Environment Committee on Sept. 18th, 2024

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I'm from Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. I'd like to know if the analysis takes into account the fact that, in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in my riding, we're already cutting all the allowable timber and that there are chain reactions. Was that taken into consideration?

[Nicholas Winfield]

I can try to answer that question.

The three areas where the order is being considered are areas where the level of disturbance is greater than the minimum required for the survival of the population, and the disturbance rates are going up, so the trend in terms of the ability for these species to recover is a declining trend, and it is based on the disturbance levels within those areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Thank you.

We have to stop there because that's more than five minutes.

We'll go now to Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the officials for joining us today.

I have some questions regarding our obligations, but before I get to those, I wanted to ask about the inevitability of the further decline of caribou populations if the status quo and work as usual, business as usual, are permitted to continue without any oversight, changes or innovations.

The question was posed: Is this a guarantee that populations will increase? I think we all know there are no guarantees in this type of work, but there are obligations that we must do from a legal perspective, and then there is also really good science, which we must follow in order to achieve these ambitions.

My question is, what will the status quo achieve?

[Tara Shannon]

I'll start and I'll ask my colleagues to add if they would like to.

Simply put, the status quo—no action to protect the caribou—would result in their further decline. With respect to the herds that are in pens, if there are no actions that would protect habitat that could be used in the future, what we predict is that there would be no further existence in the wild of those herds.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

My original questions were with respect to our legal obligations as signatories for various commitments for preserving and conserving biodiversity. It's my understanding that the Province of Quebec has signed similar obligations. They're signatories to all the same agreements, which are international.

Could you inform the committee on whether you feel this is optional, a choice for both the provincial Government of Quebec and the federal Government of Canada, or whether you feel we have an obligation as signatories to these international agreements to preserve and conserve biodiversity and to stand up for species that are at risk and endangered and that can't cast ballots and lobby the government?

[Tara Shannon]

Canada is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Government of Quebec plays a very active role, in the context of that convention, on behalf of local governments. Both Canada and the Government of Quebec have endorsed the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. It includes a number of goals and targets. Target 4 of that framework is the halt and reverse of species decline. It's not necessarily a hard legal obligation; it is a moral obligation and a commitment that both Canada and Quebec made in the context of that global biodiversity framework.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

If an individual, an organization or a government were to sign on to those types of agreements and then not follow through with commitments and actions, is it a question of morality or is it a question of integrity and of doing as we say we're going to do?

[Tara Shannon]

I should indicate that in the context of the framework, Canada is obligated to deposit with the United Nations every year a report on our progress vis-à-vis those targets, so yes, we would be called into question by the convention if we were to not make progress toward those targets.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

With my remaining time, I have a question about sustainable forestry.

Would any of you four be prepared to talk about sustainable forestry? I know that we're talking about caribou here, but Canadians need lumber, Canadians need an economy and Canadians need jobs, so it's reasonable to say that we also need a forestry sector.

We've had people on the committee in the last couple of meetings talking about a truly sustainable forestry. Can you provide any insight on other jurisdictions that have taken actions to ensure that their forestry sector is not leading to the inevitable decline of species at risk? What can we learn from some of them?

[Tara Shannon]

I don't think the four of us at this table are well placed to respond to forest practices. What we can say is that we do work closely with our colleagues at the Canadian Forest Service when we are approaching issues with respect to species at risk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll have to stop there and go to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do I have five minutes, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, you have two and a half minutes because this is the third round.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. I have a lot of questions, but not a lot of time in which to ask them.

Ms. Shannon, I asked the minister a question about Novador. You were there. If I'm not mistaken, when the company submitted the proposal, the boreal caribou was already considered a threatened species. Why did you let the proposal advance if you knew from the start that Novador's project would be located in essential habitat for one of the herds?

[Tara Shannon]

I'm unable to speak to the specific project that you're referring to. We would not have had any role in approvals of the environmental assessment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have another question for you.

Earlier, there was a conversation about controlling predators, but it sounds like that's not a good thing. Some researchers say that other governments, including the governments of British Columbia and Manitoba, have instituted predator control measures that, when enforced rigorously and paired with a targeted restoration and preservation strategy, produce results. Do you have an opinion on that approach?

[Tara Shannon]

I'll respond briefly and then I'll ask Nicholas to add to that.

I think predator control is one avenue. It is one of the tools. It is not the only tool. The closure and rehabitation of roads are also very important, because roads fragment the caribou habitat. When the habitat of caribou is fragmented, then they do worse.

I'll ask Nicholas to add to that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's not necessary.

My understanding is that, contrary to what we heard earlier, predator control is a viable option. It worked well in British Columbia.

Yesterday I found an article about how, in the spring of 2022, the federal government signed a caribou protection agreement with the Government of Ontario. Prior to that, the Ontario government had abolished environmental protection measures and ignored federal requirements for species at risk in order to advance its unsustainable forestry and mining development projects. There are no meaningful caribou habitat protection measures.

Is this a double standard? Would an order that applies to Quebec not apply to Ontario?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're at three minutes.

Ms. Shannon, you can answer when you have the floor again.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

I think that Ms. Pauzé's question is excellent. Actually, I would like to hear the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Nicholas Winfield]

Thank you for the question related to what's happening in Ontario.

We did sign an agreement with Ontario two years ago to work with them to find solutions with respect to the way in which they manage the boreal forest, recognizing that there are similar issues in Ontario with respect to declining populations.

The commitment is to find a way to ensure that there is a balanced approach to conserving boreal caribou and sustaining forestry. I'm not suggesting that the current state is acceptable, but we've acknowledged that the changes and the advancement of policies and procedures in Ontario are needed, and they've acknowledged this also.

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

Thank you.

It has often been said that a mature or old enough forest is extremely important for boreal caribou to survive and return to growth. Personally, I am always concerned when we destroy mature forests and then attempt reforestation, sometimes by planting trees, without necessarily creating real forests.

What is your vision or project for creating a habitat for the boreal caribou that meets their needs, particularly in terms of mature forests?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Thank you for your question.

You are correct that all scientific evidence suggests that boreal caribou are dependent on mature forests and connected landscapes that allow them to escape from predators and access food supply, etc. The recovery strategy calls for greater than 65% undisturbed habitat to ensure 60% likelihood of survival.

Therefore, everything we do in negotiating with provinces on range planning is to look at ways to manage a forest to ensure there is a constant supply of older-age forests and connectivity among those forests. You are therefore correct in your understanding of the issue, and many provinces and their experts are developing their forest plans to achieve that goal.