Environment Committee on Aug. 30th, 2024

[Alain Branchaud]

In preparation of developing a recovery program, the federal government ordered a study in 2011. It met with leading caribou experts to determine the connection between the threshold or the disturbance rate and the chance of survival for a caribou population. The conclusion the scientists came to was that if the disturbance rate is 35%, the herd's chance of survival is 60%, which is not high.

The mathematical model indicates that as the disturbance threshold increases, the herd's chance of survival plummets. The more the disturbance rate drops below 35%, the higher the chance of survival. The mathematical model was built by scientists, taking into account all the data generated about the caribou population across Canada and it contributed to this conclusion.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Branchaud, I would like you to talk about the disturbance for the boreal caribou species. Mr. Ross, who was part of the previous group of witnesses, told us that to restore the species' habitat, we also need to consider measures for the roads that disturb the caribou because they are also highways for the predators.

Do you agree with him on that?

[Alain Branchaud]

Absolutely.

If we take the Charlevoix example, the disturbance rate is around 90%. In the proposed measures, including by the Government of Quebec, there is talk of restoration. Quebec even announced a rather large envelope to do this work, in the event that a caribou strategy is adopted. Yes, the habitat needs to be restored and preserved.

I would like to share an important message. Earlier today I heard a lot of people denying science. This is reminiscent of the reaction in the tobacco industry or the reaction to climate change. This has to change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Leslie, you have five minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sorry, but, since my French is still not good enough, I will speak in English.

I'd like to echo some of the concerns we've heard here regarding a lack of science. I'll start with the failure of the minister and officials to appear before this committee to explain the entirety of the logic behind this job-killing decree they have issued. When witnesses come here from industry and say they will have to go out of business or curtail their employment, I believe them. I don't think the government should be so arrogant to say that we don't believe them and to put our entire communities at risk.

Now, as this is the environment committee, I'd like to dive into some of the actual evidence of how this decree would work.

Ms. Simard, I think you have the closest appropriate background, so I'll begin with you regarding the caribou science. Hopefully, you can give a fairly quick answer. What would be the timeline for a forest to go from disturbed to undisturbed? Let's say we blocked off all forestry and all activity. How long would it be in years? It has to be years. As far as I know, trees don't grow fast enough for it to be anything less than years.

When would it be considered undisturbed so that we could have the decree lifted or a plan put in place?

[Alice-Anne Simard]

In fact, that is not the right question. The order takes into account sectors that are currently not disturbed. The most favourable habitat for the caribou is primarily old-growth forests. These habitats are already the least disturbed possible.

The mathematical model was used by officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada. Adjustments need to be made to this model, obviously, and that is why consultations are under way. However, the fact is that the most favourable sectors for the caribou are forests that are old and as little disturbed as possible. They are the ones we need to preserve.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you. I think it's reasonable to have those consultations.

Again, this is the environment committee, so I looked at the science. One of the most robust reports I could find was from Ecological Applications in the United States, which cites that Serrouya et al., in a 2019 study, “synthesized the results of several recovery actions applied to southern mountain caribou.” Although it's the same species, it is a different ecotype. Our B.C. and Alberta examples are ones that we can look to for the remediation efforts that have been undertaken. The report notes, “They concluded that wolf reductions and combinations of multiple measures, such as wolf reductions and maternal penning, were effective at increasing caribou population growth.”

I took note of the Saulteau First Nations in B.C., part of an indigenous-led effort that has been guarding maternity pens with rifles and removing predators as they come about. That has increased the population there from 36 to 135 as of 2022.

We have emergency decrees. We have emergency meetings that we don't know will be going towards the consultation of this. Everything is an emergency, so it seems to me that we should act with the urgency that reflects results happening imminently. The evidence seems to show that in totality, penning and predator reduction are the most imminent ways to increase the caribou population.

Now, there are long-term implications. There could be increases in coyotes and beavers. Wolves could figure out how to change their behaviour to avoid the reduction or culling of these animals, so it might not be the long-term solution. You would have to do it in perpetuity. However, rather than just destroy communities, destroy forestry industries and destroy livelihoods, would it not make sense to take action that is imminent, that makes sense immediately, that will halt the reduction, that has been proven to halt the reduction in caribou populations and that will in fact increase it? It's a measure we can work on with the appropriate government of authority over wildlife and natural resources, which is the provincial government. We can work with industry and find the old-growth forests that make sense to be maintained and make sense to be protected. Would that not be a reasonable approach that solves a lot of the problems of this innate emergency that we're facing?

I'll start with Ms. Simard, and then I'll open it up to other panellists.

[Alice-Anne Simard]

Killing predators works, but it is an extreme measure. This sort of measure has been around in Quebec for many years. Measures like this have been taken for many troops. It is just like putting caribou in enclosures or in zoos. That is being done. It is an extreme measure. These two measures are not working because they are not enough. There also needs to be protection and habitat restoration.

I invite members of the committee to consult the dozens of scientific articles written by researchers from countless universities and research centres who are working on the caribou issue in Quebec. This is one of the most studied species in Quebec.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Simard.

I'd like to quickly ask Mr. Fortin or Ms. Lavoie if they have any comments regarding that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm afraid your time is up, Mr. Leslie.

We'll go to Madam Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is very interesting. I thank the witnesses again for sharing their experience, their knowledge and their opinions.

If I understand correctly, the imminent threat of the order applies not only to the caribou's survival, but also to its recovery. So, if I understand correctly, there needs to be adequate recovery plans that would help these caribou herds become self-sufficient. I hope the witnesses can confirm what I am thinking when I ask questions.

Ms. Lavoie, you mentioned that the regional plan proposed by Quebec would be adequate. However, from what I understand, this plan is still under review. Do you understand that Quebec needs to announce its final plan in order for the Canadian government to be able to determine that it is adequate?

[Caroline Lavoie]

The pilot project is at the consultation stage, just like the order. However, the pilot project still does not cover all of the factors that can influence the dynamics of the caribou populations. We are not going against the scientific articles that have been written—there are many. However, we would say that the scientific articles on the caribou are always based only on the disturbance thresholds. The main culprit, the forestry industry, always takes the heat.

We are not burying our heads in the sand. We know that we have aninfluence on the habitat. However, we believe that it is not the only influence. There is species migration. When I was a kid, at the lake, there were no racoons or deer. Now I have them in my yard and in my chicken coop. That is a factor. Biting insects that affect the caribou's energy levels are sticking around longer, which is another factor. I am not a scientist, but it seems that many factors are having an influence on the caribou populations and those factors are not being taken into account.

As for the glass dome principle, we fear that this will lead to a scenario where everyone loses. It is not going to help recovery efforts and the forestry sector will suffer disastrous consequences. We fear that we are going to pay a high price to ultimately not save the species.

That is why we are participating in the consultations on the pilot project. Not everything has been included for a strategy that covers all of the factors that influence the dynamic of the caribou populations.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

I would ask all the witnesses to answer in 30 seconds, which will use up my speaking time.

From what I understand, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada are coming to different conclusions. Why do Quebec and Canada seem to be coming to different conclusions when it comes to the land in need of protection?

I will start with Mrs. Simard.

[Alice-Anne Simard]

In this case, it has to do with the Charlevoix herd, where two different sectors, one in the east and one in the west, are being studied. It's probably just a matter of mathematical analysis of preferential habitat versus the pilot project that came out of the independent caribou commission. Charlevoix is a perfect example of where collaboration between Quebec City and Ottawa is essential. This could go a long way to alleviating concerns for the industry.

There are other areas, however, such as in Pipmuacan and Val-d'Or, where Quebec has no projects in place. Obviously, the only measure currently being proposed is what is in the decree.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Branchaud, do you have anything to add?

[Alain Branchaud]

I would add that, in the case of the Charlevoix caribou population, the federal government has tried to act in the interest of co-operation. Some areas are not covered by the Quebec government's projects, including old-growth forests, which are interesting from the perspective of ensuring the recovery and survival of the caribou. Our vision for this aspect may differ slightly from that of Nature Québec, but there is some very solid science behind caribou recovery, and we really need to rely on it.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Fortin, what is your position on this?

[Eric Fortin]

We have never been directly involved because we do secondary processing. Boisaco has always managed this file with the governments. I'm not in a position to comment on the conclusions of one government compared to another.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your time is up, Ms. Fortier.

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll be quick.

Ms. Lavoie, I'm going to ask you to answer my question in under a minute. I'm sorry to rush you, but I don't have much time.

To follow up on my colleague Ms. Fortier's question, are you aware of any potential solutions proposed by the industry to maintain the caribou population?

[Caroline Lavoie]

Yes, we have already proposed some at the independent commission hearings. However, our forest management needs to have manoeuvrability. Right now, the regime and all the other constraints mean that we no longer have manoeuvrability. We go where we can, not where we want to go. If we had more leeway in forest management, we'd be in a better position to amalgamate different types of management that would be better for the caribou. We'd be able to act more intensively in other areas. For that, we need manoeuvrability.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I would like to discuss a motion I intend to move. You may have noticed that things are moving quickly on the intersection between caribou protection and the impact on clean energy projects. You have the text of the motion in front of you.

Given that the Committee advocates a global and integrated approach, and that the protection of any endangered species is closely linked to the protection of the environment and the ability to put forward green strategies to replace fossil fuels with clean energy projects such as wind, biomass, and hydroelectricity. That the Committee add an additional meeting to the present study to study the potential effects of an emergency decree on the deployment of clean energy projects and on the infrastructures required for the smooth operation of these networks, and that to this end, the Committee invite experts from these different clean energy sectors, such as Hydro-Québec.

I don't want to cut into my NDP colleague's speaking time, but I hope we can agree on this. Perhaps we could let my NDP colleague speak and then come back to the motion. This is a friendly suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe you've tabled the motion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, I have.