a different way. Well thanks for making us think. Drew Hayden Taylor, thank you.

DREW HAYDEN TAYLOR: Yes ma'am.

AMT: Drew Hayden Taylor is an Ojibway Canadian author and playwright from Curve Lake First Nation. He is in Regina today. His play is actually being staged at Toronto’s Tarragon Theatre. My next guest sees the dispute at Crooked Lake as just the latest chapter in a complicated history between cottagers and Indigenous people. Peter Stevens is professor of History and Liberal Studies at Humber College in Toronto. He is writing a book on the history of family cottaging in Ontario. He's with me in Toronto. Hello.

PETER STEVENS: Hello.

AMT: What do you think of what he just said? I guess if you look at Toronto, people on the big lake go to their second home on the little lake.

PETER STEVENS: Yeah. Well that's certainly one of the ironies of cottaging definitely. People from the big city heading up north and you know they're leaving one lake to go to another one.

AMT: So how do these tensions we've been talking about fit into the history of cottaging in this country?

PETER STEVENS: Well what I think is interesting about cottaging is that a big part of this story has always been the erasure of Indigenous people. If you look at the original development of what people think of as cottage country going back to the 19th century through to the 19th postwar years 1950s and 60s, there is a language around cottage country that sort of imagines cottage country as this empty pristine landscape that has sort of been set aside for the sort of unique use of vacationers from the city. And you see that in the language of developers but also the records those cottagers themselves are left behind. What that ignores is the fact that it was never empty. It was never a pristine place. It's the homeland of various different Indigenous peoples and that it's often been completely left out of the story.

AMT: Well you point out even the group of seven pictures of that part of the world…

PETER STEVENS: I mean cottaging here is part of a larger story of outdoor recreation in Canada and the celebration of the wilderness which is certainly an important part of Canadian identity. But you know erasure is a big part of that story and you know we spent a lot of time moving Native populations out of the way to build national parks for example. And yeah you know the group of seven is upheld as this National School of Art and they celebrated cottaging areas like Algonquin Park in Georgian Bay in Ontario, turned them into really sort of national landscapes. But what's missing from their paintings is any indication of the Native people who were living there at the time.

AMT: When did you start thinking about the issues that cottaging raises?

PETER STEVENS: Oh gosh, this is going back about 15 years or so now. And I've really got interested in the development of cottaging in Ontario particularly and all of its different social meanings and environmental consequences and how it fit into questions of national identity.

AMT: And so we just heard about the cottagers of Crooked Lake worried about keeping their places. How common is the fear among those with cottages more generally that they would lose property that they're on to land claims.

PETER STEVENS: I think it's fairly common. The story from Saskatchewan has all sorts of parallels in Ontario. The last 10 years alone have seen a variety of different examples. In particular around the Georgian Bay Area and on Lake Huron near the Bruce Peninsula. There are a variety of Native groups there that likewise have been leasing land to cottagers for generations now. But a lot of those leases which were originally signed in the 1950s and 60s are expiring. And you know when they were first signed I think it was a good deal both for cottagers because they were able to get a cottage that's usually at a price that was much below market value. And it was obviously a good source of revenue for the Indigenous peoples as well. But for cottagers the catch in all this is that you don't have ownership of the land.

AMT: And now that land is more valuable.

PETER STEVENS: Exactly

AMT: And the lease is up. You wrote an article an active history and quoted a cottager who said there would be gunfights I am sure of that. I would have defended our cottage with a gun if some Indian wanted it. How surprised were you at that kind of language?

PETER STEVENS: Well I certainly had to bite my tongue when I heard that and I wouldn't necessarily claim that the vehemence with which he expressed that opinion was typical of cottagers. I think perhaps he's a bit extreme. But in the general view of things I think if you look historically a lot of cottagers have been pretty lukewarm let's call it about supporting for example Native land claims and acknowledging any sort of claim that Indigenous peoples have to this land that gets called cottage country.

AMT: It's an interesting irony isn't it? The land that First Nations people were moved off of and now they want to take some of that land, where you have white cottagers essentially on — it's an interesting time.

PETER STEVENS: Yeah, absolutely. And when I've looked at the situation on reservations in particular. I've called it basically double colonization because you've got First Nations people who've been removed from the land and pushed onto reservations to begin with, and then they have to turn around and lease out their small reservation land to the white descendants of the people who colonized them in the first place. So in a sense they've been colonized twice over.

AMT: And you make the point a lot of this is leased land which people maybe forget over time. But what should cottagers be thinking about these issues then?

PETER STEVENS: Well I mean I think as these stories from the news make clear there is a big catch when you're not getting ownership of the land. And it limits things and creates a measure of uncertainty that I think has to be factored in. On the other hand you could also argue that this situation enabled some families to have the benefit of a cottage for decades much below market value and of course many people don't have the benefit of a cottage period. So you know as was said at the top the program, I think a lot of people would say that they've had a pretty good deal for a long time.

AMT: Well we have to leave it there. Thanks for coming in.

PETER STEVENS: You're welcome.

AMT: Peter Stevens is Professor of History and Liberal Studies at Humber College in Toronto. He is writing a book on the history of family cottaging in Ontario. He is in Toronto. Let us know if you are a cottager or an Indigenous person from a reserve in so-called cottage country. What is your take on the relationship between cottagers and Indigenous people? Is it something you've considered? Reach us from our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the Contact link. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. The Q Screen Panel will be breaking down everything that happened at the Oscars last night. Plus a conversation with Cheng Pei Pei — the Chinese actor most Western audiences know from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. She returns to the screen in the new Canadian film Meditation Park. Earlier, we talked about pet cloning. Well, a British couple who lost their beloved dog in 2015, turned to cloning to keep his memory alive literally. And they brought their new, cloned puppies Chance and Shadow to ITV's daytime program, This Morning. We'll leave you with part of their conversation with hosts Ruth Langsford and Eamonn Holmes. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Can I ask you... are you happy with the result because there will be a lot of people saying Frankenstein creatures and whatever. How happy are you with what you've got?

VOICE 2: Really, really happy. Really, really pleased.

VOICE 3: Delighted... beautiful

VOICE 4: But are they like Dylan. So Dylan was your beloved boxer who died last year and the idea of cloning to keep his memory I know. But are they actually similar to him in any way? Their personalities — are there any similarities there?

VOICE 5: Yeah. They are really similar. They look just like him. But these guys are skinnier. They hated the food over there. I'm trying to [unintelligible] up a bit. And the markings are slightly different because the markings can always vary. And personality [unintelligible] are really similar to Dylan, but you can tell the differences between each other easier... come between those 'cause I am having to remember back like nine years. So he's a bit more calm and cuddly. And [unintelligible] is a bit more mischievous.

VOICE 4: You were at the birth of these puppies?

VOICE 5: Yeah, we were both at the birth.

VOICE 4: What was that like?

VOICE 5: Oh God, I felt like I was dreaming. It was crazy. It was really, really good.

VOICE 4: And when you look at them now how did you feel about Dylan's particularly as well?

VOICE 5: I mean ever since Dylan's… I've tried to block him out as much as I can. I've still not fully dealt with here and I know that. So I just see them as Dylon's puppies. I mean that we're so busy looking after them then and then when they're all settled down and then quiet like they sing it just because of love just like him. It does feel a bit strange.

[Music: Theme]

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 5, 2018 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode