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

The Current Transcript for September15, 2017

Host: Piya Chattopadhyay

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Indistinct language]

TRANSLATION: Their future, it doesn't depend on them. It depends on us, our conscience. For legal minors and logger's contact these people, they won't shoot images. They'll shoot you down in the water.

Piya Chattopadhyay: That's a Brazilian anthropologist looking down from a plane on people of an uncontacted tried. As hard as it may be to believe today, there are people living in the rain forest who have no contact with the outside world until that is the outside world intrudes on them. And that's allegedly what's happened with some tragic results. We're heading into the Amazon in just a bit. Also today:

SOUNDCLIP

Xinhua's icebreaker, the Xuelong, has departed from Shanghai for the country's eighth Arctic expedition, he Northwest shipping line along the coast of Canada.

PC: It did more than attempt. The Chinese research vessel went right through the Northwest Passage this summer and it did so with the knowledge and permission of Canada. So was it about scientific research or a shorter shipping route? And should the Chinese foray concern us about Arctic sovereignty? That discussion later on. Also today, order up.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowd cheering]

Holy chicken

Holy Chicken

VOICE 1: I have eaten so much chicken over the course of this [laughs]

VOICE 2: They come from my farm in Alabama where we raise them, where we fed them, where we took them to become the chicken sandwiches that can be served here.

PC: That is filmmaker Morgan Spurlock of Supersize Me fame. His latest film is Supersize Me too, but this time it is not McDonald's, in his crosshairs but big chicken, the agro industrial complex that puts chicken sandwiches on your plate. Morgan Spurlock and I will chew over the chicken back in a half hour from now. But we're starting in London, England where there has been an explosion on an underground train. Hello I'm Chattopadhyay and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

'People yelling and screaming, trying to get out': London subway explosion injures 22

Guest: Will Geddes

SOUNDCLIP

I was on my phone with my face to the side of what I believe where the explosion took place. All I have heard a large bang from the doors on the other side of the train. Then this fireball about my head has come, shims to my hair. Quite scary.

PC: That was Londoner Peter Crowley who was injured in that subway explosion in London during this morning's rush hour. At least 22 people have been taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Officials are calling it a terrorist incident. Will Geddes is a CEO of the International Corporate Protection Group who specializes in counter-terrorism. We have reached him in Greece. Will Geddes, what are your initial thoughts about this attack?

WILL GEDDES: Well thankfully to a certain degree we can take some console by the fact that this individual appears to have been operating in isolation. Certainly, the memories of 7:7 are not that distant. That was when we had a number of simultaneous attacks taking place across the capital. In this situation it would appear that it was an individual acting alone. It also does seem to appear that this was not a suicide attack. This was an individual that introduced themselves onto the subway line, somewhere within the journey from its disembarkation point which was in Wimbledon to Parsons Green which is within Fulham where the attack will be instant actually materialized.

PC: Will what do you think of where this device was detonated?

WILL GEDDES: Well again this is an interesting point as to whether that was the case within the trains where it was going to be potentially destination contentiously by the perpetrator. It's believed it was a very rear carriage of the tube train. That is quite unusual in terms of most instances where these kinds of attacks take place, not only in London but also elsewhere around the world, that they will be more centrally located within the train carriages. However, much speculation that the actual destination was not intended in Parsons Green as the train was to eventually reach Notting Hill and Paddington station.

PC: Am I right that I think this is the terrorist attack in London this year alone. Will Geddes, should counterterrorism and security officials be doing something differently to do a better job at preventing these kinds of attacks?

WILL GEDDES: Well in terms of better job, I think again we have to rationalize the situation. Many of the attacks have been undertaken this year in London, whereby the lone walk attackers all by very very small groups of individuals, unlike what we saw for example in Barcelona or elsewhere around the world. We also have to put into that equation the number of successful attacks that have been foiled and those plans foiled by the security services and by the authorities. And those are only the ones that are rightfully disclosed by the authorities. Certainly sources of mine, within certain agencies, have said that there has been a great many others which have been disrupted before they could gain some fruition.

PC: Will Geddes, just briefly the explosive device used in this morning attack there wasn't a suicide attack as you mentioned. What are you learning about that? What are you reading into that?

WILL GEDDES: Well at the moment what we're learning is that this device was very much of the improvised variety. This was constructed by an individual. Again the authorities have been somewhat guarded for understandable reasons as to specifying the exact component parts, and that may also be due to the forensic leads that they're currently following. But I think what we will be telling will be if there are certain components that we have seen elsewhere by particular groups, especially Islamic state who seem to be the main driving force behind many of these attacks in the last couple of years.

PC: Will Geddes, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you.

WILL GEDDES: Thank you.

PC: Will Geddes is CEO of the International Corporate Protection Group. He specializes in security and counterterrorism.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Why Brazil's Indigenous land — home to uncontacted tribes — needs to be protected: researcher

Guests: Kerry Bowman, Dom Phillips

PC: They've been called the last truly free people on earth, uncontacted tribes, people living deep in the Amazon rain forest of Brazil. They're said to be just more than 100 such tribes still living in the rain forest untouched by modernity and the outside world. Though in recent weeks there has been news of a tragic violent encounter. Brazilian authorities are investigating reports that 10 members of an uncontacted tribe were slaughtered allegedly killed by illegal gold miners. The investigation was first publicized by the NGO Survival International. Jonathan Mazower is the group's media director and he spoke with as it happens earlier this week.

SOUNDCLIP

It's something that Survival and other organizations have been warning about for quite a long time because the government in Brazil has been really cutting the budget of the Indigenous affairs agency, and especially for government teams who are supposed to protect the territories of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and these territories have been left unprotected. And you know there are literally thousands upon thousands of gold prospectors, loggers and other people who are pouring into these areas.

PC: For the latest on the ground in Brazil, we have reached Dom Phillips he has been covering this story for The Guardian and we've reached him in Rio de Janeiro. Hello.

DOM PHILLIPS: Hello.

PC: What is the latest on the investigation, Dom?

DOM PHILLIPS: I think it's important with this to stress that they don't have bodies. They don't have definite evidence that this happened. What happened - the news came out in Brazil slightly before for survival put a press release out - is it the National Indian Foundation, which is the Brazilian government agency looking after its indigenous populations, received reports that some men working for illegal gold prospectors had gone into a bar in a town called san Jalon De Olivenca and bragged about killing Indians. Bragged that they'd been involved in a massacre that they killed eight to 10 Indians that they'd shot and thrown their bodies in the river. Funia, which is the National Indian Foundation, took it seriously enough to send three people there to the town to investigate and prosecute this open ended investigation. The problem is that they are isolated Indians. They are very difficult. The fact that they are isolated means that no one is in contact with them and the government policy officially is to leave them alone. But they have taken it seriously enough to open the investigation.

PC: You mentioned Funia. That is the Brazilian Government's Indigenous Affairs Agency. There have been cuts to that. Is there a connection? What has the impact of the cuts been?

DOM PHILLIPS: Well one of the impacts of the cuts has been that agency close to bases in this very area, which is called the Vale Do Javari, the Javari Valley. We wrote a story in July about the cuts and about how seriously this was impacting on the agency's activities. It has lost about half its budget as partly the general austerity drive, and it already didn't have very much money anyway. And we had in that story a guy called Betoo Marible from this area saying that the isolated Indians were at risk because of the cuts to finance bases. They say they closed two bases in this very area. I talked to someone who was there very recently the other day and he was on an expedition of one of the two rivers in this area. And he said that the bases are closed and there are a lot of gold prospectors in the area. Clearly there is a connection. Clearly there is a connection. And I think there's a wider context here which is that the Brazilian government is not just reducing the amount of money has to protect its indigenous people. It's also talking about opening up, mining on indigenous lands. It's also reducing the protection of different reserves in the Amazon and this is sending a wider message. This is what people who work in the area will tell you, people from Funai. Why the message is being sent out is that the Amazon is open for business protection is being reduced and that is in turn also help the invasions of the indigenous lands.

PC: Well at this point the allegation is that illegal gold miners are responsible for these deaths. How big of an issue is the illegal dredging in Brazil?

DOM PHILLIPS: It's a huge issue. It's a huge issue in this area. The person, the doctor I talked to who was on an expedition there recently said they saw about 40 dredges operating on own of the rivers in this area. There was a military operation they seized four of these dredges quite recently. This happened after the reports first reached where they were released in the beginning but the first really state authorities - government authorities and they had a joint army and prosecution mission expedition. They destroyed two barges and they're looking at destroying another couple as well. And it's something that happens all over a lot of indigenous lands. It's a really really big problem and this reduced about of protection is increasing the problem.

PC: Just briefly Dom, before I let you go, a federal prosecutor has begun an investigation into this incident. When do we think we might get some kind of final report as to what really has happened?

DOM PHILLIPS: When I talked to him he said he didn't have a time frame.

PC: So we will find out when we find out.

DOM PHILLIPS: Basically yes.

PC: And in the meantime?

DOM PHILLIPS: The meantime, I think there is a growing sense of anger in Brazil about this wider attack on the defense of the Amazon. There was a petition by Greenpeace handed in to the Brazilian Congress this week. They met with the head of the Supreme Court on and a half million people signed the petition. I think what it needs is more international pressure and domestic pressure on the government to put more money into its indigenous agency and increasing protection in these areas.

PC: Dom Phillips thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

DOM PHILLIPS: Thank you.

PC: Dom Phillips is a freelance reporter covering this story for The Guardian. He is in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Kerry Bowman has visited the areas of the Amazon where some of the contact tribes live. His last visit to the Amazon in Brazil was just three weeks ago. He has been researching the relationship between indigenous protected areas and the environmental impacts for the United Nations Environmental Program. Kerry Bowman is a bioethicist at the University of Toronto. He also teaches environmental ethics. He's here with me in Toronto. Hi.

KERRY BOWMAN: Good morning.

PC: So when you heard about the alleged murder of the group of uncontacted indigenous people in Brazil you thought what?

KERRY BOWMAN: Sadly I was not surprised. There's been just such a huge and radical change in recent years with the cutbacks in Funai. So what Funai I would actually do is they'd have literally military like stations on the river with turrets and they'd would watch, and preventing you know illegal miners, loggers. And also there's a huge amount of drug trafficking in that area and to some extent it has been working very well. Those have been shut down and so people are moving into this highly restricted area with really intact pristine ecosystems and uncontacted people almost freely at this point.

PC: Okay, you've visited this specific area where this attack happened last year.

KERRY BOWMAN: That's right.

PC: And you were in the general area just a few weeks ago.

KERRY BOWMAN: Yes.

PC: What is that area like?

KERRY BOWMAN: It's amazing. It's amazing I mean we're talking about an area essentially the size of Austria. And it's a patchwork of different levels of protection for Indigenous people. It is primary rain forest. It's Amazon and the Amazon is you know the greatest expression of life on Earth. It's really quite remarkable. And the indigenous people within the area, some are integrated into the western world. Some are well and truly uncontacted people.

PC: Are you looking to contact them.

KERRY BOWMAN: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And in fact we were trying very hard to avoid. So with Google Earth trying to see where some of the villages are but then you know many people move out from the villages and don’t stay within the villages. So in fact we're trying to stay away from the uncontacted. You know if you do come - if one does come across the uncontacted, we're a huge risk to them. I mean biologically in terms of viruses as well as culturally and all the other many many things that come with it.

PC: So you've never seen any.

KERRY BOWMAN: I have seen the uncontacted. I've seen a group of about four, several years ago, on the edge of a river. Not anything planned. You never know though. You're talking about a wall of forest. Even this last trip we had a machete vanish one night and it's a huge mystery as to what that was about. So you never know.

PC: Where do you stay?

KERRY BOWMAN: Tents, camping [chuckles].

PC: Camp. So why as you say Funai has been pulled back? And the allegation is that there are a lot of people going into these areas illegally prospectors, miners, and narcos. There has been a growing influx. Aside from Funai pulling back, is there anything else giving reason for people to go in there now more than ever?

KERRY BOWMAN: Money. You know it's kind of the Wild West. The area is considered now a lot more open. The drug pressures also on Brazil are massive. Brazil has a huge drug problem with cocaine and imports all of its drugs. It's coming in from Colombia and it's coming in from Peru and it comes in through the western Amazon. So as if there's not enough problems there, there's this to deal with. But you know the situation with the uncontacted - It's really an interesting question because what is the responsibility of the state to people that don't even know they're Brazilian? And remember these people passed between Brazil and Peru, and you know so these are truly voiceless people.

PC: These are indigenous people.

KERRY BOWMAN: Absolutely.

KERRY BOWMAN: No. I would say they're not. And I would say that the tenor, you know there is really a large political change in Brazil. When years gone by, recent years, 10 years, there was much more of a positive movement towards Indigenous people. You know in fairness it's a complex question. I've had people in the favelas of Brazil say to me “why should they have these large amounts of land protected? I'm Brazilian too. I have neither land nor money. You know we're all in this together. Why them?” And I think why them is, you know, this is their original land. And also there's such compelling reasons to want to protect the Amazon that I think it makes sense.

PC: We did receive a statement from the embassy of Brazil in Ottawa. I want to read a part of it to you.

KERRY BOWMAN: Sure.

PC: This is what they sent us: “Assertions to the fact that there was an attack on the rights of indigenous peoples and on environmental rights in the country are unfounded. Brazil is one of the few countries that ratified ILO convention 169. It's supported from the beginning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” You say?

KERRY BOWMAN: I say I agree with them and all of that is true. It now needs to be enforced. Brazil has done a lot of good work with indigenous people but it must be enforced. By removing the Funai stations, people are incredibly vulnerable. And it's not just the uncontacted. It's indigenous people throughout Brazil. Peru is struggling with the same situation. And remember the political situations in both Peru and Brazil are wobbly shall we say.

PC: What does Brazil situations say to you about indigenous people and the history of colonization?

KERRY BOWMAN: Well it says to me that what's really fearful assuming this attack occurred, and I actually think it did, and I would also say with this attack, I speak now of the miners, how much don't we know? How many attacks do we know nothing about? Have we made any progress in this world at all on respect for Indigenous people? I mean we've got gold miners slaughtering indigenous people. I mean, you know, Canada is struggling right now to try and figure out how we can possibly come to terms with the huge injustices that have occurred to indigenous people, if it's even possible. And you look at something like the situation in South America and you wonder and I speak now of Western culture. How do we move forward at all? And I do think this is a global and international issue. This is a human rights issue. Some people would say you know you need to leave this issue in the hands of Brazil and Peru and Bolivia, Colombia. I would argue it's such a human rights violation that it belongs in discourse like this.

PC: and given that, what would you like to see other countries do?

KERRY BOWMAN: I would like other countries too to acknowledge and inform themselves on situations like this and offer support to places like Brazil, because that is what is needed to support the protection of indigenous people. And again if you are supporting the protection of indigenous people, particularly with the Amazon but not exclusively with the Amazon, you're protecting the environment which has huge implications for every one of us.

PC: There is an investigation going on into this incident. I asked reporter Dom Phillips you know in the meantime and he sort of said well things carry on. Do you expect anything to change in the immediate future?

KERRY BOWMAN: It may. It may. I'm really glad this is getting international coverage and hopefully Brazil will in fact secure some of these areas and increase some of the funding, because this is a very very serious situation.

PC: Kerry Bowman, thank you.

KERRY BOWMAN: You're welcome.

PC: Kerry Bowman is a bioethicist at the University of Toronto he also teaches environmental ethics. He has visited the Amazon to research the relationship between indigenous protected areas and environmental impacts for the United Nations Environmental Programme. He joined us here in Toronto. We did reach out to the Funai, the Brazilian governmental protection agency that oversees indigenous interests in Brazil, as well as the Brazilian Embassy in Ottawa. I read you part of that statement. But we did not hear back from Funai itself. All right. The CBC News is next with the latest on this morning's explosion in London. And when we return:

SOUNDCLIP

We've engineered chickens now, when in the 50s it used to be four months five months for them to kind of grow to the size that they would kind of be harvested and go to go to market. Now it's six weeks from like birth to when they will go off to be on the dinner plate.

PC: Well filmmaker Morgan Spurlock is back for seconds and this time instead of taking on McDonald's, he is taking on big chicken from raising them to serving them up to you at his pop up restaurant. I'll be speaking with Morgan Spurlock just after the news. If you want to talk to us about what you hear here on The Current you can get in touch with us many ways @thecurrentCBC is our Twitter handle. You can find us on Facebook, Facebook.com/CBCthecurrent or by email or go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. And once you're there click on the Contact Us link. The news is next. The Current is back, in just a bit.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock targets 'Big Chicken' in his new film

Guest: Morgan Spurlock

[sc]

PC: Hi I'm Piya Chattopadhyay and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

PC: Still to come, this summer a Chinese ice breaker made the journey through the Northwest passage in the Canadian Arctic, as part of a scientific research expedition. But that's not how the Chinese state media described the voyage to its audience back home. We'll bring you the full story in half an hour. Plus we'll talk about North Korea's latest firing of a missile. But first, ruffling the feathers of big chicken.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Can I help you?

VOICE 2: Yes. Can I get the double quarter pounder with cheese meal?

VOICE 1: [Unintelligible]

VOICE 2: I think I have to go supersize.

VOICE 3: It's hard for me to watch him go through this.

VOICE 4: So it seems like he stated to get addicted to it now.

VOCIE 5: These are all his numbers, right?

VOICE 6: His numbers are outrageous.

VOICE 7: Unfortunately you caught some major harm to your heart, your liver, your blood.

VOICE 6: You're going to die. You'll die.

VOICE 2: I want more more more more.

VOICE 6: You got stop.

[Music]

PC: That is part of the trailer for the hit 2004 documentary Supersize Me. The fast food expose follows filmmaker Morgans Spurlock as he endeavors to eat nothing but McDonald’s every day, every meal, for a month. Of course, the results aren’t pretty. His weight balloons and his health suffers, and as a film it had a real impact. Soon after its debut, McDonald’s got rid of its super-size options. Will Morgan Spurlock is trading in Big Mac for chicken sandwiches now, with his new film Supersize Me too: Holy Chicken which premiered last week at the Toronto International Film Festival. This time Spurlock's taking on what he calls “big chicken,” the handful of corporations responsible for the bulk of American chicken production. And this time he's become the restaurateur himself, opening his own fast food restaurant called Holy Chicken. Morgan Spurlock is in our Toronto studio with me. Hello.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Hey how are you?

PC: Why chicken?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Because, for the same reason why we picked McDonald's in the first film, you know McDonald's is the biggest restaurant - you know 30,000 restaurants around the world. They feed more people than the entire population of Spain on a daily basis. So we said we should use the biggest one is our example in the film. So the same thing with this, the whole reason we chose chicken, big Chicken. We eat more chickens worldwide than any other animal on the planet. It's the most farmed animal on the planet. And so it is the one that ultimately has the most recognizable repercussions on the food system every single day.

PC: Okay, so if Supersize Me was about how much we eat and sort of taking on McDonald's…

MORGAN SPURLOCK: And more personal choice I mean I think if you look at Supersize Me is about how do we choose what we eat and why do we choose the way we eat.

PC: Okay, what's this one about, then?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: This one is much more about - from the corporate standpoint of how do I get you to eat? How do I get you to look at food in a specific way? And how do I bring that food to you in this environment?

PC: Big chicken. How we eat chicken. How we get our chicken. How it is grown. It's complex. Is there a risk of you in this documentary, simplifying a very very complex thing?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I think the argument with anybody who tells a story in two hours, is that you're simplifying it. You know I think that's the whole reason why people go “Oh it is never as good as a book.” What you hope, is after the film, just like we did with Super Size Me, and as I hope with Super Size ME 2, is that I give you enough information to what you are go out and find more information.

PC: I guess when I walked away from it, I felt like “is this all true?” Which is, you do that all the time, you say “is this true?” You would say what to me?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: My question is which parts do you think are not true?

PC: I do not know.

[Cross talk]

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes, well, because the whole part of documentary filming, for me is that I have to tell you the truth. Like, if I cannot tell you the truth, then I am not doing my job as a documentary filmmaker, a documentary story teller. Here's the problem we have, and here's why your questioning is at all true. It is because we want to trust so badly. That's the fact. The fact is you want to trust that corporations aren't lying to you. You want to trust that they aren't messing with you and you want to trust that the government is somehow behind them making sure they're not messing with you. And the fact is that's a fallacy.

PC: Okay your film, it is a vast film. I mean it goes from buying chickens, growing your chickens to me eating a chicken burger at your restaurant. Okay. So that's true trajectory of your film.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes.

PC: You explore how fast food is marketed. So I want to kind of start there. You meet with various consultants about how to sell your food. What did you learn about the language being used to market food?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well the amazing spin that's happened and this is really kind of transformed post 2004 when we made the first film, is there was this push towards – I will put this in giant quotations – “healthier food, healthier fare”, suddenly salads popped up and all of these other items that they wanted deem as healthier, fruit whatever it may be. But around that also came a marketing of those items to us in a way that made us think they were better, using words like better, healthy, fresh, words that ultimately aren't regulated by the government. There's no way to determine what they do or don't mean. Natural, you know that these are all things that we trusted and when somebody says it's all natural, it's a 100 percent natural “oh my god that must be so good for me”.

PC: And it means?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Nothing. Means absolutely nothing. Most of the terms, especially when you see it on chicken - all natural, a 100 percent natural - only refers to the processing, when the chickens are actually being slaughtered and sent to you in the grocery store, because it's been minimally processed.

PC: Tell me about what you learned about how to market a chicken burger. What language you..

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well, the biggest thing is in the world we live in today, because we've created what's called a health halo. This is one of my favorite things we talk about in the film.

PC: What is that?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: So the health halo is ultimately we wrap our food in these halos that make it seem better for us, healthier for us, the words that I just said. And one of the bigger ones now is the word crispy. Crispy is a positive way to say fried chicken. You have crispy chicken, you know fried chicken. Crispy has a positive health halo. Fried has a negative health halo.

PC: So no one calls fried chicken fried chicken anymore.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Hence why at Holy Chicken we have the grilled crispy chicken sandwich.

PC: [laughs] It is real and crispy?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Because now by also making it grilled, you are automatically thinking it's better for you, because you see the word grill on there. And by being crispy you're like “oh it is going to be delicious. Because I love crispy chicken sandwiches.”

PC: And is it grilled?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It is grilled. Before we started doing the film we were pressing it in a grill press. And so then what we started doing was adding smoke flavor to it, so it had the flavor of smoke, or the flavor of a grill. And then we would put on fake grill marks.

PC: You literally paint on grill marks on to your chicken burgers.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: With charcoal, with charcoal.

PC: What is the language used to sell fast food? Tell us about ourselves, the consumer.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well I think it's green wash. I think the biggest thing that's happened is that massive green washing of the experience to make us think that everything is real. That's another one of the words we use all the time, real food. Because what was it before? If it's real now, what was it you know a year ago, two years ago?

PC: [Laughs]

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I think that there has been this push, and there is a great interview with Alex Bogowski, who is a long time food advocate, but also a long time fast food executive, in the film. He left the food industry because he was very unhappy with how the marketing of Coke Zero and other fast food companies are trying to corner him. He was like “I have enough of this.” He was like “I have to do something else with my creativity.” But he talks about how the food industry starts to co-op the words of activists and activism. So when there is this push towards healthier fare, better food, that is when the food industry says “Oh, we are going to listen to you. We are going to use this same type signaling. We're going to use the same type of words, the same type of messaging: We're going to have the green walls. We're going to have the orange to make it feel better. We are going to put wood in to make you envision the barns or this rustic place where everything is fresh and natural and healthy for you. But we are going to serve you the same type of food we have been serving for ever.

PC: Okay so that is the marketing and at the end of the chain so to speak, in the restaurant side of things. I want to go back, you did this in your doc. You start at the front end the things, which is, you rent part of a farm from an Alabama chicken farmer. You raise your own chickens. You've never done this before, this farm?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I am a hillbilly from West Virginia, who believed it or not, has never raised chickens.

PC: Okay. So what did you know about the life of a chicken?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well let’s start up with first how terribly hard it is to get chickens. Because in the United States, These giant corporations, big chicken, they control 99.9% of the chicken you eat in the US. It is a huge huge business. So the ability for you to just pick up the phone and get chicken - Like if you want like, some for your backyard, couple of dozen or whatever, that is easy. You start getting to the hundreds and hundreds and thousands of chickens, it becomes harder to find those suppliers, just because those are the giant agro businesses. Those are the vertical integrators that are the ones controlling the industry. We found one and the few and far between people who actually sell chicken to independent growers. We bought 2600 chickens. We could go up to 3000. But once you start getting about 3000 he's like it's really hard for us we can't match that number. So to even think you're going to create a farm that's going to compete on the level of what Big Chicken does, is really difficult. They have made that difficult on purpose.

PC: Okay. So you acquire some thousands of chicken.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes.

PC: What do you learn about the life of a chicken?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It is fast. Especially the ones that go to your grocery store, the ones that go to these types of fast food outlets. We have engineered chicken now. In the fifties it used to be four months, five months for them to grow to the size that they would be harvested and got o market. Now it's six weeks, from like birth to when they will go off to be on the dinner plate. The guy says in the film, is 42 days.

PC: Because we are what? Pumping them full of hormones?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well it is not hormones, that is what you will see in the film. But they have been so much cross bred to grow so much quickly. And they're shaving off days every year, the shaving off another day so in a few more – Like in another decade it will probably be five weeks.

PC: Okay, so you say there is no hormones when grow chickens in the US.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: They are not allowed to add hormones into the chicken anymore.

PC: This is the most surprising thing I learned from your documentary. Because when I go to the grocery store and it says hormone free and you think…

MORGAN SPURLOCK: And they are allowed to say that. They're still allowed in all the marketing and advertising, even though…

PC: But every single chicken is hormone free.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: That's right. Correct.

PC: I should say the Canadian system is a little different.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: We met that we met a chicken farmer at the premiere on Friday who came to talk about the difference in supply chain and what that is. How they changed this decades ago in Canada. It's one of the things that you would love to see happen in the U.S. where you can actually empower farmers to have more control over their lives and their livelihood.

PC: OK but the thing is that we have a different system but we do we still on our Canadian plates, we import chickens from America, we are still…

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You are so lucky.

PC: [Laughs]

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Congratulations.

PC: We are still facing some of these challenges. Okay, let`s talk about the chicken farmer. So you go, you rent this part of a chicken farm form Alabama, what is its name?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Let's talk about before that again so now I've got a places who will sell me my chickens and I know I can't do this on my own. So I start calling around trying to find farmers. Finding a chicken farmer to help you, also almost as difficult, because anybody who's working with Big Chicken, obviously does want to work with me. Because they're like “this is such a frightening thing , Listen we want to talk about that business, we want to talk about what is going on, but the minute we start working with you, I am going to lose my livelihood.” I was like, “what are you talking about” and he is like “I cannot really explain, but they will retaliate against me, they will come against me.” And we kept chasing farmers, we could not find one. I read an article about this Alabama chicken farmer who has been, for the past 10 years, a vocal critic of the chicken industry. We call up Jonathan say “here's what we're doing. We'd love to have you help us grow our chickens”. He's like “I'm in I'll do this.”

PC: So you go spend time with Jonathan. You rent some chicken barns.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: We rent a barn from him.

PC: You raise your chicken.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes.

PC: As you are doing this, what do you learn about the life of a chicken farmer in the US?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: These are guys who are completely controlled by Big Chicken. When they get chickens, when they get harvested, when they get paid, how they get paid, the way their pay is manipulated is through this thing called the tournament system. So that when they take your chickens from your farm you are then put into kind of a group with other farmers whose chickens have been kind of taken at the same time. They use a formula to determine how much feed was used, how much water was used, how much the chicken’s way, how many actually went to slaughter versus how many kind of had to be called along the way. Then they pay you a percentage based upon that and then they rank you from one to ten. We are having many people are in that grouping of the tournament for that week. And you get paid accordingly. But the problem is, you know with a lot of chicken farmers forever you would think if you're a cattle farmer you get paid per pound, whatever that might be. You are getting paid just a set group of money for this group every single week, so it never changes. Just like where your position may change. And so from the top to the bottom could be any different swing five and six thousand dollars for these chicken farmers. And if they have it in for you, like if they want to start pushing you to the bottom, they can. They can have you on the bottom every single week.

PC: Ok but can't you as a chicken farmer like increase your yield?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You have no control over it.

PC: You have no control because?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You have zero control because they send you the chickens. They send the chickens to your farm. They send the feed to your farm. They control everything. Like once they hit your chicken farm, as much as you may have control over how they're taking care of, the feed and the chickens themselves still come from the provider.

PC: So if you don't like me you control my livelihood; how much money I can or cannot make. And there's nothing I can do about it?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You could quit. I mean that's about it. Or you could do what these farmers are doing which is they're bringing a lawsuit against them. Like nobody would speak out against the industry. We were very fortunate to find a whistleblower who had actually come forward and talk about how these corporations will force upgrades on farmers. What they would do and what that means is like before you get another flock of chickens they may tell you “well you're going to put in a new heating system you put it in a water system you know to feed the chickens” and this is you know anywhere between 10000 $80000. They have to do that every few flocks. So they're kind of keeping these farmers in debt, consistently in debt, hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions of dollars in debt, so that you're never really above water.

PC: As every good journalist or documentarian does, you go get try to get as many sides of the story as possible. How did the chicken industry Big Chicken respond to you in the making of this film?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well there's a statement that they put out where they said that the tournament system is really fair to the farmers and to these guys who work within it. In fact farmers really love the tournament system because of what it represents. And all you need to do is talk to farmers to find out that's not the case.

PC: We also reached out to the National Chicken Council which, as you know, is a U.S. lobby group representing the major chicken producing corporations. And here's what they said to us. It sent a statement about you and the film. Here's what it read. This is part of it: “It is unfortunate. He - meaning you - Morgan Spurlock It is unfortunate that he uses a handful of anecdotes and emotion and storytelling to disparage a system that for decades has benefited the majority of us chicken farmers, led to huge improvements in the health and welfare of the birds and has provided American consumers and those abroad with an affordable wholesome protein source. The fact is the vast majority of chicken farmers in rural America are happy and in prosper raising chickens in partnership with companies.” Morgan Spurlock, what do you say?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I think that's a very well-written statement by committee. I would love to know how many people like sat around a table and crafted that letter to you.

PC: You dispute everything they said.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I think that there are... Listen, they represent huge corporate interests. Corporate interests have a very very specific duty of making sure those corporate interests stay protected.

PC: Okay. I want to ask you about a couple more words, because I found just this like kind of just…

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It stays with you.

PC: It stays with me. It is kind of simple stuff like you know, I'm like really, I've always thought hormone free meant I should buy that. And you have told me that actually there's no hormones put into chickens. in Canada or the U.S. So here are a couple of others that I want to talk to me about; free range.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Free range is my favorite.

PC: Free range chicken we buy free range eggs

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It's incredible. We think that free range, we talked about this bucolic farm of what you imagine. Used to imagine these great little happy chickens clucking around outside, running around in the grass like that's what free range is. And it's not the case. Free range in the United States means that you give chickens access to outside, means you open a door. You open a door to a giant chicken barn that's filled with 28 sometimes up to 28, 30 thousand chickens giving them access to the outside. And if they choose to go outside or not it doesn't matter, just by opening that door I can label them free range.

PC: They go out to a big back yard to run around?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You can give them anything. There's nothing that obligates you or regulates the size of the enclosure they have to go out into, because the reality is - as you saw with the chickens in my film - most of these chickens aren't made to go outside. These types of you know really broiler chickens, breast chickens, are made to stay inside, to grow quickly. They go outside to get in the sun, they will die within hours. So like ultimately you want to give them access but just enough to where you can label them, but not enough to where you'll kind of hurt your flock.

PC: It is the same thing in Canada, by the way. There's no legal definition of free range. Okay. Cage free.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Cage Free same thing. In the United States it's another one of those misleading terms. Chickens who are raised to be eaten with food, like chicken who are raised to be broiled, chicken sandwiches, or breast chickens, are never raised in a cage. This is just again something else that they can put on there, they can label it, but those chickens are never raised in cages.

PC: Meaning they are in this huge barn but there is tens of thousands of them.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Like we raise our chickens. We had 2600 in a barn that normally would have 28,000 chickens. So our chickens already had 10 times more space than most chickens have.

PC: And you are literally, in the film, you accidentally step on chickens and kill them. It is crowded.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It is crowded. Imagine how much more if there is ten times as many as there were.

PC: We see the same sort of marketing, here in Canada, as you expose in the United States. What do you want us to do? What do you want Canadian consumers do? What action?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well this is this is the greatest thing that I think has come out of the film, the sheer number of people who left the film and they walk out and they see it everywhere. They see all of the misleading marketing, they see all the manipulation that is happening to them. I think what has to happen now is you have to change the way you eat. You have to change the way you shop. You have to vote with your dollar. You have to make a choice as to where you are buying.

PC: But you are saying to me, even if I have made those choices, I am still getting hoaxed, because a lot of those people have made a choice of “I will get hormone free. I will get natural. I will get free range,” to be a good person and care about how an animal is raised, how it is farmed. I care about the farmers. So I am still kind of getting hoaxed.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: You are kind of getting hoaxed with regards to your understanding of where the chicken is. Like there's still better chicken to buy. Like pasture raised chicken is the best chicken you can buy. Those are the happy chickens that are running outside. Problem is, in the US, most likely in Canada, those become ridiculously expensive. So most people will never be able to afford something like three to four dollars a pound and up, depending on that chicken. So I think that the greater thing that I would love people to start to do, is to start to get involved, to start to get engaged. There has to be some sort of regulation on what they can and can't say about products. Like this type of misleading representation when it comes to marketing on our behalf to consumers has to somehow be reined in.

PC: Like your first film, like Supersize Me, this is also a film about human behaviour.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I completely agree.

PC: And how difficult it is to change. You talk about that it is time to get active and informed and push against the forces that…

MORGAN SPURLOCK: The forces of Big Chicken, but if you look at the first film, the sheer number of people that are that I get stopped by. I got stopped by one at the premiere of this film, as I am walking out of the theatre, he goes: “Thank you.” He goes like “I lost 100 pounds after seeing the first film.” The people who are empowered to change their lives, change how they eat, change how they feed their family, change how they would educate kids in a classroom. It was amazing. I think that out of this can come to that same type of personal change, where it is like “wow I'm going to completely change the way I eat because I was completely - I bought into these things being different. I bought into these things being better. I can have an impact.” The minute you start doing that, as a consumer, believe me there will be a change.

PC: So you opened up this fast food restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, kind of a pop up isn't it. And it was a crispy chicken burger, i.e. fried.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: We never used the F-word at Holy Chicken. We celebrate crispy.

PC: Crispy.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes.

PC: IT had some vegetables on it.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: It did have vegetables. That was the health halo.

PC: Because vegetables are good for me.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: When vegetables make you, that signaling makes you think that the sandwich is better for you.

PC: But vegetables are better for me. Isn't it better to have some than none?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well it's always better to have some than none. But is it always better to have some like trapped on the top of a grilled crispy sandwich. You know at Holy Chicken, sure it is. But I am going to tell you why that is so bad for you while I do it.

PC: You are exposing how bad all of this is, crispy chicken, really fried chicken and yet you open a restaurant that sells this junk.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Well the idea was how can I give you what you want and what you need simultaneously. What you want is crispy chicken sandwich. You want a fried chicken sandwich. What you need is an education. And so what I'm going to do is I am going to give you what you want, but I'm fine with things you need to give you what you need.

PC: Okay. So you open this restaurant. What has the response been?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I mean the response was bananas. When we were opening Columbus every single day we would sell out within a matter of four, five hours.

PC: Because you are Morgan Spurlock and people want to come see you?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: I think until people came and they said this is the greatest sandwich I have ever eaten in my life, and they will bring back friends, and they would be buying a couple, and it was ridiculous. And the same when we are here, like people at the pop up here, it was fantastic to see. But the best thing was the takeaway that people continue to have with the food, where they can't eat the whole thing, or they're reading the material that's there. They're seeing what's on the truck post seeing the movie and they're like “I had to come because I had to see it but I don't know if I could ever come back.”

PC: Because you have education all over the walls of the restaurant.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Correct.

PC: Okay. So, but your crispy sandwich is bad for me as the one from McDonald’s or Burger King or Wendy’s.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: All right and I tell you that from the minute you walk up. I tell you it's bad for you. So you shouldn't have it. I'll tell you how many calories are in it. I tell you what's happening to the chickens and how they're being mistreated before they get there. I tell you how the farmers are being taken advantage of before they ever brought the chicken to harvest. These are the things you need to know as a consumer when you make those types of choices and no one else is telling you that.

PC: Okay, so you open up a Columbus, Ohio one restaurant?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: There was only one and the pop up, yes.

PC: Anyone say “Hey Morgan Spurlock, you should open a chicken restaurant in whatever”.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Yes. Yes we got we got called. By the fourth day of us doing that but we got called by a franchise company, that franchise companies all over America and said we want to put these all over the United States. And I said we should have this conversation.

PC: So are you franchising Holy Chicken?

MORGAN SPURLOCK: We got a call by a guy to do that which we said let's wait until we finish the film and now we're circling back to him.

PC: And your point is this, Morgan, that “I'm going to sell you crappy chicken that's really bad for you. But what you're also getting is a dose of education”, so you're kind of coming at it from both ends. You're going to eat the crispy chicken anyway, instead of going to the guy down the street who gives you no education at least I'm giving you education.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: And at least I'm bringing it to you courtesy of a farmer who is getting paid fairly in an environment where people are getting paid fairly. Where you know, when we did the pop up, we're paying people $15 an hour, whereas the average the average salary for a fast food worker was seven dollars and 25 cents. So to open a place actually pays a living wage that tells you how not only employees are being mistreated, but how the food was kind of raised before it came there, I think is a it's a great way to get rid of the green washing. I think it's a great way to kind of create a day luge of sea change within an industry.

PC: It's been good to talk to you. Thank you.

MORGAN SPURLOCK: Great seeing you. Thank you.

PC: Morgan Spurlock is a documentary filmmaker and he is the director of Supersize Me 2: Holy Chicken. He was with me here in Toronto. And as you heard Morgan Spurlock says pop up restaurant Holy Chicken was in Toronto last week. The second pop up of his, after the initial one, opened in Columbus, Ohio. To see some photos of the Toronto pop up you can go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent or go to our Twitter feed which is @TheCurrentCBC. I know that that conversation will give you much to think about and lots to talk about so we do want to hear from you about what you think after hearing my interview with Morgan Spurlock. Has it changed the way you look at the bird? Let us know a bit about your relationship with the chicken whether you choose to eat it, whether you choose not to, whether you grow them here in Canada. We do want to hear a variety of perspectives. You can get in touch with us as you always can by going to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent and clicking on the Contact Us link. We're also on Facebook or Twitter @TheCurrentCBC. Coming up in our next half hour, the Northwest Passage is opening up as a Chinese expedition through the waters this summer showed. But is Canada ready? I'm Piya Chattpadhyay. You're listening to the Friday edition of The Current. We're back in just a bit.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Critics fear China's foray into Northwest Passage endangers Arctic sovereignty

Guest: Michael Byers, Rob Huebert , Aluki Kotierk

PC: I am Piya Chattopadhyay and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current, and our next stop; the Canadian Arctic.

SOUNDCLIP

[Indistinct language]

TRANSLATOR: I know you what that the success of the Xuelong navigating through the central lane indicates that China's scientific expedition has broadened in scale and deepened in depth. It has also showed that the Arctic environment is changing faster than expected.

PC: That is a Chinese government scientist standing on the deck of an ice breaker in Canadian waters, this past August. His ship the Xuelong, or Snow Dragon, was on an expedition through the Northwest Passage. And as that scientist says the first ever complete Chinese expedition through those waters was a success from a scientific perspective. But the expedition of the Snow Dragon was later described by Chinese state news media as a success of a rather different sort. A broadcast for a domestic Chinese audience declared that the Snow Dragon had “accumulated a wealth of experience for Chinese ships going through the Northwest Passage in the future”. Now that boasts from Beijing has some worried about the true intentions behind China's summer cruise through the Northwest Passage, as well as Canada's preparedness for the future of Arctic shipping. Michael Byers is a professor of international relations at the University of British Columbia. He is also the author of Who Owns the Arctic. Michael Byers is in our Ottawa studio today. Hello.

MICHAEL BYERS: Good morning. Michael I'm going to get to the Northwest Passage in just a minute, but I want to ask you about the latest missile fired by North Korea. Because the reason you're in Ottawa this week is for talks at the Commons defense committee on North Korea. So North Korea has fired its longest ever missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. What do you make of this latest one?

MICHAEL BYERS: Well it's highly provocative and a clear violation of multiple Security Council resolutions from the United Nations. This is a very serious set of developments. But from a pragmatic view, North Korea is now a nuclear armed power and the rest of the world is going to have to establish a new set of relations with it, in order to deter it, in order to constrain it. But it would be very difficult now to turn back the clock and denuclearize that country.

PC: And we have seen the response from China, the usual kind response responses, condemning North Korea's latest missile launch, Japan saying we will not stand for this. You sat in front of that defense committee yesterday, the commons committee, what did you tell the Canadian government yesterday?

MICHAEL BYERS: Well the first thing I pointed out was that North Korea does not regard Canada as a threat to North Korea. We don't have nuclear weapons. We don't have ICBMs or bombers. We don't have aircraft carriers. We are benign, as far as North Korea is concerned. So we're not a target for that country. We're also a country that has a long history of diplomatic success. And the prime minister's national security adviser was in Pyongyang just last month securing the release of a Canadian who had been detained there. So it's possible, perhaps unlikely but possible, that Canada could play a constructive diplomatic role in this circumstance and I hope that the Canadian government will try to do so.

PC: Okay. I want to change gears a little bit with you. A lot a lot with you and I want to talk about this Chinese voyage through the Northwest Passage. How surprised were you when this took place, when you first heard about it?

MICHAEL BYERS: I wasn't surprised. I'd actually known that the ship was coming for some months now. The Chinese were not trying to keep this secret. In fact they proactively sought to work with the Canadian government on this voyage. The voyage reflects the simple reality that climate change is impacting the Arctic in very serious ways, melting the sea ice, opening the waterways including the Northwest Passage, and that foreign countries like China are seeking to understand these changes because China's very exposed to climate change. And also because there will be economic opportunities in the form of shorter shipping routes for a major shipping country like China.

PC: So China claims that this was all part of scientific exploration and as I said in our introduction the state run media can boast about this new route that would eliminate shipping times somewhere in the range of about 2%. So this is about climate change as you say, but it is also about getting a shorter shipping route for them.

MICHAEL BYERS: Most scientists, like Canadian universities, are encouraged to work with industry to bridge the divide between pure science and economic benefit. And so these Chinese researchers were not just researching climate change, they were looking at the possible potential consequences of that for a major industry in China. China is the world's largest export in and importing countries shipping is really important to them. But the key point here is that the Chinese government worked very closely with the Canadian government. It sought permission. It was given permission. It worked closely with Transport Canada on safety issues. This was a consensual voyage. And as your listeners know there is a longstanding dispute between Canada and the US over the legal status of the Northwest Passage. By working with Canada, China has effectively given some support to the Canadian position.

PC: And by international law any country that wants to go through there, does need to get the permission of Canada to go through there.

MICHAEL BYERS: That is the Canadian legal position. The United States takes the view that it's the so-called international strait open to vessels from all country, not requiring permission. China has just very gently come down on the Canadian side of the dispute.

PC: All right. So you know this is China, and Canada was a partner in this one with this icebreaker, with Canadian scientists on board. I'm wondering, Michael Byers, what is the larger message that Canada is sending to other countries that may be interested in exploring the Northwest Passage as a commercial route?

MICHAEL BYERS: Canada is saying to other countries and reputable shipping companies that if you want to use the Northwest Passage we're available as a strong partner. We are the coastal state. We are the country able to provide search and rescue, able to provide the very best weather and ice forecasting. You want to work with us, look how we've just worked with the Chinese. And by doing so they are essentially welcoming other countries to reinforce Canada's sovereignty claim.

PC: Do you have concerns diplomatically about increased Chinese movement in the Arctic?

MICHAEL BYERS: I have lots of concerns about China. In fact I'm very skeptical of the free trade negotiations between Canada and China. I am very concerned about foreign investment from China. In Canada, if it's not regulated under national security guidelines. But with regards to the Northwest Passage and this particular voyage, I have no concerns, nor do I have very many concerns about the large Chinese shipping companies. They want to avoid accidents. They don't want to cause oil spills. They want to have a safe and efficient shipping route. And Canada can provide that. And again every time a foreign vessel comes to the Northwest Passage, seeks Canada permission, works with Transport Canada, that actually strengthens Canadian sovereignty.

PC: Michael Byers, you talked about this is the opening potentially for other countries to say well look how it went with China and Canada. So we'd like in so to speak. Why do we need to know? What does Canada need to do to prepare itself for increased movement in the Arctic?

MICHAEL BYERS: We definitely need to step up our investment in basic services like search and rescue. We need to improve our navigational charts, bring them to modern standards. We need to begin work on what are called ports of refuge, place where a ship in mechanical distress can stop for repairs. We need to essentially provide a shipping route that is up to international standards, where there's oil spill response, where there are all kinds of safety measures in place.

PC: Like search and rescue.

MICHAEL BYERS: Well absolutely. The nearest search and rescue helicopters to the Northwest Passage are based up to two days away in Vancouver Island and Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. So you know we haven't needed to be ready at a high level because there haven't been many ships because of the sea ice. Climate change is altering in that picture. We need to step up on the Canadian side and provide those basic services and foreign shipping companies and countries would appreciate that. And they will want that help. And they will therefore seek Canada's assistance and strengthen our sovereignty.

PC: You are suggesting some calmness around this. I think there are other people who are going to see this in a different light. They're going to see in a different light because it is China perhaps. And I'm wondering you know are there alliances already forming for the Arctic area, and if so how concerned should Canadians be?

MICHAEL BYERS: Well there certainly are pundits out there who appeal to the emotions of Canadians when it comes to Arctic sovereignty, to the true north strong and free. And there's nothing easier than getting an alarmist headline about Arctic sovereignty under threat. What I would like to tell people is that in this particular instance, Canada's diplomats did a perfect job. They approached and were approached by the world's most significant shipping company and they found a way to cooperate, thus strengthening Canada's claim. There will be problems in the future. I am absolutely certain, most likely from a flag of convenience country, a rogue cargo ship that doesn't want to meet insurance standards, that doesn't have perhaps the appropriate safety equipment that tries to run through without Canada's permission. In anticipation of those kinds of problems getting China on board with Canada is a really big deal because most of those flagged ships are actually traveling to or from China. If China tells all of those companies and countries “look work with Canada” all of a sudden Canada's position becomes infinitely more strong.

PC: Okay you mentioned the word rogue and then you mentioned China's influence on certain countries, and we started our conversation talking about North Korea's latest missile launch. Is there, Michael Byers, any connection between these two things that we've been talking about, missile launches by North Korea and the Chinese going through the Northwest Passage?

MICHAEL BYERS: Well there is in the sense that the geopolitical balance has shifted. China is a central player and China is looking for stability. China is trying to calm North Korea down. China doesn't want a conflict in the Arctic. Now if you understand that China is pursuing its national interests it wants to become a superpower. It wants to dominate the world economy. You can work with it in terms of its desire to also seek stability, in places like North Korea or the Arctic. So it's a different diplomatic exercise.

PC: Michael Byers thank you for your analysis on this today.

MICHAEL BYERS: Thank you.

PC: Michael Byers is a professor of international relations at the University of British Columbia and the author of Who Owns the Arctic. He was in our Ottawa studio. Of course the Northwest Passage, long a vast expanse of impenetrable ice, was once a holy grail for explorers. But as it opens up more and more each year it seems poised to become a major international trading route. That has many people calling on the Canadian government to adapt and devise a strategy for dealing with that changing reality. Rob Huebert is a professor in the political science department at the University of Calgary, and a senior research fellow in the center for military security and strategic studies, also at the University of Calgary. And Rob Huebert is in Calgary. Hello.

ROB HUEBERT: Hi how are you doing?

PC: I'm okay. Let me begin with the report from China's Xinhua news agency about this mission, when you heard it what did you think?

ROB HUEBERT: Well there was two reactions. First of all it was unusual for the Japanese to be so straightforward on what they wanted to do within any form of Arctic, let alone the Northwest Passage. Usually they talk in terms of platitudes and they're very careful not to say anything that would give away a position. It's very difficult to get them to really say anything in terms of their view of the Canadian claims of sovereignty or the Russian claims for that matter. So for them to be so forthright and say this was to encourage and assist business shipping particular that was surprising. The second thing that of course went through my mind is that clearly the Chinese have arrived and this is a new factor now and Canadian calculations for how we respond to international shipping, within the context of the Northwest Passage.

PC: Okay, and how would you describe where Canada should be about what you just said concerned, worried, anything about a Chinese research mission across the Northwest Passage?

ROB HUEBERT: Well we have to we have to be careful because I'm not quite so accepting as we were hearing from Michael, because one important thing here, the Chinese asked for consent. Under international law there's a difference between consenting permission. Consent is given to scientific vessels to do research in your waters. And so that's to a certain degree that's what they were asking for. The question now becomes what will the shipping companies coming through? Will they ask for out and out permission? What the Canadian government has to do is to fulfill a number of promises that it has been making. For example we have been saying that we're going to be improving our satellite capability. We have been saying we're going to be building up to six Arctic offshore patrol vessels, a whole host of things that allows us to have proper surveillance enforcement, to make sure that this coming increased Chinese shipping that seems to be on the way from what their reports are saying, is properly monitored so that they do in fact follow Canadian rules laws and regulations.

PC: Mm hmm. And you expect more ships whether they're Chinese or others to follow through the passage do you?

ROB HUEBERT: Well we're already seeing the very change in the type of shipping. We're seeing much larger cruise vessels coming through. Back in 2013 we had the first the first actual transit of freight going through. I think that we can't, you know, anyone who's been up there cannot help but notice how significant the ice melt is. And we are just at the beginning cusp of I think what is going to be an utterly change shipping regime within that region, to a degree that just simply is going to completely fascinate everyone watching this.

PC: You heard Michael Byers speak about how this could be beneficial for Canada. What do you think? I mean are there benefits?

ROB HUEBERT: Well there's possible benefits if in fact we do decide to start trying to improve our port infrastructure of many of the communities. I mean countries like Singapore made a huge fortune in terms of taking advantage of new shipping routes as they recognized what was happening in the period from 45 up to about the current period. So I mean we can in fact take advantage of that. The downside of course is that as Michael also pointed out China is one of the major powers, and so that we've got now three of the most powerful states coming increasingly into the Arctic. And in fact into our Arctic between China, Russia and the United States as soon as you start getting the interface between those three it makes life a lot more interesting.

PC: And also as Michael Byers said, you know I asked him it raises the issue of the concern of many Canadians of Arctic sovereignty. He said “Yes some people” well where do you stand on that?

ROB HUEBERT: Well I'd say it's yes, because we have to wait to see what the companies are saying. Like I said I'm not so - Just because they've come in and asked for consent is not the same thing. This was a state ship this was not, I mean Michael was wrong in saying that it was a company that was asking permission. This is a state run ship. The other thing too is you've got to put in a larger context. The Chinese have not only gone through the Northwest Passage but at the same time they've also been increasing their naval activity in Arctic waters. Two years ago they sent for the first time ever a naval vessels to Finland, to Sweden and to Denmark. They very much left Norway out as a political point about the Nobel Prize that was given to the dissidents and they sent a five ship naval fleet into the Bering Strait and straight into the Aleutian. So one has to realize that this is an overall effort, long term. It may seem slow to us but it's definitely one that the Chinese are building in terms of overall naval capability to be in the Arctic.

PC: And of course as more ships go through the Northwest Passage and given the ice situation up there, there are vast concerns about the environmental impacts.

ROB HUEBERT: Well absolutely. And this is where we have to have that ability to react. There are many pundits that were huge critics of the idea of building large offshore patrol vessels that could in fact carries carry helicopters that can act to search and rescue and environmental response. And anyone who lives in Halifax knows that the first one is almost complete the Harry DeWolf. So I mean this is the type of stuff that people look back and say okay, they were big you know, we didn't need at the time, but man oh man do we need that. We need it today not tomorrow to a large degree.

PC: And of course Rob Huebert, whatever the shape is whatever country is it is going through that Northwest Passage. There are people nearby the people who live in our north. What should people who live in our north be calling for?

ROB HUEBERT: Well you know there's no one thing that they're going to be calling. Some will see economic opportunity. Others will see a threat to their way of life because as this increase comes through as you say there are environmental issues that arise. There is of course the fact that the ship is breaking ice and there is interference in terms of a way of life for hunters. But on the other hand if we do in fact improve port facilities there's opportunities for some of these people in terms of employment. We did have Canadians for example on board as Ice Pilots for the Xuelong. So it's a question on how well prepared we are for this type of increased activity. That's really the critical point for anyone living in the north in terms of how they are going to respond and how they are thinking about it.

PC: Rob Huebert, thank you for your analysis, appreciate your time.

ROB HUEBERT: Always my pleasure, Piya.

PC: Rob Huebert is a professor and the political science department at the University of Calgary and a senior research fellow in the Center for Military Security and Strategic Studies which is also at the University of Calgary. Well as we were just talking about, of course it is the Inuit people who stand to lose or potentially gain the most from opening up the Northwest Passage to international shipping. Aluki Kotierk is the President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. The NTI is the legal representative of the Inuit of Nunavut for native treaty rights and treaty negotiations. And we have reached Aluki Kotierk Kotick in Iqaluit, hello.

ALUKI KOTIERK: Olako. Good morning.

PC: Good morning. What are your concerns with the Chinese using the Northwest Passage for either research or commercial uses?

ALUKI KOTIERK: I think the concern is not particularly on the Chinese vessel. I think it's any vessel that's going through the Northwest passage because it falls under the Nunavut settlement area. So it has the potential of having an impact on the wildlife which we so depend on for nutritious and healthy foods, particularly in a jurisdiction where seven out of 10 Inuit children go to bed hungry, and where high costs of living are well known. It's important that we're still able to get our healthy nutritious food from the ice and the land.

PC: What other kinds of threats could ships using the passage pose to the Inuit way of life?

ALUKI KOTIERK: I think that one of the things that we've been concerned about and that we need to be involved in is understanding what kind of ships are going through. In Nunavut we have a regulatory regime. So there's institutions of public government that do reviews and I know that with a ship that went through the Northwest Passage last year, The Serenity, they had approached the impact review board to get approval or to be able to go through the Northwest Passage. And I think I've been listening to the other speakers talk about in a very international way, but I think domestically it's important that Canada be aware and involve Nunavut Inuit in anything that's going to be taking place, in terms of travel and transportation through in the Northwest Passage and do that. The members the during our annual general meeting last year, put forward a resolution stating that the government of Canada, as well as the government of Nunavut, needs to involve Inuit in any kind of strategy or policy development that would have an impact on the use of the Northwest Passage. I would like to point out that actually the person who moved it was Larry Audlaluk who was a member of the families that were moved from Northern Quebec to the high Arctic as human flat pools in the name of Canadian sovereignty. I think that's quite significant in itself.

PC: So in the case of this Chinese ship the Xuelong Chinese vessel, the Canadian government did give its consent for it to do this. In this case were the Inuit of Nunavut consulted or informed, talked about the decision?

ALUKI KOTIERK: In this case. I know that none of it incorporated was given the heads up and we were provided with information about the Snow Dragon that was going through. I cannot speak to Institution of Public Government, the Nunavut impact review board about whether or not they were approached. I would assume that they would have been given that they had been approached for the big cruise ship last year.

PC: How do you ensure then that Inuit get a seat at the table when it comes to policy decisions about access to the Northwest Passage? I mean do you have confidence in the Canadian government that they will include you?

ALUKI KOTIERK: There is an agreement that states it's an agreement between Nunavut Inuit and the crown. So I would expect that the federal government would live up to the agreement. Having said that and as an organisation, this summer we embarked on a marine monitoring pilot project and we've installed automatic identification system. And we're working with an Alaskan company to do that.

PC: To track in who is going through.

ALUKI KOTIERK: We're tracking ships in that are going through the Arctic and at the same time we're also hiring Inuit, six Inuits to be able to do visual tracking as well and provide data about what they're seeing and the behaviors of the ships. And because we really think that Inuit are the experts because they're the ones living here, on the land, on the waters, on the ice. So that they can provide information about what's happening.

PC: We talked about what could be lost for the Inuit in terms a way of life, as more and more vessels potentially go through the Northwest Passage, those who will say there their potential gains for Nunavut and its people with more ships going through, are their gains in your view?

ALUKI KOTIERK: Absolutely there can be gains for sure and Inuit are very adaptable. In Nunavut, there's only one community that's an inland community. All the other communities are coastal. And yet the other speakers identified the lack of infrastructure in our communities in terms of port, or search and rescue having to rely on bases in southern Canada. And given that Canada purports itself to be a northern country, one of the hopes that I would see with any discussions about the North and using the Northwest Passage is that maybe Canada will give more attention to the infrastructure needs in the in the Arctic. I'm always saying that that needs to be part of the building up of nation building of Canada. We are part of Canada. And infrastructure investments need to be made in our territory as well. In a coordinated fashion similar to the railway being built between the East and the West. There needs to be attention paid to the Arctic.

PC: Aluki Kotierk, thank you.

ALUKI KOTIERK: Thank you [speaks in Indigenous language].

PC: Aluki Kotierk is the President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in Iqaluit. We did ask for a comment from China's embassy to Canada, by the way but we have not yet heard back. Well that is The Current for this Friday. Stay tuned to Radio 1 for q. Canadian singer songwriter Bruce Coburn visits the studio to perform from his new album. It is called Bone on Bone. Finally after our chat with Morgan Spurlock about his adventures in the world of chicken sandwiches, here's a little music to end this week and this day on. From 1940, this is cab Calloway and Chicken Ain't Nothing but a Bird. I am Piya Chattopadhyay. Thank you for lending is your ear here on the Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Chicken Ain’t Nothing but a Bird]

Chicken, nice fried chicken

Barbecue chicken, won't you send it down the line?

Say, everyone's talking 'bout chicken

Chicken's a popular word

But anywhere you go, you're bound to find

A chicken ain't nothin' but a bird

Some people call it a fowl

That's the story I heard

But let 'em call it this and let 'em call it that

A chicken ain't nothin' but a bird

You can boil it, roast it, broil it

Cook it in a pan or a pot

Eat it with potatoes, rice or tomatoes

But chicken's still what you got, boy

It was a dish for old Caesar

Also King Henry the Third

But Columbus was smart, said, "you can't fool me…

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 15, 2017 Full Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This