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 2017

The Current Transcript for November 1, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We worked beside these people. We took the greatest risk. They were awarded the prize. We were ignored.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: It was almost 60 years ago that a group of men put on protective gear and took turns stepping into a chamber brimming with radioactive material. There had been an accident at Canada's first nuclear facility and someone had to volunteer for the cleanup. All these years later many of those workers have passed away, and those who remain realize other workers got thousands of dollars for the risks they took for the very same cleanup. Why the discrepancy? In just a moment Julie Ireton on a fight for equal treatment as time runs out. Also today there is a spike in the number of people who identify as Metis in Quebec and Nova Scotia. And with those rising numbers growing suspicion over who is claiming that heritage.

SOUNDCLIP

My grandfather would rarely speak of his Metis identity but you can see that the younger generations are starting to be proud of who they are and they want to discover what exactly it is to be Metis.

AMT: Allegations of race shifting and subtler self-indigenisation in half an hour. And attack in New York City.

SOUNDCLIP

Everyone started shouting 'shooting, shooting,' and we ran as fast as we could...we keep hearing it's road rage but it just didn't seem like road rage to me. It seemed like something else.

AMT: The authorities say Sayfullo Saipov had been in the U.S. for seven years, working on a green card, driving for Uber and a trucking company. They reportedly found notes in Arabic with references to ISIS by his truck. As they try to figure out what motivated him, we are asking how the label of terrorism plays out politically in the United States. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Retired workers want compensation for cleaning up nuclear spills at Chalk River in 1950s

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Music]

ANNOUNCER: Here for the first time is a look inside Canada's top secret $20,000,000 atomic research planned at Chalk River, Ontario. Not until now have the strict regulations surrounding atomic development permitted any of its work to be shown. Casual visitors are still not welcome the Chalk River.

AMT: The 1950s were heady days for Canada's emerging nuclear industry. After the Second World War nuclear research shifted from weapons development to electric power and cancer treatments. And tucked away in the bush in Eastern Ontario was the home of Canada's first reactor: the Chalk River labs. Hundreds of scientists and laborers at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited developed the National Research Universal reactor, the NRU. It was hailed as a landmark achievement in Canadian science and technology. But in May of 1958, just one day after that reactor became operational; the Chalk River campus was struck with panic. Mechanical failure led to a fire and the spread of radioactive dust. It took hundreds of men and several weeks to clean up the hazardous mess. Almost 60 years later only a couple dozen workers are still around to tell the tales of what went on at Chalk River, when that incident occurred. And they say they're telling their story now to correct an injustice. The CBC's Julie Ireton brings us the story in her documentary 10 minutes of work.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Music]

ANNOUNCER: Canada’s 57 million dollar NRU nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ontario was out of action after an accident that spread radioactive dust throughout the 12 story building.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: I heard the alarm. I was with a group of welders and I took them out to the camp area and then were back in and got the people building 100.

AL DONAHUE: My name is Al Donahue. I started at Chalk River in 1952 building the NRU reactor. Then I worked for another 10 years.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: Of course I was a rookie two years there, you know. So I said “I'll go”. My name is George Phillip Kiely. And I started- I am 85 and I started at Atomic Energy in the first of August 1956. And I retired fifth of August 1987, after 31 years.

JULIE IRETON: Both George and AL were at work on May 23rd 1958, the day a rupture occurred in the reactor leading to a fire and the spread of radioactive dust. Al, now 88, has a lean face etched with years of hard work and a mind that's full of memories. [Background chatter and laughter] George, quick with a laugh, settles in at Al's immaculate home in Pembroke, Ontario. He tosses a plastic file full of papers on the table. These old friends sit in the dining room surrounded by fine china and family photos. The table quickly fills with files, letters and reports, spread out in front of them.

AL DONAHUE: 1958, was- it was human error and partly a failed safety system.

[Music]

ANNOUNCER: A piece of natural uranium fuel rod caught fire after it was removed from the reactor. [Background buzz] This is the second mishap for NRU that's claimed to be the free world's most powerful research reactor.

AL DONAHUE: We dressed the workers in plastic suits, rubber gloves and they wore fresh air masks.

JULIE IRETON: At the time, Al worked in the company's purchasing office, but everyone pitched in to help clean-up, about 300 Atomic Energy staff.

AL DONAHUE: We had to make sure that they were protected before they went in under the reactor.

JULIE IRETON: Al himself went into the danger zone and so did George.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: They were looking for volunteers. They came by our building, 465 was Metallurgy building, across the road from 100. And they asked for volunteers to go in and help with the clean-up.

JULIE IRETON: At the time did you know you might be at risk for radiation.

AL DONAHUE: We did. But we had to set the example for the others coming in. We stayed with it right from the day of the accident until the cleanup was finished.

JULIE IRETON: Soon it was George’s turn to suit up.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: So, I went over. The guys dressed me up for protection. Put pencils on me to read the radiation and explained to me what's going to go on. You're going to have a long vacuum tube, and we've sprayed in there, so these little particles are going to look like pellets and the idea is to try and pick up as many of those pellets as you can. And you won't be able to stay in there very long and we'll keep track of you.

ANNOUNCERS: Signs warn workers that they can remain only a few minutes without danger from radiation. Radioactive contamination is silent and deadly. A special health crew checks workers constantly.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: Of course, the biggest thing I found picking this 10 foot thing up with all this suit and everything on [gasps] and then you're trying to [unintelligible] this elbow, you put it down on the cement and it would go this way and that way and you are trying to hold it up high enough. And it had an elbow, which surprised me. It was put on by duct tape.

ANNOUNCER: A special health crew checks workers constantly. Each worker checks himself before leaving the plant.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: They controlled the time limit I was allowed in there. It seemed so short and they told me originally: “you know your time is going to be limited.” And you think “well, how much can you really do in 10 min? 15 min?” Especially with the awkwardness of this vacuum pipe, eh? So then you are going around and you are just getting started and then the guys are, “Come on, get out of here! You've reached your level.” So I dropped it, went out and undressed.

ANNOUNCER: Everything picks up the insidious radiation…

JULIE IRETON: After George put in his 10 minutes of work, it was the next volunteer's turn, then the next. These workers would earn a bit of extra money for helping out. This continued on for a week and a half until management had exhausted the radiation exposure of every willing staff member at Chalk River. But there was much more cleanup to do.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: I guess they'd used up quite a few of the AECL employees who'd volunteered and I remember I was back in my building when the military appeared on the scene and that is when we found out that they had the military volunteered to come in and help on clean up.

JULIE IRETON: Military personnel from nearby Canadian Forces Base Petawawa were called in. Al remembers it was the Atomic Energy workers who trained them.

AL DONAHUE: We were giving them the full picture of the danger and quite a few of them were officers.

[Men Chatting]

JULIW IRWTON: For some fifty years, Al and George didn't think much about the cleanup work they had done under the reactor in 1958. Then, in 2008 they heard about the Atomic Veterans Recognition Program.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: My first reaction, I don't believe in that.

JULIE IRETON: He didn't understand why every officer and soldier involved in cleanups at Atomic Energy in the 1950s was getting a big compensation package.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: I could not understand how they could reason their compensating the military $24,000 tax free, for doing that job. And I said it does not seem very fair. There should be equality here, and of course we worked first.

JULIE IRETON: But the compensation plan was for Canadian Forces members only.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: So I'd been exposed to radiation and like I worked in the active area, so we always had a …

JULIE IRETON: There was no mention of the Atomic Energy staffers who'd done the same work.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: My first reaction was like “why?” and I have not really found the answer why. Because know what I did and what kind of radiation was involved and they bring in a bunch of strangers and all of a sudden they're rewarded for something we did, I felt it was just part of our job.

JULIE IRETON: The $24,000 went to 200 eligible military personnel who'd participated in decontamination activities at Chalk River both 1952 and 1958.Al says the payment from the program was not incumbent on health issues linked to nuclear radiation. They never imagined compensation for the work they'd done.

AL DONAHUE: We worked beside these people. We took the greatest risk. They were awarded the prize. We were ignored.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: I couldn't understand how they could reason to pay someone $24,000 for 10 minutes of work. Like it did not make sense to me.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY and AL DONAHUE: [Cross talk] We didn't know what the heck to do. That was…

JULIE IRETON: That's when their campaign began. The men started writing letters to politicians. Other former Atomic Energy workers were also outraged. But Al says a lot of them have died.

AL DONAHUE: I had 37 people contact me when I first started trying to obtain justice. Out of the 37 about a year ago, I counted 16 that are already gone.

[Men Meeting At Door]

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: Hi nice to see you. [To Julie] My friend, Camille Charette, he was a bus driver and truck driver for Atomic Energy.

JULIE IRETON: Martin Habracken lost his friend Camille a few years ago.

MARTIN HABRACKEN: While he was still living I started doing the application for him, which I showed him. I followed through and I'm not a quitter. So, down the road I met Al.

JULIE IRETON: Martin - about 10 years junior to Al and George - poured his energy into the campaign. He reached out to politicians, found other former workers and family members.

GAIL MACDONALD: I was very impressed with Martin and his group and the way they've continued this fight for I guess almost nine years now.

JULIE IRETON: Gail MacDonald's dad, Don Kilby, worked in the company store in 1958. When the call went out for volunteers to suit up, Kilby did his 10 minutes of work.

GAIL MACDONALD: He was a young man with a young family and could certainly use the extra money. Dad would tell us about going in for the cleanup, and having to put on some kind of suits and only being allowed in there for short periods of time, minutes, then coming out and having these thorough showers.

JULIE IRETON: Gail's dad died within two weeks of being diagnosed with leukemia in January 2009.

GAIL MACDONALD: The doctor said he'd never, ever seen blood cells explode like Dad's did. It makes us wonder if it was due to the exposure to the radiation. I know none of us are qualified to say that, but it creates questions in our minds.

JULIE IRETON: She promised her dad she'd make inquiries into the compensation program. That's when she found Martin, Al and George. Between them, they helped other former employees apply for the compensation to the department managing the program: National Defence.

MARTIN HABRACKEN: So the employees do not count. That is the way it was. But anyway, we applied for it and we got 102 refusals and I have had letter from other people that did not even see the information and of course they wanted to get in on it too.

JULIE IRETON: The Atomic energy workers didn't qualify for compensation because they were never in the Canadian Forces. Al was left deflated.

AL DONAHUE: I feel that politics is at the lowest level that it's ever been. I never kept track of hours. I wrote to every minister who could possibly help us, and it was costly because I could not type. I had to pay someone to type the letters I wrote.

JULIE IRETON: In a hail Mary attempt, the small team decided to reach out to every member of the Canadian senate. Al wrote the letter. Martin sent them out. They got one response.

SENATOR CELINE HERVIEUX PAYETTE: For the simple reason that I answer every letter and I was the only one, I mean you would have to ask the question to my colleagues.

JULIE IRETON: That's former Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux Payette

AL DONAHUE: We are really grateful to Senator Celine. I think she has done more than any of the politicians.

MARTIN HABRACKEN: What happened with her, Celine Payette, she asked me to come down and I said Al, we have a meeting in Ottawa. We were all excited it was in February…

SENATOR CELINE HERVIEUX PAYETTE: Finally, I invited them to meet with me. I met with them more than once. And of course we were very happy when the motion was adopted in the senate.

JULIE IRETON: Payette's staff had compiled a comprehensive report about the incidents at Atomic Energy. It detailed the aftermath and the Atomic Veterans Recognition Program.

SENATOR CELINE HERVIEUX PAYETTE: For me, it's one of those situations where the government doesn't know what the other end is doing. There's no reason why one group would be compensated and the other group would not be.

JULIE IRETON: Martin and Al picked up George on their way to parliament hill.

SENATOR CELINE HERVIEUX PAYETTE: Honourable Senators, I rise today to speak to you about Senator Hervieux Payette's motion

JULIE IRETON: While the men sat in the gallery, Senator Payette put forward a motion.

SENATOR CELINE HERVIEUX PAYETTE: Similar to the Atomic Veterans Recognition Program and offer $24,000 in compensation, to [unintelligible] the volunteers and employees who assisted in the contamination work at the nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ontario in 1952 and in 1958, and were excluded from the program which was available only to the personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces.

MARTIN HABRACKEN: We were there for the motion in the Senate and we had our own private seat. And finally the motion came up.

VOICE: It is your pleasure honorable senators to adopt the motion. Adopted and carried.

MARTIN HABRACKEN: And it was passed unanimously. We got applause in the end too. They all applauded. The union [unintelligible] and there was quite a few in the audience too, that it was passed.

JULIE IRETON: It looked like the men might finally get the same credit as the military members. But then Senator Payette retired. The motion now sits in the hands of Natural Resources Canada - the department responsible for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. As time ticks on, more of the former Chalk River workers die.

VOICE 2: And he passed away, it will be two years next year, so.

JULIE IRETON: Al is now 88 and is blind. But he still holds out hope someone in government will help.

AL DONAHUE: I will give you all the information that you might need, my letters and their answers.

JULIE IRETON: George has diabetes and sticks close to home. He's tagged along for the campaign. But he's never considered they'd ever see any money.

GEORGE PHILLIP KIELY: I haven't thought of what I'd do with it. The money isn't really the part. It's equality, you know?

AL DONAHUE: These people have to be made aware that there was an injustice done, and they are the people that can correct that injustice.

[Sound: Music]

AMT: We have been listening to the documentary 10 minutes of work produced by CBC's Julie Ireton the documentary editor was Lara O'Brien. We did request comment from Natural Resources Canada. The statement it sent reads in part: “The government acknowledges the continued efforts of former AECL employees to have the contributions to the cleanups in the 1950s at the Chalk River Laboratories recognized.” The statement goes on to agree that the Senate motion of Senator Hervieux Payette, the calling on the government to establish a program similar to the atomic veterans recognition program, that did exist that acknowledges that that motion happened. But then it says “At this time there is no program similar to the AVRP. However the government continues to give due consideration to the Senate motion.” Let us know what you think of that. You can reach us @TheCurrentCBC on Twitter or find us on Facebook go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. The news is next and then Canada's Metis population is spiking at least on paper. We're looking at what's behind a dramatic rise in the number of Canadians who self-identify as Metis. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Canada's Métis population on the rise: why some Métis leaders find this 'very concerning'

Guests: Darryl Leroux, Dave Chartrand, Greg Burke, Jesse Thistle

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come:

SOUNDCLIP

We're not going to let them win. And if we change our lives we contort ourselves to them. Then they win and we lose.

AMT: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo speaking in the aftermath of yesterday's terror attack in New York City. We are on that story in half an hour. Also we'll find out about the latest dramatic twists and turns in the battle against corruption. But first what does it mean to call oneself Manti.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Every time Statistics Canada releases new demographic data, our snapshot of the country and who makes it up changes. New data released late in October revealed a significant spike in the number of Canadians self-reporting as Metis. In Quebec, the number of people calling themselves Metis is up 149% over the past decade. In Nova Scotia, it's up 124%. But this growth in population isn't all good news to all Metis leaders. This is Dave Chartrand president of the Manitoba Metis Federation.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVE CHARTRAND: It is very concerning for us to see such a change in the identifying of where the Metis are and who they are. Clearly the numbers we're showcasing that the classification of these people that are being claimed to be Metis by Census Canada are definitely not the Metis nation. There are people who are probably claiming to be of some mixed blood and then using the phrase Metis and you can't blame those citizens in some ways but it will cause great concern by Canada and all of us as taxpayers.

AMT: As Dave Chartrand suggests the surging Metis census numbers have more to do with people's self-identification rather than birth rate. There are seven organizations representing the Metis communities and The Bras d'Or Lake Metis Nation in Nova Scotia is one of them. For years it has been fighting to have its members recognized as Aboriginal people under the Constitution Act of 1982. Greg Burke is the chief of The Bras d'Or Lake Metis Nation. We have reached him in Lucasville, Nova Scotia hello.

GREG BURKE: Hello how are you.

AMT: I'm well thank you. I'm curious to know when did you discover your heritage and start identifying yourself as Metis?

GREG BURKE: First of all thanks for inviting me on your show. And I first discovered that I was mixed blood when I was somewhere around 11 or 12 years old. And from there I lived my life as knowing that I had Inuit blood in me of my heritage from both sides of my parents, from my grandparents and my great grandparents - or sorry my great grandparents and my great great grandparents. And when I first heard the word Metis would have been from my brother who went on a mission to find out why we were different, living in the community that we lived in. And he then discovered that we were of mixed blood and self-identified as Metis, back in the early 80s. Late 70s early 80s.

AMT: Okay, and how does one claim Metis identity?

GREG BURKE: Well first off you have to prove your lineage and you have to prove your connection with your with your Indian ancestor and that you have to show that you have a connection at the Metis communities of [unintelligible] the Maritimes.

AMT: And have you been able to do that? Where they were there Metis communities when you were growing up in the 70s and 80s?

GREG BURKE: I wasn't brought up in a community. My grandfather moved from his Metis community into the town of Paisley to work in the coal mines at the age of 12. And that's where his community was founded in the air shed area by his ancestors. His ancestor was the founder of Pantulu which is known today as St. Peters and they married- Now I don't know I don't have the proof that they did marry. The records show that they didn't marry but his son married a native girl and moved into the air shed area and started the community there.

AMT: And how long has the Bra D’or Lake Metis Nation been as functional as a group then?

GREG BURKE: Well we. Let me first say this. That's kind of an open ended question because there's a lot of history between the time that we started and the time that the communities in Nova Scotia began back in the 70s. What I should say is the organization started that began in the communities. So our nation was formed from generations of Metis within the communities mainly because they sought for representation in their community. They belong to Metis communities in Ontario and in New Brunswick and in the other part of the province which is a Yarmouth area for generations. So when I got voted in as chief, some of us belong to communities in New Brunswick and in Ontario and the members felt that they need representation in their own community rather than somebody outside the community representing them. In 2013 we then decided to represent ourselves in our own communities. And from there, my mandate was to start communities or start organizations in all of the native communities which included the eastern part of Nova Scotia as well as [uninteliigible].

AMT: So let me ask you though because you're looking for official recognition but Mi'kmaq chiefs and Nova Scotia are urging that that recognition be denied.

GREG BURKE: Well we're not looking for it. We went to the Supreme Court as interveners on the Daniels versus Canada. And we do have the recognition. Did you read that…

AMT: No no but I'm asking you that because the assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq chiefs in December passed a resolution saying it has title claim to Nova Scotia lands and resources. They actually dispute - they dispute some of this. What do you say to that?

GREG BURKE: Who are they?

AMT: I just told you.

GREG BURKE: No, it's a rhetorical question, Anna Maria. I didn't know I was coming on the program to be hostile – be interviewed…

AMT: No it is not hostile. O am asking you because I've got information saying that you have said that you that you need to go to court because you're not getting the recognition.

GREG BURKE: I just ask you. Who are they? They are first nations. We are Metis. First Nations don't define who Metis is. They are First Nations. And the resolution you're talking about. It wasn't 13 chiefs. It was three chiefs. And I know the three chiefs personally. The 13 chiefs of Nova Scotia didn't sign that resolution it was only three. And one of them was Rod Googoo, who I met personally to discuss, in a very amicable way, why he's racist towards is distant cousins. And the response wasn't very good. And he blatantly denied that there were any Metis in Nova Scotia. That was his answer to it. And he ran out of a story after that.

AMT: Well that's why I'm asking you because there are those who argue that the Metis in Nova Scotia is something that's questionable.

GREG BURKE: Why is that?

AMT: Well and so I'm asking you to respond to that, because obviously you want official recognition.

GREG BURKE: That's what I said. We do have official recognition. The Supreme Court of Canada officially recognized us. So that's why I said to you, who were the First Nations. The three chiefs… let's let's not talk about the First Nations or the 13th chiefs as that piece of paper that they sent out to the premier of Nova Scotia has nothing to do with the definition or defining who is Metis either. First nations don't define us. They have jurisdiction over their own status. They don't have jurisdiction over the Metis.

AMT: So you have no court… You have no issues and everything's fine with you, then, everything is recognized you don't need any land claims you know no claims at all?

GREG BURKE: No I didn't say that. I said that we have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. What I'm saying is we're not recognized by the First Nations.

AMT: Okay. I guess…

GREG BURKE: That's what I asked you. Did you read the…

AMT: Well Mr. Burke, but I'm asking you because you're quoted as saying that you want to go to court to get more recognition.

GREG BURKE: Okay, there you go. Right now there's a proper question. We have to go to court, on the provincial level, because the Liberal Government of Nova Scotia will not honor the Supreme Court ruling. And that's why we have to go to court. So the liberal government in Nova Scotia will waste millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fight against the Supreme Court ruling. If you read Section 17, I'm surprised you didn't read it, but if you read section 17 of the Supreme Court ruling, it clearly states - The justice clearly states that there's no consensus on who is considered Metis or non-status Indian. Nowhere is there a need to be cultural ethical labels do not lend themselves to neat boundaries. So Metis can refer to historic Metis community in Manitoba Red River Settlement or it can be used as a general term, for anyone.

AMT: Okay. We're out of time. We're going to have to leave it there. Greg Burke thank you. I have someone else waiting to discuss this very thing. Thank you. That's Greg Burke chief of the Bras D’or Lake Metis Nation. He joined us from Lucasville, Nova Scotia. While there is a scholar who's been watching more Canadians identify as Metis and has some concerns about it. Darryl Leroux is an associate professor in the department of social justice and community studies at St. Mary's University in Halifax. He is analyzing more than 40 interviews with the leaders of some of eastern Canada's Metis groups. He joins us from Montreal. Hello.

DARRYL LEROUX: Hello, Anna Maria.

AMT: What mistake am I making here in asking this question?

DARRYL LEROUX: [Laughs] Well I think that there are a few things I'd like to clarify. First of all, Mr. Burke was referring to the Daniels decision last year where the Bra D’or Lakes Metis Nation was an intervenor, and that Supreme Court decision did not actually grant any rights to a Metis non-status Indians. So that's simply false. Chelsea Val and I as well as Metis scholars Adam Gaudry, Chris Anderson and Brenda McDougall have all written about the Daniel's decision and how it has been misread by a number - particularly of these so-called Eastern Metis organizations. So one thing that was really notable in what Mr. Burke was talking about was how this community of Arichat in Nova Scotia, which is an Acadian community, which is largely recognised and understood as an Acadian community today in Nova Scotia, becomes a Metis community. And this is really fundamental to what I've seen on the ground in terms of what's happening. These moves I guess in terms of how these increases and people self-identifying as Metis in Nova Scotia New Brunswick, Quebec and even in parts of Ontario. And it's particularly a move that we see among French descendants like myself. So I'm saying French descendants that includes basically anyone who's a descendant of the original French settlers in New France and also in Acadia

AMT: So there's not agreement on what makes someone Metis. What is the definition?

DARRYL LEROUX: Right. Well we heard David Chartrand at the beginning of the show and one of the things the thing that's really important to understand is that for the Metis out west, this idea of being mixed - of being mixed European and indigenous particularly European men and indigenous women is not at all the basis of what it means to be Metis. So that's something that's very common in Canada to think of Metis as quote unquote a mixed race people. But my understanding of what the Metis out West are saying is that they see themselves as a political community with its own history, specific history linked to territory and linked importantly to ongoing kinship relationships with indigenous peoples, whether it's the plains Cree whether it's Saulteau whether it's a Assiniboine or Dene ancestors. And we can see here in the response that you got earlier that the so-called Metis in Nova Scotia have no ongoing kinship relationships with indigenous peoples in that territory, that territory being them being Mi’kmaq territory. And that's a very striking difference that I come across in my research over and over again.

AMT: It's interesting as well there are Mi’kmaq chiefs who argue that the Mi’kmaq nations always absorbed mixed raced children. So they argue that classification does not exist.

DARRYL LEROUX: Exactly.

AMT: And is this a point of dispute and obviously?

DARRYL LEROUX: Yeah it's clearly a point of dispute. My research has and just doesn't just involve Acadians who are redefining themselves as Acadian Metis, but also these Metis organizations in Quebec. In Quebec, there are over 25 such organizations that have taken root since 2003 when there was the palely decision and the Powley decision was a Supreme Court decision that basically recognized recognized the community outside of any links to the historic Red River community for the first time. And that decision came up with three main criteria for defining a Metis community: self-identification, identification with historically continuous community, and then a contemporary community that recognises you. So as part of trying to meet the criteria in Powley, we see that a number of organizations start to start forming to act as a contemporary community. And what I have been looking at through these interviews with a number of leaders of the major organizations in Quebec, but also hundreds of pages of transcribed material from genealogy forums, is how the two primary organizations and come back. They come about in opposition to Indigenous land claims and territorial rights. So that's the case with the Metis. The Rising Sun Metis nation which is in Gaspesie, and also La Communauté métisse du Domaine du Roy et de la Seigneurie de Mingan,which is a very long name.

AMT: In opposition to indigenous.

DARRYL LEROUX: Yes. So the organisation Insigne for instance in 2000 there was the announcement of a trilateral comprehensive land plimsolls an agreement in principle, that was announced it had been in negotiations for over 20 years. And it was between four Inuit communities the federal and provincial governments. That brought about a lot of opposition in the local Québécois community which happens all over in Canada when these types of agreements and principals are on land claims are announced.

AMT: Let me ask you in your research you refer to something called settler self-indigenisation.

DARRYL LEROUX: That's right.

AMT: What does that mean?

DARRYL LEROUX: Basically what my colleague Adam Gaudry and I are referring to, is the fact that these efforts to become indigenous are primarily driven by - not primarily are only driven - by people who previous to these efforts identify themselves or were identified as white. What we would identify as white settlers in our research and they do not depend whatsoever on indigenous peoples who remember, some of these folks are claiming, as kin, they don't depend on indigenous peoples as recognize them. In fact they oppose, as you heard earlier from Mr. Burke, the recognition they're opposed to indigenous peoples and indigenous peoples oppose recognizing them.

AMT: And so what's at stake in all of this?

DARRYL LEROUX: Well just to come back to the example Insigne what happened after that resistance that I was talking about the opposition there was a number of white rights groups that were formed in the region. And to make a long story short after the Powley decision. Some of those white rights organizations and leaders become Metis and found a mighty organization, that still exists and has a case that was just heard of the Quebec appeals court to sort of recognize their rights as. And in the interviews that I have with the leadership and from that organization, you can see that they see themselves as protecting their rights their “Metis rights” but also the rights of white people in the region against the claims that the Inuit are making. And that's very stark in terms of how that's working out.

AMT: Right. But to be clear this is not what our last guest was talking about. We're not lumping him into that, in the specific case that you're talking about.

DARRYL LEROUX: Well not just one case. So this is part of the movement. Right. So I'm talking about that Insigne. It's also the case in the interviews that have analyzed and Gaspesie. The organization there represent sets the record that represent 16,000 members. And I think you could hear from the person you just interviewed who Adam Gaudry and I we analyzed their documentation, their public their public representation extensively and in an article that we wrote. This is the Bryant Park Group and they very clearly are opposed to Mi’kmaq land rights. I see those as competing with their new rights.

AMT: Darryl Leroux thank you for your perspective on this.

DARRYL LEROUX: Thank you very much, Anna Maria.

AMT: Darryl Leroux, associate professor in the department of social justice and community studies at St. Mary's University in Halifax. He joined us from Montreal. My next guest says his path to learning about his own Metis identity was full of heartbreak and hard work. Jesse Thistle is Metis Cree. He's a Ph.D. student at York University's. He is a Trudeau scholar and a Vanier scholar. He's in our Toronto a studio. Hi.

JESSE THISTLE: Good morning.

AMT: What concerns do you have about the number of people who now self-identify as Metis?

JESSE THISTLE: Well I believe it's conflated and it conflicts with people who are adoptees like me from rediscovering our roots. You know have legitimate roots. People from the west who've been displaced from their Metis identities who in adulthood go back and try to reconnect with their communities. It makes it very difficult to distinguish between who we are and who these new people that are claiming Metis are. And it's very damaging.

AMT: There is an argument that some people feel that part of their ancestry was afraid was afraid or ashamed of who they were and so it was hidden in their only discovering it now. How do you respond to those claims?

JESSE THISTLE: Could be true but it could also be something that they're wearing kind of like armor. So my mother looked, acted, was Michif, so on, that's Metis on the prairie's. And she couldn't access work. She couldn't move she. They were persecuted for the way they lived. They lived on the side of the road in the ditch and the road allowance, and had no opportunity or education. So her phenotypic, the way she looked and who she was as a political Metis person impacted her life. And she had intergenerational trauma passed down from the political struggles that my people engaged in. And that's why me and my brothers were let go. So there's real social and economic consequences for being a Metis person. She couldn't hide. She still can't hide. I can't hide. You know I am who I am. You can look at me and see that what we call ourselves I'm a half breed. You know so, and I don't mean to use that word but that's how we identify ourselves.

AMT: And in your own story because of how you grew up and you ended up homeless and addicted.

JESSE THISTLE: I did yes.

AMT: How did you how did you end up in university?

JESSE THISTLE: Through getting sober, going back and just teaching myself all the basic skills of life. And in that process I started doing investigation into my heritage. I kind of knew I was indigenous, just by the way I looked and then as I was rediscovering this I ran into a woman named Dr. Carolyn Podruchny who heard about my story and she flew me out west to meet my family. And I reconnected with my mom and I remember being so scared going back to meet my mother and reconnect with my aunts and uncles. And it was very tough work like I had to be brave for it. I still continue to have to be brave. I'm still meeting all my relatives and reconnecting to what we call [unintelligible], our kin which owns us. That's how I know myself as a Metis person.

AMT: How does your understanding that identity affect you're very base level? What is that done to you and your sense of self, your sense of future?

JESSE THISTLE: Well it's given me kind of like a home. I know who I am. I know who my identity is. I know where I fit into my family history. I know where I fit into a broader Canadian society. I know the history and struggle of my peoples, right. My identity as a person is attached to my peoplehood my political nationhood of my people that's what makes me Metis. My kin relationships make me Metis. Just so happens that I'm also mixed blooded from both sides of my family, you know. But we don't define ourselves that way and that's we have to be clear about that.

AMT: And as we've heard this can be a very complicated thing. Where would you like to see this conversation go now?

JESSE THISTLE: Well I think the scholars Adam Gaudry, Chris Anderson, Chelsea Val, Darryl they're all doing the hard work. They're like gatekeepers they're protecting our identity. I think that we need more people like that and kind of setting the boundaries of what Metis is, so that it's easier for people like me who want to go back and reconnect with their identity.

AMT: So you argue the courts didn't do enough when they when they did these things. You are not protected enough.

JESSE THISTLE: I don't think that the courts really knew what they were defining and the impacts that would happen. So I think it needs to be revisited and better defined.

AMT: Jessie Thistle, thank you for coming in.

JESSE THISTLE: Thank you very much.

AMT: Jessie Thistle is Metis-Cree. He is a Trudeau scholar and a Vanier scholar working on his Ph.D. in history at York University. He was with me in our Toronto studio. Stay with us in our next half hour we're looking at New York City and the attack. We're also looking at kitbag where a sitting member of the National Assembly was arrested and the legislature pushed back. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Suspect in deadly NYC attack leaves note referencing ISIS

Guests: Steven D’souza, Aisha Ahmad

AMT: Hi I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I get to the middle of the street I hear a commotion. I hear a girl scream and [unintelligible] And I am like “well it is Halloween maybe somebody spooked. But I say they can't be spooked like that to be screaming the way they screaming. So when I go back to the sidewalk I look down and I the a white pick-up truck like a couple more blocks down in the bike path. So automatically I know something is wrong. And as I go down more to where the girl is screaming, I see two gentlemen laying there. And they had tyre track marked across their body… one guy… you know you could tell they both were not here.

BILL DE BLASIO: Let me be clear. Based on the information we have at this moment. This was an act of terror and a particularly cowardly act of terror aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them.

AMT: Well some clips here, a witness in the aftermath of yesterday's attack and the mayor of New York City you just heard Bill de Blasio. Eight people including five from Argentina and one from Belgium are dead after a rental truck drove down a busy bicycle path in New York City yesterday afternoon, in what officials call an act of terror. The suspect is a 29 year old Sayfullo Saipov. He was taken to hospital after being shot by police on the scene. CBC reporter Steven D'Souza joins us from New York City. Hello Steven.

STEVEN D’SOUZA: Good morning.

AMT: We know that Sayfullo Saipov is originally from Uzbekistan but what else do you know about his background.

STEVEN D’SOUZA: Well there is a picture that is starting to emerge. It doesn't appear he has much of a presence on social media but his name does appear in various public records in various states. The 29 year old came to the US in 2010 from Uzbekistan. He spent some time in Ohio. He then went to Florida and most recently was in Patterson, New Jersey. It appears that he was married with, or is married with two children. He had a commercial truck driver's license and spend time as a truck driver and had two businesses registered in his name in Ohio. An acquaintance in Florida, where he spent some time, described him as a very good guy. He used to play with his kids. And most recently he was an Uber driver in New Jersey and the company says he passed their background check drove with them for about six months and made 1400 trips with no safety related issue. So nothing really there to tip police off as to what was to come. One report said that he came to the country through a diversity visa program that encourages applicants from countries that have a lower immigration rate to the U.S. That's something that's really been seized on by conservative media here in the U.S. as a tool to bash the Democrats and push an immigration agenda. And normally we wouldn't really talk about that but it's actually something the president even tweeted about this morning talking about that program and increasing extreme vetting that he's trying to pass.

AMT: Yes I noticed that he was talking about increasing extreme vetting after. This guy has he has a green card, I think. He's been there for seven years under the radar, essentially?

STEVEN D’SOUZA: Yes. Under the radar but there are some reports that he could have been on the radar of federal authorities. He does come up on police radar a few times mostly for just minor traffic and safety violations related to his time as a truck driver. But the New York Times says that their officials are telling them that he was on the radar of federal authorities and that he came to their attention as a result of an unrelated investigation. So it's not clear if Saipov was the target of the investigation himself or if he was associated or related to somebody that was being looked at. We know that here in New York there's been a number of cases involving Uzbek citizens who live in the city who have been charged and in some cases convicted of providing material support to ISIS. There was just one case last week a Brooklyn resident from Uzbekistan sentenced to 15 years for providing material support to ISIS. But in that case that individual was trying to go to Syria or somewhere abroad to wage war as opposed to doing it here in the U.S.

AMT: What can you tell us about these handwritten notes by the truck?

STEVEN D’SOUZA: Yes so there were some handwritten notes found in this rented truck from Home Depot at the scene. Conflicting reports as to whether the notes were written in English or Arabic. But essentially the claims written in the notes are that this attack was done for ISIS. And at this point it appears that the attack may have been more inspired by ISIS rather than directed by ISIS. They haven't actually as far as I can tell claimed responsibility for this which experts say they sometimes don't do when the suspect was captured and is still alive. But it is too early in the investigation. We know that ISIS has had New York in its sights for quite a while. Two years ago its magazine had pictures of Times Square and encouraged its followers to conduct truck attacks just like this, and it's something the city has really been trying to protect against for the last couple of years, at events like New Year's Eve, or the Thanksgiving Day parade, you all see these heavy cement trucks or concrete trucks or garbage trucks blocking access to major areas, in order to prevent attacks like this from happening. But in an area like the west side highway where this happened, it's wide open; it's very popular spot for residents and tourists alike. So really is just one of the many soft targets in the city.

AMT: And so he's in hospital injured under police watch right now.

STEVEN D’SOUZA: Yes he was shot in the abdomen, underwent surgery yesterday under heavy police guard at Bellevue Hospital. I believe police have talked to him are waiting to talk to him after he came out of surgery so they're hoping to get some more information to piece together more about his history. Find out what his motivations were. But the sense we were getting from officials yesterday was that this is a lone wolf attack. There was no wider plot, no sort of greater conspiracy here. But we'll still have to wait and see what more they learn.

AMT: Okay, Steven thanks so much.

STEVEN D’SOUZA: You're welcome.

AMT: Steven D'Souza CBC reporter in New York City. Aisha Ahmad has been following these latest developments. She's the author of Jihad and Co.: Black Markets and Islamist Power. She's the director of the Islam and global affairs Initiative at the Munk school at the University of Toronto. She's also an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto and she joins us now. Hello.

AISHA AHMAD: Hello good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: What strikes you about this attack?

AISHA AHMAD: You know honestly Anna Maria we are just still getting the details out. But as we just heard the motivations do seem to be inspired by ISIS, rather than there being any direct relationship between the perpetrator and the groups overseas. This doesn't seem to be evidence right now that he had direct ties and particularly any training. And I think that that actually speaks to the evolution of the type of terrorist attacks and violence that that ISIS and groups like ISIS wants to perpetrate around the world. Because their capabilities have declined significantly, they're not able to send fighters overseas the way they would have wanted to. They not able to engage in spectacular large scale attacks. And so they're reduced to trying to inspire individuals to engage in the sort of horrendous terrorizing but relatively low cost and high impact types of attacks. So you know it speaks to their weakness. And it's an incredibly frustrating thing to try to control.

AMT: And given that there is this possible connection or are you surprised that ISIS hasn't just tried to own it anyway?

AISHA AHMAD: You know it's funny when there was a perpetrators being killed sometimes they're quick to claim anything. Sometimes I think if there's an earthquake they'll try to claim it. They tried to clean the Las Vegas attack. I think in this situation, given that they probably don't have full information about the perpetrator, and are weighing whether or not to chime in in his report while there is an ongoing investigation, I think that's probably the reason for the hesitancy. He is still alive. There is an ongoing investigation so maybe if they put their brand on to him and then it turns out that he is not an agent that they want to be associated with, that could be problematic for them. So I can understand why they would hold back at this time.

AMT: When you watched this unfolding, did you consider this an act of terrorism?

AISHA AHMAD: You know it's a very difficult. I mean this is a clear act of terrorism. I know that it's a very difficult label in the sense that you know there are times when we should apply it and don't, and there are times we don't apply it and we really should. This to me clearly speaks to a politically motivated act of violence targeting civilians, which I think is the most inclusive definition that we can come up with for an act of terrorism. You know that said, there was a huge debate prior about whether Las Vegas should be categorized with terrorism or something else like why is it in the United States not shootings [unintelligible] and these sorts of act of violence are. I think that in this case - given that the individual does seem to have an ideological mandate, an ISIS mandate, that the individual left a note indicating that he was doing this inspired by the ideology of ISIS and for ISIS - that we can therefore pretty clearly come to the a definition of homegrown terrorism. And you know the tactic itself is a terrorist tactic. Now it becomes difficult to determine whether or not it's transnational terrorism because if there are no real linkages between him and a group overseas, then we end up coming up with the subcategories of homegrown terrorism, or an inspired, or lone wolf type of terrorism you know. But nonetheless it is a politically motivated act aimed at harming civilians, killing civilians and so therefore it's one of those things that when we see it we know what to call it.

AMT: Now it's interesting and I'm always interested in not what we label or what is labeled terrorism but what is not labeled terrorism is interesting as well. So if they don't know the motivation. Let's go back to the Las Vegas shooting. Was did you see anybody wanting to label that terrorism and then stopping themselves or was there a difference right from the get go?

AISHA AHMAD: Well absolutely there is a difficulty in figuring out whether did the person have a political motivation. If they didn't have a political motivation then it ends up getting categorized as something like mental illness. But then there are other instances like that you know the Orlando attacks in which you know the perpetrator you know made some sort of ideological statements in advance that they were some form of ISIS fighter, and then it turned out to investigation that this was a person who shot up a gay nightclub that he had been a patron of. He was very tormented by his own sexuality and then what is uncovered in the long run is in fact a mental health and personal motivation in this act of violence. And so sometimes we're quick to label things terrorism that you know upon detailed investigation look more like the type of mass shootings that exist in the United States. And whereas in other cases where the political ideology doesn't seem to be apparent, we get stuck. And this is not just difficult for journalists and for everyday citizens to make sense of is it terrorism or is it not terrorism, scholars have this problem too when they are trying to determine what to include and not include in their research. Because if it is only non-state armed groups that who are engaging in acts of violence that target civilians, then all of a sudden do we not include a Taliban attack on a NATO convoy as an act of terrorism? Then if you've limited your definition to attacks only on civilians then attacks on military convoys wouldn't be included in your data that it would be included in your study. And so then you end up making the sorts of judgment calls as well. So because there's no one universal scholarly definition, we end up having an element of subjectivity whenever we apply this label.

AMT: And so how much value does the label terrorism have?

AISHA AHMAD: Well I mean we have to have this label because what happened yesterday in New York City was absolutely terrorism. I mean we know that there was an ideologically inspired individual who sought meaning and purpose from a group that has been terrorizing civilians in Iraq and Syria, then told citizens around the world go and engage in these types of violence in your own societies. He took that message and then killed innocent citizens. You know Argentinians and other Americans and is clearly motivated by that. We do indeed have to call it terrorism when we know it is terrorism. The difficulty you know, when it comes to your question about what we don't call terrorism, that's where we get into this gray areas and the thorny issues about you know identifying whether or not- is it any logically motivated or not? Is it a civilian target or not? It's really on the on the periphery that we find these sorts of challenges. But we either make or definition too narrow or too inclusive. But this was an obvious case.

AMT: And I recall there was a case in New York awhile back where a former U.S. soldier turned his car onto the street right, around Times Square and ran some people down and he was considered mentally ill. I don't think it became…

AISHA AHMAD: Right. You know and the thing is that absolutely there are individuals who are mentally ill and there are individuals who are inspired by ISIS ideology. And there are individuals who are mentally ill and inspired by ISIS ideology. I mean our parliament hill who attack involved an individual who was both inspired by ISIS and also had a long history of crack addiction, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia. I mean frankly the fact is that as ISIS has try is on the ropes on the battlefield they have lost territory, they have lost wealth. They are going to increasingly rely on these sorts of lone wolf attacks in order to maintain some semblance of relevance. And so what they are looking to do is seek out exploit and radicalized individuals who are more likely to engage in these sorts of acts of violence. And so it's not unlikely that they will seek out those who are mentally ill, may be vulnerable in some other elements, some other aspects of society and then seek those individuals out, because frankly it is not a normal thing to do. So there is quite possibly a correlation between having a some other sort of psychological challenge and then being able to engage in this type of violence. And yet we don't have a clear profile. What's so frustrating is that we have everyone from the crack addicted you know mentally ill person who converts to ISIS five minutes later to a man who seemingly was married and had two children and who was running a business that a couple of points in time had a perfect record with Uber. No major flags that we can see at this time. And so because there isn't a clear profile they can be very difficult to create a net. These are not the types of attacks that are easy to contain. And we do not want to live in a police state either.

AMT: Okay, well, Aisha Ahmad thanks for your perspective on this and giving us some insights. Thank you.

AISHA AHMAD: Thanks so much, Anna Maria.

AMT: That is Aisha Ahmad. She's the author of Jihad and Co.: Black Markets and Islamist Power. She is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto and the director of the Islam and global affairs initiative at U of T's Munk School. She's in Toronto.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Internal politics and rivalry could be behind MNA Guy Ouellette's arrest, suggests reporter

Guest: Martin Patriquin

AMT: While it's being called a political bombshell a “unprecedented attempt at intimidation.” It's even raised fears of a drift toward totalitarianism. It's all to do with the arrest last week of a member of the National Assembly Guy Ouellette. He is a well-respected former provincial police officer very much a law and order man. So his arrest by the provinces anti-corruption squad or UPAC was a shocker. And what's more he was the chair of the government commission studying whether to give that commission more power and authority. Unconfirmed reports suggest his arrest was because he allegedly leaked sensitive documents to the media, but then another bombshell. Guy Ouellette spoke yesterday in the National Assembly saying you pack set him up to shut him up.

SOUNDCLIP

[French speech]

In an unprecedented intimidation attempt. I was the victim of a coup by UPAC at a time when the members of the commission over which I was presiding were preparing to hear testimony from the leaders of public agencies who are under the auspices of the commission.

That's MNA Guy Ouellette speaking in Quebec’s National Assembly yesterday afternoon. Until last week he sat in the Liberal caucus. But his arrest prompted his resignation from the Liberal Party. So he made his speech from the backbench as an independent. He denies he has done anything wrong.

SOUNDCLIP

[French Speech]

The facts with which I am charged have no foundation. My move from law and order to the world of politics has not altered the main principles that have guided my involvement in public life for the last 48 years. I was, I am, and always will be a strong advocate of social justice, democratic values, freedom of expression and truth.

AMT: Even the premier of the province Philippe Couillard said yesterday that the arrest had him scratching his head.

SOUNDCLIP

We are faced with many more questions and answers of course and that includes me. That includes the members of the government and of our caucus. This is the reason I'm asking you back, if possible within the confines of what they have to do and the inquiries that they are conducting, to provide as much information as possible to the public, which I think rightfully concerned about the situation and wants to hear more. Again it's not trivial. We haven't seen this very often. An elected parliamentarian being arrested without any true motives being been given. I don't remember recall seeing this before. So, exceptional situation, exceptional conduct, exceptional communication should come as well.

AMT: The anti-corruption squad only confirmed the arrest yesterday in a hastily called news conference. It has not charged Mr. Ouellete with anything it is declined to even say if he will be charged. It admits he was “baited” but he was not trapped. To fill us in and help explain all of this I'm joined by Martin Patriquin. He is a political columnist for ipolitics.ca. He's a long time Quebec political watcher. Hello.

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: Hey Anna Maria.

AMT: I think we've got a maze to go through here. Can we start?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: Yes.

AMT: Tell us a little bit about Guy Ouellette and why this arrest was such a shocker.

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: So part of it is his reputation. Before Guy Ouellette’s life as a politician which began in 2007 when he was recruited by the liberals, he was one of the key members of Carcajou which was the police squad that basically took down a lot of the key bikers in the province of Quebec. We had a huge problem with it at the end of the 90s in the early 2000s. And you could say that you will that was instrumental in bringing down probably the most notorious biker province's history - a guy named Mom Boucher. And so he has a he has a tremendous reputation well proceeding his time in politics. So you know public perception of him is basically unimpeachable. He's got a very very good record with the public.

AMT: So how did his unrest unfold?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: Well it happens in Quebec City. Basically he got a text or series of texts from someone. The contents of those taxes is not quite yet known, from a source of his saying that “we had had to meet right away.” So he went to go meet these people and it wasn't these people that were there. It was UPAC waiting to arrest him and then he was arrested, according to a source that I spoke to. You know he was he sat in jail for six hours and was basically berated the people with the UPAC calling him a criminal and all this kind of stuff, before he was released. Now you know you made the point earlier about was he baited or was he was he trapped. It actually sounds a lot better in French. It's a lovely turn of phrase in French. Basically what happened was the people that texted him were two police officers that he had contact with, that were arrested by UPAC as well. And they commandeered those people's telephones and acted as if they were these informants or contacts of Mr. Ouellette. I mean it sounds very very dodgy but in fact it is completely legal, from what I've read, as long as you get the sign off of the judge and the prosecution's officer.

AMT: To what end? What were they up to?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: Well they were worried that there had been some leaks within UPAC regarding the investigation of Jean Charest, former premier Jean Charest and Marc Bibeau who was one of the main fundraisers for the Liberal Party and the investigation has been going on for about five years. I mean again a lot of this is unproven but the theory is that someone within UPAC is not particularly happy with the pace of that investigation and began leaking stuff. And if you read between the lines it would seem to say that UPAC believes that Mr. Ouellette that was instrumental in those leaks.

AMT: So the government response to all of this, what happened yesterday?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: What didn't happen yesterday. So basically it was absolutely stunning to watch. Mr. Ouellette came out and said well what he said during his time to speak. And it was it was interesting but it was a bit more boilerplate. What was interesting was Jacques Chagnon , you know the speaker of the house, out and you know basically pilloried UPAC, saying this cannot be done. You've arrested a man for… You arrested but not charged him. He's a sitting parliamentarian. You know his laptop was seized. His phone was seized and basically we have to know, but nobody knows why. And there's not been any sort of answers. And he used it - and you rightfully said at the beginning there - that this is something that happens in countries where you are starting to drift towards totalitarianism. These are unprecedented words from the speaker of the house and it was actually quite an incredible moment.

AMT: So Guy Ouellette as you pack is trying to smear his reputation.

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: It's entirely possible. There's so much intriguing in here because Guy Ouellette is basically you know a long time police officer. There's all sorts of rivalries within police forces one of those is between Guy Oellette and Robert Lafreniere who is head of UPAC. They don't like each other. Well that alleges that as the president of this or as the head of this commission that looks into institutions - governmental institutions – UPAC being one of them, that he was one of the lone voices that didn't want UPAC to get expanded powers under the new law. And you know coincidentally or not now that he's been arrested he is no longer head of that particular commission. The other aspect of it too is Ouellette is almost at war with his own party because he was recruited in 2010, star sort of candidate. The guy who did you literally arrested Mom Boucher and never made it into cabinet. And there's all sorts of speculation as to why that exactly is, that he wasn't sort of ideologically he wasn't in tune with the liberal mentality in Quebec. He didn't tow the line of the party. He wasn't friends with the right people and he sat on the back bench for his entire career.

AMT: Are you surprised by the unity in the legislature yesterday?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: No I think it's basically had happened that way. Quebec as fractious as you know, divided by you know ideological lines but also lines of separatism and sovereignty and so far, in my estimation, it's far more fractious than anywhere else in the country. That said when a sitting member- I mean you just you think about it and it's like you know Hugo Chavez could take notes. You have a sitting member of parliament who's arrested and not charged and is literally almost running for his life because he thinks he's going to get arrested again before he can speak at parliament, which is what he said following his arrest. It's absolutely insane. So no I'm not surprised at all.

AMT: And what about the trust of Quebecers? Where is the trust level these days with all of this going on?

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: That's the dangerous part and that's the larger story. UPAC was created in 2011 almost as a PR exercise by Jean Charest to show that he was doing something about corruption in Quebec. UPAC doesn't really answer to anyone. Rober Lafrenier, the head, he's been the head for the entire duration of time. You know he was appointed but he's appointed by the Premier. He was appointed by Jean Charest who was appointed by Philippe Couillard . You know groups like CSIS that the analogy isn't perfect because CSIS has a different mandate. But CSIS has you know the security intelligence review committee to sort of oversee it. UPAC has none of that. So there's a real sense of that there's an unchecked power with this group and it's dangerous because Quebecers don't have great faith in their institutions these days, and that makes them that much more easy to co-op.

AMT: Martin we have to leave it there but thank you for your insights. It's obviously going to keep unfolding as the day goes on so thank you very much.

MARTIN PATRIQUIN: Thanks a lot.

AMT: Martin Patrequin is a political columnist for ipolitics.ca. He joined us from Montreal. That's our program for today stay with Radio One for Q and Tom power. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Wednesday November 1, 2017 Full Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This