Environment Committee on Sept. 18th, 2024

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

If Mr. Martel wants information about what other departments have done for the forestry sector, we can certainly provide that information to the committee. I'm the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I'm not the minister responsible for innovation, science, industry, or economic development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There have indeed been grants. For example, in my riding, FPInnovations—which does research on the industry, on new forest products, and so on—recently received a grant.

Go ahead, Mr. Martel.

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

Minister, your order will have serious repercussions. Workers are worried.

What will I say—or what will you say—to Éric, Jean-Marc, Mathieu, Lise, the Girard family and the Tremblay family, who work in the forestry sector? What will you tell them if they lose their jobs because of your order? What are you going to tell them?

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

You probably know that all the experts, the unions, the indigenous peoples, the environmental groups, therefore the workers themselves, say that the future of their sector is linked to the health of the forest.

You and your colleagues in the Conservative Party are the only ones who do not seem to understand that. Everybody else understands it. We cannot have sustainable forestry if the state of our forests continues to deteriorate. You're the only ones who don't understand that.

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

Minister, what are we going to do about the lost jobs, which will number at least 1,400? What are we going to do with those workers? Are human beings being taken into account? The mayor of Sacré‑Coeur says that her community will become a ghost town. Did you meet with her? What can you tell her?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Minister, I allowed a few extra seconds, but the time is up. Your answer will have to be brief.

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

There were a lot of questions there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you may have the opportunity—

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

Are we looking at socio-economic impacts? The answer is yes, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very well, thank you.

It's now Mr. Longfield's turn. I believe he is online.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I'm going to ask my questions in English.

You can answer in French if you like.

I know this is a Quebec issue, but it's also a national issue and an international issue.

In your opening statement, you opened with our international agreements that have been signed, and the sustainable development goals are some of those agreements that we signed in 2015 with 193 different countries. Given your legal obligations under the Species at Risk Act, it wasn't your decision, was it, to propose the emergency order?

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

Thank you for the question, Mr. Longfield.

The way the Species at Risk Act works is that if the experts from Environment and Climate Change Canada come to the conclusion that a province is not doing enough work to protect the habitat of a species that is endangered. Once this determination has been made, I have a legal obligation to make a recommendation to cabinet for an emergency order. Then cabinet can decide whether or not they want to move ahead with it.

Last year, in 2023, I made a similar recommendation to cabinet, and at that time cabinet asked me if I could try to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, which we've tried to do for over a year. Unfortunately, those discussions and those negotiations were unsuccessful, which is why I had to go back to cabinet to ask again for an emergency order, which was granted this time.

It's a cabinet decision. It's not an environment minister decision. It's a cabinet decision.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Just so I'm clear, if Quebec had taken sufficient measures, you wouldn't have to be asking for this measure to be taken.

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

Thank you. I will answer in French, because this is an important question.

I remain convinced that we can come to an agreement if the Government of Quebec is prepared to do its part. In late 2022, it made a commitment to us in an open letter, a commitment to present a plan for the recovery of the caribou. That plan has been pending since 2016, by the way. We were told that by June 2023, a plan would be presented on how to protect at least 65% of habitat. That was stated by the Government of Quebec. It is now September 2024, and we still have not received that plan.

If the Government of Quebec decides to go ahead with the plan, as it has promised to do, I would be pleased to go back to the Governor in Council to inform it that we no longer need the emergency order.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you. That was the next question on my mind.

It's a temporary order. It's in place only for as long as it needs to be in place, but we do have legal commitments that we have to uphold.

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

You are right.

Why do I say I am confident we will be able to come to an understanding with Quebec? It is because we succeeded in coming to an understanding with Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia on the caribou issue. I therefore do not see why, if we succeeded in agreeing with all those provinces, it would be impossible to find common ground with the government of Quebec.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It isn't a matter of politics, then. It's a matter of legalities, from my understanding.

You're nodding in agreement.

As we look at sustainable development goals, I believe SDG 15 is on this one—living beings on land—but sustainable development goals also include economic sustainability and environmental sustainability and social sustainability, including jobs and the support of transition, so that all of the sustainable goals line up with the three pillars of sustainability, which 193 countries have agreed to.

It seems to me that this aspect is not as much of the conversation as it potentially should be: When the countries got together at the United Nations, 193 signed on to how we as a planet are going to approach sustainability, and the caribou fall into this discussion, but so do the workers.

Could you expand on that just a bit for the committee, please?

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

Yes, absolutely, and we publish an annual report on how we're moving forward on the implementation of our sustainable development goals in Canada.

What you said was reinforced by the Kunming-Montreal agreement on biodiversity in 2022, when 193 countries and, as I said in my introductory remarks, the Government of Quebec agreed together that in order for sectors like forestry and others to be sustainable, we need to protect at least 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030. That's something you've heard workers—union representatives—say here. They understand that the future of the sector is not based on short-term profits; t's based on long-term sustainability of the forest so that there's long-term sustainability of the forestry sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Madam Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I cede my time to my colleague, Mario Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Minister. You know, forestry is a chain: If one link in the chain gets cut, there’s a negative impact on the entire forestry industry. When I analyze the data presented to me, including the report coming from your department, I see a disproportionate impact on the forestry sector.

You must take economic conditions into account. For the last four years, the forestry sector has had to fight forest fires—which led to a considerable shortfall for people in the sector—epidemics, infestations by the spruce budworm, a profound lack of financial support from the federal government and disproportionate tariffs. You have to put it all together and, if you go ahead with the order, I guarantee you will throw Quebec’s forestry sector into complete chaos. I say that because the majority of small devitalized communities in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and Côte‑Nord basically live off the forest.

In the report you tabled, the order directly threatens 1,400 jobs. If we also include indirect and induced jobs, I am sincerely telling you it will be a catastrophe. I understand that you want to put pressure on Quebec. I agree with you; a way to protect the caribou must be found. However, if you go ahead, I guarantee you will throw a considerable number of communities in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean into chaos. You will starve them out. I do not say that lightly. You will starve them out, and I am not sure you will succeed in saving the caribou.

In the forestry sector, we hear from big game biologists who do a very good job defending the caribou. However, we also have to look at the entire ecosystem. If we take forestry companies out of the forest, there will be no more forest management. Our forests will therefore be less resilient: more prone to fires and insect epidemics. Your thought process must include that as well.

I know you could say Quebec is slow to act. However, I think the best solution before us is to step back. It may also be to engage in a conversation with Quebec and different stakeholders to find a solution that will both save the caribou and, above all, save those jobs.

Since I became an MP in 2019, I’ve never seen your government do anything positive for the forest industry. If I could convey the testimony I’ve heard from all the players in the forestry sector, it would be a heartfelt plea.

What I am asking you today is to be aware of this. I fully understand your commitment, which is laudable, but I think the negative impacts are much more significant than the positive ones.

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

Thank you for the question, but I am not sure it was a question. Thank you for your comments.

You talked about my commitment. You understand it is a legal requirement I fulfill as Minister of the Environment. I don’t decide whether to issue an order when I get up in the morning, depending on what side of the bed I woke up on. It does not work that way. I am legally required to make this recommendation to cabinet. Afterwards, cabinet decides on next steps. In this case, cabinet decided we had to move forward. The decision was not taken lightly.

You probably know that last year, we signed a comprehensive nature conservancy agreement with British Columbia. It included protection for several species. The federal government invested nearly $500 million, and the province invested about the same amount. We do not ask provinces to shoulder the burden of meeting species conservation targets without offering support through different types of programs. Some of them could in fact pertain to forestry workers.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Guilbeault, you are legally required to act. We are also required to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions targets we set for ourselves.

And yet, I see a million inconsistencies. You shelled out $34 billion to buy a pipeline, but your most ambitious plan for the energy transition cost only $40 billion. So, on the one hand, a single oil and gas project cost $34 billion. On the other, the most ambitious project in your department’s history to fight climate change and make the energy transition cost $40 billion. That is appallingly inconsistent, but I know that you can live with it, because in politics, we sometimes have to compromise.

Today, I am asking you to compromise so that plenty of small communities in Quebec—including La Tuque, where you’re from—can keep living off the forestry sector, keep using wood to build low carbon residential units and keep replacing high carbon footprint products through the bioeconomy.

If you go forward, you threaten it all. According to the very conservative analysis you provided—which is not an insult—the impact of the order will leave 55 businesses out in the cold. Those 55 businesses are, for the most part, in small devitalized communities. I understand you are required to issue this order, but I think the government is not even close to a compromise. The best decision you could make is to wait, listen more to Quebec and try to find a compromise together.