:
Yes, it's confirmed. He will definitely be here, unless he's unable to attend.
I was going to welcome you all after a long summer break, but since we saw each other recently, I've already had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Godin is here today replacing Mr. Leslie, I assume, and Mr. Martel is replacing Mr. Deltell. Mr. Boulerice, who is participating in the meeting by video conference, is replacing Ms. Collins. Mr. Drouin is replacing Mr. van Koeverden. Finally, Mr. Simard is accompanying Ms. Pauzé.
Obviously, you are aware of the measures put in place to prevent acoustic incidents. For example, when you're not using your earpiece, please place it on the sticker on your desk as indicated.
Today's meeting is a long one, ending at 1:30, with three panels.
First, we have Dr. Justina Ray, who is president and senior scientist of the Wildlife Conservation Society of Canada. We also have Mr. Martin Bouchard, director of the Association québécoise des entrepreneurs forestiers. We also have three representatives from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Yvan Duceppe, treasurer of the CSN, as well as political advisor Julien Laflamme and union advisor Isabelle Ménard. Finally, we have two representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Mr. Denis Bolduc, who is the general secretary of the FTQ, and Mr. Patrick Rondeau, who is a union advisor, Environment and Just Transition.
You each have five minutes for your opening remarks.
We'll start with you, Ms. Ray. You have five minutes.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for the invitation to speak to you today. My name is Justina Ray. I am president and senior scientist of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, but I'm also an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto and Trent University. I'm a wildlife biologist by training. I've worked on caribou one way or the other for almost 20 years, conducting field research in Ontario; leading evaluations on caribou status for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC; and advising both provincial and federal governments on caribou recovery and critical habitat.
My remarks today will directly address the first point of the committee's study—the threats facing caribou and the measures that can be taken to protect them. Here I will outline why this proposed emergency order is not a radical intervention; why the available scientific evidence is sufficient to act; and why this intervention, while necessary for the goals of caribou recovery, is merely a stopgap measure.
The first point is that based on my review of the available evidence, the emergency order is not only justified but could also have been extended even further when looking at the point of view of caribou. It targets three boreal caribou populations in Quebec at exceptionally high risk of extinction, but our evidence shows that the order could have been applied to additional populations in Quebec that are also in poor shape. As well, the scope of the order is conservative, with limited areas of interest within each area or each range, and the prohibitions don't restrict everything. For example, they don't restrict mining activities. Overall, this proposed intervention, from the point of view of caribou recovery, is a restrained response to a well-documented emergency situation.
My second point is that it's a common tactic for those uncomfortable with the outcomes of scientific assessments to call for additional studies to be sure. I would strongly advise not to capitulate to this narrative. Boreal caribou are among the most well-studied wildlife species in Canada. Research consistently shows that habitat disturbance leads to population declines. This relationship has been documented repeatedly across multiple jurisdictions across Canada and acknowledged by governments, including that of Quebec.
For one thing, the population surveys that form the basis of this assessment were diligently conducted by Quebec government biologists to the highest of standards, yielding high-quality data that provide a clear picture of the status of boreal caribou populations in the province. Similarly, habitat loss and degradation in these areas have been thoroughly documented. For these three populations in the proposed emergency order, habitat loss has been continuously increasing to such an extent that more precise estimates of this would not change the overall diagnosis of the situation. There is very little habitat of any kind left in these three ranges, so more sophisticated or detailed habitat analyses are unnecessary. In this vein, delaying intervention under the guise of seeking more data only increases the risk of irreversible losses and makes future recovery efforts more costly and complex if your goal is to recover caribou.
My third point is that the proposed emergency order is fundamentally an emergency stopgap measure designed to address an immediate crisis. This is a critical and urgent step to prevent further declines while more permanent systemic solutions are developed and implemented. It's important to emphasize that neither Canada nor Quebec has stated that preventing extinction alone is sufficient, nor have they said that other factors should justify the loss of these populations. They still maintain that they want to have self-sustaining populations, but there's been no meaningful action beyond the monitoring program initiated in 2017. A lot of experience tells us that these kinds of continued delays reduce the likelihood of success and will lead to higher costs in the long term.
In conclusion, the scientific evidence supporting the need for emergency intervention is clear and compelling. Accordingly, the proposed emergency order is not an overreaction but rather a necessary and proportionate response to a crisis that has been brewing for years—if, again, the goal is to recover caribou to self-sustaining populations. The situation is not unique to Quebec. Similar challenges exist across Canada where boreal caribou populations are declining and have reached or are reaching emergency status.
That's it. Thank you so much.
Dear committee members, participants, the Association québécoise des entrepreneurs forestiers, or AQEF, thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the emergency order for the protection of boreal caribou.
The AQEF was born out of a desire by the forestry industry to be recognized, consulted and heard, because it is the first link in the supply chain for the sustainable and responsible management of our forests. Founded in June 2021, our association has, if we include 30 or so associate members, more than 150 active entrepreneur members, whereas it is estimated that 500 members now make up this group in Quebec. They are all very hard-working people who are passionate about this beautiful and great resource with its many functions, and whose approach is integrated, open and respectful.
By appearing before you today, we wish to highlight significant concerns related to the proposed emergency order to protect caribou, whose potential implications could have a considerable, even disastrous, impact on our industry and on the dozens of communities that depend on it.
We understand and share the general concern for wildlife conservation and the preservation of our natural environment. Caribou are indeed an iconic species, and taking appropriate measures to protect them is justifiable. However, it is essential that decisions relating to their protection be balanced and take into account the broader economic, social, environmental, and even cultural impacts.
According to available and reported information, the proposed order to create enhanced protection zones for caribou in certain forestry regions of Quebec, Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan could severely hamper forestry activities, including by suspending operations in key areas designated as critical habitat for caribou.
You've no doubt heard this from other stakeholders in the course of your study, but I repeat that the federal government and Quebec's chief forester both estimate annual losses of allowable cuts, or volumes of wood harvested, at 4%. This amounts to 1.4 million fewer cubic metres per year. These estimated losses are greater than those caused by last year's terrible forest fires.
The results of an impact analysis produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada last August were widely reported in the media. According to the study, such a decline in allowable cuts would represent a loss of $670 million to $895 million over 10 years for the Quebec economy, would have repercussions in at least 28 communities and would affect 1,400 workers.
As reported by Radio-Canada, in particular, this analysis produced by the federal government lists 35 sawmills that could be directly affected by the emergency order, as well as 10 wood product manufacturers, three pulp and paper mills, two cogeneration and energy product facilities, and three other co‑op-type businesses. That's a total of 53 companies.
However, this seems to exclude a major player that operates from the forest bed right up to the mill, that is to say the forest artisans, the forest contractors. For generations, these true small businesses have partnered with people who are passionate about forest management and who make their living from it in the broadest sense. Depriving them of 1.4 million cubic metres of wood threatens all these businesses with closure and bankruptcy.
In harvesting alone, if you consider that a typical business has an average annual volume of 60,000 cubic metres, has invested $2 million or more in modern equipment consisting of a feller, a transporter, three pickup trucks and a truck, and has a team of five to six employees, including the owner, that's at least 25 harvesting businesses that, if deprived of more than $49 million in revenue per year, will be in grave danger of closure or bankruptcy or will be forced to pivot.
That's not counting all the people who work on the roads or loading and transporting this renewable resource, who will suffer just as much, without a doubt.
By extrapolation, it is easy to estimate double the direct consequences for our forestry entrepreneurs if we maintain the sealed cocoon approach. We are convinced that these restrictions will compromise the viability of many businesses. They will result in the loss of quality jobs, a significant decrease in cash flow between businesses and, inevitably, a form of devitalization of a number of communities that depend heavily on forestry, which will at the same time reduce their quality of life and their ability to support local infrastructure and services.
Above all, we must not forget that forestry contractors live, invest and get involved in their communities. They are a vector for vitality and momentum at the local level. They pay taxes, make purchases, give sponsorships and provide people with quality work, allowing them to support their families and in turn spend money in their own communities and live comfortably in a place of active belonging.
In a nutshell, the point we want to make here is that everything is interconnected, as you no doubt know, and that we must avoid the exodus and impoverishment of Quebec and the regions in their niches of excellence—
:
First of all, thank you very much for having us here today.
As you may know, the CSN represents more than 330,000 members in all sectors across Canada. I'd like to mention that we represent many workers in the forestry sector.
Let's talk about why we're here today.
Of course, let's acknowledge that the Government of Quebec did not react as it should have. We've been waiting for some years now for it to table a plan to protect the caribou. Unfortunately, that keeps being postponed. We're not here to oppose the emergency order, because we think there is a real urgency. That said, ideally, we would still like to see agreements negotiated with the provinces, as far as possible. I understand that did not transpire in this case.
If we are participating in this committee's study today, it's because we're aware that the implementation of this order will have repercussions. To protect the caribou, obviously, you have to cut down fewer trees. That's been proven by scientists. It is essential. Beyond that, what we have before us is above all a clear illustration of the need for a just transition. That is fundamental. The federal government itself signed an agreement at COP27 in favour of a just transition. We understand that it is often related to oil, coal, and so on, but it goes beyond those sectors. It also affects forestry, which we are discussing at the moment, and it can also have an impact on other sectors, such as recreational tourism and fisheries. We believe that a just transition plan is fundamental to maintaining social protection and mitigating consequences for both workers and communities.
We therefore say yes to an emergency order, but we must plan for that sort of thing.
For example, if workers are affected, why not provide them with training so that they can diversify and pivot? We could provide a transitional measure for workers who have difficulty pivoting.
We recognize that this order could lead to a decline in allowable cuts. For example, I heard Quebec's chief forester present data and talk about significant losses. There is some evidence, though, that it might be somewhat less severe. I don't deny that there will be consequences, but perhaps there should be a more neutral space to concretely measure potential losses.
In our opinion, to find solutions, there will have to be interdepartmental and intergovernmental co‑operation, because that will involve a number of projects. We will have to move forward, and that includes the forest industry itself. Could it focus more on value-added products, for example? We have been trying to achieve that for many years, and we must continue along that path.
Ultimately, we are saying that we need measures to support people properly during the transition, whether that be through employment insurance or training programs. We have to find ways to provide targeted assistance to those who will be affected.
For us, a transition is required. Earlier, we talked about forest fires. We are aware of that, but climate change bears some of the blame. So a transition is needed in the short, medium and long term, but we want it to be fair and to take into account both workers and communities.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting the FTQ to speak on the emergency order to protect boreal caribou under the Species at Risk Act, as well as on the consequences for forestry workers.
For the FTQ, the forestry sector accounts for 15,000 members, mainly with Unifor and the Syndicat des métallos.
We are grateful to the committee for inviting us here today, of course, even though we don't have any praise for the current government's management of the file. Since 2017, the FTQ has been trying to convince the Canadian government that it is urgent to implement a just transition policy, an internationally accepted concept that is endorsed by Canada under the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
By limiting the debate on the just transition to only the fossil fuel sector and creating a toxic landscape around the term, the Canadian government has foregone all the tools at its disposal to deal with a crisis such as the one we are experiencing with the caribou and to ensure the survival of the forestry industry.
For years, the FTQ has been urging the various levels of government to look at the challenges of the green transition and to plan it with those who will be affected by it, in the various economic sectors. The current urgent need to protect boreal caribou with no plan other than to identify protected areas exemplifies this situation perfectly.
From the outset, the FTQ has supported the need to protect boreal caribou. The central labour organization attended COP15 on biodiversity, held in Montreal in 2022, and supported the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal agreement, which aims to protect 30% of land and oceans by 2030. It is imperative that these supports be accompanied by just transition measures, and we have reminded the federal government of this on many occasions. The FTQ is consistent about the imperatives of the climate crisis and the collapse of biodiversity, but it is also pragmatic about the needs of its members and their community. One crisis must not lead to another.
The FTQ also welcomed the passing of the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, but it criticized the fact that the act did not really include just transition elements. The act looks forward, but it leaves workers behind. It does not help prepare the workforce for a transition and a transformation. The caribou issue is a prime example of that.
We fully understand Ottawa's decision to act, since Quebec is not taking this seriously. The situation is urgent, and the biodiversity crisis must be taken seriously. It is not simply a matter of saving a species, but an entire ecosystem, which is an essential ingredient for the survival of life. If the climate crisis were a disease, saving biodiversity would be one of the cures.
We could have supported this order, but the ministers should not have been left with no solutions for workers. For two years now, we have been asking for a joint meeting with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada. We appreciate that the Department of the Environment has met with us on this a few times, but we're still waiting for a joint meeting with the two ministers concerned. We have presented a number of potential solutions and received a number of encouraging signals, but no concrete steps have been taken.
We are aware that the federal government's basket of response measures in Quebec is limited. The FTQ has always called for provincial jurisdictions to be respected. We understand that it is up to the provincial government to take action, which it is not doing. The parameters of the just transition are clear and known to the federal government. The idea is to establish a social dialogue that includes all the parties, including the departments and governments concerned, unions, employers and indigenous peoples. It also means providing a social safety net that is tailored to the situation. In the case of the order, it means rethinking employment insurance—for example, creating a dedicated fund and adapting the measures to the current situation.
The caribou situation is not just about determining how many square kilometres are needed to protect it. It also involves rethinking the forest and the forestry industry.
I would like to thank the witnesses for making themselves available for this meeting.
My first question is for Ms. Ray.
Last Friday, I met again with the Boisaco forestry workers. If the order comes into force, the lives of these workers and their families will be shattered—that is guaranteed.
Even if we were to prevent the forestry industry from operating in those areas, we would not be able to reach a disturbance rate below 35%.
Ms. Ray, can you assure us that boreal caribou will be self-sustaining under these circumstances?
Indeed, we cannot separate humans from the environment. The Conservatives have such a poor understanding of science. I would invite them to read the scientists' report on caribou. I think everyone here, except perhaps the Conservatives, would agree that we cannot have a healthy economy without the infrastructure that supports it being healthy as well, and that includes green infrastructure.
As Mr. Bolduc said earlier, the solution for the caribou includes rethinking the forest and the forestry industry. In fact, a number of the forestry companies in my riding are already at that point. The Conservatives definitely have a somewhat archaic approach, especially when it comes to science. At the end of the day, I think the industry and the workers are already there. There was also a lot of talk about the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. I think we all have the desire to move together, to move forward, not backwards. The voice of workers is often the voice of wisdom.
Mr. Duceppe, you were talking earlier about the fact that the Government of Quebec has not responded despite the commitments to find solutions made by both Quebec and Canada at COP15.
In your opinion, what concrete changes would be necessary to protect not only the sustainability of the jobs of the Canadians and Quebeckers you represent, but also our natural infrastructure, including caribou habitat? What do you think the solutions are?
:
Thank you for the answer.
I think the first nations representatives also advocated for a round table or a partnership, as did the Quebec Forest Industry Council. The Bloc Québécois leader also spoke about this idea at a press conference held exactly a week ago.
If memory serves, it was Mr. Duceppe who said that there was a difference between consulting people and listening to them. The idea of social dialogue, which you and other partners have put forward, consists in a real dialogue taking place after such a meeting.
I'll make a comparison. During the deliberations to elect a new pope, everyone is locked in seclusion and we have to wait for the white smoke to come out. I think the same thing should be done with the various stakeholders—in other words, bring them together, lock the door and wait until the white smoke comes out.
That said, I would like you to tell us about sustainable jobs. Mr. Bolduc, you are right to say that people can't simply be given employment insurance benefits. I can't remember if it was you or Mr. Duceppe who talked about the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. I would like to digress for a moment to say that it should be called the just transition act, since that is the term recognized by the UN. In Canada, the choice was made to obfuscate things a bit by choosing the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act as the title.
In what way does this act not respond to a just transition situation in the forestry sector?
:
Thank you very much, Ms. Ray.
We find ourselves in an extremely interesting situation. Many ministers, from both the Government of Quebec and the federal government, have taken part in international conferences where they have made grand speeches on climate change and the protection of biodiversity. However, when it's time to talk about concrete measures, we sense a bit of hesitation and more difficulty.
I have a question for the FTQ representatives. I'm sorry, Mr. Bolduc, but I'll put my question to Mr. Rondeau.
We, in the NDP, were quite pleased to see the proposed Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, which could have been called the just transition act, but it did not go as far as we would have liked. We were pleased to see that unions' place at the table would be preserved as part of the conversation on the energy transition and sustainable jobs. However, the Liberals did half the job, so that today, the federal government is coming in empty-handed in terms of solutions for the workers whose jobs are at stake in the current situation, when the goal is to protect the boreal caribou.
What would you like us to do to go further in the energy transition, in the just transition, in protecting workers?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice.
You're absolutely right in saying that this is a piece of legislation on sustainable jobs that resembles a statute on just transition, but it is not one. It's not like what we are seeing, for example, in the European Union, South Africa or New Zealand. It lacks rigour. In addition, it is only looking forward. In other words, it gives consideration only to sustainable jobs that are defined as jobs that can contribute to the net-zero road map, and leaves out jobs that do not contribute to it. Those jobs are not on the radar. The word “transition” also doesn't appear anywhere in the bill. That says a lot.
To demonstrate rigour, a study on the impact of climate change on the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the forest industry related to the protection of caribou should have been done a long time ago. Based on that impact study, adaptation scenarios for the species and decarbonization scenarios would then have to be developed. Afterwards, it would have been necessary to conduct studies on those scenarios' impact on jobs, to make the necessary corrections, as well as to introduce corrective measures for the territory. That is what is being done elsewhere. It's nothing new. We see it quite often with the European Union. In short, that rigour is lacking.
To demonstrate such rigour, all the stakeholders must also be involved. It's not just a matter of getting people around the table and seeing who is thinking about what. Rather, the process involves conducting the necessary studies and bringing people to the table to find solutions that suit everyone. That's what's missing.
We should have learned from what happened in the coal industry. In 2017, Catherine McKenna, who was then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, announced the closure of coal plants by 2030. A year later, thousands of jobs were lost in Alberta. That happened because, once again, an environmental measure was announced without any plan and without including those who would be affected. Those things didn't come until later. Even then, although the report of the task force on just transition for Canadian coal power workers and communities talked about setting up local or regional centres to have that discussion and plan the transition, it still hasn't happened.
:
Okay, thank you very much.
I now have a question for the representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.
You talked about the just transition. You alluded to the fact that the current government had introduced a bill mainly related to CO2 emissions, not to biodiversity. The recommendation you would make to this committee would be to have a similar bill, but one that also concerns the protection of biodiversity, in a context where the government is required to act and take measures. We know that the longer we wait, the worse it will be. I wish we could bury our heads in the sand, but that strategy does not work. We would just be passing the problems on to the next generation.
In your opinion, we should recommend that the government pass a similar bill, but for the protection of biodiversity. Did I understand you correctly?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.
My question is for Yvan Duceppe.
In your opening statement you mentioned that to protect the caribou, fewer trees must be cut. I think we all know that, given the number of agreements we've signed on biodiversity and the fact that we have not just a transition but a Sustainable Jobs Act now, and despite the Conservatives' putting forward 20,000 motions to try to stall that, we are trying to transition.
The Quebec government has several programs in place, including some of their retraining programs and their workforce development funds, and then there are community-based diversification programs. I'm wondering whether you think these programs have had any impact in actually helping to transition the workforce and whether the forestry companies in Quebec have also been participating in this transition that we all know is necessary.
Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for inviting me to answer your questions. I'm a full professor of animal ecology. For the past 16 years, I've run a research program that focuses on caribou, their predators and their competitors. I'm a recognized caribou expert in Canada.
An emergency order under the Species at Risk Act constitutes a test of our ability to manage our natural resources soundly and effectively; to protect our biodiversity; to comply with legislation and regulations; and to uphold our moral and ethical commitments on the international stage.
Between 1989 and 2024, 881 scientific articles regarding the woodland caribou subspecies were published in international scientific journals. Of these articles, 454 addressed different aspects of boreal caribou populations. In addition, many master's theses, doctoral dissertations and government reports have been published. This body of scientific work has made the caribou one of the most studied species in the country. On the basis of this work, the experts from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada—of which I was a member—could assess variations in abundance, survival and recruitment rates and population demographic trajectories. It also helped them to synthesize their knowledge of the threats facing the caribou and, in May 2002, to recommend a threatened species status. This designation remains valid to this day.
Despite the wealth of widely accepted evidence in the scientific community, a number of players in the field are working hard to spread misinformation and scientific denial in the media. This contributes to the social polarization observed in relation to this challenge. Some of these individuals actually appeared before the committee to relay incomplete or incorrect information or even lies about the situation of boreal caribou populations in Quebec, the causes of the decline and possible solutions.
As an expert, I want to warn you about this misinformation campaign. Science knows more than what your committee is being told. Establishing a negotiated way out that benefits caribou and minimizes the socio‑economic impact on forestry communities requires acknowledging the scientific evidence and avoiding shortcuts.
In managed boreal forests, caribou are declining mainly as a result of predation exacerbated by human disturbances. Logging opens up and rejuvenates forests and provides accessible, abundant, rich and digestible food resources. This supports the population growth of alternative prey, such as moose and deer, and, in turn, of caribou predators, such as bears, coyotes and wolves. This response goes hand in hand with an increase in the predators' ability to patrol the area and hunt caribou, as a result of the dense network of logging roads. Forest management plays a key role in the decline. It triggers a series of events that result in high predation pressure. This finding is recognized by the Quebec government in the literature review of the factors involved in the decline of woodland caribou populations in Quebec and mountain caribou in Gaspésie, published in 2021.
For a number of years, various teams of researchers have been documenting the significance of other drivers of decline, including the impact of past and future climate change. Their findings are solid and widely accepted. The impact of logging and logging roads far outweighs the effects of other drivers of decline, including climate change, both in explaining past declines and in modelling future changes. Moreover, science shows that climate change will have a significant impact on forestry employment, even without protection for caribou.
It's important to note the high quality of the data obtained from the monitoring of caribou populations in Quebec. This data supports the arguments of the emergency order by providing a crystal clear picture of habitat conditions and the state of populations. I want to remind you that the experts aren't just in the universities, but also in a number of federal and provincial departments that we work with. I trust the expertise of these biologists and wildlife technicians.
In light of the available knowledge, clearly the measures implemented by the Quebec government for over a decade aren't enough to ensure caribou recovery in the province. I have sat on enough committees to assess these methods. The emergency order is amply justified. The federal government is simply implementing the legislation given the absence of a provincial strategy deemed effective enough to contribute to the species' recovery.
In my opinion, the proposed order could be more ambitious, since it already amounts to a compromise. Only three ranges are targeted, even though an assessment of imminent threats could show the urgency to take action for other populations. The area covered by the order remains limited in relation to the size of the populations' ranges. Certain types of disturbances may be excluded from the order, including critical mineral exploration and mining projects, despite scientific evidence of the mining industry's negative impact. As a result, the order is more of a compromise than a radical protection strategy under a glass dome.
Major changes to caribou habitat management policies are needed. It's necessary to think about how to truly strike a balance between caribou and habitat conservation and sustainable forestry that respects all the roles, species and values of this ecosystem. However, this goal is impossible to achieve without affecting the forestry potential and, by extension, jobs and economic benefits.
I completely understand the concerns of a number of interest groups regarding the implementation of the order. It's important to consider this impact without losing sight of the legal obligation to effectively protect caribou and their habitat.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
My name is Luc Vachon. I'm the president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD. I want to thank you for this opportunity to convey a message from our organization.
The CSD represents almost 2,000 employees working directly or indirectly in the forestry industry. These include about 400 workers at Groupe Rémabec's Parent mill in the Mauricie region and its L'Ascension mill in the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region.
Since the announcement of the order, employees in the forestry industry have been deeply concerned. We can neither support nor accept the proposed order in its current form. Media attention has focused on the boreal caribou issue. However, no pun intended, focusing solely and specifically on the caribou is—if I may—like failing to see the forest for the trees.
The Quebec forestry industry has been going through a series of crises for a number of years. So this isn't the first. Consider, for example, the fires of 2023, the ever‑increasing cost and loss of quality of wood supplies and the United States' ongoing implementation of countervailing tariffs on softwood lumber. I would say that the Quebec forestry industry is on the brink of another wave of mill closures and consolidations. It won't be the first time. A number of workers are facing a high risk of losing their jobs. These job losses would also have a disastrous impact on the employees' communities.
The federal government's impact analysis confirms this by estimating that approximately 1,400 jobs will be lost. In our opinion, this falls far short of the real impact on communities. In this environment, the order regarding the boreal caribou could make the situation much worse or sound the death knell for the already weakened industry. It's hard not to feel cynical about the order's actual effectiveness when we hear, for example, that Hydro‑Québec projects or the proposed gold mine in Abitibi may not be subject to the order.
Should people in the industry feel that they matter less? This raises questions. It's crucial to protect the boreal caribou. Forestry industry workers are ready, with the right guidance and support, to help with the effort. The caribou is considered an iconic animal for Quebec. I can say that the people whom we represent and who live in the regions are well aware of this.
However, these people's concerns must also be taken into account. No government, provincial or federal, has really done this to date. We deplore both Quebec's inaction and Ottawa's heavy‑handed approach. We know that Ottawa doesn't mean to punish the workers in the sector. However, the fact remains that this order, in its current form, could do just that.
We don't want forestry industry employees to bear the brunt of a political tug‑of‑war between Ottawa and Quebec. We believe that yet another dispute over jurisdiction between the two levels of government is pointless and that it will harm both the industry and environmental protection. We urge Ottawa and Quebec to work together to protect the caribou and put an end to the insecurity faced by forestry industry employees, so that promising long‑term solutions can finally be developed.
The $650 million that the federal government is prepared to give to British Columbia for its own environmental protection efforts attests to this. The same applies to the economic diversification fund provided by Ottawa and Quebec following the closure of the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant.
You can work together, and when you do, you get good results. In particular, we're calling for a collaborative approach guided by the principles of a fair transition. This means transforming Quebec's forestry industry into a modern, innovative and resilient industry that causes less damage to the environment. Rather than being a barrier, the caribou crisis must become an opportunity. In any case, the employees' concerns and needs must play a key role in this plan, in order to limit the impact and provide proper compensation. Rather than seeing workers as resources and thinking that they can simply change jobs, as if it were that straightforward in the regions, we believe that the focus should be on people and providing proper support during these changes.
How much is the federal government prepared to invest to encourage the modernization of the forestry industry—
Committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak today on behalf of Ripco. As president of Ripco, I want to share my serious concerns about the federal government's plan to pass an order to protect boreal caribou. The steps taken by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, , in June sparked fear among our workers and residents. This type of order would have a devastating and irreversible impact on our company and our community.
Founded in 2001, Ripco Inc. is an affiliate of Groupe Boisaco. It operates on the Sacré‑Coeur industrial site. It works in partnership with Litière Royal, based in Quebec City. Your committee also heard from representatives of that company. We specialize in manufacturing and marketing equestrian litter, which comes from the shavings generated by Boisaco's plants. The plant is now state‑of‑the‑art after our major investments over the past three years. Ripco brings together eight workers and their families, who depend on its survival to make a decent living. Like all Groupe Boisaco companies, Ripco is based on a unique co‑operative model. This model is recognized in our industry and throughout Quebec. It was also born of Groupe Boisaco's desire to diversify its activities by using waste from sawmills and planing mills to create new products. As a result, Ripco supplies exceptional products across Canada and the United States, generating significant direct benefits in our community. However, our activities depend on Boisaco's ability to supply our raw material, which is wood shavings.
You must understand that, if Mr. Guilbault's order were implemented, it wouldn't just affect Boisaco, but all the companies that depend on the waste produced by Boisaco's sawmills and planing mills. This includes include Ripco. Regarding the proposed federal order, the militant actions of the environment minister are driving us ever closer to a dead end. These actions create polarization and escalate a debate that must be cooled down in order to find fair and equitable solutions. They also conflict with the Quebec government's efforts to promote a phased approach adapted to the realities of each region concerned.
Since I started out as a forestry worker, in 1998, I've seen the development of the various measures put in place to protect the caribou. To date, thousands of hectares of forest have been left untouched to protect the caribou. Some stakeholders feel that these still‑standing forests seem invisible. However, they still exist, even though some of them have been heavily affected by the spruce budworm epidemic and are also highly vulnerable to the all‑too‑common forest fires.
As a resident of Sacré‑Coeur, I take its vitality to heart. Like a number of my friends and colleagues, I volunteer with various non‑profit organizations dedicated to providing quality services to our community. For over 11 years, I've been the president of the ZEC Chauvin, a controlled harvesting zone just outside Sacré‑Coeur. I can assure you that, without the forestry operations carried out in our ZEC, we wouldn't be able to provide the quality of experience enjoyed by over 500 members from across Quebec. In our ZEC, as in the other ZECs of the Haute‑Côte‑Nord and Saguenay regions, Boisaco's forestry operations have greatly helped to maintain and improve the road networks that play a vital role in forest activities and firefighting. The organizations are fortunate to be able to benefit from these major investments and to ensure that their members can continue to access their services at an affordable price.
I'll close with this thought. What type of society do we want in Canada? Do we want a society where we agree to sacrifice 2,000 families, thereby violating their basic right to a dignified life, or a society where decisions take into account the social, economic and environmental spheres—the three pillars of sustainable development? I dare to hope that the second option will lead us to fair and enlightened decisions that ensure the development of biodiversity and human communities.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
Unifor represents 320,000 members across Canada. With members in almost every major industrial sector, it's the country's largest private‑sector union. In Quebec, Unifor has nearly 15,000 members in the forestry industry. They work in every region, from Abitibi‑Témiscamingue to Gaspésie.
The workers whom we represent take part in all levels of processing and activity areas in the sector. These include forestry, logging, firefighting, transportation, lumber, engineered wood, panels, wake equipment, pulp, paper, cardboard, cellulose, pellets, packaging, flooring, furniture, kitchen cabinets, doors, windows or printing, and the list goes on.
For a number of years, Unifor has been closely monitoring the development of public initiatives aimed at restoring boreal and mountain caribou populations in Quebec. The current and upcoming initiatives designed to achieve this goal pose a major challenge for the forestry industry. Moreover, they could have major repercussions for our members.
To date, this proposed order constitutes the most significant conservation measure in terms of its potential impact on the province's forestry activities and, indirectly, on the economic activity generated by the forestry industry.
In 2022, Quebec's chief forester's analysis of the most restrictive management scenario assessed by the independent commission on boreal and mountain caribou estimated losses at around 824,300 gross cubic metres per year for all seven regions within the range.
This time, Quebec's chief forester calculates a loss of 1.393 million gross cubic metres per year for the four regions affected, not the seven, and specifically the three zones established under the agreement for the current emergency order. For reference purposes, the average volume of a sawmill is around 300,000 cubic metres.
Unifor recognizes that the situation is alarming for a number of the boreal and mountain caribou herds found in Quebec. Their long‑acknowledged vulnerability is a major source of concern. Unifor acknowledges that the increase in the cumulative disturbance rate across the range of both ecosystems is lowering the probability of population survival.
The disturbances affecting caribou vary, and a number of them stem from natural or climate‑related events. However, it has been established that certain human‑related disturbances, including industrial forestry, can contribute to their decline.
Unifor recognizes that the Quebec government has implemented a range of measures, recovery plans and habitat management plans. These include predator management, logging road closures and the creation of protected areas and biodiversity reserves. In short, a series of measures seeks to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, these measures have failed to bring the situation under control.
However, the forestry sector is in crisis. The federal government's proposed emergency order comes at a pivotal time for Quebec's forestry industry. The industry is currently facing an unprecedented crisis on a number of levels. The 2023 forest fire season was catastrophic. It alone resulted in a loss of forest potential estimated by Quebec's chief forester at over 849,000 gross cubic metres per year.
According to Quebec's chief forester, over 920,000 hectares earmarked for forest management have been affected. Plant closures are continuing in various production sectors, such as paper, cellulose and lumber. The current market weakness, high timber auction prices and uncertain access to the resource are driving companies to develop consolidation strategies that will result in further closures and job losses.
The trade dispute with the United States continues. The latest review of the final combined duty rates set by the United States Department of Commerce was marked by a sharp increase from 8% to 15%.
All these measures are currently hampering and seriously affecting the forestry industry. The socio‑economic impact of the measures associated with this emergency order will be exacerbated by an already difficult situation. This situation calls for a comprehensive response involving the various public authorities, based on their respective responsibilities.
Unifor strongly deplores the fact that our current situation runs in stark contrast to this reality. The politicization of the crisis doesn't serve the interests of the public, the workers or the caribou. Only the politicians benefit. The current dynamic of conflict harms all the parties concerned. It's a waste of precious time and resources and takes us further away from meaningful solutions.
If the federal government really wants to help, it should do so through a comprehensive transition support framework, not by launching a new debate. Solutions do exist. It's necessary to create a number of response frameworks that also take into account the socio‑economic impact on workers and the people affected.
The departments responsible for natural resources, labour—
:
Our studies indicate that climate change will have an impact on the quality of caribou habitat starting in 2070 in many of the areas we studied, but until then, the effect of human disturbance on land use generates the trophic cascade I mentioned.
I will finish my answer, if I may.
Since 1850—this was published in a serious scientific journal—the southern line of the caribou range has receded northward by 620 kilometres, of which 105 kilometres is due to climate change, and the rest is due to changes in land use patterns.
That means that if we engage in active restoration efforts, we can even extend caribou ranges to the south into climate-friendly habitats. This is important, and it's often ignored in the public debate on this issue. So it's not true that caribou are moving north 40 kilometres a decade, as we hear from some people, who don't do caribou research, by the way.
However, our work shows that we could have caribou populations in a favourable climate space, south of the line where we currently find them. In 1850, we had boreal caribou in the Maritimes, in New England and south of the St. Lawrence, all over the place. They hunted it behind Rimouski, where I'm located.
:
Thank you to all the witnesses.
I love what Mr. Saint‑Laurent just said. That was the purpose of this presentation and these meetings, to find solutions together. Before getting back to the just transition, I want to make one point.
Earlier, Mr. Vachon talked about the mine. There was an extremely interesting article in Le Devoir last Friday. Rodrigue Turgeon of the Coalition pour que le Québec ait meilleure mine, said the following: “If the federal order is adopted as is, Val‑d'Or's caribou population will see its critical habitat continue to be disrupted at levels exceeding the desired conservation objectives as a result of mining operations that will be allowed to continue”.
Mr. Vachon, since you raised the issue of mines, doesn't the order have a narrower vision? Is there anything else we need to do? We're still looking for solutions.
:
I mentioned it in my opening remarks, but I can summarize.
If the forest is rejuvenated, abundant and physically accessible food resources will suddenly become available to all herbivores, since they will be at a height that's easy to access. These resources are easily digestible because they are low in tannins and lignins. Individuals are therefore able to be in better physical condition and to invest more in reproduction and survival.
White-tailed deer can produce up to three offspring a year, moose can produce up to two offspring a year, and, due to biological constraints, caribou can produce zero to one offspring a year. Population growth therefore won't be the same. Population growth will also lead to an increase in predator abundance, because they also have more food available. Those predators, which are more abundant as a result of logging, will also be more efficient because of the forest roads. My work and that of several other researchers in Canada show that they use low-grade forest roads to more effectively patrol the territory. It's easier for them and us both to walk on a forest road than in the forest. They're going to harvest more caribou, because they are a more vulnerable prey than moose. For that reason, they will cause the adult population to decline, but there will also be fewer young caribou, since the black bear, which is very abundant on young harvest blocks, will be able to feed on caribou more easily. The Government of Quebec has documented this. In areas where caribou are forced to relocate from their home range, caribou become less loyal to their home range, thus increasing the risk of predation for young caribou.
It's as if we were asking someone to quickly find the refrigerator in someone else's house or apartment. That's quite normal. We know the environment, the resources and the risks. This entire cascade of events is amplified in a territory that is subject to highly sustained development or a high regime of natural disturbances.
:
I admit that it's an interesting interim measure, but it's important to understand the cascade of events.
Let me put it another way that's easy to understand. Imagine you and I are fishing in a small boat. The boat takes on some water. I hand you a bailer. You bail the water out of the boat, and imagine that in doing so, you are removing predators. If I plug the hole at the bottom of the boat, I'll keep predators from getting in. If I enlarge the hole or make new holes, I'm creating the conditions for more predators to get in.
Therefore, if we don't slow the pace of forest rejuvenation and forest road deployment, it's like we're trying to solve the problem in the boat before it happens by enlarging the hole. You will keep on bailing. You will be bailing for the rest of your life.
We have a good example of this in Canada. A predator control measure has been in place for 30 years around Gaspésie National Park. It only worked for the first five years. Since then, 60% of the old forest around the park has been harvested.
So predator control is an effective interim measure, but it has to be very intensive; it has to remove over 80% of predators, which raises some ethical questions.
Be that as it may, growth in predator numbers is fuelled by forest rejuvenation and the road network.
:
It's actually very simple. In the recovery plans that have been published since 2013, there have been changes to governance structures and excellent caribou inventories that are among the best in Canada. They have set up a large number of committees, looked at the literature on the subject and monitored the situation, among other things. During that time, however, there was a drastic increase in logging in some caribou-friendly areas as well as an increase in the proportion of disturbances in the environment.
To give you a quick idea, the brief I submitted concerning the order states that the level of disturbance increased by 49% in the Pipmuacan region, 64% in Val‑d'Or and 80% in Charlevoix between 1995 and 2020. Meanwhile, in the same period, all kinds of committees, rounds of mediation and so on were rolled out.
The Government of Quebec recently promised to establish some protected areas. That's excellent. It's a good start. They are looking at habitat restoration projects that, by the way, can employ people in the regions. That is important, because people in the regions who have forest expertise can also get involved in the process. All that can be consolidated.
To go back to my comparison, Mr. Boulerice, if I continue putting holes in the bottom of the boat, we will definitely sink, no matter how fast you can bail out the water.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'd like to start off with Mr. Cloutier. You've made a couple of comments. Our colleague, Mr. Simard from the Bloc, had some excellent questions about the role of labour in these discussions. I'd like to build on that.
In Ontario, when I was first elected in 2015, we worked with your Ontario Unifor colleagues to recover the automotive industry, which was struggling after years of neglect by the Conservative federal government. The role that labour played in recovering Ontario's automotive sector was absolutely critical.
You've mentioned sustainability. You've also mentioned the rights of caribou, something that might be surprising to people who don't know labour as well. Could you comment on how critical it is for labour to work with the federal government on safety, on sustainability and on working on protecting the caribou herd at the same time as protecting jobs?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vachon.
I would now like to turn to Mr. St‑Laurent.
In all the public debates we have, one of the important things is not to bury our heads in the sand.
I was listening to our Conservative colleagues, whose rhetoric was very focused on short-term measures. However, that does not take into account the greater impact on our biodiversity and, in fact, our country's economic future.
You used a metaphor, that we have one planet and there is a circle around it. At the centre is our planet and its health, and from that we can build an economy. You can't build an economy without the centre.
Can you elaborate on that analogy?
:
We're back for our third and last panel.
Thank you to the panellists for agreeing to be with us today.
[Translation]
We have with us, as an individual, Mr. Louis Bélanger, who is a retired professor of sustainable forest management, faculty of forestry, Université Laval.
We also welcome Mr. Luis Calzado, general manager of the Association québécoise de la production d'énergie renouvelable.
[English]
From the David Suzuki Foundation we have Rachel Plotkin, boreal project manager.
You each have five minutes to make your opening statements.
We start right away with Monsieur Bélanger.
Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I'd like to say hello, and thank you for this opportunity to meet with you.
I am a biologist and forest engineer, and also a professor of integrated forest management at Université Laval. I'm a member of the Équipe de rétablissement du caribou forestier du Québec, where I represent Nature Québec. I was also a member of the now-defunct Table nationale des partenaires, whose mandate was to implement Quebec's action plan for boreal caribou.
It is in this capacity that I would like to make two recommendations. One concerns the Charlevoix caribou herd, the other the Pipmuacan herd. Both are herds I know well.
In the case of the Charlevoix caribou, I ardently recommend that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, , not include the Charlevoix caribou in his emergency order. I make this recommendation because Quebec has just tabled a project that fully addresses the minister's concerns about imminent threats to the survival of this population.
Because of the particular history of the Charlevoix caribou, a strategy to restore its habitat has been implemented for 15 years. This has been done in consultation with all stakeholders in the region, including the Huron-Wendat Nation and the forestry industry. In 2008, major economic repercussions were felt by the region. Charlevoix's forestry potential was cut by 35%. I repeat, 35%. In 2022, this strategy was improved and presented again by the Independent Commission on Woodland and Mountain Caribou. Once again, it received the unanimous support of the region's stakeholders. The pilot project, tabled last May by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks, along with a draft regulation, finalizes this long regional process.
Unfortunately, the Canadian government's emergency order completely disregards these 15 years of efforts in Charlevoix. The order shifts conservation efforts completely westward, to the regional county municipality of Portneuf. In its present form, the order will impose a second wave of forestry cutbacks on the region, for unclear and questionable gains for the caribou.
On this basis, the wisest decision would be to let the Quebec pilot project come to fruition. Such a decision would demonstrate that Minister Guilbault is sincere when he says he intends to collaborate with the Quebec government.
The case of the Pipmuacan caribou is quite different. We know that, since 2021, certain high-ranking authorities at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests of Quebec have been blocking any transparent dialogue aimed at finding measures to mitigate the economic impact of the Pipmuacan caribou plan. In fact, in 2021, they let the national table of partners die. What's more, contrary to what was set out in the government's 2016 action plan, optimization measures to establish a balanced conservation plan were not presented to the public. For example, the systematic examination of alternative wood supply sources for the affected mills has not been done. Yet forestry workers' unions have been calling for some time for a form of impact mutualization through the introduction of a compensation system between mills.
Unfortunately, the population of Sacré‑Coeur, the Innu communities and the Pipmuacan caribou are being held hostage by Quebec's refusal to seek economic impact mitigation measures. The Quebec government has not made efforts to find a balanced solution, and there is no indication that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests intends to do so. Some may be hoping that, in the face of Sacré‑Coeur's predicted economic tragedy, all efforts to conserve the Pipmuacan caribou habitat will be abandoned.
So, what can be done? One solution would be to set up an independent technical commission with a mandate to conduct a detailed analysis of all alternative options for mitigating the drop in supply to the affected mills, and to report back to the public. To this end, I appeal to the governments of Quebec and Canada.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for its invitation.
For 30 years, the Association québécoise de la production d'énergie renouvelable, AQPER, has brought together all stakeholders in the renewable energy sector, including those in the wind power and bioenergy sectors.
Our members have demonstrated their commitment to protecting biodiversity by adopting practices that minimize the environmental impact of their projects. At the same time, meeting our climate objectives and the transition to carbon neutrality will require a considerable increase in our production capacity, particularly in the wind and bioenergy sectors. Some of the areas affected by the order have strong wind power potential, and the proposed restrictions could block future developments. This could hinder Quebec's energy transition and compromise our climate objectives.
Think of the Pipmuacan area, identified as requiring increased intervention for caribou protection. It also has great wind power potential. The restrictions imposed by the order could jeopardize future development opportunities. In addition, certain provisional zones could enclose territories with high wind energy potential outside them, making it difficult to develop new projects.
The AQPER is particularly concerned about the lack of corridors allowing the passage of power lines for future wind projects located on the north shore. The accessibility of several sites with good wind power potential would be compromised if new power lines, from Micoua and Les Outardes to substations to the south, cannot be developed.
We propose an impact reduction approach focused on avoidance, minimization and, ultimately, compensation. In the case of the 735‑kilovolt Micoua-Saguenay line, for example, Hydro-Québec installed specially adapted towers to allow caribou to pass under the lines, demonstrating the feasibility of concrete measures to reconcile energy development and wildlife protection. Sustainably managed forest biomass is a key player in the fight against climate change, and the proposed restrictions could hamper efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, a forest harvested in accordance with sustainable management principles has a high carbon sequestration capacity.
AQPER therefore recommends excluding wind power projects and bioenergy projects using residual forest biomass from the list of activities potentially prohibited by the order.
AQPER considers that flexibility should be introduced into the emergency order and the application of its restrictions, in order to take into account the specificities of each project. The territories covered by the potential emergency order are vast and do not present a uniform level of disturbance. Some areas are already highly disturbed and could offer prime locations for wind project development.
AQPER recommends integrated solutions for boreal caribou conservation and renewable energy project development. These projects can include specific conservation measures, such as habitat restoration and the establishment of ecological corridors, to reduce the fragmentation of caribou habitat.
Finally, we want the restrictions imposed by the order to be flexible and to take future projects into account, while ensuring that they are carried out in consultation with indigenous and local communities. A flexible, collaborative approach would not only protect the boreal caribou, but also enable us to continue developing renewable energy projects that will benefit everyone today and, above all, future generations.
:
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. My name is Rachel Plotkin. I'm the boreal program manager for the David Suzuki Foundation. I've been working to protect at-risk species for over 20 years, with a focus on boreal caribou for almost 20 years.
I actually spent a lot of time here on Parliament Hill when the Species at Risk Act, SARA, was being developed, and I appeared before the environment committee for the five-year review of the act—I'm not sure whether the chair remembers me. When the SARA was being drafted and debated, I witnessed a sincere belief across parties that it was an important tool in the tool box to protect biodiversity. A significant amount of time was spent debating the emergency order, but there was recognition that, while provinces make the majority of decisions about lands and wildlife under normal circumstances, the extirpation of a species is an issue of national importance. I was also part of the petition to invoke the emergency order for sage grouse in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 2011, an emergency habitat protection order that was ultimately passed by a Conservative government, even though there were economic impacts, and which resulted in pivoting the sage grouse towards recovery.
I have to say that working to protect boreal caribou and their habitat for the last 20 years has been pretty depressing. As the federal recovery strategy progress assessments illustrate, caribou habitat has continued to be degraded year after year, and caribou populations have continued to decline.
I listened to the other committee hearings and frequently heard the word “balance” mentioned as a framework for solutions. Since you guys like metaphors, this is my analogy of how “balance” can be problematic. Imagine it's the year 2000. You have 100 hectares of caribou habitat, and there's also industrial pressure, so the government of the day says, “Okay, we're going to balance these interests. We'll give 50 hectares to caribou and 50 to industry.” Then, five years later, there's another government and there are still industrial pressures. There are 50 hectares of caribou habitat. The government of the day says, “Okay, let's balance this,” so then there are 25 hectares for caribou and 25 for industry. That continues to play out, and that's why we end up where we are now, that the Charlevoix herd has less than 17% of its habitat that's undisturbed, and the province continues to approve industrial resource extraction in their range. We know that caribou need a minimum of 65% of their habitat to be undisturbed in order for them to have a 60% probability of persistence.
Many are positioning the protection order as a jobs vs. caribou narrative. If the emergency order is implemented, it will affect some jobs, at least in the short term, but really, this conversation is about unsustainable forest management and how to better manage forests in Quebec for both wildlife and people's livelihoods. As was mentioned by others in this hearing, in the long term these two things go hand in hand. If forests are to be relied upon to provide employment security and not be subject to boom-and-bust cycles, they must be managed sustainably.
At heart, the fact that logging is driving caribou towards extinction in Quebec is glaring evidence that logging, at present, is not sustainable. Forest mismanagement is not unique to Quebec. In B.C. the forestry industry is running out of trees to log because the bigger, older trees near mills have already been logged, and replanted trees haven't matured to take their place. The push to keep mills open in the short term has resulted in serious long-term impacts. Studies show that logging in Quebec is also significantly diminishing the natural levels of old-growth forests. At present, caribou aren't even really taken into consideration in forest management planning.
As it happens, the drive for change to the status quo is shared beyond conservation organizations. Listen to these quotes from a press release put out by forest industry unions in Quebec last week, which joined forces to denounce the Quebec government's inaction. They state that Quebec's “inaction and attitude are exacerbating the situation and turning workers into an instrument of political discord”, and they implore the Quebec government “to take the issue seriously and implement an organized, smart plan, to protect woodland caribou, ensure a sustainable future for the forestry industry and adequately support the workers who make it prosper”. In plain words, only forests managed for ecological resilience can provide resilience to forest-dependent workers.
Healthy forests also support indigenous people. Indigenous rights, cultures and ways of life are at stake if caribou become extirpated. I want to share a message from my Innu colleague Melissa Mollen-Dupuis, from Ekuanitshit. She wonders where all the jobs are going to be when they cut down the forest. These arguments have always been used, she says. Jobs were used to justify putting indigenous people in reservations and caribou in enclosures. She also says that one thing is certain: In their lifetime, her kids will never know the taste of caribou or the smell of smoked leather.
I echo my colleagues who already came before you and articulated that band-aid solutions—like killing wolves, which co-evolved with caribou for thousands of years, or putting caribou in fences that essentially turn them into zoo animals—are not real solutions to the current biodiversity crisis and fly in the face of the global biodiversity framework agreed to in Montreal in 2022.
The good news on this depressing file is that you've heard from all sectors and first nations that a reset for forest management is necessary, and there are solutions at hand. If there's—
I often reflect on how many of the obligations we have as elected people don't have much to do with getting elected, in the sense that caribou don't vote. People who care about caribou vote, but caribou can't themselves. Neither do polar bears, and neither do clean and fresh air, water and land, but these are considerations we need to take under advisement when making decisions that are going to affect people, jobs, the economy and the environment.
If you were in our shoes and were part of the government, and you had to make a decision that was inevitably going to affect people's bottom lines at a time like this, when things are expensive and we need to build homes, and homes are often built out of wood.... We have a lot of wood in Canada, but we also have a lot of caribou and a lot of things and places and species to take care of. I won't use the word “balance”, because I know it's not one that you appreciate, but we do need to take into consideration all of these variables.
I have a follow-up question there, and I think I've probably overdone it already, but what would you do?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. This is extremely interesting in the context of this debate, which is complex and affects thousands of people, entire communities, who are feeling very insecure.
We talked about balance. Ms. Plotkin, I found it interesting that you didn't like that word very much. It can indeed be quite problematic, because we want to protect and maintain all the jobs or create others as well so that the communities can survive. However, it is true that it's not really a balance when a species disappears, because there is no way to make it reappear afterwards. So it's a bit of a difficult balance to strike.
So I would like to ask you the following question. We've heard from many people representing first nations communities about how boreal caribou are not only part of their identity and way of life, but also that a healthy caribou is proof of a healthy forest and that there is no sustainable development without a healthy forest.
A number of jobs in my community depend on forestry.
Today we've heard the unions approach the government and the forestry industry to really rethink forestry. They want us to be able to provide children in our rural communities with jobs today and tomorrow that they can be proud of and that will allow them to prosper and fully participate in the economy of tomorrow.
The employees are making a heartfelt plea, and I hear it loud and clear in my region.
The employees have ideas, and we have to listen to them. The unions have actually proposed one of those ideas, which would be to stop producing four-by-fours and then send them to the United States or elsewhere. We can do more with the wood we have. We can do more processing. We have extremely well-trained and highly skilled employees who work hard.
[English]
Madam Plotkin, you were at the point in your opening remarks where you were about to say the “good news”. The good news is resetting the industry so that we can all prosper, especially in rural Canada. I really wanted to hear about that.
:
I want to quickly go back to what Mrs. Chatel said.
I would simply point out to her that many people have been calling for this transformation in the forestry sector for years. Unfortunately, 75% of all government assistance to the forestry sector is in the form of loans. My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, contributes more to the federal government per year than all the financial support provided to the sector. So federal government support for the transition from commodities to more processing is non-existent and always has been. It seems to me that the government has some soul-searching to do.
Finally, I have a question for Mr. Bélanger, who was part of the recovery team. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger knew the late Claude Villeneuve very well, who helped us a great deal when it came to the forestry sector and caribou. Mr. Villeneuve told us that we shouldn't underestimate the impact of climate change on caribou habitat.
I know that some wildlife biologists don't necessarily agree with this argument, but I would like to hear what Mr. Bélanger thinks about it. Does he believe that climate change, particularly in Pipmuacan reservoir area, will have an effect on the northward migration of certain caribou herds?