Saving Woodland Caribou from extirpation will also save old growth forests

Over the last few months British Columbia’s controversial wolf cull has been the subject of substantial public dialogue. Like most MLAs, I receive ongoing communication from numerous British Columbians questioning the rationale behind the government’s approach. One of the most recent communications I received was from a young woman named Katie. She started off her email saying:

“My name is Katie, and I oppose the wolf cull. In school we learned about predator prey relationships. I know you probably won’t care, and that the government will go ahead with it anyway, but please read this…”

I found her email to be a source of inspiration. Despite her apparent cynicism towards politicians, she took the trouble to express her concerns to me (even though she is not a constituent). Her email struck a chord. I campaigned on a promise of evidence-based decision-making and giving youth in our society, the generation that will have to live the consequences of the decisions my generation is making, a voice in the legislature.

The BC NDP have not contributed anything of significance to this issue. Instead, when questioned they offer up a sense of vague disappointment and an endorsement of “long term habitat protection.” Habitat protection is vital of course, especially for herds that are still relatively healthy, but if that is the only policy we offer the threatened mountain caribou they will all be dead by the time the trees grow back.

The policies that the B.C. Liberals are putting forward are concerningly intertwined with the interests of industry and lack safeguards that would ensure other herds do not follow the South Selkirk and South Peace mountain caribou to the brink of extirpation.

As a member of the legislature it is my job to do more than outright oppose policies I don’t like. I need to be able to substantially contribute to the debate and provide feasible solutions and alternatives. So, I got my office to research the topic, and threatened species management more generally, in great detail. Our subsequent analysis derived from a literature review and many hours of discussions with scientists, including wildlife biologists who have expertise in the area.

When you start rationalizing culling one species to protect another you also introduce an ethical element that needs to be considered alongside the science. Is it ever justifiable to kill one animal in the name of saving another? Science can never answer that question.

Let one of those species become threatened and your situation becomes immensely worse. Ethically, the wolf cull is a horrible response to an ecosystem out of balance. From a management perspective, we need to focus on endangered mountain caribou and the logging practices that got them to where they are today.

Before humans began changing the North American landscape, woodland caribou’s range extended largely across Canada. While northern subpopulations of caribou once roamed in massive herds numbering in the thousands, mountain caribou have always been more sparsely distributed. Mountain caribou survive on a lichen-rich diet, especially in winter months, a food source that is intricately linked to old growth forests. As industrial development and logging activities began to fragment their old growth forest ecosystems, mountain caribou populations began to destabilize. Not only has logging demolished much of their habitat directly, the associated road networks and areas of new growth forest have also brought an influx of moose and white-tailed deer into the ecosystem. Populations of wolves then followed the moose and deer (their primary prey) and caribou (their secondary prey) are now being killed as bycatch. We are scrambling to save herds of mountain caribou on the brink of extirpation because we weakened their natural habitat and made them vulnerable to increased predation. Of this, there is no disagreement within the scientific community.

The future for these threatened caribou is not looking promising; climate change is altering food supplies and habitat conditions, industrial activities are unbalancing ecosystem composition, and human settlement is concentrating the necessity of protected wilderness.

As per requirements enforced under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, the province has protected 2.2 million hectares of forest from logging and road building where populations of caribou are classified as threatened. These areas have immeasurable value for preserving British Columbia’s biodiversity, especially in light of ongoing global warming. But these areas, a substantial fraction of which are old growth, also have substantial commercial value.

Recent Freedom of Infomation documents reveal that the B.C. Liberals met with forest industry representatives when developing plans to save endangered caribou. The Minister of Environment said it is common practice to consult all stakeholders, but I worry that industrial pressures are playing too big a role in habitat allocation. My concern, that I raised last week during Question Period in the British Columbia Legislature, is that vast tracts of forests will stop being preserved the moment the threatened caribou herds go extinct. With their death, the protection of their habitat will no longer be enforceable under the Species at Risk Act.

We need to protect as much land as possible from all human activities so remaining wildlife populations have the space and resources needed to respond to predation and food supply challenges. The cost of restricting industrial development in B.C.’s forests would be expensive in terms of lost revenue, but it would save us having to micromanage every dwindling species.

Where is our provincial government on species protection? Shockingly, we are one of only two provinces (the other being Alberta) that don’t even have any endangered species legislation. Protecting more habitat for our biological diverse ecosystems should be the goal, and creating a provincial endangered species act would be a good place to start.

At the same time, it’s crucial that critical environmental issues are not framed simplistically. There are very real consequences to allowing caribou herds to become extirpated. And one of the most profound of these will be the subsequent logging of remaining stands of British Columbia’s old growth timber.

Protecting Habitat for BC’s Woodland Caribou

Today in the legislature I rose to probe the government’s efforts to preserve natural habitat for BC’s remaining healthy wood caribou herds.

Several additional herds are listed as threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. As such, management actions have been required and subsequently taken. In the discussion reproduced below, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations notes that the  government has already protected 2.2 million hectares of mountain caribou natural habitat from logging and road building.

I point out that these protected areas have enormous value for preserving British Columbia’s biodiversity, especially in light of ongoing global warming (which I recognized that a rather significant number of BC Liberal MLAs still struggle to believe is occurring). Yet these areas, a substantial fraction of which are old growth forest, also have enormous commercial value.

I wanted to know whether the Minister would commit to the continued protection of these forests even if the caribou herds — those herds which required forests to be protected under Canada’s Species at Risk Act in the first place — become extinct.

For example, there is a very real concern that when the Selkirk herd goes extinct, for example (there are only a dozen or so caribou left), vast areas of valuable, yet presently protected, old growth timber stands will be logged.

I was disappointed in the Minister’s response (which I reproduce below as well).

Please note: when I say “in opposition” in the text, I meant “opposite”. I was gesturing to the BC Liberal side of the house where there are a fair number of MLAs who still have a hard time accepting that the world is warming because of increasing greenhouse gases, despite the fact the scientific community has known this for decades.


Question


A. Weaver: It’s well understood within the scientific community that the loss of natural habitat due to human activities is the primary cause for the disappearing caribou herds in British Columbia. Deforested land provides grazing opportunities for ungulates like deer and moose, which move in along with their natural predators — like, for example, wolves and cougars. Caribou then become the bycatch of these predators.

Because the caribou were sparsely distributed to begin with, the herd simply cannot survive this increase in mortality. With so few mountain caribou left in the south Selkirk region and rapidly dwindling or extirpated northern caribou herds in the South Peace region, their future looks bleak.

My question is this. What is this government doing to ensure that the habitat for the remaining relatively healthy woodland caribou populations is protected in light of growing pressures from mining, natural gas and forestry sectors?


Answer


Hon. S. Thomson: As you know, the province has implemented mountain caribou recovery implementation plans. Oversight is provided on those plans by a progress board, a progress team, with a wide range of stakeholders and interests on those teams. They report out annually.

Since the plans were implemented or adopted, over 2.2 million hectares of habitat have been protected — 108,000 hectares in the south Selkirk area; 400,000 hectares in the Peace River.

We continue to work — with the input of scientists, biologists, the progress team — to monitor the implementation, to ensure that we continue to provide that habitat for this very, very important species here in British Columbia.


Supplementary Question


A. Weaver: My concern with this, of course, is that under the Species at Risk Act government must act to protect land when the caribou are threatened. My concern is for existing mountain herds that are not subject to species-at-risk legislation today because they are not threatened today.

You know, these protected lands also are incredibly important for biodiversity, especially in light of the ongoing global warming. I recognize that there are some in opposition who believe it’s not actually occurring despite overwhelming scientific evidence.

A lot of these protected areas for the existing caribou herds that are threatened are old-growth forests. They are only protected in light of the fact that they must protect them under the Species at Risk Act. My concern is this. Scientists will tell government that the south Selkirk herd will go extinct despite the government’s efforts. The government then no longer has to protect these forests under the species-at-risk legislation.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister commit to the continued protection of these forests? Even if the caribou herds, those herds which required the forest to be protected in the first place under Canada’s Species at Risk Act…. Will they still be protected — because of the pressures that they will get from the forest industry for this valuable timber?


Answer


Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the supplementary question. Now 2.2 million hectares of land are protected under the implementation plans. As I said, we continue to work with the progress team to monitor that implementation, to report out annually on progress on the implementation plans.

As was mentioned, the herds are dispersed — 15 separate herds across British Columbia — so that why it’s important we continue to get the scientific and biologist advice in through the progress report and the range of stakeholders that are on the progress board report.

That’s why we’re also taking additional actions, particularly on the high-risk herds, to deal with what the member opposite talked about, imminent expiration of those herds. That’s why we’ve taken extraordinary steps in those specific herds to give the best chance that we can to ensure that we continue to protect and recover those herds. That’s where the focus of activity will continue to take place.


Video


What we really should be debating in the legislature!

Today marks the end of the third day that MLAs have debated a motion to support the changes to electoral boundaries proposed by the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission. As I discussed in an earlier post, approval of this motion is a necessary step on the path towards enabling the recommendations of the Commission through legislation. Every single MLA has spoken in favour of supporting the recommendations, so at some point, one has to ask oneself why are we spending so much time debating this?

It’s pretty clear to me that the government has no agenda following the monumental collapse of their reckless venture into LNG. We’ve spent several days discussing the introduction of Red Tape Reduction Day; we’ve debated, what I’ve termed, the Comma and Spellchecker Act; we’ve debated a motion regarding the merits of the Site C dam project almost a year after the government decided to proceed with it, and we’ve even been offered a bizarre motion to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership despite the fact that the text has yet to be released publicly.

Of course, there have been a few bills that have received unanimous support in the house and so have passed quickly through the legislature during this fall session. These include: Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015; Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015; Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015; Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015; Franchises Act, 2015. But the reality is, we are now just filling the time.

I understand why the official opposition feels the need to speak to the electoral boundaries commission motion at such great length. The government needs to be held to account for their actions and Question Period provides the official opposition a chance to probe some of the Liberal shenanigans, the latest of which concerns the culture of cover-up exposed by the Office of Information and Privacy Commission. If the debates end, there will be no more Question Periods. Nevertheless, surely we could be debating more substantive issues?

Today I took my place in the speaking order to support the opposition by speaking extensively to the electoral boundary motion. However, I took the opportunity to offer British Columbians a few ideas of what we should be debating instead of what we are debating. Below are the snippets of the video and text of my speech where I addressed these ideas.


Video of My Speech



Text of My Speech


We’re talking about the electoral process, the foundation of our democracy. We’re talking about jigging boundaries. We all support this.

But what we’re not talking about are the issues that matter to the people in our electoral boundaries. I did not get a single e-mail from any constituent at any time over any aspect of this report. My constituents did not care.

Now, I recognize it’s a much more important issue for other jurisdictions, perhaps rural areas where there are rather large changes in the area. But my constituents said nothing. I didn’t get a phone call. I didn’t get an e-mail. I didn’t get a “hey, stop” in the grocery store. “What do you think about the electoral boundary? It’s really important to us to discuss that shift from Foul Bay to Richmond. This is an issue that keeps us awake at night.”

No, what they wanted to talk about is why this government promised 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to the GDP. They wanted to know where this so-called Petronas deal…. They wanted to know why this government is not standing up and apologizing to British Columbians for misleading them — yes, hon. Speaker, misleading them — in the lead up to the last election with promises of an LNG industry that was nothing but a pipedream.

That is what the constituents wanted to talk about, not this electoral boundary issue.

There were many other things that they raised, which I could discuss here. I recognize that the Minister of Health is trying to keep me on the motion. But this is relevant to the motion, because the boundaries that we are discussing — the boundaries here today, in this riding — are changing.

We will spend four days — we’ve spent three so far — discussing this. And each and every one of us has agreed to this.

We haven’t discussed the failed attempts of this government to deliver on its promises. We’ve discussed this resolution here. We haven’t discussed the desperate attempt of the government to try to rebrand itself now as the party of small business. No, we’re discussing the boundaries here of the electoral ridings around the province of British Columbia. We haven’t discussed the issue of education and underfunding of education. No.

We’ve discussed shifting Foul Bay to Richmond.

Electoral Boundaries Commission Report – Changes to OBGH

Today in the Legislature we continued debate on a motion to support the changes to electoral boundaries proposed by the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission. The final report, dated September 24, 2015, recommends the addition of two new ridings (one in Richmond and one in Surrey) and sees changes to 48 of the current 85 electoral districts. The riding of Oak Bay – Gordon Head is slightly modified.

As shown in the two maps below, the boundary between Victoria-Beacon Hill and Oak Bay-Gordon Head shifts from Foul Bay Road to Richmond Avenue all the way from Haultain Street to Fairfield Road near the water. This brings the Royal Jubilee Hospital, the Victoria College of Art, Glenlyon-Norfolk Pemberton Woods campus and Margaret Jenkins Elementary (my alma mater) into the riding. The riding boundary then follows Fairfield Road until St. Charles Street where it turns, beside Ross Bay cemetery, until it reaches Dallas Road.

As noted in their Mission Statement:

The BC Electoral Boundaries Commission is an independent and non-partisan commission appointed to review provincial electoral districts and to make proposals to the Legislative Assembly on the area, boundaries and names of electoral districts to be used for the next two provincial general elections.

In a rare moment of unanimity, every MLA in the legislature spoke, or is continuing to speak, in favour of the motion. I did as well today, and reproduce part of the video and text below.

OBG_ED       BC-EBC Final Report V1.08.indd

2008                                                        Proposed


Video of My Comments


 


Text of My Comments


A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the motion before, the motion which is:

Be it resolved that in accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107, the proposals contained in the Final Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in the Legislative Assembly on September 28, 2015 be approved.

Now, to remind those riveted to their television sets across British Columbia, section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions Act states the following:

If the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, approves or approves with alterations the proposals of the commission, the government must, at the same session, introduce a Bill to establish new electoral districts in accordance with the resolution.

I rise, along with every other member in this House, to speak in support of the resolution before us and, specifically, to thank, at the onset, the work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission and, in particular, the Hon. Mr. Justice Thomas J. Melnick, the commission chair; Beverley Busson, the commissioner; and Keith Archer, Chief Electoral Officer and commissioner.

Now, this report was done, obviously, in an non-partisan manner. It is one that reflected the values of British Columbians in terms of trying best to put their needs and interests first and foremost in the setting of electoral boundary limits

I represent the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, a riding that, under these proposed changes, would expand ever so slightly to an area of 330 square kilometres with a 4.8 percent deviation above the provincial average in terms of population, and the population would be 55,689.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is 330 square kilometres because it contains quite a number of islands off the shore, and I must confess to being remiss to visiting these islands frequently. Trial Island, the Chatham Islands, Discovery Island, Griffin Island, Great Chain Island…. There’s a number of these islands which are within the electoral boundary, and they carry over from before. Very sparsely populated. Trial Island has a lighthouse keeper. Chatham Islands — a First Nations reserve — the last long-time resident recently moved off that. And Discovery Island is largely a marine park. Nevertheless, I do represent these ridings as well as the entire district of Oak Bay contained within the boundary and a substantial component of Saanich.

Now, in the capital region, the proposed changes for my riding are subtle. They’re subtle, and they come at the expense with respect to my colleague in Victoria–Beacon Hill. The Electoral Boundaries Commission, in reflecting upon the boundary changes, really had one of two changes that it could make consistently in order to actually bring our population number up, which I recognize has gone down a little bit.

One was near Mount Doug, where, along Cedar Hill Road, there’s a small subdivision towards the north side that could have been brought in. Historically, this was part of the riding when the Hon. Ida Chong was the MLA representing the region, but in previous reports it got taken out. And the other, which, frankly, I think, is more supported, is to continue the natural divide between Victoria–Beacon Hill and Oak Bay–Gordon Head along Richmond Road.

The reason why I say it’s a natural divide is because there was this very odd little corner by Jubilee Hospital that, frankly, confused the voters, because this little corner in Oak Bay–Gordon Head was shared by the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and my riding. In fact, it was not uncommon for constituents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head to get electoral information from constituents in Victoria–Beacon Hill and vice versa, because it was this little odd corner in the riding that has been corrected in this.

Oak Bay–Gordon Head is very proud to bring the Royal Jubilee Hospital back into our riding. It’s a natural home for the riding because so many constituents live nearby it and work nearby it. We get to continue down Richmond Road. We now bring the Victoria College of Art — another natural home for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Victoria College of Art — and another high school, making us, in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I would reckon, probably the most high-school-rich, university-rich, college-rich riding in the province.

With the inclusion now of the senior school of Glenlyon Norfolk, we now have, in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, three public high schools: the brand-new Oak Bay, Lambrick Park — the school my daughter graduated at — Mount Doug, St. Michael’s University School and now Glenlyon as well. Five high schools. But on top of that, we also have Camosun College, which is right on the boundary there of Richmond Road, and the University of Victoria. And we have a diversity of other colleges, including the Victoria College of Art and the Canadian Centre for the Performing Arts. We have a number of elementary schools, some of them private, some of them not.

We have Maria Montessori, an additional high school that actually, this year, is graduating its first grade 12 class. It used to just be K to 7, but now it is…. So that would make us three private schools, three public schools, a college and a university, and we’re very proud to bring the hospital into our riding as well.

 

Welcoming a Class from South Island Distance Education

One of the joys of being an MLA is welcoming students of all ages to the Legislature, showing them some of the history and beauty of the building and on occasion introducing them in the House. Today was one of those pleasurable days.

I had the distinct pleasure of meeting a class of special needs students from the South Island Distance Education School (SIDES). These are young adults transitioning from high school who are learning life and social skills, increasing their reading and math levels and learning about the community. SIDES offers a wide range of courses and classes, often through the internet, to students throughout the province with a teaching and support staff dedicated to ensuring school children and young adults of all abilities can obtain the education credits to graduate, and skills to enter the work force or post-secondary courses.

Thank you to the teachers Elaine Ethier and Dana (pronounced as in banana) Crow for bringing the students Becky Hansen, Joel Wright, Ben Vanlierop and Emily Medwid. It was a delight to be able to introduce all of you in the House today.