Environment Committee on Sept. 18th, 2024

[Tara Shannon]

I don't know that it's something I can quantify. I think what I can say is that we have had expressions of concern in reach-outs from international organizations that are looking at such certification. We see that they are very much interested in the status of boreal caribou, not just in Quebec but across Canada.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I just want to mention to my Conservative colleagues that there is an economic cost to our exports if we don't protect our biodiversity. No one will purchase our products. They will no longer be exportable. What's good for the environment is good for the economy. That is the mentality we need to adopt.

We talked about other countries and what is being done elsewhere, but here in Canada, are there other provinces that are not protecting caribou to the extent required under the federal Species at Risk Act?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Every other province in Canada has signed a section 11 agreement under the Species at Risk Act to advance conservation measures within their jurisdiction. With those agreements, the federal government is providing funding to support the actions around range planning and other measures required for their conservation.

Similarly, Environment Canada is working with indigenous groups and indigenous communities to support their role in conserving and sustaining boreal caribou populations.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to go back to the consultations you had. We've had some here. I'm sure you've been following the testimony.

I saw a consensus emerging, not necessarily among the committee members, but among the witnesses. Here is a challenge for you: Do you see a consensus emerging from these consultations? In your consultations, did you see any area that is a win for everyone in the short and medium terms?

[Tara Shannon]

I'll ask Marie-Josée to respond on the question of consultations. She's been leading much of those.

I would say that it's clear that everyone agrees there's an issue with respect to boreal caribou and that there is a desire to balance the environment and the economy. At a macro level, yes, I think there's a lot of agreement.

[Marie-Josée Couture]

Actually, Ms. Shannon is right. The importance for all parties to sit down together and work together is perhaps another theme in the same vein. That was a recurring theme or a potential solution during the consultations, but not systematically, of course.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, do I have time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. I will speak for 30 seconds.

We did sense the urgency of the situation, and I sensed that the order was a wake-up call. It is a heartfelt plea, especially from the workers who live off logging and the forestry industry, and the people who represent them, such as the mayor who came to testify before this committee. We need to have a deeper conversation. Now we have an emergency we need to deal with, but we have to get together to talk and rethink the forest. Do you have the same wish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is really not enough time to answer your question.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Do you have the same wish?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes or no? Do you have the same wish?

[Marie-Josée Couture]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Couture. I am sorry to rush you, but otherwise we will fall behind.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Winfield, you were talking about agreements earlier. I am editorializing, but I want to come back to the fact that, years ago, Ontario abolished its provincial environmental protection measures. Then the province ignored federal species at risk requirements to expand its logging. When you signed the agreement in 2022, it did not contain any significant measures to protect endangered caribou habitat. I call that a double standard that depends on the province.

I'm going to go to a question about the preliminary socio-economic analysis. The emergency order entails costs of $650 million to $850 million over 10 years for the forestry sector. For the mining sector, it's $20 million to $45 million, also over 10 years. Since the economic impact is 20 times less for the mining sector than for the forestry sector, and we know that mining is harmful, not just to caribou but also to the environment, why exempt all mining companies in their entirety from your order?

You are telling me that this order has not yet been drafted, but it seems to me that we should have a more balanced approach, one that considers all the factors. I get the impression that the forest is being punished to benefit the mines.

[Nicholas Winfield]

Thank you for the question.

In the consultations, we have discussed what could be exempted from the order. It's not what will be exempted, but simply an approach for how to tackle the balance between biodiversity or conservation gains and economic losses.

There is a difference in the scale of landscape-level change between forestry operations and mining. Both need to be managed effectively to protect caribou, but one of the differences relates to the physical footprint and the size of the impact. In the context of forestry, it tends to have a larger footprint on forests than mining, and therefore on caribou habitat, but in both cases, they need to be managed sustainably.

Your point is taken. Thank you.

My colleague can answer on the socio-economic aspect.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, but your time is up.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I thought I had five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, it's five minutes for the Liberals and the Conservatives, but you had two and a half minutes. Sometimes Mr. Boulerice allows the witnesses to answer your question, which is very gracious of him, but it is up to him to decide.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Winfield, a little earlier, you said that, in order for there to be a 60% chance of survival, the disturbance rate had to be reduced to 65% undisturbed habitat. I want to make sure I understand. If we reach that threshold, there will still be a 40% chance of non-survival. Is that correct?

[Nicholas Winfield]

Yes, you understand it correctly.

In the recovery strategy that was prepared in 2012, there was a scientific correlation between the disturbance level and the recruitment of calves in the reproductive rate. In that document, given the concern around impacts to forestry and impacts to other landscape levels, there was a policy decision to acknowledge that the relationship still resulted in only a 60% probability of success.

It recognizes the impact of these policies on forestry. The very document written in 2012 already took a risk-based approach in order to minimize socio-economic impacts.

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

It's still surprising. A 40% chance of non-survival is staggering. That's almost a 50% chance.

[Nicholas Winfield]

There's a 60% probability of success, so there's a 40% probability of non-success.

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

We often hear it said that mining projects, rare earth or rare metal projects, wind turbines and other renewable energy projects, for example, would be included in the exceptions set out in the order, which you are probably assessing at the moment.

If everything is an exception, what will be left at the end?