Environment Committee on Sept. 18th, 2024

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Now, I want to know something.

When you presented your protection order proposal to cabinet, did your colleagues at Innovation, Science and Industry and Finance ask about the financial impact of this order? It seems to be coming from you, but you mentioned earlier that cabinet had to approve it. However, if cabinet approved it, ministers representing economic sectors must have questioned its impact. If they didn't ask any questions, there's a serious problem within cabinet, no?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

No, not at all. Everything you've just said, or almost everything, is false.

First, I didn't say that I wasn't concerned about the socio-economic impacts. I stated that we did a socio-economic analysis, and that we were going to continue to do a socio-economic analysis. I said that I wasn't the minister responsible for innovation and economic development. If you want information on subsidies provided by this department, no doubt we can provide you with that information.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

When you presented the order, Minister—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Paul-Hus, if you let me, I could answer your question.

Obviously, I cannot reveal what we discussed in cabinet. As you probably know, those discussions are secret. However, a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts was presented during those discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mrs. Chatel, you have the floor.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for coming today.

The committee heard extensive testimony, and it's true that many concerns were raised. However, workers were really sounding the alarm about the state of the boreal forest. Workers are thinking about their jobs now, but also about the future of employment, especially in rural regions. I know this because, in my riding, we have rural communities and forestry industries. There is real concern by workers but also industry to ensure that the forest is healthy.

We're talking a lot about caribou, but could you clarify something? What do you mean when you say it's a canary in a coal mine? What does that mean for the state of the boreal forest?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

You're correct, I had several in-person discussions, for example, with the workers in Chibougamau. More recently, I also held virtual discussions. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, those people understand that the future of their jobs and the sector depend on the sustainability of the forest. They also understand that one can't happen without the other.

Caribou are a kind of barometer species, if you will. If this species is doing well, we can assume that those ecosystems are doing well. Of course, studies are needed to be sure.

It's worth pointing out—and I think this will partially answer what Mr. Simard was saying earlier—that we've already succeeded in restoring the caribou population in Canada, thanks to agreements with the provinces and aboriginal peoples. It can be done, but everyone has to sit down at the table and want to find a solution. Right now, a lot of people are at the table, but the Quebec government isn't. All I'm asking is that the Quebec government sit down at the table with us and all the other stakeholders to find a solution.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

All stakeholders, be it the forest industry, workers or environmental groups, are crying out for us to sit down at the table to find solutions. There are solutions, and workers have proposed some of them. They all agree that the boreal forest needs love right now.

Can you give a brief update on the status of these consultations and tell us about the socio-economic considerations set out in the order? We've talked about them, and you told us you'd listened to the stakeholders.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I'll let Mr. Hermanutz or Ms. Shannon give you more details on the socio-economic aspects, but I can give you some numbers on the consultations.

Of the people who took part in the consultations, over 400 were from the forest industry and unions, some 60 were from the mining industry or were mining workers, 30 were from the tourism sector, 26 represented various municipalities, and 105 came from other sectors in the regions. In addition, 200 first nations people and 59 environmental or expert groups were consulted. In fact, we can provide you with a list of the representatives from the various municipalities, regional county municipalities, companies, associations and unions who met with us. I should add that, at the request of two indigenous communities, the consultation period was extended by one month. We held extensive consultations.

Your colleague from the Bloc Québécois told us that the solution might be to wait before tabling the order, but we've been waiting for eight years. At what point do we say to ourselves that that's not responsible, that someone at the table isn't serious? As I just said, we've been waiting eight years. You've heard several experts say that the order isn't radical, but rather a compromise. Some even think it's long overdue. It's not as if we didn't give the Quebec government a chance to sit down at the table and propose solutions. We've done so on several occasions, but it hasn't done so until now, unfortunately.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

What are the next steps after the consultations? You said that the process leading to the order had not yet been finalized.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That's right. We have to analyze all the testimony and briefs submitted as part of the consultations. Then, experts at the department will draft the order, which will be presented to the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, we consider it to be a radical order and we're saying that it may not be balanced, because Mr. Branchaud, who testified before the committee on this issue in August, said that it takes 200 individuals for there to be a chance of survival, whereas you want to put in place an order for only nine individuals.

That said, I'd like to ask a question about something else: mining. An article in Le Devoir, which I have here, talks about Probe Gold's Novador project in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. To support this project, the government is reportedly prepared to exclude the area in question to allow Probe Gold to set up operations there. As reported in Le Devoir on September 13, the company acknowledges that the project will involve numerous activities in nature, including disturbing or destroying certain parts of that environment, such as diverting waterways such as rivers, or the loss of wetlands. We would add that the entire industrial complex will be located in the centre of the critical habitat of the Val-d'Or's caribou population, based on research by your department.

Yes, there will be an environmental assessment, but the fact remains that the government could authorize this project, regardless of the conclusions of that assessment, “if public interest justifies that impact”, as the article reports. It seems to me that we have a double standard when it comes to gold mines and the forestry sector. First of all, gold is not my cup of tea. We're going to allow this company to profoundly disrupt the caribou population in this region by excluding this area from the application of the order. Why?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Minister, there are 30 seconds remaining.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

First, since you quoted Mr. Branchaud to me, let me quote what he said to this committee: “The emergency order proposed by the Canadian government is justified and measured”. That's what he thinks of the order. I don't have the article you're referring to in front of me, but we'll certainly be able to provide an answer on the subject.

However, as you know, we have a very rigorous impact assessment process. When we passed the old Bill C‑69, we decided to depoliticize impact assessments and leave them to the experts. I've listened to the experts at the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada every time they've made a recommendation to me, following numerous consultations and studies. If they make a positive recommendation, I follow it. When they make a negative recommendation, I listen to them too. I listen to them in both cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm going to come back to the fact that this has been dragging on for eight years. I was a little surprised to hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues say that we might have to wait a little longer. According to your department, how much longer can we wait?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The emergency order is a way for us to say that we can't wait any longer and that measures must be put in place, measures that have been promised many times and still haven't been put in place. Some haven't even been announced, since what Quebec presented to us was clearly inadequate. I don't want to repeat what several experts have told you, since you've heard them.

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

What are the next steps and what's the timing of those steps?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As I explained to your colleague, Ms. Chatel, we have to compile and assess all the input we collect during the consultations and draft the order. There is no order yet. It has to be drafted and approved by the Governor in Council. It's going to take a few months to work through the whole process. I don't have an exact timeline.

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

We know that one factor that disrupts the boreal caribou is the increasing number of roads. More roads means easier access for predators. People from the Conservative Party have said that wolves must be killed to save the boreal caribou.

Do you think that's a solution worth considering?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

You probably know that Quebec has 500,000 kilometres of forest roads. The earth's circumference is about 20,000 kilometres. We think that could certainly be part of the action plan. Some of those roads could be closed and reforested. We're obviously not going to close all roads. Some are used for recreational and tourism purposes, and we understand that. There will have to be an assessment, but does Quebec really need 500,000 kilometres of forest roads?

The Conservative Party's proposed solution, eliminating predators, is not a viable or desirable solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Boulerice, you have time for a brief 10-second comment.

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

No need. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're welcome.

Mr. Martel.