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

The Current Transcript for April 16, 2018

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Construction will go ahead. We are actively pursuing legislative options that will assert the Government of Canada's jurisdiction in this matter.

LAURA LYNCH: And there you have it. Failing to gain agreement from B.C., Prime Minister Justin Trudeau emerged from a weekend summit vowing the Kinder Morgan pipeline project will go ahead regardless. But will promises of financial backing and new legislation be enough to ensure the company will stick with it? We will speak with Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources about what's next. That's in half an hour, but before that, Donald Trump is claiming triumph.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons. We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.

LL: For the U.S. President, it’s mission accomplished. But others say the weekend missile attacks in Syria did little to weaken President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons capabilities or his hold on power. And since 2014, the international organization working to rid the world of chemical weapons says there have been more than 390 alleged incidents of the use of poisonous munitions in Syria. We'll look at what really was or wasn't accomplished by Trump and his allies. Later on, a sad tale of a majestic animal on the brink of going extinct.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: And with three individuals left it is a huge loss. They are one of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring animals I've ever seen.

LL: Jodi Hilty is lamenting the last of the South Selkirk herd of the mountain caribou. Now down to just three females, the animals known as the gray ghosts, are the only ones left that migrate back and forth to the United States, meaning the likely end of all mountain caribou south of the border. Rescuing North America's version of the reindeer, in an hour. I'm Laura Lynch sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

One night of bombing may not stop Assad using chemical weapons, expert warns

Guests: Rebecca Collard, Jonathan Cristol

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Mission accomplished means you have one task currently in front of you and when it's completed it is mission accomplished. Politically mission accomplished means something broader. And I think the President was referring in military terms. We of course know that our work in Syria is not done, we know that it is now up to Bashar al-Assad on whether he is going to use chemical weapons again and should he use it again the President has made it very clear that the United States is locked and loaded and ready to go.

LL: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, speaking to Fox News yesterday. Despite President Donald Trump's widely ridiculed tweet that Friday's airstrikes against Syria were a success, some Syrians, as well as veteran observers of the seven-year war in that country, say it's not yet clear what they accomplished. In a moment, we'll hear from an analyst who says the U.S.-led airstrikes which were backed by the UK and France must be followed by further measures should chemical weapons be used in Syria again. But first we've reached Canadian journalist Rebecca Collard who is based in Beirut.

REBECCA COLLARD: Hello.

LL: On Saturday, the Syrian regime posted video, photos of President Bashar al-Assad going to work as if nothing of import had happened. He was smiling, looking relaxed. What, if anything, does that say?

REBECCA COLLARD: Well I really think that reflects the bravado that we've seen from the Syrian government since these airstrikes were carried out on Saturday morning local time. That video of him kind of casually strolling into his office — his briefcase in hand — and if you listen closely it almost sounds like you could hear birds chirping in the background and it really puts forth the message that the Syrian government wanted which is that this has not affected them, this is not a significant attack on their military capabilities. And I'll also say that Syrians that I spoke to in Damascus, people on the ground, generally people who support of course the government really had that same sort of bravado. One of the women we spoke to, a 21-year-old student told us that essentially this is going to have the same impact that the strikes did one year ago and the effect essentially was going to be nothing. So generally the Syrian government, also from those in Damascus that are supporting the Syrian government, the message is that this hasn't had a big impact.

LL: OK, well that is perhaps not surprising given that they are government or government supporters. What about other Syrians, what are they saying?

REBECCA COLLARD: Yeah and I think that's really interesting, you know, people that I spoke to that are against the Syrian government, President Bashar al-Assad, and also those that I spoke to who actually treated victims of the alleged attack in Duma on April 7 obviously had something different to say. They also seem to agree that this wasn't going to have a huge impact. You know people in the Free Syrian Army, one of the commanders that we spoke with essentially said that you know they supported these airstrikes, they welcome these airstrikes of course against the Syrian government, but they weren't going to be enough, that they weren't going to have a huge impact. And I think that in some ways we've seen that wasn't the intention of these U.S. airstrikes to actually change the direction of the war and the U.S. has been relatively clear about that. The objective was to instead take out chemical weapons facilities. Now also I spoke with a medical student who treated victims of this alleged chemical on April 7. He to welcomed the strikes but said that he just didn't have faith that this was going to stop future chemical attacks and definitely didn't have faith that this was going to protect civilians. So many people in the opposition, those that were in Duma at the time of this alleged attack, essentially said they welcome the strikes but they're calling for more.

LL: OK, that was exactly my next question. What do you think Syrians who want to see Assad gone would have liked to see happen instead?

REBECCA COLLARD: I think they want to see the actual military capability of the Syrian government destroyed and you know the U.S. is clear that was not the objective. The objective here was not to stop Assad from being able to kind of attack rebel targets, to attack civilians, or anything like that. This was about chemical weapons not conventional weapons. And it's a little bit ironic as you look at you know estimates of around 400,000 people dead in Syria. Now most of those people weren't killed with chemical weapons. Most of those people were killed with conventional weapons. So it seems you know I think a bit strange to some of them and definitely people in the opposition have said so; the message here is you can't use chlorine but you can use barrel bombs.

LL: So is there any sense that these strikes actually destroyed Syria's chemical weapons capabilities?

REBECCA COLLARD: Obviously that's really difficult to tell without being able to be on the ground to see the facilities that were hit and to have an idea of what's left. But I think a really important point is that obviously when we talk about chemical weapons there are two very different things. There is sarin gas and other nerve agents and there is chlorine. So you know in this attack on Khan Sheikhoun that inspired the first U.S. strikes against the Syrian government in April of 2017, now that according to investigators was actually done with sarin gas which is of course a much more deadly nerve agent. But if we're talking about chlorine which is what's been used in most of the alleged chemical attacks by the Syrian government there's no real way to ensure that the Syrian government does not have chlorine. Obviously chlorine is a substance that's used for a number of purposes and it's easily weaponized and difficult to make sure that the Syrian government does not have those capabilities. So when we talk about chemical weapons whether or not these strikes actually took out facilities that were doing research and production into nerve agents or biological weapons; despite that even if that's true if it completely destroyed that capability it's really difficult to see how these strikes could have destroyed all the capability for the Syrian government to take control of chlorine or to weaponize it.

LL: There's a quote this morning from the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. He says “it is very important to stress the strikes are not an attempt to change the tide of the war in Syria or have regime change. I'm afraid the Syrian war will go on in its horrible, miserable way.” And I'm wondering Rebecca how much faith do you think Syrians have that the international community can or will do anything to help bring about an end to the war?

REBECCA COLLARD: I don't think Syrians and the opposition in opposition held areas have any faith. But I also think at this point I just don't see how that would be possible. Since Russia intervened on behalf of the Syrian government in 2015 we have really seen the tide of the war change. You know at that point it seemed that Assad's future was uncertain, rebels held a lot of territory in the country, but now you know three years or so later or almost three years later that is not the case. The rebels are being pushed into smaller and smaller territory and they're getting pushed farther and farther out. They no longer have a foothold near the capital and they're getting pushed into this territory that they still control in the north Idlib province. And I don't know what it would take militarily to change the tide of this war but I don't think there is any appetite from the international community to do that.

LL: Rebecca Collard, thank you very much.

REBECCA COLLARD: My pleasure.

LL: Rebecca Collard is a Canadian journalist based in Beirut. Among Syrian activists who have left the country because of the war, there is no conviction that these latest strikes will lead to real change for Syrian people still in the country. Lina Shamy is a Syrian anti-government activist, now living in Turkey.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It has no aim to remove Assad and to prevent Assad from killing the Syrian people as they did for seven years. It was just a political message from America to the other actors in Syria and it has no any other objectives. The most important it has no any other objectives of protecting the Syrian people or preventing Assad from killing the Syrian people. It does not help the people. It helps the American interests in Syria for me. But I want to say that any attack against Assad it is of course welcomed, but when we know that it is serious. But unfortunately we know that this attack was not serious enough and it has no aim to remove Assad from Syria.

LL: But British Prime Minister Theresa May, in announcing her country's participation in the airstrikes over the weekend, was clear about what they were intended and not intended to do.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change. It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region. We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalized.

LL: But what happens next is less clear. In the United States, defence officials initially described the airstrikes as a "one-time shot". But yesterday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the White House was prepared to take more action if needed.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The president has made it very clear that when it comes to weapons of mass destruction we have no tolerance for it. And so he made a point and hopefully Assad gets it. If Assad doesn't get it, it's going to hurt. He now dictates his life and he dictates what happens between the United States, our allies and his regime. And so hopefully he's gotten the message. It was a pretty strong message. Not only did we go after their absolute strongest research facility, we went after their storage units where they hold the products, and we went after their production. So we put a heavy blow into their chemical weapons program, setting them back years, and I'm sure that it's going to take them a lot to recover from it.

LL: Experts on the region, however, aren't so sure especially if the airstrikes aren't followed by a stronger response should chemical weapons be used in Syria again. Jonathan Cristol is a Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York where he's been watching these developments closely. Hello.

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Hi, how are you?

LL: Hi, I'm fine. First of all, let me ask you what you think of the airstrikes that were carried out. To what extent this was the right thing for the U.S., the U.K., and France to do?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Well I think it was the right thing to do. I think it is important that we show that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated and won't be normalized. I think that it remains to be seen how effective it is. You know I hope that Nikki Haley is right. I hope it does set Assad's capabilities in these regards back by years. I suspect it hasn't. But you know it's more important that he doesn't do it again than that he doesn't have the ability to do it again. And if he does do it again we do need to hit back harder. I think we are overly concerned about escalation with Russia and Iran. But you know I think we'll see over the next weeks and months. It's certainly too early to say. A year ago after we struck Assad it took him four months before he used chemical weapons again.

LL: Now you make the point that there was another attack four months after that. And as I said earlier the international organization that works toward the banning of all chemical weapons said there had been more than 300 alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria since 2014. So why do you think the U.S. chose to act this time?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Well frankly I think it's because in this particular case the images broke through the international media and President Trump we know is an avid consumer of cable news. I think in this case he probably saw the images. We know that the images have an impact on him. I don't think he particularly cares too deeply about the conflict itself. But he has a visceral response and he demands action when he sees it. So in these other instances I don't think that the awareness really broke through. And so my fear would be that if Assad continues to use these weapons and if we are sort of the average American is unaware of it that we may not do anything. Now the president's rhetoric about it I think makes it clear or should make it clear that we will act. But again you know that requires I think more of awareness in the White House and a desire to do it.

LL: Does that also explain though the UK's and France's decision to get involved with these airstrikes?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Well, no, not directly. But you know I think that this is something that perhaps no single one of these powers might have been willing to do on its own. And I think that that's actually reasonable. I think that it is much more effective to have this sort of broad coalition which actually goes beyond the U.S., U.K., and France because you also have the countries where we have bases — those three countries have bases — that have to get permission. You have the countries that gave permission to over flight and then you have the NATO's statement and other countries around the world that are supportive of this. So I think without a sort of U.S.-led coalition the impact would be not as great. And so there perhaps would be less willingness on the part of any given European ally to take it on themselves.

LL: So if chemical weapons are used again in Syria which a lot of people expect will happen what should the U.S. and its allies do?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: I think that we should hit back hard against the Syrian air force, the Syrian military capability, against their planes, against their helicopters, and against their runways. Now the fear that the White House seems to have and other observers have is that this would lead to some sort of war with Russia and I just don't see that happening. First of all we could warn the Russians that we were going to destroy this hardware and give them a chance to move their own people away from them, which is not an unreasonable thing to do. Both Russia and the United States have a very strong interest in not fighting each other and the idea that the Russians will just start a war with the U.S. if we accidentally you know kill Russian forces there I just find a bit farfetched. I'm not particularly concerned about it.

LL: So you're advocating a broader attack that isn't aimed at chemical weapons, that is aimed at basic military capabilities of the Assad regime. What are the chances that the White House would decide to do that?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: I think that the odds aren't zero but I think that it is unlikely. President Trump I think we've seen over the last year-plus is extremely concerned about Russia and the Russian response. He doesn't seem to be willing to push too hard against them in any particular way. But you know you also now have the influence of John Bolton. So I think that it is possible...

LL: Who is the president's new national security adviser, yes.

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Yes.

LL: Go ahead.

JONATHAN CRISTOL: John Bolton really as an advocate of a strong military response pretty much everywhere at any given moment which I don't think is necessarily wise. But in this case I think it is possible that we will hit back harder against Assad's military. I certainly wouldn't count on it but I would hope that we would do that. Again, only in the use of if he uses chemical weapons, I am supportive of the statements of all of the allies on this that we should not be further involved in the Syrian civil war, this isn't aimed at regime change. But there is a broader issue. You know deterrence against Assad and chemical weapons has already failed. We have failed to deter them. He's used it repeatedly. What we can't allow is for other states around the world that may be involved in conflicts now or in the future that aren't backed by a major nuclear power allow them to think that they can get away with using chemical weapons. So there's a broader deterrent effect against the normalization of chemical weapons.

LL: The investigators from the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons arrived in Syria on Saturday to begin an investigation into this alleged chemical attack in Duma. At this point does it matter what they find?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Well I think it matters to some people. I think that you have people who will never trust the word of the United States and its allies that chemical weapons were used or that they were used by the Assad regime. Any instance like this brings out the conspiracy theorists. In some cases I think that they are the sort of conspiracy fringe you know might be convinced by what the international inspectors find. But you know I suspect not. But you know it is important. I think it's always important to get as broad a study done as possible and see exactly what was used just for intelligence purposes and to empower the inspectors.

LL: So today the United States is talking about new economic sanctions against companies that are working with Syria on chemical weapons. There's likely to be a renewed push at the UN for a diplomatic solution. How likely do you think that is to happen?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: I think the odds of any diplomatic solution happening at the UN are about 0.0. And if you could go lower than that it would go even lower. Russia will block any possible U.S.-led solution to any problem in Syria. You'll hear a lot of probably clever one liners coming from Nikki Haley and from some of her counterparts. But in the end the Russians will veto. China will probably veto. Nothing with teeth will happen at the UN related to this.

LL: So we have about 30 seconds left and I just want to ask you given all of this where does that leave the people of Syria?

JONATHAN CRISTOL: I wish that there were better news, but I think that the war is going to continue. There are no signs of it really letting up. In fact it's probably getting worse. So you know I think it's a great tragedy and certainly there are things we could do in letting in more refugees into the United States. But it's a very sad situation and I don't see any good outcome.

LL: Jonathan Cristol, I thank you for your time.

JONATHAN CRISTOL: Thank you.

LL: Jonathan Cristol is a Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York, where we reached him. The CBC News is next. Then, after yesterday's meeting between the Prime Minister, and B.C. and Alberta premiers, differences over the Trans Mountain pipeline project don't seem much closer to being resolved. We'll get an update when we return. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Is the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline in the 'national interest?'

Guests: Jim Carr, Elizabeth May, Deron Bilous

LL: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti this week. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, the South Selkirk caribou herd in B.C. is in worse trouble than anyone knew. It's down to three caribou — all females. Biologists in Canada and the U.S. are stunned as they watch these animals disappear and wonder what, if anything, can be done to save them. But first, pipeline politics.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I have instructed the minister of finance to initiate formal financial discussion with Kinder Morgan, the result of which will be to remove the uncertainty overhanging the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Construction will go ahead. I have also informed Premiers Notley and Horgan that we are actively pursuing legislative options that will assert plus reinforce the government of Canada's jurisdiction in this matter which we know we clearly have.

LL: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking yesterday after his meeting on Parliament Hill with British Columbia Premier John Horgan and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. It was hoped the three leaders would come to some kind of an agreement to break the impasse over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and quell concerns about what that impasse is doing to national unity. But it was clear the conflict is far from over. Premier Horgan described the meeting as collegial but vowed to press ahead with his bid to have the courts weigh in on whether the province has a constitutional right to weigh in on the project.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We remain committed to ensuring that we're protecting our jurisdiction in this regard. And although we agree today, the Prime Minister and I, that we'll do everything in our power, he and me, to ensure that we are protecting our coast, I and he, will not be in power forever. And that's why the jurisdictional question is so critically important.

LL: Premier Notley, for her part, said economic consequences aimed at B.C. were on the way.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: What we look forward to doing this week is introducing into our legislature legislation that will give Alberta the authority to strategically deploy the export of its resources in a way that gets the best return for Albertans and maximizes the prices that it can receive.

LL: So British Columbia remains at odds with Ottawa and Alberta over expansion plans for the Trans Mountain Pipeline. All this comes as the pipeline project's owner — Texas-based Kinder Morgan — has set a deadline of May 31st for assurances the project can go ahead. Joining me now is Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr. He is in Ottawa. Hello.

JIM CARR: Good morning.

LL: Why wasn't an agreement reached yesterday?

JIM CARR: Because the premier of British Columbia doesn't want the pipeline built and the government of Canada and the government of Alberta does. Premier Horgan is concerned about the coast and so are we, so concerned that we announced a billion dollars and a half investment in the Ocean Protection Plan and we're prepared to sit down with the government of British Columbia to look at ways in which the coast could be even better protected. Keep in mind that the increase in tanker traffic is one vessel a day and we are prepared to accompany that vessel. These are double-hulled. But if more can be done and more will give greater certainty and greater comfort to the British Columbia government, we're pleased to look at ways with them.

LL: Well I was going to ask you, do you recognize the legitimacy of Premier Horgan’s concerns?

JIM CARR: Yes and we've not only recognized it but we've acted on it with unprecedented investment that will give us world class response mechanisms in Canada.

LL: Can you give us any more detail on the next steps the federal government's going to take?

JIM CARR: The Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Finance to enter into financial discussions with Kinder Morgan. The problem with Kinder Morgan is that they're now at the verge of having to increase their spending from about $20 million a month to about $250 million a month and they're not prepared to do that until they have greater certainty that the project will actually be completed. The uncertainty is mostly rooted in indirect conversations that the British Columbia government have had with the country saying that they might frame a reference case to a court.

LL: I don't think it's "might." I think it's "will."

JIM CARR: Well but I haven't seen the question and we haven't seen the court so you can understand how that ambiguity is troubling for investors who are asked to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars. So it's that uncertainty that caused Kinder Morgan to say we've got to know more by May 31st.

LL: Well help me figure something out here because you just raised the question of the court case and as the potential reference there is another court case that we're waiting to hear a ruling on that was started by Indigenous groups and environmentalists and the provinces are also involved in that case. How can you possibly give Kinder Morgan the assurances it wants, the guarantees it wants, when you still have these outstanding court cases?

JIM CARR: Well it's not possible to speculate on what a court might do.

LL: Exactly.

LL: Yeah. You look at what other courts have done and in the case of this project the courts and the National Energy Board have sided with the proponent but you don't know for sure and you don't even know what the timing is for sure. So that is an inherent risk that any proponent has to live with.

LL: Are you saying that Kinder Morgan is prepared to live with that risk?

JIM CARR: You'd have to ask Kinder Morgan. We know it's an uncertainty. We don't know exactly when that uncertainty will be cleared away or how. That is certainly a factor out there. But so is the threat of continuing court cases, even a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada would take 12 months or 18 months, maybe longer. And that's not the kind of timeline that's consistent with decision making that would see this project built in a timely way.

LL: Exactly. So that brings me again to ask, how can you possibly give Kinder Morgan the kind of assurances that they want?

JIM CARR: We can give them the assurances that the project will be considerably derisked and we have ways in which that can be done. We'll listen very carefully to what comes out of the conversations that the finance minister has with Kinder Morgan. There are many options available to the government of Canada and they will all be considered

LL: OK, derisking; you can give them financial guarantees, you could possibly come close to nationalizing this project, but what is it exactly that you can do to guarantee them that this will go forward?

JIM CARR: I can't tell you that. I can't tell you that before there are serious conversations between Kinder Morgan and the finance department. I know that there had been some conversations and they continue with the added urgency of a May 31st deadline and the mandate that was given to the finance ministry yesterday by the prime minister.

LL: Legislatively, what can the government do?

JIM CARR: Well we're looking at those options to be a reassertion of federal jurisdiction. We believe we have federal jurisdiction that courts, including the Supreme Court have said that when it comes to the movement of natural resources across Canadian provincial borders, the government of Canada has the jurisdiction to act, to approve pipelines that are in the national interest.

LL: So isn't that redundant to actually create legislation to affirm what you already say you have?

JIM CARR: Well it's sometimes very useful to use reminders and there may be other legislative tools that are available to us.

LL: The prime minister has also said that the government will enter into these financial discussions with a mind to giving them the assurance they want and I know you don't want to give too much detail, but do you even know how far the government is willing to go to give Kinder Morgan those kinds of financial assurances or is it still a matter of negotiation?

JIM CARR: No, but I can tell you what the stakes are and I think that's a fair margin of your question that this is a project that will yield literally tens of billions of dollars for Canadian governments. It's a project that will open up Asian markets to Canadian heavy crude. Ninety-nine per cent of our exports of oil and gas go to one country the United States. We don't think that's healthy for Canada. There will be thousands of jobs created directly and indirectly and we also know that this unprecedented investment in ocean protection is part of a bigger strategy for Canada which is that environmental stewardship and economic growth go hand in hand.

LL: Within the concerns that First Nations and others have raised about the process that led to the cabinet approving of this project was the fact that the NEB didn't really do a thorough enough study of what the kind of oil that's going to be going into these pipelines and onto these ships what effect it would have on the coastal waters if there is a spill.

JIM CARR: Well we learned the lessons of the Northern Gateway case that was quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal. It was quashed not because Enbridge the proponent didn't sufficiently consult, wasn't it because the National Energy Board didn't, it was because the Harper Government didn't and it didn't pass the test. So when we had to look at the process going forward with TMX we said it well it wouldn't make much sense to use a failed process..

[Crosstalk]

LL: But that's not what I was asking about...

JIM CARR: Well yeah because we enhanced it considerably. We added...

LL: Are you satisfied though that the studies have been done to your satisfaction about the effect of a possible spill of this kind of oil in coastal waters?

JIM CARR: Yes.

LL: What is it going to do?

JIM CARR: Well we believe that the science is been made clear, we're in better shape than we've ever been before; we have these double-hulled ships, we have response mechanisms that will be best in the world, and that we are in a place where there is a good reason to move forward with the project. The uncertainties in the Burrard Inlet are far more intense with other traffic than they would be with a double-hulled ship.

LL: But double-hulled ships are no guarantee. There was even an accident in January and a double-hulled ship where the oil leaked from it, so you can't rely on that.

JIM CARR: Well you're asking for iron clad guarantees. It all comes down to what is reasonable under the circumstances and we in science and many others believe that given the very modest increase in traffic and the kinds of precautions that have been taken and will be taken that on balance it's a worthwhile decision for governments to make, and part of the 157 conditions, by the way, that were laid out by the National Energy Board.

LL: What happens if you can't get B.C. to say yes by May 31st?

JIM CARR: Well I think that that's you know in the realm of what's likely. So what would happen is that the government of Canada would ensure that the project would proceed and we're now working out ways with Kinder Morgan to determine the kind of financial risk that they will tolerate because we think that this sends a very important message to investors. The consequences of this project not going through go well beyond the fate of one pipeline and will impact provinces such as British Columbia when international investors look at this and say you have a federally approved pipeline and one province wants to stop it. And the implication of that decision by a province when a federal government has jurisdiction over a project is not healthy for investment in the Canadian economy, and not only in the natural resource sector.

LL: Are you concerned about what this is going to do to your party's standing in B.C.?

JIM CARR: Laura, the Prime Minister makes the same speech in Vancouver and Nanaimo that he makes in Fort McMurray in Calgary. There's only one government of Canada. This pipeline is in our interest for all the reasons that I've expressed and the Prime Minister has expressed for many months now. We think that there are many, many people in the province of British Columbia who believe that developing our resources sustainably, moving them to market more safely, that is to say, not on rail but through pipeline, expanding our export markets to reduce reliance on the United States, doing everything that we can to ensure the safety of the movement of these resources, all of this combined along with consultation and partnership with Indigenous peoples, many of whom by the way stand to benefit from this pipeline, is in Canada's interests.

LL: Minister, thank you for your time.

JIM CARR: You're very welcome.

LL: That is Jim Carr, federal minister of natural resources. He is in Ottawa. The dispute over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion has exposed political divisions between B.C. and Alberta and within them. Joining me now are two politicians with very different views on the risks and benefits of the pipeline. Elizabeth May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and she is a British Columbia MP. She's in our Ottawa studio. And Deron Bilous is Alberta's minister of economic development and trade. He joins us from Edmonton. Hello to you both.

ELIZABETH MAY: Good morning, Laura.

DERON BILOUS: Good morning.

LL: Elizabeth May, what do you make of the outcome of yesterday's meeting?

ELIZABETH MAY: Well it was predictable because this is not something, as your questions to Minister Carr suggested, this is not something the federal government can guarantee. And I think it's lamentable that the recent discourse across this country seems to be let's get up a lynch mob and really take B.C. out behind the woodshed without looking at some fundamentals like the National Energy Board has not yet given Kinder Morgan a permit beyond working on its marine terminal at Westridge because Kinder Morgan has not yet fulfilled many of the conditions that were attached to its permit and those permits themselves, as your questions raise, are at moment subject to over 15 different court challenges. And while Jim Carr’s right we don't know when the court will decide we do know that those cases were heard as a consolidated hearing in October of last year and the Federal Court of Appeal could rule any day on whether those permits were issued legally. From the vantage point of Indigenous rights or from the rights to have issues reviewed properly by the City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby, and so on. So to say we're going to get some politicians together in a room and we're going to make sure that a project which now lacks any commercial viability which is why Kinder Morgan's shareholders are calling a halt for a moment here.

[Crosstalk]

LL: They're not saying it's because of that. They're saying because the uncertainty, because of B.C.'s opposition.

ELIZABETH MAY: That's what they're saying. But look what they've been able to raise in the markets. They haven't raised the capital they need. They don't have long term contracts. The amount of bitumen and that's the substance you were talking to the minister about; bitumen mixed with diluent can't be cleaned up. But it's also not something which is selling well out of the current terminal and the current pipeline because bitumen mixed with diluent is not a product that the Asian market is clamoring for, in fact demand is going down.

ELIZABETH MAY: Deron Bilous, Rachel Notley has consistently said before and after this meeting that there is only one possible outcome for Alberta that the pipeline gets built. Do you think this meeting brought that outcome any closer?

DERON BILOUS: Well I'm not sure if the meeting brought the committee closer. But I can tell you that that our government and Premier Notley's been very clear that we will do whatever it takes to ensure the Trans Mountain pipeline gets built. We are moving forward with that including bringing in legislation this week that will give us the ability to ensure that we get our products to tidewater. But you know we've been clear that if the government of British Columbia persists in attacking our workers and our economy that they're going to face serious consequences.

LL: What are those consequences?

DERON BILOUS: Well without releasing details of the bill that will be introduced very, very soon; [unintelligible] said that we’ll do everything in our power to ensure this pipeline moves forward. There are a number of tools that we have in our toolbox that we're prepared to use. First of all I think there's still uncertainty around the importance of the Trans Mountain pipeline. First of all this is the twinning of an existing pipeline. This is about increasing our capacity of what we send to international markets. At the moment we ship 99 per cent of our resources to the U.S. and because of it Canadians have subsidized Trump's America to the tune of $130 billion. That's money that could be going into our schools and roads and hospitals and fund programs that Canadians rely on. You know this project as well as Minister Carr was saying, we talked about in the national interest, investors from around the world to invest in Canada are now questioning how safe investments are because you have one subnational government that is overstepping its bounds and testing the rule of law...

LL: I want to let Elizabeth May respond to that.

DERON BILOUS: Sure.

ELIZABETH MAY: The government of British Columbia has absolutely at this point premier John Horgan and I certainly support his efforts to draw attention to the issues that were not reviewed properly, no matter what Jim Carr just said about the science on cleaning up dilbit. Canada's leading scientific academy, The Royal Society of Canada, did a complete review of the nature of dilbit in the marine environment said we don't know how to clean this up, it'll take a long time to know if we can clean this up. But what we're looking at is not British Columbia overstepping its bounds. At this point the province of British Columbia has done absolutely nothing to slow down the Kinder Morgan project, as I mentioned regardless of whether John Horgan...

LL: It's created an environment though...

ELIZABETH MAY: Well no I mean it's a political conversation. But the reality of what Kinder Morgan is looking at, those court cases at the Federal Court of Appeal, the only difference by having Premier Horgan versus Premier Christy Clark is that Premier Horgan at instructed the government of British Columbia to intervene on the side of the many, many, many applicants who want the permits declared invalid. But the court cases were going ahead anyway. That's a major uncertainty hanging over the permits because we don't know how the Federal Court of Appeal will rule, but those cases are not quixotic, they’re strong grounds to question whether those permits were issued properly because as Justin Trudeau said himself during the election campaign no project can be approved that went through that flawed process and they did not remedy the process.

ELIZABETH MAY: And again I want to go back to Deron Bilous on this point of the uncertainty that these court cases, the impact they still have of hovering over the project. Alberta has intervened in the court case and it's in court arguing as well. So again I ask how can you give Kinder Morgan the guarantees it wants?

DERON BILOUS: Well so there are a number of things that we've done as you just pointed out that we've entered an intervener status. If you look at our track record so far there have been 14 times this has gone before the courts. Albert has been successful in all 14 of them. In fact the last one the Court of Appeal refused to even hear the case being made because Trans Mountain, Kinder Morgan have gone through a rigorous process...

[Crosstalk]

LL: But there still is a case. But minister there still is a case outstanding even though one case has been decided against those who were trying to challenge it. There are still other cases outstanding so how can you say that...

DERON BILOUS: I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And so if you look at our track record thus far that the courts have ruled in favor of Kinder Morgan, no I can't predict the outcome of the court. But what we do have and what we can do, we will, and that is stepping in intervener status. But also you know this week we'll be introducing legislation that will give us the ability to bring in some tools that I can tell you to people in the lower mainland at the pumps are probably not going to be appreciative when their prices skyrocket.

ELIZABETH MAY: Yeah, Deron, what’s really distressing here is you're an NDP government. I would have thought you would have paid attention to the concerns of the largest trade union in northern Alberta, Unifor that intervened in the kinder Morgan process before the National Energy Board to argue that building the Kinder Morgan pipeline will cost Canada jobs. There is no independent study to say it will create jobs and the National Energy Board declined to accept the evidence of Unifor because the NEB said that jobs and the economy were outside the mandate of what they were reviewing in that process. I was an intervener before the Kinder Morgan NEB process and I can assure you it was neither robust, nor thorough, it was laughable. And I hope that we will hear more of that because this isn't just one more court case. The consolidated hearing of over 15 different cases is the case that the permits were issued in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples, in violation of our climate commitments, and in violation of fair process for those interveners as I did spent two years trying to bring the facts to light before a process that said we don't have time to hear from interveners because we have these very tight timelines.

LL: I want to give the minister a chance to respond.

DERON BILOUS: Yeah I'd love to respond to this. So let's talk about this this pipeline which is in the national interest and when we say that this is about creating tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of GDP.

[Crosstalk]

ELIZABETH MAY: Please show me an independent study.

LL: Ms. May, let him respond please.

DERON BILOUS: There is not a road, a school, a hospital, a bridge, or a bike lane that does not owe something to a strong Alberta energy sector and this project will help continue to contribute to that. It's also talking about the Indigenous communities because Elizabeth there are 43 Indigenous community who have mutual benefit agreements with Kinder Morgan and who are frustrated that people are standing up and saying Indigenous communities across the country are opposed to this project and it's simply not true. There are 33 in British Columbia alone along this route that have mutual benefit agreements that want to see this project move forward.

ELIZABETH MAY: The people who are saying that this violates Indigenous rights include the Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the British Columbia Union of Indian Chiefs, the entire executive of the B.C., entire council of Indian chiefs of British Columbia were standing in front of the gates at Kinder Morgan. Within my riding Tsartlip First Nation which has protected rights under the Douglas Treaties has never been consulted. So yes there are benefit agreements to some First Nations and those are important to consider, but by far when you look at the Tsleil-Waututh, the Musqueam, the Squamish, and their strong rights at exactly the place where the risks are greatest. And by the way it's not just our coastline and it's not just a twinned pipeline as though there's no new route they will be building an additional and different pipeline carrying dilbit through remote areas of British Columbia and between the Alberta B.C. border and Vancouver they'll be crossing 800 watercourses and you can't clean up dilbit in a freshwater environment any more than you can in the marine environment. And British Columbians and First Nations within British Columbia have every right to insist that the science on dilbit be much better than the [unintelligible] piece of work that was submitted to the NEB from Kinder Morgan.

LL: Mr. Bilous I just want to bring up one other thing with you. We've talked about uncertainty that is raised by court cases but there also are continuing protests in Burnaby over this pipeline project. Elizabeth May has been arrested for trying to protest this. Given that in addition to the court cases, how do you see the future of this project?

DERON BILOUS: Well you know what Premier Notley has been very clear that there is only one outcome for this project and only one outcome acceptable. You know again I appreciate you know people of British Columbia wanting to ensure that their waterways are safe and that this pipeline is safe. You know there are some facts like pipelines are the safest mode of transportation.

[Crosstalk]

ELIZABETH MAY: That's not a fact.

LL: Ms. May, we only have 30 seconds left.

DERON BILOUS: We've lost on $130 billion that has gone to the U.S. We're subsidizing their energy markets because we do not have more than one buyer. We lose almost $30 per barrel.

LL: Minister and Ms. May, we are going to have to leave it there, but I thank you very much. We'll be talking about this again.

[Crosstalk]

ELIZABETH MAY: I ask the listeners to double check the so called facts because those weren't facts and climate has to be our number one concern.

LL: Thank you.

DERON BILOUS: Thank you very much.

LL: Thanks to both of you. Deron Bilous is Alberta's minister of economic development and trade. He was in Edmonton. And Elizabeth May is leader of the Green Party of Canada. She was in our Ottawa studio. Coming up in our next half hour, the last herd of mountain caribou that migrates from B.C. to the U.S. is down to three animals. And they're all females. We'll explore what, if anything can be done to save them. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

How a B.C. caribou herd on verge of extinction is making a comeback

Guests: Bob Keating, Leo DeGroot, Scott McNay

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch in for Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We have heard a for a while that the censuses were not going well for the South Selkirk herd and for other herds, and we have been in touch with the ministry over the last days and weeks, to see if the situation was improving, and it was confirmed for us late yesterday that they don't believe there are any more than three animals in the South Selkirk herd, and that the only animals they could find were females.

LL: An iconic species: the mountain caribou, reindeer as they're called in Europe. Mountain caribou numbers are in free fall in British Columbia and Alberta and it's even worse in the western United States. Candace Batycki, whom we just heard, is one of many conservationists alarmed by the latest numbers. Last week, biologists flew over southern B.C. to count the number of caribou in the last remaining herd that migrates from B.C. to the U.S. What they saw stunned them. The only herd left that drifts into the lower 48 states is down to three animals. Three caribou - all of them female. The mountain caribou is on the verge of disappearing from the landscape south of the border. And it's a dire warning to Canada. Bob Keating is a CBC reporter in Nelson, in southern B.C. Hello Bob.

BOB KEATING: Morning, Laura.

LL: Why were biologists counting mountain caribou this month?

BOB KEATING: They do a periodic census or count of caribou here in B.C. because they’re listed as threatened and are in real decline here and in Alberta as well. There's a management plan in place to try and bring them back and as part of that they fly over B.C. and count caribou in herds that have been collared and can be tracked. In the last couple weeks biologists here in the Kootenays have out trying to count the South Selkirk herd. The South Selkirk herd is the most southerly herd in North America and the only caribou to range in the lower 48 states.

LL: And we heard Candace say the herd has been in trouble for a while.

BOB KEATING: For decades. When they did their census this time they were in real trouble. They only found as you said three caribou. They were in such disbelief they flew it again and sure enough only three mountain caribou left in this herd. And that means only three left that range into the United States from B.C. They are now the single most endangered mammal in the U.S. One avalanche, voracious wolf pack, even one highway accident and the caribou are gone down there.

LL: Can you give us a little more context of what the deterioration of the herds, not just this one, but others have been like over the years?

BOB KEATING: It's been terrible over the years. They started as an animal that First Nations here relied on all through the West. They dwindled across the prairies over the years and then in B.C. and Alberta was their last sort of foothold in Canada and they're dwindling here again. They're down 15 per cent in this one count alone. There were 4,500 caribou last year. They only counted 3,800 this year. That's how much they're declining but nothing like the South Selkirk herd, down to three.

LL: Right. And when people got word of what had happened to this one particular herd how did they take it?

BOB KEATING: They take it with shock. There has been so much work done on this herd — hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and countless hours to try and keep them alive and there's only these three left. I want to come back to Candace Batycki. She’s conservationist here in Nelson. She’s the one who tipped me off about this stunning caribou count and I met her at a coffee shop downtown to talk more about it. Listen to part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: It looks pretty dire to be honest. They don't know if those females are pregnant. Certainly three animals, we are calling that functional extirpation. It’s the functional loss of that herd. It’s hard to imagine even extreme measures, even extreme measures being taken to improve the situation. Like many other herds we see across caribou habitat after they get to a certain size, they tend to wink out, disappear off the landscape.

VOICE 2: And this is not just any herd?

VOICE 1: This is the international South Selkirk herd, which is shared with the U.S. This herd is the last remaining caribou that uses the lower 48. There is a lot of interest in this herd, from the U.S .government and tribes, as well as the conservation movement in the U.S. So yes this will come as a major blow to people interested in caribou recovery in the lower 48.

LL: So Bob a major blow, possibly the end of this particular herd, what is killing them?

BOB KEATING: So many factors. Biologists think it's all just theories: climate change, habitat destruction, logging, highways as I mentioned, and especially predators. Most biologists agree wolves in particular are just slaughtering caribou.

LL: But B.C. has tried to stop that decline with wolf culls, haven't they?

BOB KEATING: Yes. Yes very controversial wolf culls here in B.C. where the government actually hires sharpshooters to shoot wolves from helicopters to try and keep their numbers down because they're such a voracious killer. In one part of B.C. Laura — central B.C. up north Revelstoke — B.C. biologist actually allowed hunters to shoot most of the moose, almost all of the moose, because with fewer moose there would be fewer wolves who also happened to kill caribou almost of by catch. That's how desperate this has grown; killing moose because moose draw wolves and wolves hunt caribou.

LL: What else then has been done because I guess it's not working? What else has been done to try to save the caribou?

BOB KEATING: You name it. There's been a cross border panel of experts working on just this one herd for decades. They've transplanted other caribou into the herd three separate times. They've banned snowmobiling in huge swaths of southern B.C. They've kept logging out of 80 per cent of the South Selkirk herds range and still the herd is dying out. They're just at wit's ends here and there are also maternity pens — I didn't mention that.

LL: Pardon me, maternity pens?

BOB KEATING: Yes, maternity pen's if you can believe it. I think there are three of them now in B.C. alone. Think about that. There's these actual pens out there deep in the bush, maternity wards with shepherds to watch over the caribou, old growth lichen picked by volunteers. One of them was built by a First Nation in Washington State who raised money and built a maternity pen in the B.C. for this herd. The plan was to net the pregnant cows from the herd and put them in this pen deep in the B.C. bush so they could give birth to their calves, rear them for a few weeks away from wolves and cougars where they have a far better chance of survival. Maternity pens are an experimental tool being used to save caribou in Canada. They are most vulnerable at calving time and often have a survival rate of 20 per cent. So the Kalispel tribe spent its own money to build this pen in B.C. in a desperate measure to keep this herd from disappearing.

LL: So what happened?

BOB KEATING: Two things happened. One they got the maternity pen built but it snowed so much this year in the B.C. back country the pen is completely covered in snow. The fence is 12 to 14 feet high but so is the snow pack. We had a freakishly snowy year and the maternity pen isn't high enough to hold the caribou. I chatted with Mike Lithgow from the tribe in Washington State by phone. The Kalispel tribe and others it in the western U.S. used to rely on caribou to stay alive. Now, Lithgow says most U.S. Tribe members have never seen a caribou.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: They are a very culturally significant animal in the history of our Kalispel tribe. They were harvested seasonally, they were an important species on the landscape, and so we believe from a cultural perspective and from an environmental perspective, we don't want to see any species extirpated and so we feel like it's the right thing to do to restore them to their habitat. But the population is, yeah, it's on the brink of being lost forever.

LL: So if the pens aren't saving the caribou and all the other efforts over the years haven't saved the caribou, what else can they do?

BOB KEATING: That's the million dollar question. I spoke to biologists and conservationist even hunters and they don't know what to do. I get the impression the biologists on both sides of the border are stunned by the news there's only three of them left and wondering themselves what to do next. I think what they would have done was netted these caribou and put them in that maternity pen for now. But it's not an option. There's talk of moving them to another herd, moving these three to another herd, but that's stressful on the caribou and it hasn't worked in the past. Just 10 years ago this herd was 49 animals strong from transplants from other herds. Now it's three as we said. I spoke with an American scientist Jodi Hilty who just happened to be in Nelson giving a speech when word came out this herd was almost finished. Listen to her.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Every time you move an animal, there's a risk, and with three individuals left, the question really is what the government is committed to doing - both governments, in the U.S. and the Canadian side and whether they're seriously going to try to restore both the habitat and caribou in this region.

VOICE 2: What do we lose, or do the Americans lose if we lose these caribou?

VOICE 1: We lose the integrity of an ecosystem that we share together, and we collectively should be looking at what is happening in this border region, what are our values, not just for today's generations, but for future generations.

VOICE 2: And the Americans actually lose caribou?

VOICE 1: They do, yes, it is a huge loss. They are one of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring animals I have ever seen.

BOB KEATING: I would agree with that sentiment Laura. There's something about caribou that is so iconic and Canadian and majestic. I was lucky enough to see this herd crossing the highway about eight years ago and I'm sure glad I did. Because the way things are going now my kids may never see a caribou here. And down south in the United States I think it might be over. With three lone females left, I can't see how the mountain caribou is going to survive. And that's sad. Caribou by the way are the oldest mammal on this continent, far older than humans. Caribou have survived ice ages but they can't survive us.

LL: It is a sad tale. Bob thanks for telling us about it.

BOB KEATING: You're welcome, Laura.

LL: Bob Keating is a CBC reporter. He was in Nelson, B.C. My next guest knows the South Selkirk Caribou well. Leo Degroot is a wildlife biologist with the B.C. government, where he has worked in monitoring and herd conservation for 15 years. We've reached him at home in Nelson, B.C. Hello.

LEO DEGROOT: Good morning, Laura.

LL: After so many years of working with the caribou, how did you feel to learn that the number was down to three?

LEO DEGROOT: Oh it's very sad, yeah, it's not a good feeling.

LL: Why?

LEO DEGROOT: These caribou are very unique. We call them the deep snow caribou... We call them mountain caribou as well range from the South Selkirk to just north of Prince George in the interior wet belt and are the only caribou or reindeer which are all the same species in the world that seek out the deep snow and live off of tree or boreal lichens instead of ground lichens like the rest of the caribou and reindeer in the world.

LL: So they move up the mountainside and feed off the trees. Is that the way it works?

LEO DEGROOT: That's correct. Yeah, pretty much 100 per cent of their winter diet are boreal lichens.

LL: I've also heard them referred to as Grey Ghosts. Where does that name come from?

LEO DEGROOT: I think that name is not a term the biologists often use but I think it's a term that came up because most people rarely ever see them.

LL: Do you have any idea what kind of numbers there were when this particular herd was at its peak?

LEO DEGROOT: Well historically they were probably pretty much continuous from the highlands above [unintelligible] right to the Rocky Mountains. They are continuous and their range has shrunk considerably too. We probably in the area that we now call the South Selkirk caribou population was probably around 100.

LL: At its peak?

LEO DEGROOT: We don't really know. We only have had systematic surveys since the 1970s. But they were very likely always at low densities but over a much larger areas than in more recent times.

LL: What started the decline in the population then?

LEO DEGROOT: Very likely from when Europeans first arrived in this area overhunting was likely the first hit. And that was very likely the main reason for the contraction to a much smaller range. You know the attitude 100-150 years ago was often that our wildlife was endless and we could take as many as we want and often early explorers and settlers would come across a group and shoot the whole group. But luckily in the mid-1900s those attitudes changed and hunting was totally banned and then other impacts came.

LL: And Bob talked about the wolves as predators. But how is development over the years affected the herd?

LEO DEGROOT: Well the predation is facilitated we think largely by the changes in habitat that humans have caused. The Caribou strategy was to be spread out over large areas of old forest in relatively low densities where it wasn't worth wolf or a cougar to try and make a living off of caribou. They were just too hard to find. They would be down in the valleys where the deer, elk, and moose were, and the forest harvesting generally enhances the habitat for the next 30 or 40 years after forest harvesting habitat is basically enhanced for moose, elk, and deer. So high elevation logging has brought the elk, moose, and deer into the higher elevations and now all of a sudden the wolves and cougars can make a living up high because there's elk, moose, and deer and then they come across the caribou as well and they won't pass up the caribou. Caribou are often easier prey and the caribou pay the price.

LL: I want to bring someone else into the conversation. Scott McNay is a wildlife biologist who has worked in caribou conservation for thirty years. He is now a private consultant and has worked with the West Moberly and Saulteau First Nations to revive the area's Klinse-Za caribou herd. Hello.

SCOTT MCNAY: Good morning, Laura.

LL: Scott, how big was the Klinse-Za herd when you got involved in helping it recover?

SCOTT MCNAY: Yeah when the First Nations first took initiative on this recovery program that I work on now the Klinse-Za herd was about 16 animals at that point, was down from 25 in 2012 and 35 in 2011, and it was 191 in 1997, so not that long ago it was in pretty good numbers but a pretty steep decline recently.

LL: And how big is the herd now?

SCOTT MCNAY: So with the efforts that we've been doing it's a little complicated because we had to mix the Klinse-Za herd with another adjacent herd. It was also small, about 20 animals. So totally in 2013 there were about 36 animals that we’re up to 67.

LL: So is that all a result of mixing the herds?

SCOTT MCNAY: Oh no, we have a maternity pen. There are all kinds of efforts that we have going on here: Habitat protection, restoration, the maternity pen, removal of wolves on the ground, First Nations have a trapping program going as well, government has an aerial removal program going as well so lots of different recovery actions all at once.

LL: So you used a maternity pen that Bob had talked about earlier that didn't work in South Selkirk because of the snow. Was that the only difference? Why did it work where you were working?

SCOTT MCNAY: Yeah I don't think we're doing anything better than anywhere else in the province. You know I think really the reason why it's working here is we're just doing — we're throwing everything at the recovery effort. I mean we just started with the pen and got 10 animals in there, worked out fine. And it's a slow process. I mean we're only turning out you know three, four animals more a year kind of thing. But it's a slow process, but it's working. And the First Nations are really strongly involved in this. That's their initiative. And they're really throwing everything they can at the recovery effort you know protecting the land, looking at recreation control, whole bunch of different things once.

LL: And was it the First Nations that paid for this?

SCOTT MCNAY: Well the effort was initially funded a lot by industry believe it or not. The industry came up and wanted to work with the First Nations to get a strong recovery program going. And so industry was the one that kind of really launched it off the ground and now it's both the federal provincial governments and a whole long list of different funding sources that helped keep the program going great.

LL: Leo Degroot you've been listening to this do you think an effort like the one Scott describes could have saved the South Selkirk herd?

LEO DEGROOT: It could have. It definitely could have helped. But this year was to be the first year for the maternity pen here but because of the deep snow the caribou weren't even put in the pen.

LL: Right. And Bob described that. But why wasn't maternal penning tried sooner?

LEO DEGROOT: Yeah. Good question. Maternal penning is a relatively new technique in the last decade and very expensive as well. It could have been tried. You know these are basically initiated as trials [Unintelligible].

LL: OK.

LEO DEGROOT: A new technique and we can't you know try it everywhere at once.

LL: Scott what did you learn from the project that you that you think could be applied to other recovery efforts?

SCOTT MCNAY: Well there had been two other experimental maternity pen projects. One in the little smoky area in Alberta and one in Yukon and we basically went to the biologists that ran those programs and got their input on how to go about doing a maternity pen. We had no idea what we were doing at the start and it was totally just a risk experiment that we thought we had to do. You know First Nations had to grapple with the fact that it was very invasive. And you know we came to grips with that. And just threw everything at it.

LL: Actually can you describe this for me a little bit more, what it means to have a maternity pen, what you did with it?

SCOTT MCNAY: So yeah, you know, the maternity we started with was about seven hectares in size and we just basically geotextile hung over some airline cable in the woods that you string around the trees.

LL: Just a big fence in other words.

SCOTT MCNAY: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, just a big fence really and you know we put 10 animals in at the start five from the Klinse-Za herd of five from the [unintelligible] herd and the caribou actually settle down pretty good once they're in the pen. We feed them with the supplemental food ration every day, twice a day. There are shepherds are 24/7 looking after the place, making sure predators don't compromise the pen, and yes basically the way it works. We put the caribou in March and we let them go at the very end of July type of timing when the calves are a good size and able to outrun predators.

LL: And nature takes its course.

SCOTT MCNAY: After that nature takes its course. Those animals all go back to the wild which is one of the good things about the maternity pen is that the animals have a chance to kind to reacquaint themselves with the wild situation and yeah it goes from there.

LL: So how many calves have been actually born inside these pens?

SCOTT MCNAY: You generally put about 10 to 15 or so caribou in pen and they're all pregnant and generally we have about 80 per cent of those give birth and so will be turning out anywhere from seven to 10 calves a year type thing and then those calves are all in pretty good shape and they usually last through till they get recruited into the breeding population the next year.

LL: OK. And do you call this captive breeding or is it something different from that?

SCOTT MCNAY: One all this wouldn't be captive breeding.

LL: So would that be the next step, do you think that a drastic measure like captive breeding could bring caribou back to the region?

SCOTT MCNAY: Well I'm not sure that that's necessarily the next step. You know I take a little bit of the same attitude that the First Nations believe in and that is if we can keep these wild animals wild maybe that's a better approach. And you know we're just learning about maternity pens now. They are expensive but they're easy to move around and easy to apply in different places and if they helped to keep animals wild maybe that's a better approach.

LL: Leo let's go back to the South Selkirk herd, do you hold out any hope that the three females that are left, could any of them be pregnant?

LEO DEGROOT: That we don't know at this time. We don't know when the last [unintelligible] was present. We know a year ago we had 11 animals of which several [unintelligible] but we only do the census once a year so we don't know between then and now. So we did capture those free last week and put new collars on. One had a collar, an old collar, and we put new collars on, and blood samples were taken and they are sent to a lab and we should know from the blood samples if they are pregnant.

LL: And I wonder finally from both of you if this herd disappears what will be lost, Leo, and start with you?

LEO DEGROOT: Yeah it's a huge drain a range contraction of a very iconic species and being part of the mountain or deep snow caribou they're unique in the world and is a big range contraction of this very special eco-type of a unique species.

LL: Scott, what do you say?

SCOTT MCNAY: Caribou have been declining in the province for many decades as we heard earlier. I think if we lose this herd then it's really the beginning of the end. It's an indicator that we're in hard times and we've got to address it and deal with the situation.

LL: Alright. Thank you both for talking to me about this.

SCOTT MCNAY: My pleasure.

LEO DEGROOT: Thank you.

LL: Leo DeGroot is a wildlife biologist with the B.C. Government. He was in Nelson. Scott McNay is a biologist with Wildlife Infometrics, who has worked with the West Moberly and Saulteau First Nations in B.C. He was in Mackenzie. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q. Tina Sinatra joins Tom Power to discuss the new album she's curated of her father, Frank Sinatra's music aimed at children and parents. She also opens up about what Ol' Blue Eyes was like as a parent himself. Remember you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. Tomorrow, tune in to my conversation with Tima Kurdi. She is the aunt of Alan Kurdi, the three-year-old who drowned trying to reach Europe with his family in 2015. His photo became the symbol of the Syrian war and the resulting refugee crisis. Tima Kurdi has written about the legacy of her nephew and her family's tragedy. Her book is called The Boy on the Beach. Her story is all the more poignant now with as the world grapples with the implications of military action in Syria. Tima Kurdi and her brother Abdullah, Alan's father, now run a foundation to help those suffering and displaced because of the war. We'll leave you with Tima Kurdi describing some of their work, delivering diapers to families in refugee camps. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti this week. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The diaper, his idea, I was like "Why you want to buy diapers?" And he said "Because I don't want any baby, any baby, in the world to go through what I couldn't buy for my own son, Alan. I could not afford that for him." …used to use a cloth and plastic wrap around that and he was had a rash. So that's what Abdullah, it mean a lot. And I remember I give him $500 for a diaper. We bought a van full of diapers and the minute we went to the refugee camp and all what I see Abdullah smiling when he see those babies, the family, and they have babies and he's just hand it to them. It's mean the world to him. That's what he wants the rest of his life. And hopefully he can help.

April 16, 2018 Full Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode