Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 4th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks very much, Professor.

Mr. Peschisolido, you are going to start us off.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you for that very helpful presentation.

Earlier on in your presentation, you discussed the two leading drivers of the infestation. Can you talk a little bit about climate change and how it impacts on the infestation and our ability to deal with that?

[Alex Chubaty]

Climate change, in particular the warming, has resulted in two things from the perspective of beetles biology. The first is those overwintering conditions. Typically, when we get good long stretches of below -35^o, -40^o, for several days or weeks at a time, that is really effective at killing those beetles during the winter. We typically see high mortality rates in those cold conditions.

However, we haven't been getting those types of cold winters. As a result, those beetles are relaxed from that factor, and we end up with larger populations come summer.

The other factor is that the warmer climate is putting on a lot of moisture stress. It's a lot drier. Those trees have reduced capacity to defend themselves against the beetle when they're water-stressed. That further contributes to the susceptibility of the forests.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You mentioned briefly that it was the abundance of mature pine and that it was due to managerial decisions. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

[Alex Chubaty]

There are a number of pieces that play into that, but the last 50 years or so of fire suppression in particular has meant that these forest stands are growing and they're becoming a uniform age class. We have a lot of mature pine, and it is this mature pine that is particularly susceptible to the beetle.

It's that mature pine that's really important for driving the erupted dynamics, because you get much larger population growth in those larger mature stands.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You talked about the importance of researchers, particularly at the university level.

What can the federal government do to be helpful in drawing them out and making them part of the solution?

[Alex Chubaty]

I'll use an example.

In Alberta, there was an initiative called the “TRIA-Net, turning risk into action”. The Canadian Forest Service, CFS, was largely absent from that particular group. That is definitely an indication to me that the federal government needs to bridge the union with university researchers, with private industry, and make more of an effort to bring everybody to the table.

As I mentioned, there is a lot of expertise, not only within the Forest Service but throughout the federal government, in all of these issues, not just the ecology of insects, but forests and forest health in general.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

An indication of the enormity of the problem is that, as you mentioned, the goal right now is containment not suppression.

Why is that, and what could we change to have the goal be suppression?

[Alex Chubaty]

The main reason is that the beetle numbers are massive, especially in the hind flank. It really is a matter of just being too late to the party. It is difficult once those beetles have established themselves. You have such large populations that it becomes really difficult and unfeasible to enact control methods that will bring the populations down low enough. In those hind-flank regions in particular, the goal needs to be just mitigation.

We still want to do some control to try to minimize the risk of some spreading out of those regions, but the bulk of the work along the leading edge is where we're going to see the most tractable gains. That's where we're going to be able to suppress the beetles low enough because the densities are already low to begin with.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Within the context of your integrated approach to dealing with the problem, where do you see the federal government?

[Alex Chubaty]

I definitely see the federal government as facilitating that. The federal government does have an opportunity here to coordinate with the provinces. Obviously, the provinces manage their forests. Those decisions, those policies, are their own to make.

It is important to provide operational resources in order to enact control measures, but it's also useful, like I mentioned, to ensure that experts from all levels are involved in the process.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Are there any other elements of the recommendations that you'd like to focus on?

[Alex Chubaty]

No, I think I'll just reiterate that forest pests are a major concern in relation to forest health. That is one particular value we care about, but there are also a number of other values that we need to simultaneously balance. I think that is why the integrated approach makes sense and should be geared towards the sustainable long-term resiliency of our forests—not just for traditional economic reasons but also for tourism and the ecological drivers that are part of this. It's important to look at all of those areas and all of those factors.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

In terms of the national strategy, just to pick up on what Joe was talking about, we've heard in the last few meetings of a number of organizations doing some pretty amazing work regarding this issue, whether it be domestic or something more invasive, such as the Asian gypsy moth.

Other than government, is there another organization you know of that could take the lead and coordinate all these people, all these groups, and allow them to talk together? From what we've also heard in the testimony, the provinces are responsible for a lot of the actual work that goes into implementing any plan. Is there any other organization that you would recommend or that you think should be involved in this conversation, an organization that could maybe take the lead or bring people together?

[Alex Chubaty]

There are certainly several people. A lot of these groups have worked around the fact that the federal government hasn't been as directly involved with some of the more operational sides, or even with the research side. We have seen, for example, TRIA-Net emerge out of a need for not only doing research but also for implementing some of these management decisions and trying them out in the landscape. The forestry industry is definitely interested. Universities are definitely contributing to working on this problem. Even if the federal government weren't part of that, we still see that these agencies and these groups are coming together. They would really benefit, however, from some additional inputs from the federal government.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

When we talk about invasive species, I know most of your presentation was on one that is natural to this area. Is the Canadian government, or any other organization, working with other countries that are dealing with their problem? We heard in the last hour about how some of the invasive species are being shipped over in crates. Are we in conversation with those countries about how they are managing that situation and maybe bringing some of their practices here?

[Alex Chubaty]

I will just point out, because you used the term "invasive”, that the mountain pine beetle is a native species. It's native to Canada and to this area but it is behaving a bit like an invasive species in how it's now shifting into the Jack pine stands in Alberta. Those trees have not had an evolutionary history with the beetle and don't have the same kinds of defences.

In terms of answering your question about other jurisdictions, I'll point to the United States. They're also dealing with pine beetles, certainly in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and elsewhere. The situation is a little different in the States. Colorado is doing a lot to manage the beetles in their stands. Their forests are a little different from ours. There's a lot more ponderosa pine, for example, down in Colorado. They have slightly different management strategies but on the whole they're working on it as well.

I couldn't give you any numbers to quantify what this might look like but there is a risk that logs, say from Colorado, might be shipped across the border into Canada. If those logs haven't been treated by having the bark removed and/or heat-treated, these beetles could be brought in from other jurisdictions.

It would then be important to make sure that any such shipments are checked to ensure that they're following proper protocols.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Right. Thank you for bringing that up. I don't know if you heard the last hour of testimony but it kind of ended on the fact that there should be more coordination at the border to ensure that those species aren't getting by. That goes exactly to your point.

Are there any recommendations you have for us on that point? We heard in the last hour a very small amount and obviously there's not enough people power to put that through. What recommendations do you have that could maybe help with this issue?

[Alex Chubaty]

I'm less familiar with the current regulations and restrictions in terms of cross-border shipments, for example, of logs. Legal requirements that mandate the removal of the bark, for example, would certainly be an effective way —or hopefully an effective way—to ensure that stuff gets processed before it reaches the border; before it's even shipped. When it is at the border, try to step up those inspections to verify that products being brought in have been properly treated.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Do you know of any product or any use for that bark that would justify it being removed in Canada rather than in the United States?

[Alex Chubaty]

I do not, no.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay, so it's not as if it's needed here or it could be put into something, value added or anything?

[Alex Chubaty]

My understanding is that people want the bark possibly for the aesthetic of having a log cabin built. You want the bark on there whereas stripped of the bark, those logs are potentially less aesthetically pleasing. Obviously that's not that important if removing bark means preventing pine beetles from getting into the country.