Appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development – September 18, 2024

Timeline of events around caribou in QC since 2016 (provincial and federal)

April 2016: Quebec announced its plan to develop a Strategy for the recovery of boreal caribou and Atlantic-Gaspésie caribou (Stratégie pour les caribous forestiers et montagnards, the Caribou Strategy) for release in the spring of 2018.

March 8, 2018: Quebec’s Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs released a preliminary viability report for the Val-d’Or boreal caribou population, which concluded that the cost of restoring habitat in the range combined with the economic impacts is too great compared to the very low probability of success and the population is therefore doomed to disappear.

June 28, 2018: Federal, provincial, and territorial ministers – except Quebec – approved the Pan-Canadian Approach to Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada (Pan-Canadian Approach). Boreal caribou is one of six national priority species identified for collaborative action under the approach.

April 3, 2019: The Minister of Quebec’s Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs released maps of the areas considered for the provinces’ Caribou Strategy, as well as steps towards its posting, with final posting proposed for spring 2022.

September 27, 2019: The Government of Canada negotiated a cost-sharing agreement for boreal caribou with the Government of Quebec under the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection and Recovery of Species as Risk in Quebec.

December 19, 2019: The Minister of Quebec’s Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs announced the production of a meta-analysis on the subject of woodland caribou to collate and synthesize all the scientific data already published on a given subject, in this case caribou.

November 5, 2021: Quebec announced the creation of the Commission Indépendante sur les Caribous Forestiers et Montagnards (the Commission). This announcement followed the news that there would be another delay of Quebec’s Caribou Strategy to 2023. Three First Nations, one environmental law firm and one ENGO publicly indicated that they are considering legal action to push the federal government to take action in Quebec following the announcement. Three Indigenous groups have taken legal action against Quebec for its breach on the duty to consult regarding caribou protection issues, and five communities have requested that Canada use SARA protection provisions (s.61 and s.80).

November 29, 2021: The Commission publishes the meta-analysis on the subject of woodland caribou, which concludes that “the main threat to the maintenance and self-sufficiency of woodland and mountain caribou populations [is] habitat alteration associated with anthropogenic disturbances, caused mainly by forest management in Quebec.”

August 22, 2022: The governments of Quebec and Canada publicly stated their confidence in reaching an agreement for boreal and Atlantic-Gaspésie caribou to protect their habitat and achieve 65% undisturbed habitat in each range. Quebec also stated their intention to finalize their Caribou Strategy by the end of June 2023. On the same day, the Commission released its final report with recommendations that largely aligned with ECCC’s principles for a conservation agreement with Quebec.

January 30, 2023: The Minister of Environment and Climate Change (THE MINISTER) formed the opinion that almost all critical habitat located on non-federal lands in Quebec is not effectively protected.

March 12, 2023: ECCC provided comments on Quebec’s proposal for an agreement and reiterated key collaborative principles for ECCC. ECCC sent a new Collaboration Agreement proposal on March 28.

May 31, 2023: The Chiefs of the Essipit Innu First Nation (Martin Dufour), and the Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation (Gilbert Dominique), wrote to THE MINISTER to advise him that the Caribou Strategy was not being developed in collaboration or consultation with First Nations. They also requested federal government intervention under the Species at Risk Act. THE MINISTER responded on September 28, 2023.

June 7, 2023: THE MINISTER informed First Nations in Quebec that Canada would not be proceeding with a Protection Order at this time. On June 13, the Pessamit Innu Council wrote to THE MINISTER to request an urgent meeting to discuss the protection of boreal caribou and the survival of the culture of the Pessamit Innu First Nation.

June 15, 2023: News release indicating that Canada will be providing limited additional time for Quebec to release their Caribou Strategy after Quebec publicly confirmed that the Caribou Strategy would be reviewed to take account of the 2023 season's forest fires.

July 7, 2023: The AFNQL wrote to the Prime Minister to inform him of its concerns regarding Canada’s decision to not proceed with a s.61 protection order and to remind him of his duty to protect the right to environmental protection of Indigenous peoples under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

July 21, 2023: The Government of Canada released a statement that it would be pursuing a collaborative stewardship-based approach with Ontario and Quebec, and the minister would be closely monitoring the implementation of the conservation measures being taken in the provinces and could return to Cabinet with a new recommendation for a protection order, under the appropriate circumstances.

September 14, 2023: At an ECCC-First Nations Roundtable, ECCC announced that it was undertaking an assessment of imminent threats under section 80 of SARA, following several FN requests.

September 26, 2023: Minister Charette stated at the Legislative Assembly that he planned to table his Caribou Strategy before the end of 2023.

October 10, 2023: The Government of Quebec was informed by ECCC that they were undertaking an imminent threat assessment for boreal caribou in the province. ECCC asked Quebec to provide any updated information and data, and to publish the Caribou Strategy as soon as possible. Quebec indicated a few days later that they would not formally respond to the request for information.

November 6, 2023: At a meeting between ministers, Minister Charette confirmed that the Caribou Strategy would not be published before COP 28 and would probably be published for consultation a few weeks after the COP.

December 20, 2023: Quebec extended the year-end deadline for publication of the Caribou Strategy to mid-January 2024.

February 14, 2024: ECCC shared parts 1 and 2 of the imminent threat assessment for boreal caribou with the Government of Quebec and asked that they send any additional information to be considered in the assessment by February 27, 2024.

February 15, 2024: ECCC shared parts 1 and 2 of the imminent threat assessment for boreal caribou with First Nations in Quebec and asked that they provide any additional information to be considered in the assessment by February 29, 2024.

March 4, 2024: ECCC sent a consultation letter to First Nations in Quebec to understand the potential impacts of an emergency order and the implications of no emergency order and asked for feedback by March 28, 2024.

March 4, 2024: Speaking to reporters in Montreal, Minister Guilbeault called upon Quebec to respect an agreement signed between the two governments in August 2022 to protect caribou. He warns that if Quebec does not act, he will have the legal obligation to do so.

March 14, 2024: Minister Guilbeault sent a letter to Minister Charette stating his concerns over the repeated delay of the Quebec Caribou Strategy. He strongly encouraged the province to release its Caribou Strategy before May 1, 2024, and reminded Minister Charette that he is obligated to recommend the making of an emergency order if he is of the opinion that the species faces imminent threats.

March 19, 2024: In a news article, Minister Charette stated that work continues on Quebec’s Caribou Strategy and that he is confident that they will be able to move forward on the file in the coming weeks to meet the May 1 deadline Minister Guilbeault had encouraged, but that he will not jeopardize the development and survival of regions reliant on forestry.

April 30, 2024: Quebec released pilot projects and consultation plans for the Atlantic Gaspesie caribou population and the Charlevoix boreal caribou herd. No timelines for implementation of the projects were included and Quebec has indicated that they will take the time required to complete consultations, currently scheduled to be completed by October 31, 2024. Following consultations, Quebec will refine the projects, which will then require final approval prior to implementation.

May 6, 2024: Minister Charette addressed a letter to Minister Guilbeault describing their newly announced pilot projects. In the letter, he also invited Minister Guilbeault to resume discussions over a comprehensive agreement that would allow the disbursement of federal funds to Quebec to support the implementation of the Plan Nature 2030, as well as Quebec's measures for the conservation of caribou.

June 10, 2024: Quebec extends the consultation period on the newly announced protection measures for caribou until October 31, 2024.

June 17 & 18, 2024: Minister Guilbeault met Minister Charette first on June 17 to inform him of his opinion that boreal caribou faces imminent threats to its recovery. They met again on June 18 where Minister Guilbeault then informed him that Canada will proceed with the development of an emergency order that will protect habitat and prohibit activities that may adversely affect the species and its habitat within or near the three populations identified as most at risk in the imminent threat assessment completed by ECCC, Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan. 

June 19, 2024: Minister Guilbeault announced publicly he was initiating the process of making an emergency order to protect the habitat of the three most at-risk boreal caribou populations in Canada: the Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan. This included the publication of the Discussion Paper: Proposed scope of an Order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act to provide for the Protection of Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus) to guide consultations.

June 21, 2024: In a decision, the Superior Court of Quebec agrees with the Innu Essipit First Nation and Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation and orders the Government of Quebec to put in place, by September 30, 2024, a separate consultation process with them in relation to the development and implementation of the Strategy on the Woodland and Mountain caribou.

July 16, 2024: Quebec’s chief forester published his analysis of the impact of the potential emergency order and concluded that Quebec’s forestry potential would decrease by 4%.

July 19, 2024: In an interview, Quebec’s chief forester claimed his bureau tried to analyze the impact of the measures on caribou protection announced by Quebec on April 30, but concluded it was impossible due to the lack of information.

July 24, 2024: Minister Charette (MELCCFP) and Minister Blanchette Vézina (MRNF) addressed a letter to Minister Guilbeault denouncing the decision to go ahead with an emergency order. In the letter, both ministers also informed that the Government of Quebec would not participate in the consultation process for the development of the order.  A response is in development.

August 1, 2024: During a meeting between representatives of ECCC and the MELCCFP (ADM/DG level), Quebec mostly presented their current and future measures for caribou recovery.

August 20, 2024: A working-level meeting was held with representatives from the ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (MRNF), following ECCC's request for access to specific datasets related to the forestry sector in Quebec, where they presented their socio-economic analysis of the impact of a potential decree on the forestry sector.

August 30, 2024: A DM-level meeting was held between ECCC and the MELCCFP at which caribou was discussed.

Key messages

ENVI Committee - Emergency Order for boreal caribou in Quebec

Issue/Question: On June 19, 2024, based on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s recommendation, the Government of Canada decided to take action in Quebec to address the imminent threats to the recovery of boreal caribou by making an emergency order pursuant to subsection 80(2) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). On August 19, 2024, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI) met to discuss the emergency order for boreal caribou in Quebec. The ENVI passed a motion to undertake a study of the caribou protection measures and their impacts to the forestry sector given that the government of Quebec has assessed that at least 2000 jobs will be affected. All parties affirmed that it is important to address socio-economic and biodiversity/species at risk concerns, and that they could both be addressed.

Key messages

• The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and recovery of species at risk and to fulfilling its responsibilities under the Species at Risk Act.
• Boreal caribou is an iconic species for Canadians, and it plays a significant role in the culture and identity of Indigenous peoples in Canada. However, the species is threatened, and its populations are declining.
• The environment and economy can work together. The Government of Canada, provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders must contribute to developing innovative solutions for conserving the caribou while considering the needs of communities.
• The Government of Canada is taking a reasonable and balanced approach on the emergency order, one that aims to protect the best available habitat for boreal caribou, while limiting socio-economic impacts as much as possible.

Supplemental messages

• The Government of Canada consulted, until September 15, on the proposed scope of an emergency order, including the proposed prohibitions for the three most at-risk boreal caribou populations in Quebec: Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan.
• The emergency order will apply to targeted areas of best available habitat for the three most at risk boreal caribou populations in Quebec, balancing conservation value for caribou while limiting socio-economic impacts where possible.
• The imminent threats to recovery are due to the increase in disturbance from multiple threats, in particular the impact of logging for industrial activities and road network expansions.
• This emergency order will prohibit activities that contribute to the imminent threats, while limiting the negative impacts to the economy and local communities where possible.
• The Government of Canada remains open to collaborate with the Province of Quebec and will continue to work with Indigenous peoples and stakeholders on the protection and recovery of boreal caribou and to limit the impacts of an emergency order on the economy and local communities where possible.

Quebec Strategy and negotiations:

• While an Emergency Order will lay out prohibitions – things that will be forbidden, ECCC recognizes that other measures such as restoration of habitat are also important to the recovery of the species.
• Once the Quebec Caribou Strategy is released and assessed, ECCC is open to good faith negotiations with the Government of Quebec to develop an agreement, which could include federal support for provincial measures to recover boreal caribou and economic transition measures.
• The Government of Canada expects a comprehensive Caribou Strategy from the Government of Quebec, which respects its August 2022 commitment to reach at least 65% undisturbed habitat in the range of each caribou population.
• The Government of Canada remains open to collaborating and supporting the Government of Quebec in the implementation of such a strategy. If Quebec takes sufficient measures, the implementation of the federal order may not be necessary.
• If put in place, the Emergency Order could be lifted if Quebec was to implement concrete protection measures that would allow the Minister to conclude that the species is no longer facing imminent threats to its recovery.
• If the Government of Quebec does not collaborate, the Government of Canada intends to keep working with First Nations and other key stakeholders to advance conservation measures.

If pressed on job losses:

• A preliminary socio-economic analysis has been conducted and consultations with sector stakeholders are ongoing to further refine impact estimates and better understand impacts of the emergency order on communities.
• We are also gathering data from key partners and stakeholders during the consultation process, which will be used to help refine the emergency order area to limit socio-economic impacts where possible.
• The extent of mill curtailment or closures would depend on economic factors specific to each mill or company, including mill-level profitability and importance to the company’s value chain. 
• Measures to protect caribou would be incremental to other challenges that the Quebec forest sector has been facing, including the long-term decline in demand for traditional paper products (e.g., newsprint, printing and writing paper), challenges with employment, including an aging labor force and recruitment of skilled labour, and increased risks to timber supply posed by wildfires and pests.

Question Period Card

Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Issue

Species at Risk

Update

September 13, 2024

Source

A general update on what the Government is doing to support species at risk.

Synopsis

Canada is committed to the protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats based on Western Science and Indigenous Knowledge. The Species at Risk Act is a key tool for conserving Canada's biological diversity and contributes to fulfilling Canada's international commitments.

Recommended response

• Canada is deeply committed to conserving nature and to protecting and recovering species at risk, along with their habitats.
• We are working with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners to align our efforts on shared priorities, adopting multi-species and ecosystem-based stewardship approaches to enhance the impact of our conservation efforts.
• A central focus of our approach is meaningful Indigenous engagement, recognizing the importance of Indigenous knowledge and leadership in conservation.

Background

• In addition to Budget 2021's investment of $2.3 billion over five years under the Enhanced Nature Legacy for Canada initiative, Budget 2023 committed $184 million over three years specifically to continue to monitor, protect and promote the recovery of species at risk through implementation of the Government's statutory obligations under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).
• The Enhanced Nature Legacy for Canada Initiative sets out a roadmap to protect Canada's biodiversity through the protection of lands and waters, and the conservation of species at risk. With this initiative and support from the Canada Nature Fund, we will continue to promote and facilitate collaborative conservation efforts focused on stewardship by implementing the Pan-Canadian Approach to transforming species at risk conservation, focusing on of shared priority places, species, and sectors across Canada.
• This strategic approach is largely a shift from pursuing independent actions on single species, to concerted efforts in partnership with federal, provincial, and territorial governments, Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders that address multiple species and broader ecosystems-based actions.
• Continued implementation of the Pan-Canadian Approach is supporting the recovery and conservation of six federal, provincial, and territorial priority species (Barren-ground Caribou [including the Dolphin and Union population], Boreal Caribou, Greater Sage-grouse, Peary Caribou, Southern Mountain Caribou, and Wood Bison) and other species of federal interest. ECCC is supporting recovery through collaborative efforts, including matched investments from partners and ongoing multi-jurisdictional conservation planning arrangements.
• ECCC contributes to conserving nature through other programs, such as leading domestic and international biodiversity policy and partnerships to protect nature, leading on national efforts to conserve habitat, and expand Canada's network of protected and conserved areas, and providing expert advice to processes under the Impact Assessment Act.
• ECCC is working on policy and program improvements, including, supporting regulatory efficiency in impact assessment and permitting processes, while also continuing to modernize its approach to conservation by advancing the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Approach.
• ECCC is actively delivering on its management action plans in response to recommendations made in a number of species at risk related audits by the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development and is actively involved in an internal evaluation that will support the management of species at risk activities.

Approved by Assistant Deputy Ministers: Tara Shannon (613-617-2528) /John Moffet, ADM, EPB (613-790-8782)
Director General of Communications: Katie Donnelly O'Neill (343-552-8339)
Director General of Corporate Secretariat: Hilary Humphrey (343-552-7968)
Assistant Deputy Minister of PACB: Michael Zinck (819-664-5581)

Boreal Caribou Emergency Order

Species at Risk Act and s.80

Q1. What role does the federal government have in protecting boreal caribou?

• Provinces and territories (PTs) have the primary responsibility for the management of natural resources and wildlife on non-federal land within their respective jurisdictions.
• GoC also has responsibilities under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), including obligations regarding the protection of species at risk and their habitat.
• For example, SARA includes provisions that enable intervention by GoC on non-federal land, if the Minister forms the opinion that a species critical habitat is not adequately protected (s.61) or there is an imminent threat to the species survival or recovery (s.80).
• My department remains open to collaborating with Quebec in the protection and recovery of boreal caribou.

Q2. What authorities does the government have under the emergency order provision?  

• SARA includes discretionary authorities that enable federal intervention in exceptional circumstances such as when I have determined that a wildlife species is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery. 
• If I form an opinion that the species is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery, I am required under the Act to recommend the making of an emergency order to the Governor in Council. 
• In the case of boreal caribou on non-federal land, the emergency order may identify habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species and include provisions prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the species and that habitat. 
• The federal court has upheld the constitutionality of SARA’s emergency order provisions.

Q3. What is an emergency order? What does it allow?

• SARA gives the federal government the ability to issue an “emergency order” to protect a species that is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery where provincial actions are insufficient to address those threats.  
• An emergency order protects a species by prohibiting activities that pose an imminent threat to the species or its habitat. 
• SARA provides for the “doing of things” to protect the species and its habitat only in the cases of aquatic species or migratory birds anywhere they are found and for all other species only when found on federal lands. SARA provides only for the prohibition of activities for the protection of terrestrial species and its habitat on non-federal lands.
• For boreal caribou on non-federal lands, an emergency order doesn’t force anyone to put in place conservation activities for the species (e.g., closing and reforestation of roads; monitoring; reintroduction; predator control).

Q4. How long does an emergency order last? 

• An emergency order remains in effect until repealed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister that the species is no longer facing threats to its survival and recovery.  
• The implementation of measures that eliminate or mitigate the threats by a provincial, territorial or municipal government could lead me to determine that a species is no longer facing imminent threats.  

Q5. Has the Government of Canada ever issued an emergency order in the past?  

• An Emergency Order was issued in 2013 for the protection of the Greater Sage Grouse in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
• In 2016, an Emergency Order was issued for protection of the Western Chorus Frog in La Prairie, Quebec, and again in 2021 in Longueuil, Quebec.
• All orders remain in force. 

Q6. Why is an emergency order being put in place now?

• After years of waiting for Quebec to meet its own commitments to protect caribou, I personally, and my department, have received many requests for immediate action to protect the species.
• ECCC undertook an imminent threat assessment for boreal caribou, based on the populations in Quebec, to support me in forming my opinion under section 80 of SARA as to whether boreal caribou is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery.
• On May 10, 2024, I formed the opinion that boreal caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery due to the ongoing increase in the scope of disturbance from at least two threats in Quebec (logging, road building), resulting in the impact of these threats intensifying.
• The GIC can take various considerations into account when making their decision on whether or not to put the order in place, including, for example, the publication of a provincial Caribou Strategy.

Public consultation period

Q7. Since the consultation period ended on September 15, how can we be sure that the outcomes of these meetings will be taken into consideration?

• I understand that my appearance before this committee is after the end of the consultation period; however, my department is continuing to accept feedback and will ensure that the outcomes of these meetings are considered and incorporated as appropriate during the order refinement stage.
• My department has been collecting written feedback from the public on the proposed emergency order through various channels.
• Additionally, my department has conducted a series of information and technical sessions with First Nations, Municipalities, Forestry, Mining and Tourism Industries, non-governmental organizations, and scientific experts to answer questions, explain the proposed order and the ongoing socio-economic analysis, and collect feedback. My department also held bilateral meetings with various groups and organizations, as requested.

Science that supports the Ministerial opinion

Q8. How do you respond to claims that the Imminent Threat Assessment (ITA) is incomplete and biased, and therefore how do we know the boreal caribou are actually under imminent threat?

• ITAs are developed using the Policy on assessing imminent threats, and follow a robust process with set criteria to ensure high quality, consistent assessments are developed.
• The ITA on boreal caribou is a factual scientific assessment, developed using the best available data from the Government of Quebec, Indigenous Knowledge, academic papers, and federal government scientists, taking into account the precautionary principle.
• As the ITA uses a combination of federal and provincial data, the date of the last published federal recovery strategy does not impact the quality of the ITA. The science in the ITA, which supported my opinion, is still valid.
• An ITA is used to support the competent Minister in forming his opinion on whether or not there are imminent threats. It is not meant to be a comprehensive review of all of the threats but to demonstrate whether the threshold to enable him to form his opinion is met.
• The threshold for demonstrating that there is an imminent threat is very high. It should be noted based on the ITA, I did not conclude that there was an imminent threat to the survival of the species only to its recovery.

Q9. Why are you updating the recovery strategy?

• The 2012 federal Recovery Strategy was developed in cooperation with provinces and territories (PTs). The Recovery Strategy identifies 51 local population ranges within the current distribution of the boreal caribou, 36 of which are not self-sustaining, primarily due to habitat disturbance. In Quebec, most local population ranges are declining.
• The Recovery Strategy is a high-level, strategic document that provides direction for the species’ recovery while allowing flexibility for PTs to manage the species according to their specific conditions.
• Under Section 45 of SARA, the competent Minister may amend a recovery strategy at any time. This is a normal process, and ECCC has begun early internal discussions on a future amendment based on the best available information.
• We cannot presume outcomes of these updates. However, we know for example that PT range boundaries have changed significantly since the federal Recovery Strategy was published and we would like to bring the federal range boundaries in alignment with PT boundaries.

Q10. If you are updating the recovery strategy, how can you be confident in your imminent threat assessment?

• The Imminent Threat Assessment (ITA) used three lines of evidence from the federal Recovery Strategy – population size, population trend, and disturbance levels to assess the likelihood that a population would be self-sustaining. This was used to identify potentially at-risk boreal caribou populations in Quebec as one component of the ITA.
• While there is new research that will be reflected in the future amendment to the federal Recovery Strategy, the strong science supporting the assessment of these factors in determining whether a population is self-sustaining has not changed.
• The Imminent Threat Assessment (ITA) for boreal caribou is a factual scientific assessment, developed using the best available and most recent data from the Government of Quebec, Indigenous Knowledge, academic papers, and federal government scientists.

Q11. What is the science behind the recovery strategy’s disturbance threshold of 35%?

• There is strong scientific consensus that as the amount of disturbance increases in a local population range, there is an increasing risk that the population will be in decline.
• Research shows that fewer caribou calves survive to become part of the adult population as habitat disturbance in the range increases. This is due to higher calf mortality from higher predation rates in these disturbed ranges. Low calf survival over time results in population declines. Environment and Climate Change Canada used this relationship between calf survival and level of habitat disturbance to estimate the probability that a population would be self-sustaining (i.e., stable or increasing over time).
• As part of the identification of critical habitat, the Recovery Strategy established a minimum of 65% undisturbed habitat in a range as the disturbance management threshold. The minimum 65% undisturbed habitat threshold was a policy decision, and it provides a 60% probability that a local population to be self-sustaining.
• This is considered a minimum threshold because at 65% undisturbed habitat there remains a significant risk (40%) that local populations will not be self-sustaining.
• There is flexibility with this threshold if a jurisdiction can demonstrate equivalent outcomes for caribou (i.e., self-sustaining populations). But it must be based on strong scientific evidence.

Q12. Why is the threshold different for SK? And, given recent forest fires in Quebec should the threshold there not be updated? (can lean on info in Q18)

• Saskatchewan’s boreal shield range (SK1) is unique in that it has high levels of fire disturbance (55%) and very low levels of man-made disturbance (3%). The disturbance management threshold for SK1 is 40% undisturbed habitat because the disturbance regime is dominated by fire, rather than man-made disturbance. Science shows that man-made disturbance has a stronger negative effect on caribou than fire disturbance.
• A similar scientific study could be followed for other ranges, based on evidence. However, current studies from Quebec do not indicate that it is unique compared to other boreal caribou ranges in Canada.
• The populations under consideration for the emergency order were minimally affected by the 2023 wildfires. The disturbance regime in these ranges in Quebec continues to be dominated by man-made disturbance, not fire.

Quebec context

Q13. What do we aim to achieve through the implementation of an emergency order? The three most at risk ranges in Quebec are already well above the 35% disturbance threshold. What’s the point of the emergency order if it won’t help achieve 65% undisturbed habitat? Why bother putting une cloche de verre over the area?

• The emergency order aims to protect the best available remaining habitat in the three most at-risk ranges in Quebec (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan) by prohibiting activities that have the biggest negative impact on caribou: logging due to commercial activities and road building.
• Protecting the habitat would help support recovery of the species while the jurisdiction follows through on its Caribou Strategy and its commitment to reach 65% undisturbed habitat.
• Our government recognizes that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The order aims to balance best conservation value for caribou while limiting socio-economic impacts, where possible.

Q14. Why are you targeting Quebec for the emergency order?

• The Recovery Strategy, developed with input from PTs, called for PTs to develop “range plans” by 2017, demonstrating how they will manage and protect critical habitat within each caribou range to maintain or attain a minimum of 65% undisturbed habitat, but no province or territory fully met this timeline.
• Our government prefers a collaborative stewardship-based approach through the use of conservation agreements to codify commitments and put in place conservation measures to support the species’ recovery, including for the development of range plans.
• To date, conservation agreements have been signed by all PTs except Quebec.
• Without such an agreement and the related commitments to put in place protection and other conservation measures, there is no planned path to support recovery of the species and mitigate threats. Therefore, our imminent threat assessment could not take into consideration any such potential measures, contributing to my opinion that the species is facing imminent threats to its recovery.

Q15. Are you aware of the work that Quebec has done for caribou conservation?

• We are well aware of Quebec’s work, especially given we the Government of Canada has had two agreements with the province to fund their protection measures, and Quebec has repeatedly shared with us their current and proposed measures such as interim protection measures.
• In 2016, Quebec announced its intention to publish a provincial strategy for woodland and mountain caribou. Eight years later, the strategy’s publication has been repeatedly postponed and boreal caribou populations continue to decline.
• On April 30, 2024, Quebec released proposed partial measures for two pilot projects and one protected area expansion, still under consultation.
• Only one of the pilot projects, in Charlevoix, addresses the ranges identified as most at risk.
• Quebec has not announced a timeline for when the partial measures will be implemented, nor has it indicated when it expects to release a full Caribou Strategy, and therefore what protection is planned for the other caribou ranges in Quebec.

Q16. What is required to protect and recover caribou in Quebec?

• Immediate and longer-term conservation and protection measures, including habitat restoration and population management, are needed in Quebec.
• Direct population measures (e.g., predator control and penning) are temporary tools to prevent the loss of populations while the habitat can be restored to support self-sustaining caribou populations.
• Range plans that outline complementary measures and a path to self-sufficiency, including habitat protection and habitat restoration, are required for long term recovery.
• The emergency order provides for protection of the best available habitat to address the imminent threat. It is not meant to achieve 65% undisturbed habitat or recover the population to self-sufficiency. That is the role of the jurisdiction.

Threats to boreal caribou in Quebec

Q17. Why are we targeting the forestry industry?

• We are not targeting the forestry industry. The proposed prohibitions include the destruction or removal of trees related to multiple commercial purposes including mining, oil and gas, and electrical industries.
• The main objective of the emergency order is to prohibit activities that may adversely affect the species and its habitat.
• The imminent threat assessment found that the destruction of habitat caused by the increase in logging for commercial activities and the related road network expansion were the biggest threats to boreal caribou in Quebec. Therefore, these are the threats we are addressing through the order.
• We are looking at options to limit socio-economic impacts on the forestry industry.

Q18. Other than the identified imminent threats, what threats do boreal caribou face? Why isn’t the federal government enforcing measures for those as well?

• Other threats to caribou recovery include fires, pests, disease, and climate change.
• Addressing the imminent threats (i.e., logging due to commercial activities and road building) is essential for the recovery of the species. Managing other threats is also important.
• GoC remains open to collaborating with and supporting Quebec in implementing proactive conservation measures that address multiple threats.

Q19. What about alternative conservation measures (penning, predator control)?

• Population management measures such as penning and predator control may be implemented as interim measures to prevent local extinction or to maintain a population until the habitat condition is sufficient to support a self-sustaining population. However, on their own, these measures do not lead to a population becoming self-sufficient.
• Penning caribou is a last resort measure signaling that other measures in place are insufficient. Without a long-term plan, local extinction is highly likely.

Q20. Are Indigenous Peoples still harvesting boreal caribou in Quebec and is it considered as a threat?

• Hunting of boreal caribou has been prohibited in Quebec since 2001.
• Some Indigenous communities or individuals may have continued to harvest boreal caribou as part of their Aboriginal and treaty rights. However, other communities have stated support for the provincial ban or self-imposed limits.
• The Val d'Or and Charlevoix populations are in enclosures, and the Pipmuacan population is closely monitored by guardians of the territory, so these three populations are not subject to harvesting pressure.

Q21. What is the conservation benefit of the order for caribou?

• The emergency order would stop additional cumulative disturbance in the order areas and allow for natural regeneration of existing disturbance.
• On its own, the order will not lead to the caribou populations achieving self-sustainability.
• Returning disturbed forests to functional caribou habitat through restoration and natural regeneration requires many decades. The order provides a window of time during which further habitat destruction will be stopped while a long-term plan is put in place.
• Maintaining the habitat required for healthy populations of boreal caribou can also help to conserve other species at risk and wildlife in general.

Q22. Impacts of forest fires on the order.

• The most recent research indicates that several herds were minimally affected by the 2023 wildfires. Boreal caribou have evolved in the boreal forest, which burns; it is an integral part of their environment.
• Scientists' research indicates that fires can have a negative impact on caribou. However, human infrastructure and resource exploitation activities remain the main cause of the loss and alteration of boreal caribou habitat.
• Wildfires are expected to continue to increase in size and number and may impact the emergency order areas. The projected increase in wildfires emphasizes the importance of the order in protecting best remaining habitat in these highly disturbed ranges, in line with the precautionary principle.
• Fires usually maintain islands of mature forest which can be good for caribou, whereas cutblocks have a more total effect on the habitat destroying all the wood and removing it from the landscape.

Socio-economic Considerations

Q23. Why don’t you release your full socio-economic analysis publicly? When will you release a final socio-economic analysis? How do you think the socio-economic analysis will change?

• The socio-economic analysis has been tabled with the ENVI Committee, within requested deadline.
• A preliminary socio-economic analysis was conducted for provisional areas, but since the areas are not final the results will change. The socio-economic analysis will be refined once the emergency order areas and prohibitions are finalized, taking into account input received during the consultation process where possible.
• Specifically, regional impacts, including impacts related to mills and communities, are still being assessed.
• We are currently focusing on soliciting as much input as possible, as quickly as possible, given the emergency nature of the situation. Therefore, we encourage those with information that may be relevant to decision-makers to engage in the consultation process.
• We continue to work closely with our colleagues at NRCan to ensure that we have access to sector-specific context, models and data valuable for the analysis.

Q24. What are the potential impacts of the order on Quebec’s communities, especially those that rely on industry for their livelihood? What is the federal government doing to limit impacts to local communities? How do you intend to support workers impacted?

• We recognize the importance of the forest sector to rural, remote, and Indigenous communities.
• We will continue to work with Quebec, Indigenous peoples, industries, and other stakeholders to support caribou recovery and minimize the impacts of the Order.
• The federal government has a range of programs available to help Canadians who lose their jobs such as the Labour Market Agreement and Grants and Contribution programs. We are in active discussions with key federal departments about how best to leverage these tools to support Quebec forestry workers who may be affected by the order.

Socio-Economic Impact of an Emergency Decree on Lumber and the Forestry Industry

Q25. Industry believes that the proposed EO will result in significant job losses and mill closures in the forest sector. Are you aware of the impact this decision will have on Quebec's regions? What is the expected impact to mills and their employees?

• I am aware of the challenges of balancing economic development and environmental conservation, and the hard choices that have to be made in emergency situations.
• Canada has completed detailed preliminary analysis on the impacts on communities and is consulting extensively with industry to better understand impacts on the sector and communities. We are taking these impacts into consideration as we work to finalize the order and will do everything we can to minimize costs to the sector and communities, while ensuring effective protection is put in place for caribou.
• Canada’s preliminary analysis shows that there are about 40 mills with licences to harvest in the forest regions overlapping the provisional area, and more that source raw material from the area.
• To better assess impacts on mills and communities, ECCC needs to understand where upcoming timber harvests are planned, how mills share harvested timber, and production levels at mills over time.
• We understand that the last decade has been difficult for the sector. Forestry jobs in Quebec have declined by nearly 7% due to lumber price volatility, technological advances, variations in export tariffs and a long-term decline in demand for traditional paper products (e.g., newsprint, printing and writing paper).
• We also understand that the sector faces increased risks to timber supply posed by wildfires and pests, as well as challenges recruiting skilled labour to replace an aging work force.
• We are sympathetic to these challenges and are assessing impacts in the context of the current situation.
• We continue to work with stakeholders to clarify the Order's proposed prohibitions, identify potential impacts of the emergency order, determine the exact area of the order, and support discussions on how to mitigate any anticipated impacts.

Q26. How is the federal government assessing impacts to mills?

• We are working to better understand current industry context and gather up-to-date, detailed data on mill thresholds and productivity levels.
• The extent of mill curtailment or closures would depend on economic factors specific to each mill or company, including mill-level profitability and importance to the company’s value chain.
• We are considering different approaches to assessing impacts to mills.
• Currently, it is difficult for us to model mill by mill volume impacts given that we do not have access to mill specific information. Stakeholder input could support this assessment of mill impacts.

Q27. We have heard from Boisaco and other witnesses that the situation is more dire in specific regions. Are you considering this in your analysis?

• The total annual allowable cut volume in the proposed provisional areas is estimated to be 1.3 million m³. This represents 4% of the total annual allowable cut in the province.
• At the regional level, the proportion of annual allowable cut affected does vary, with some regions facing higher losses than others. We will consider this in our analysis.
• However, historically, the volume of timber harvested has typically amounted to about 65% of available annual allowable cut in Quebec.
• Boisaco has stated in their letters to the Prime Minister that they will lose 50% to 60% of their supply due to the proposed EO. We believe this may be based on their planned cuts for the 2024-2025 year being predominantly located in the EO; however, we cannot verify without further data about their operations. We welcome any data or analysis they can provide to substantiate their stated impacts.

Q28. Can you explain the numbers in your economic analysis? What are the highlights of your socio-economic analysis?

• We estimate that the potential losses in forest sector net profits are about $75 million to $100 million annually. This represents 2-3% of the sector’s profits in Quebec.
• The direct GDP impact on the forest sector in Quebec is estimated to be about $170 million annually. This represents around 2% of forest sector GDP and less than 1% of Quebec’s total GDP.
• Our preliminary analysis shows that about 1,400 direct forest sector jobs could be affected, which is less than 3% of forest sector jobs in Quebec. This aligns with Quebec’s analysis.  However, we expect that these job impacts will occur in the short to medium term and would be mitigated over time as workers transition to other forest sector jobs or other sectors.

Socio-Economic Impact of an Emergency Decree on Communities Across Quebec

Q29. We’ve heard witnesses/media say XXX jobs/households will be impacted. Is this true? Have you considered community/regional impacts in the analysis? How many communities are expected to be affected by the emergency order?

• We are conducting a regional analysis that takes into account the potential implications to communities.
• This involves considerations around the extent of each community’s reliance on the forest sector. We are looking at factors such as the proportion of the community workforce employed in the forest sector and the proportion of each region’s economy that is forestry versus other sectors.
• Our preliminary analysis shows that 20 to 30 communities could be affected by the proposed emergency order due to their dependency on the forest sector and their proximity to mills operating near the proposed provisional area.
• The list of communities and how they could be affected is still being analyzed as more data becomes available through the consultation process and further research.
• We welcome any information or data that could help us better understand these impacts.

Q30. Have you considered the impacts to jobs in forest-reliant communities that are not directly connected to the forest sector (ie. induced jobs) the impact to households in these communities?

• We understand that the forest sector is central to some communities in these regions and that jobs outside the forest sector may be affected in these communities. We are considering the extent to which communities in the regions are reliant on the sector in our analysis.
• We welcome any stakeholder information during this consultation period that would improve our analysis.

Q31. Have you considered the impacts on property values/ loss of household wealth?

• We understand that this could be an issue in certain communities impacted by the emergency order.
• We are currently exploring different sources of data and engaging experts to determine the extent to which we can model such impacts.

Q32. Have you considered the impact the EO will have on investment in these communities? How are you going to integrate the cost of maintaining road infrastructure in the areas covered by the decree into the impact assessment?

• We understand that forest companies make significant contributions to the communities where they operate, and we welcome any information stakeholders can provide on these contributions so we can consider this issue as part of our analysis.
• We recognize that the forest sector does contribute to the maintenance of roads.
• We are looking into the implications for recreational and local users.

Q33. Have you considered the impact of the order on the cost of living/ cost of housing/ cost of lumber/ etc.?

• We do not expect that the cost of lumber will increase due to the EO given that it will affect a small percentage of harvest relative to that of the province.

Q34. What are the potential impacts of the EO on mining-reliant communities?

• Most impacts on the mining sector would be concentrated in the Val-d'Or area, which is highly reliant on mining. However, impacts on the sector are expected to remain minimal relative to the size of the sector in the area.

Comparison of Federal and Provincial Socio-Economic Analysis of an Emergency Decree

Q35. How does your socio-economic analysis measure up to the analysis done by the Province of Quebec? / How similar is your analysis to the Province of Quebec?

• Our analysis aligns with the analysis conducted by the Province of Quebec. We have similar estimates of annual allowable cut in the EO area, as well as job and GDP impacts. We expect our numbers will not align perfectly given that the Province has access to confidential industry data. 
• If pressed for specific numbers, see table below:

Table 1. Impacts to the Forest Sector^{Footnote 1}

Socio-Economic Impact of an Emergency Decree on Clean Growth

Q36. Will you be stopping clean growth projects from continuing? How are clean growth projects impacted by the EO?

• As you will note in the Discussion Paper published as part of the consultation process, we are currently proposing excluding critical mineral projects from the EO area. This is in recognition of the fact that critical minerals are required to manufacture green technologies such as modern batteries, zero emission vehicles, wind turbines, energy storage systems and solar panels. We understand that a significant portion of the country’s mining projects are at advanced development stages and are aiming to produce minerals critical to battery manufacturing areas in Quebec.
• Projects that are already operating, like Parc éolien de la Rivière-du-Moulin, will not be affected by the EO.

Socio-Economic Benefits of an Emergency Decree

Q37. How are you taking into account the benefits of the EO in the socio-economic analysis? Why are you not monetizing the benefits? How will you compare costs and benefits?

• The contribution of this specific order to the successful recovery of boreal caribou is not known with certainty because this recovery will require a combination of a protection order and additional protection and recovery measures undertaken by federal and provincial governments, Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. The order is critical to this broader protection strategy and is needed to address an imminent threat to caribou.
• The benefits that we are assessing are associated with the successful recovery of boreal caribou and not just the EO on its own. While these benefits cannot be directly compared to costs, they provide important context about the value of protecting this iconic species.
• The assessment of benefits of species protection follows the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework, which is standard practice in line with Canada’s guidelines for cost-benefit analysis of regulations. The total economic value framework considers the full spectrum of benefits to society from protection of a natural asset or species. Monetizing or even quantifying benefits from species or environmental assets is often not possible or appropriate. Therefore, most benefits are described in qualitative terms. However, when possible, quantitative examples are provided to demonstrate the potential magnitude of a small portion of benefits associated with boreal caribou recovery.
• Overall, the benefits of boreal caribou recovery stem from maintaining and enhancing the cultural, social, and economic opportunities associated with boreal caribou and its habitat for Indigenous peoples and Canadians in general.

Compensation

Q38. Can companies impacted by an emergency order receive financial compensation?  

• Any individual, corporation or organization that believes they have suffered losses resulting from the application of an emergency order can apply for compensation under SARA.   
• SARA provides discretionary authority for me to provide fair and reasonable compensation claims from any person for losses suffered, but it must be only in the case of extraordinary impacts.  
• What constitutes an extraordinary impact is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the extent of the impact on land-use, the nature of the losses and the impact of those losses on the individual or company.  

Permitting

Q39. What is a SARA permit and when do I need one?

• A SARA permit would be required for any activity prohibited by the order in the area where the order applies.
  • SARA permits are written authorizations that would allow applicants to carry out certain activities otherwise prohibited by SARA at specific location(s).
  • Before I can authorize a permit certain pre-conditions must be met, e.g., that all feasible measures will be taken to minimize impact on the species.
  • They contain specific terms and conditions governing the activity that I consider necessary for protecting the species, minimizing the impact of the authorized activity on the species, or providing for its recovery.

Q40. What is the process for obtaining a permit after the emergency order is put in place?

• 73 of SARA sets out conditions that must be met before I may issue a permit for an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals.
• All permit applications undergo a scientific assessment conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), and a permit may only be issued if the proposed activity falls under one or more of the following purposes:
  • scientific research relating to the conservation of the species and conducted by qualified persons;
  • the activity benefits the species or is required to enhance its chance of survival in the wild; or
  • affecting the species is incidental to the carrying out of the activity.
• In addition, an activity that meets one of the three purposes above may only be permitted if it meets all of the following pre-conditions:
  • all reasonable alternatives to the activity that would reduce the impact on the species have been considered and the best solution has been adopted;
  • all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact of the activity on the species or its critical habitat; and,
  • the activities will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.

Q41. What about roads? Existing roads, service roads, how to ensure industrial activities are not isolated?

• ECCC is continuing to define the prohibitions and exemptions as part of the consultation process and detailed definitions will be made clear before the order is put in place.
• Proposed exemptions would aim to allow projects excluded from the order area to continue their operations in a way that would not strand the project, while also including limitations to minimize impacts to the order area.

Annex: Summary of Socio-Economic Analysis

• This section summarizes the impacts from Annex II that was tabled.
• ECCC continues to refine the analysis based on information obtained from stakeholders and Indigenous peoples during the ongoing consultation process, including regional and community level impacts and impacts to mills and manufacturing.
• The majority of impacts associated with the proposed emergency order (EO) arise from the lost opportunity to harvest forest resources or to continue mining exploration or development within the provisional areas.

Total Impacts

• Although the areas that would be included in the EO have not been finalized, the total costs for an order applying to the provisional areas are estimated to be between $670 million and $895 million over ten years (see Table 1). These costs are reported in present value terms using a 3% discount rate over a ten-year analytical timeline (2025-2034).

Table 1. Estimated costs of the proposed EO in provisional areas (16,000 km2), (Losses Over 10 Years, Discounted at 3%, rounded, $ million).

Forestry Impacts

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)

• The total annual allowable cut volume in the proposed provisional areas is estimated to be 1.3 million m³. This represents 4% of the total annual allowable cut in the province.
  • Historically, the volume of timber harvest has typically amounted to about 65% of available annual harvest levels in Quebec. This is due to economic limitations facing the forest sector including fibre access costs and capacity limits such as the condition and location of mill facilities and the availability of workers.

Profits

• If all forest sector activity within the area of the draft order boundaries was prohibited, potential losses in forest sector net profits are estimated at $650 million to $850 million from 2025 to 2034 (discounted), or $75 million to $100 million annually (undiscounted).
• Restricting fibre harvest within the provisional areas could result in estimated losses of 2% to 3% of both annual timber harvest and net annual profits in Quebec.

GDP

• According to NRCan, the direct GDP impact to the forest sector in Quebec is estimated to be $168 million annually^{Footnote 3}. This represents 2.2% of forest sector GDP and 0.04% of Quebec's total GDP.

Jobs

• Approximately 1,400 direct and 800 indirect forest sector jobs may be at risk due to the proposed EO.
• Job impacts will be felt mostly in the short-term; however, they may be mitigated over the medium-term as workers transition to other forest sector jobs or other sectors.

Mills

• There are 55 licensees with guaranteed supply agreements in the forest regions^{Footnote 4} affected by the proposed EO.
  • This includes 35 lumber mills, 3 pulp-paper mills, 10 wood product manufacturing facilities (including veneer and plywood), 2 co-generation and energy product facilities, 2 First Nations communities, 3 harvesting cooperatives.
• NRCan has identified an additional 8 pulp and paper facilities, without guaranteed supply agreements, that could be affected by the proposed EO.
  • This does not represent all secondary manufacturing as other types of secondary manufacturing facilities (e.g. wood products manufacturing) will also be affected.
  • We expect that additional secondary manufacturing facilities will be identified as the consultation process and research continues.
• The actual harvest rate by licensees is generally lower than their total allowable harvest due to various economic limitations such as capacity limits of mills, the availability of forest sector workers, and transportation limitations (cost, distance to mills, etc.).
• The extent of mill curtailment or closures decisions would depend on economic factors specific to each mill or company, including mill-level profitability and importance to company value chain. Operational data was requested at general consultation with industry to better understand mill level affects, but no data has been submitted thus far.

Communities

• Analysis conducted by NRCan has shown that there are at least 28 communities that could be affected by the proposed EO due to their dependency on the forest sector and their proximity to mills operating near the proposed provisional area.
  • The proposed EO could affect eight “very highly” forest-reliant communities - Témiscaming, Kipawa, La Tuque, Saint-Thomas-Didyme, Saint-Edmond-les-Plaines, Girardville, Saint-Ludger-de-Milot, and Passes-Dangereuses.
  • The proposed EO could affect 20 “highly” forest-reliant communities including Sacré-Coeur, Kebaowek, Senneterre, Landrienne, Béarn, and La Doré.
• Many of the licensees/mills are located in “highly” or “very-highly” forest-reliant communities.

Mining Impacts

• Junior mining companies would be disproportionately affected as they rely heavily on capital injections to carry out early-stage mineral exploration activities.
  • It is possible that some workers potentially affected by the order could find employment at other projects outside of the provincial ranges given the current momentum in the sector.
• Mining-reliant communities that could be affected include Abitibi settlements such as Val d'Or.

Context - State of the Forest Sector in Quebec

Temporary Foreign Workers Program

• In consultation, a forest sector company mentioned that their workforce has included temporary foreign workers since COVID-19. Media articles corroborate that the number of temporary foreign workers working in the forest sector in Canada is rising^{Footnote 5}. Thus, we expect that other companies operating in Quebec may also be employing temporary foreign workers.
  • Quebec had 87% of TFW permit holders destined for their province for forestry occupations in 2023, with approximately 390^{Footnote 6}.
  • The governments of Canada and Quebec agreed to extend the measures available to Quebec employers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program since 2021.
  • Note that logging and forestry labourers (NOC 85120) and labourers in wood, pulp, and paper processing (NOC 95103) are exempt from the requirement to provide proof of local recruitment efforts^{Footnote 7}.

Trade

• Trade exports from Quebec's forest sector averaged $11 billion annually between 2019 and 2023 representing 28% of Canada's total forest sector exports. In 2023, approximately 86% of these exports were to the United States of America. Quebec also imports, on average, $3 billion annually of forest products, predominately from the United States.
• Softwood lumber exports from Quebec averaged approximately $2 billion annually between 2019 and 2023, representing 16% of Canada's total softwood exports.
• In early 2024, the United States announced plans to increase tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber from 8% to 14%. Considering the high reliance on the United States as a trade partner in this sector, this tariff increase is likely to impact Quebec's forest sector.

Groupe Boisaco

• Groupe Boisaco operates out of Sacré-Coeur (headquarters), Les Bergeronnes, and Saint-David-de-Falardeau, two of which are considered highly forest reliant communities.
• Groupe Boisaco employs 600 workers and their three cooperatives have nearly 300 worker-shareholders^{Footnote 8}.
• Groupe Boisaco has three guaranteed supply agreements to harvest in the forest regions affected by the proposed EO.
  • NRCan estimates that approximately 8% of the supply volume for Groupe Boisaco's mills with guaranteed supply agreements would be affected by the proposed EO.
    • Boisaco has stated in their letters to the Prime Minister that they will lose 50% to 60% of their supply due to the proposed EO. This number cannot be verified without data about their operations.
    • Boisaco was present during general consultations where requests were made for operational data (from all forest companies present) to better understand the potential impacts; however, data has not been received.
  • The fibre they harvest supplies their seven operations, including their primary mills (Boisaco Inc., Bersaco, Valibois) and secondary operations (Ripco, Granulco, Sacopan, and Forrestco).

Preliminary socio-economic analysis of the proposed Boreal Caribou Emergency Order in Quebec

Context

This document presents the preliminary socio-economic analysis conducted by ECCC, with input from NRCan, on the potential socio-economic implications of the proposed Boreal Caribou Emergency Order (EO) in Quebec. Although much of this analysis was conducted to inform the Government of Canada decision-making when the Minister brought forward his recommendation following his determination that the boreal caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery, 'using the best available information at the time, the analysis has since been updated to focus on the provisional areas put forward in the Discussion Paper outlining the current ECCC proposal for protection.^{Footnote 9}  As well, ECCC continues to refine the analysis based on information obtained from stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples during the ongoing consultation process. The analysis is preliminary and the impacts presented are likely to change after the consultation period, and before finalization of the regulatory proposal. Specifically, distributional impacts, including impacts related to mills and communities, are still being assessed.

Summary

This analysis was conducted according to Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat guidelines for cost-benefit analysis of regulatory proposals,^{Footnote 10}  with input from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Foregone net profits reflect the opportunity cost to society of prohibiting economic activity, taking into account the value that society places on the activity, i.e., revenues, but also the avoided costs of resources used in production that could be freed up to create value elsewhere in the economy. The portion of revenue that is transferred to the government in the form of royalties and stumpage fees is also considered and reported separately. The assessment of benefits of species protection follows the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework and standard non-market valuation techniques. All estimates are in 2023 CAD dollars unless otherwise stated.

An order, regardless of its scope, aims to contribute to the recovery of an iconic species in Canada, thereby supporting important cultural value for Indigenous people in Canada as well as significant use and non-use benefits for Canadians. The incremental benefits of an order cannot be assessed due to uncertainty with respect to how an emergency order would increase the probability of recovering the species. Nevertheless, quantitative and qualitative benefits are presented to demonstrate the total economic value of the recovery of the species. Although these values cannot be directly compared to costs, it is

estimated that the value to Quebecers of a program to improve the status of boreal caribou in the province is approximately $219 million annually, or between $2.4 billion and $3.3 billion over 20 years.^{Footnote 11} The majority of costs arise from the foregone opportunity to harvest forest resources or to continue mining exploration or development within the provisional areas. Although the areas that would be included in the EO have not been finalized, the total costs for an order applying to the provisional areas are estimated to be between $670 million and $895 million over ten years (see Table 1). These costs are reported in present value terms using a 3% discount rate over a ten-year analytical timeline (2025-2034). The annual, undiscounted, costs for the forest sector are estimated at $75 million to $100 million.

An order under Section 80 of the Species at Risk Act would be expected to be repealed only when equivalent protection is in place. However, it is currently uncertain when a repeal would occur. Therefore, a 10-year time frame was used, as recommended in Treasury Board Secretariat's Canada's Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals.^{Footnote 12} Losses were estimated taking into account expected investment decisions in the event of an order, meaning some losses extend beyond the 10-year timeframe.

The analysis was conducted using the best available information and various assumptions. Consultations with stakeholders and Indigenous People are ongoing until September 15, 2024, to support the work to determine the full impacts of an order, including distributional impacts. Costs presented in Table 1 represent the costs that could be realized if all activities in these sectors within the provisional areas were unable to continue.

Table 1. Estimated costs of the proposed EO in provisional areas (16,000 km2), (Losses Over 10 Years, Discounted at 3%, rounded, $

Socio-economic benefits of boreal caribou recovery

Successful recovery of boreal caribou would require a combination of a protection order and additional protection and recovery measures undertaken by federal and provincial governments, Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. As such, the benefits described below are associated with the successful recovery of boreal caribou and not directly attributable to an emergency area. Overall, these benefits stem from maintaining and enhancing the cultural, social, and economic opportunities associated with boreal caribou and its habitat for Indigenous peoples and Canadians in general. Most benefits are described in qualitative terms as they are not amenable to quantitative analysis. However, when possible, quantitative examples are provided to demonstrate the potential magnitude of a portion of benefits associated with boreal caribou recovery.

Caribou is an important part of Indigenous culture and identity, enabling spirituality and ritual, language preservation, knowledge transmission, tradition, and connection to the past for many Indigenous Peoples. Caribou is a recurrent and central theme in Indigenous stories, songs, art, and ceremonies.^{Footnote 13},^{Footnote 14}  The traditional caribou hunt supports reciprocity and social cohesion and allows for the preservation of Indigenous languages via the use of a rich vocabulary pertaining to the activity.^{Footnote 15} The hunt is also central to the transmission of knowledge, which contributes to the preservation of Indigenous culture and tradition.^{Footnote 16} ,^{Footnote 17}

There are many Indigenous areas and treaties (e.g., traditional territories and assertions) intersecting and surrounding the provisional areas. Although a limited number of Indigenous communities are found within the provisional areas, the surrounding communities may be able to hunt and harvest the implicated areas of caribou, following sufficient recovery.

Access to caribou as a traditional food source can increase food security in Indigenous communities by reducing reliance on grocery store foods. This is especially true in northern communities. Caribou meat is high in protein and other nutrients, and many Indigenous communities prefer it to other wild meats." Giving up traditional foods and related activities is associated with increased health risks such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, as well as a loss of social and spiritual values and reduced sense of satisfaction, which can affect overall health.^{Footnote 19}

Caribou are an iconic Canadian wildlife species, appearing on the 25-cent coin and on crests, shields, and monuments throughout the country. Studies have shown that Canadians place value on the continued existence of caribou in Canada, regardless of whether they will ever interact with the species directly. The existence value of a species or natural asset is related to `intrinsic' value and can be monetized using the concept of willingness-to-pay. A 2022 study revealed there is significant public interest among the residents of Quebec in supporting the protection of endangered species and their habitat in the province. It was estimated that about 80% of Quebecers believe that caribou protection is important, and about 15% of respondents would choose the woodland caribou (i.e., boreal Caribou) as the most important species to protect out of a group of ten of the most iconic species at risk in Quebec.^{Footnote 20}

A 2023 follow-up study found that Quebecers surveyed were willing to pay, on average, approximately $55 per individual per year for 20 years to support measures that would contribute to the improvement of the status of boreal caribou in Quebec.^{Footnote 21} These estimates do not account for benefits to Indigenous populations, as previously described. Applying the results of this study to all of Quebec, the value to Quebecers of a program to improve the status of boreal caribou in the province is approximately $219 million annually, or between $2.4 billion and $3.3 billion over 20 years." These results require careful interpretation and are presented on an indicative basis only.^{Footnote 23}  Most importantly, the program represented in the study may not result in the same conservation outcomes as an emergency order, so its potential benefits should not be directly compared to Order costs. Furthermore, multiple caveats around the study and the method of benefit transfer warrant caution on these estimates which are likely to be an overestimation.^{Footnote 24} Finally, these estimates do not account for distributional impacts among Quebecers related to differences in preferences arising from location of residence relative to caribou. For example, the 2022 study quoted above, based on the same survey, found that people living in regions inhabited by caribou were less concerned with the species' conservation and more supportive of wood harvest activities than people living in other regions where extraction of natural resources is a weaker driver of the local economy.

Ecosystems where boreal caribou are found — primarily mature coniferous forests and peat lands — also provide many benefits to Canadians, including aesthetic and recreational opportunities, and ecological services such as nitrogen cycling, carbon storage and sequestration, air filtration, flood control, water flow mitigation, and water filtration.^{Footnote 25}, ^{Footnote 26}  Furthermore, conservation of boreal caribou through protection of its habitat can simultaneously enhance conservation of other species that share the same habitat, including those at risk.^{Footnote 27} The extent to which such benefits would be a direct result of caribou protection is dependent on the types of activities that would take place on this landscape in the absence of such protection.

Protection of caribou habitat by conserving large tracts of undisturbed forests could also benefit Indigenous populations, who share a sacred cultural connection to the Canadian boreal forest.^{Footnote 28} About 70% of Indigenous communities in Quebec are located in forested areas. For many Indigenous populations, forest lands have been the source of cultural traditions, spiritual knowledge, traditional foods and medicinal ingredients as well as revenue from non-timber forest products.^{Footnote 29}, ^{Footnote 30}  

Protection of boreal forests through the protection of caribou habitat can have benefits for Canadians in terms of aesthetic and recreation values.^{Footnote 31}, ^{Footnote 30} Furthermore, the Canadian boreal forest is a landscape that is symbolic to Canada, and may therefore have an existence value since many people can derive well-being from simply knowing that the boreal forest exists now and in the future as a part of Canada's natural heritage, even if they never experience it directly.^{Footnote 30}

A decision against habitat protection for a species that subsequently becomes locally extirpated cannot be reversed without significant reintroduction costs as welt as uncertainty around the likelihood that the reintroduction will be successful. On the other hand, a decision to protect could be more easily reversed in the future. Economic theory and the precautionary principle suggest there is a benefit to erring on the side of avoiding a `wrong' decision if that decision is potentially either difficult or impossible to reverse.^{Footnote 34} Therefore, even in situations where protection costs appear to outweigh immediate benefits, accounting for reintroduction costs and potential irreversibility could increase benefits and contribute towards balancing protection costs.

Socio-economic costs of a protection order

Mining and forestry are the most prominent economic activities in the provisional areas that may destroy caribou habitat. A protection order within the areas provisionally selected would aim to limit negative socio-economic impacts while maximizing protection of areas with best available habitat for caribou within the areas of interest. Forest cuts for mining exploration and development as well as commercial timber harvesting would be prohibited within the provisional areas during the ten-year timeframe of the analysis. However, forestry is the economic activity most prominently affected and is therefore the focus of this analysis. There are potential projects associated with other sectors in the provisional areas, based on currently available information, the implications of the EO on these projects are currently being explored.

Impacts to the forest sector: Assuming all forest sector activity within the area of the draft order boundaries was prohibited, potential losses in forest sector net profits are estimated at $650 million to $850 million from 2025 to 2034 (in present value terms, using a 3% discount rate). The annual, undiscounted, costs for the forest sector are estimated at $75 million to $100 million. Restricting fibre harvest within the provisional areas could result in estimated losses of 2% to 3% of both annual timber harvest and net annual profits in Quebec. These losses are based on affected attributed volumes of approximately 800,000 m³ and affected annual allowable cut volumes of approximately 1,300,000 m³, adjusted downwards to account^{Footnote 35} Generally, the actual historic timber harvest rate is lower than the total allowable harvest due to economic limitations facing licensees including fibre access costs and capacity limits such as the condition and location of mill facilities, as well as the availability of forest sector workers.

The estimates of foregone profits were derived using the average profit per cubic metre of harvested fibre across the forest sector supply chain in Quebec from 2018 to 2022 which was then applied to the expected volume of fibre affected based on the provisional

boundaries (as described above). Fibre volume affected was assumed to be proportional to harvest volume within provisional areas, relative to total forest management unit-level harvest volume.

According to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), approximately 1,400 direct forest sector jobs^{Footnote 36} may be at risk, with impacts felt most acutely in the short term and mitigated over the medium term as workers transition to other forest sector jobs or other sectors.^{Footnote 37} However, it is not likely that all potential future labour market challenges would be attributable to an EO. Similar to the broader resource sector, employment in the forest sector is cyclical, responding to seasonality, lumber demand, and changes in inflation and interest rates.^{Footnote 38  31} Over the last decade, Quebec's forest sector employment has fallen by nearly 7% due to varied drivers, including lumber price volatility, technological advances, changing consumer habits and variations in export tariffs.^{Footnote 39}, ^{Footnote 40}, ^{Footnote 41} The sector's labor force is aging; 27.7% of the Quebec forest sector workers were 55 or older in 2021 compared to 23% for all sector.^{Footnote 42}, ^{Footnote 43}  

According to NRCan the direct GDP impact to the forest sector in Quebec is estimated to be $168 million annually (in 2019 dollars).^{Footnote 44} Although stumpage revenues are subject to market price fluctuations, revenue losses to the Quebec government from foregone forest stumpage fees are expected to be roughly proportional to the volume of timber affected.

Approximately 55 licensees with guaranteed supply agreements in the administrative regions could be affected by the proposed EO.^{Footnote 45} This includes 35 lumber mills, 3 pulp-paper mills, 10 wood product manufacturing facilities (including veneer and plywood), 2 co-generation and energy product facilities, two First Nation communities, and three harvesting cooperatives) could be directly affected by the E0. NRCan identified 8 additional pulp and paper facilities that do not have supply agreements, but which could be impacted based on supply chain factors. In addition, to date, companies have identified 8 additional secondary manufacturing facilities linked to affected sawmills. We expect that additional pulp and paper and other secondary manufacturing facilities will be identified as the consultation process continues. Lastly, volume reductions are also expected for the Bureau de Mise en Marche des Bois.^{Footnote 46} 

A decrease in timber harvest would affect all forest subsectors, including sawmills, wood products manufacturing, and pulp and paper mills, where the majority of profits in the forest sector occur. Fibre reductions are likely to be at a level that may trigger thresholds for shift reductions at some mills, or to cause temporary or permanent mill closures in the case where operations would no longer be profitable due to an order. The extent of mill curtailment or closures decisions would depend on economic factors specific to each mill or company, including mill-level profitability and importance to company value chain. Measures to protect caribou would be incremental to other challenges that Quebec's forest sector has been facing, including the long-term decline in demand for traditional paper products (e.g., newsprint, printing and writing paper) and increased risks to timber supply posed by wildfires and pests.

According to NRCan analysis based on the licensees and pulp and paper facilities noted above, the EO would be expected to affect eight "very highly" forest-reliant communities and an additional 20 "highly" forest-reliant communities." The "very-highly" forest-reliant communities include Terniscaming, Kipawa, La Tuque, Saint-Thomas-Didyme, Saint-Edmond-les-Plaines, Girardville, Saint-Ludger-de-Milot, and Passes-Dangereuses, while the "highly" reliant include communities such as Sacre-Coeur, Kebaowek, Senneterre, Landrienne, Beam, and La Dore. Finally, two Indigenous communities (Nation Anishnabe du Lac Simon Communaute de Lac Simon and Long Point First Nation Communaute de Winneway), draw fibre from potentially affected areas; however, fibre impacts for these communities could vary based on specific arrangements with the provincial government.

According to Statistics Canada definitions, a forest sector-based community derives 20% or more of its market income from the forest sector.^{Footnote 48} As of 2021, there are approximately 50 forest sector-based communities in Quebec.^{Footnote 49} Approximately, 16 of these communities have, or are near, forest licensees that are likely to be affected by the EO. There are an additional 17 communities that derive about 10% to 20% of their market income from the forest sector that have, or are near, forest licensees that are likely to be affected by the EO.

Historically, the volume of timber harvest has typically amounted to about 65% of available annual harvest levels in Quebec. Generally, the actual historic timber harvest rate is lower than the total allowable harvest due to economic limitations facing licensees including fibre access costs and capacity limits such as the condition and location of mill facilities, as well as the availability of forest sector workers.

There could be limitations for stakeholders in their ability to substitute with fibre from outside the affected areas. The extent to which it is possible to substitute is still being assessed through consultation with industry. It is expected that, where substitution would be possible, it would result in adaptation costs and higher operational costs.

Although stumpage revenues are subject to market price fluctuations, revenue losses to the provincial government from foregone stumpage revenues are expected to be roughly proportional to the volume of timber affected. Provincial revenue collected from stumpage fees within the provisional area boundaries is estimated based on historical values to be approximately $7 million to $9 million, annually.^{Footnote 50} Stumpage fees are a transfer of wealth between industry and government and therefore should not be regarded as a net cost to society, but rather a distributional consideration.

Impacts to the mining sector

Many companies may no longer be allowed to keep developing their mining projects if located withing the provisional areas, as mining exploration and development, including construction of new mines, can lead to caribou habitat destruction. An emergency order with the proposed exclusions would not affect operating facilities or mines, including those with expansion plans, projects with a federal impact assessment or provincial environmental assessment in progress or approved, projects at any stage with primary resources on Canada's critical mineral list, as well as all advanced mining development projects regardless of the commodity targeted, if a preliminary economic assessment or a pre-feasibility or feasibility study was conducted.

Based on provisional area boundaries, a proposed emergency order covering the provisional areas could implicate an estimated 10 mining projects in Quebec mostly targeting gold, at various exploration stages, representing approximately 2% of Quebec's current mining projects in development. Potential losses if these projects were to cease their activities and companies were to relinquish associated mining claims could range between $20 and $45 million. The ongoing consultations with mining and minerals stakeholders will help determine the specific impacts of stopping projects at different development stages.

Although discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis is the industry standard to assess the potential loss of the net present value of a project, the above-mentioned potential losses for mining projects at an exploratory stage were estimated using comparable transactions methodology since projects at that stage do not have sufficient information available to conduct more precise DCF analysis. Comparable transactions methodology consists of identifying past transactions, using mergers and acquisitions databases, of assets comparable to those being valued based on parameters such as same target commodity of the project, similar stage of development at time of transaction, etc. Values per tonne or per hectare are created from that assessment per category of mining project and subsequently applied to the projects being valued in the analysis. This analysis assumes that companies would stop all activities and all plans of future development and relinquish their claims. This assumption is considered realistic given the high uncertainty around potential indefinite future critical habitat protection, by either the federal or provincial government, at the end of a protection order.

Inactive projects that would have otherwise become active again following changes in market conditions may not be allowed to restart activities if these require destruction of caribou habitat. Inactive projects are projects that are temporarily or permanently on pause, closed, or abandoned. This category includes mining projects at all development stages, for which conditions of becoming active again might vary. To account for uncertainty about the probability of some of these projects becoming active again, losses to projects that have become inactive over the last five years are included in the analysis of losses to active projects, while projects that have been inactive for more than five years have been assumed unlikely to restart.

Critical minerals: Quebec hosts some of Canada's richest geological formations in minerals critical to the green energy transition. The Government of Canada's Critical Minerals Strategy identifies large regions in Quebec with high potential for mineral exploration and development, such as the Abitibi Greenstone belt. Around 10% of the provincial Val d'Or caribou range overlaps with this geological region.

Critical mineral projects aim to extract minerals required to manufacture green technologies such as modern batteries, zero emission vehicles, wind turbines, energy storage systems and solar panels. It was determined by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada that a significant portion of the country's mining projects at advanced development stages that are aiming to produce minerals critical to battery manufacturing are in Quebec.

Additional mining sector considerations: Stability and predictability are key to maintaining a favourable investment climate. As such, an emergency order could lower Canada's reputation as a reliable mining destination, which could make likely making investment opportunities in the country's mining sector less attractive. Junior mining companies would be disproportionately affected, as they rely heavily on capital injections to carry out early-stage mineral exploration activities, in the hope to increase the value of their properties.

There could be potential implications around the construction or extension of roads aiming to service mining projects which could eventually turn into operating mines that are excluded from the proposed EO. These considerations are being further analyzed, with the aim of avoiding stranding assets where the objective is to allow economic activity to continue.

Overall, mining is an important sector in Quebec. An order implicating up to 2% of all its mining projects at exploratory stages of development could reduce the sector's future contribution to the province's GDP, with current mining activities and related downstream subsectors' activities contributing 3% of Quebec's total GDP." It could also limit the sector's future employment gains, as well as have short term impacts on employment, especially in the mining exploration subsector. It is possible that some workers potentially affected by the order could find employment at other projects outside of the provisional areas given the current momentum in the sector.

Mines can also be a source of employment to Indigenous communities. In 2016, Indigenous individuals made up 12% of the mining sector's labour force in Canada,^{Footnote 56} compared to making up 3.4% of the mining labour force in Quebec.^{Footnote 53} There are three projects with active mining agreements with Indigenous communities^{Footnote 54} within the provisional areas 4e

Mining-reliant communities that could be affected include Abitibi settlements such as Val d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda, as well as Saguenay.

The Quebec government collected $1 billion in royalties from the mining sector in 2021.^{Footnote 56} These could decrease in the future if fewer projects reach commercial production, while some currently operating mines will close as planned, regardless. However, affected royalties would be considered as decreased transfers of wealth (associated with decreased profits within the sector) rather than losses to society.

Quarry projects of aggregates may also be affected. In the event that quarry material (e.g., gravel, sand) was required locally to support road building and construction, it may have to be transported from a greater distance, increasing costs to construction companies as well as increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, although potential losses associated with halting quarry projects are uncertain at this time, they are not expected to be high relative to those of the other sectors discussed above.

Impacts to other sectors: Projects from various other sectors may be at risk of being affected by an emergency order. These projects are being assessed as part of the regulatory development process.

Among projects identified, the QC Rail project, whose path would cut across the Pipmuacan area of interest, has completed the first of two phases of a feasibility study, but has since stopped any intent to continue with the second phase. As such, it is not considered within the baseline of the analysis.

Boralex is currently developing wind farms of a relatively large scale on private lands in the Charlevoix area of interest. The three wind farms phases as well as the connecting transmission lines are all currently at various stages in the provincial environmental assessment. As such, the project would not incur impacts from the emergency order based on proposed exclusions.

Hydro-Quebec has announced multiple parts of its strategy for increasing the pace of development of the power generation in Quebec, with the objective to support the economy decarbonization efforts, and published its Action Plan 2035, which it presented to ECCC as part of the consultations, with a focus on potential interactions of the plan with the proposed emergency order. They identified the need to double existing high voltage power lines already crossing the provisional Order areas., They also presented their plan to increase the annual wind energy deployment's pace to 5 to 6 times the current pace, flagging the high wind power potential of the St-Lawrence river valley. Wind potential maps have shown that both the Charlevoix and Pipmuacan areas of interest have high wind generation potential. However, other factors^{Footnote 57}  limit wind development in the Charlevoix area on non-private lands, making unlikely the announcement of any wind farm project outside of Boralex's Des Neiges project, located on private lands. The Pipmuacan area of interest may therefore be a significant development target for Hydro-Quebec. The probability of these projects moving forward within the analytical timeline is currently being explored, as are the potential implications of the projects not moving forward.

Technical session on ve emergency order to prot boreal caribou habitat in Quebec

Introduction

ECCC-EAD:

• Mandate: Provide economic analysis to inform decisions on the government's environmental priorities.
• Conducts cost benefit analysis (CBA) and regulatory analysis for a wide range of regulatory proposals, including those under the Species at Risk Act.
  • Responsible for conducting CBA for the emergency order to protect boreal caribou habitat in Quebec

NRCan-CFS:

• Mandate is to provide science and policy expertise and advice on national forest sector issues
• Supports ECCC's socio-economic analysis through geospatial modelling and provides sector specific expertise as needed.

Objective of session

Gather information on:

• The potential impacts of the proposed scope of the emergency order; and
• How/whether such potential impacts can be mitigated, if possible.

Comments received will be taken into account to determine and refine:

• The scope of the order area
• The prohibitions of the order
• Socio-economic impacts to the sector
  • Presented to Ministers for decision, and published in Canada Gazette (Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement)

Economic analysis of regulatory proposals

• For assessment of regulatory proposals, follows Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines.
  • Canada's Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals
• Quantified monetary costs and benefits are:
  • Incremental (solely attributable to the proposed regulations)
    • Difference between the baseline and policy scenarios
  • Estimated from a societal perspective
    • Net impacts for Canada, but taking into account distribution of impacts
  • Calculated in present value terms
    • 3% social discount rate, over expected timeline of impacts (minimum of 10 years)

Economic analysis of regulatory proposals

• Costs are generally foregone profits related to business activities that would be prohibited
  • Foregone profits take into account losses in revenues and avoided expenses
    • Bottom line = loss in net benefits
• Profits nuanced to reflect when activities are partially implicated (i.e., not all profits are foregone), when applicable
  • Sometimes could shift activity to other locations/reinvest in second-best options, with increased operating costs
• Distributional analysis discusses break-down of impacts
  • Small business, employment (community dependence, Indigenous participation), stumpage/taxes etc.
• Presented in context of industry trends (baseline)

Key assumptions & limitations

• 10 year analytical timeline
• Assumes limited potential to find replacement fibre

o If any substitution is at all possible, then it would come with costs.

• Wood harvested in proportion to availability
• Costs/m³ to mill gate held constant
• Average profit/m³

Foregone annual harvest volume

Databases used:

• Gross Merchantable Volume Raster data related to the `Spatializing the Canadian National Forest Inventory (SCANFI)' dataset
• National Forestry Database

Quebec public datasets:

• Beneficiaries table — linking volumes for beneficiaries to UA/RGAs
• AAC by UA/RGA from the office of the Chief Forester
• Forest management Unit boundaries: Subdivisions territoriales forestieres (STF)
• Historic harvested areas (cutblocks): Recolte et autres interventions sylvicoles
• Forest fires/Feux de foret

Forest management units

Foregone net profits

Databases used:

• Statistics Canada. Table 16-10-0114-01 Logging industries, principal statistics by North
• American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (x 1,000)
• Statistics Canada. Table 16-10-0117-01 Principal statistics for manufacturing industries, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (x 1,000)
• National Forestry Database. Stumpage table.

NAICs codes used:

• (113) Forestry and logging
• (1153) Support activities for forestry
• (321) Wood product manufacturing
• (322) Paper manufacturing

Mills and communities

Aiming to identify affected mills with forest tenure in the area of interest, using different publicly available databases

• Data gaps exist, especially in secondary and tertiary sub-sectors;
• Sector feedback valuable in filling data gaps.

Databases used:

• Mills (includes link to RGAs): Quebec's Usines de transformation primaire du bois.
• Statistics Canada - Census Subdivision boundaries and tables
• Beneficiaries table — linking volumes for beneficiaries to UA/RGAs

Affected communities are defined as census subdivisions likely to be impacted by the reduction in forestry and logging operations, or where an affected mill is located.

Varied approach to identifying affected communities:

• Forest-sector reliant communities
• Indigenous communities (as identified by CIRNAC)
• Community labour force demographic characteristics used to further analyze affected communities (e.g. community share of forest sector employment, indigenous population, etc.)

Employment

Different approaches and considerations to estimating jobs affected:

• Accounting for net job impacts (direct in the short term)
  • 1-O modelling
  • Average jobs/m³ approach
• Additional considerations:
  • Transition in labour force and residual medium term impacts.
  • Regional employment impacts, including for supporting businesses
  • Industry labour force demographic characteristics

Databases used:

• Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0202-01 Employment by industry, annual
• Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0023-01 Labour force characteristics by industry, annual (x 1,000)

About the requested feedback

• Your responses, including any spatial data you share, will be kept confidential
• Any individual responses would be consolidated and presented as aggregate impacts, or included in larger scenario analysis
• No companies, or identifying characteristics of any companies or mills, would be mentioned in the CBA/RIAS

Q. 1 Do you have any current or planned activities or projects likely to cause damage or destruction to boreal caribou habitat on non-federal lands within the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix, and/or Pipmuacan boreal caribou ranges.

Information asked for:

• UA
• Fibre harvested/sourced annually (m³)
• Year of harvest
• Area harvested annually (ha)
• Average hauling distance (km)
• Average hauling costs ($/km)
• Name of mill(s) sourcing fibre from area of interest
• Any additional comments 

Q. 2 Based on the proposed prohibition related to the damage, destruction, or removal of trees for commercial purposes, do you foresee impacts to your current or planned use of the provisional order area? If so, please provide details, including extent of impacts (e.g., expected annual economic gains/losses, impacts on investments, employment implications).

Q. 3. Based on the proposed prohibition related to the construction or extension of roads, trails, or utility corridors, do you foresee impacts to your current or planned use of the proposed implicated land? If so, please provide details, including extent of impacts (e.g., expected annual economic gains/losses, impacts on investments, employment implications).

Q.4 If your current or planned activities are negatively affected by the proposed scope of the order, do you have the ability to adjust your plans to mitigate impacts? For example, could you invest in similar activities in other locations outside of the order boundaries or relocate projects? If so, please provide details.

• What would be the additional costs of pursuing these mitigation or alternate measures?
• for example, Could any potential mitigation or proposed alternative for your activity be added to your Environmental, Social, and Governance Leadership goals and plans (see The Canada Energy Regulator and ESG - Overview of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG))?

Q. 5 In cases where activities cannot be relocated or economic impacts mitigated, such as mineral exploration or development activities on non-federal lands, what are the risks to your business from the proposed order?

Mill specific information

Information asked for:

• Name of affected mill
• Address
• Primary product
• Affected fibre (m³)
• Maximum annual production capacity (m³)
• 3 year average annual production capacity (m³)
• Current production levels
• How many shifts are running
• Total employment per shift
• Please list the communities that your employees live in

Comparison of Federal and Provincial Socio-Economic Analysis of an Emergency Decree  

Q36. How does your socio-economic analysis measure up to the analysis done by the Province of Quebec? / How similar is your analysis to the Province of Quebec.

• Our analysis aligns with the analysis conducted by the Province of Quebec. We have similar estimates of annual allowable cut in the EO area, as well as job and GDP impacts. We expect our numbers will not align perfectly given that the Province has access to confidential industry data.
• If pressed for specific numbers, see table below:

Table 1. Impacts to the Forest Sector^{Footnote 58} 

Annex: Summary of Socio-Economic Analysis

• This section summarizes the impacts from Annex II that was tabled.
• ECCC continues to refine the analysis based on information obtained from stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples during the ongoing consultation process, including regional and community level impacts and impacts to mills and manufacturing.
• The majority of impacts associated with the proposed emergency order (EO) arise from the lost opportunity to harvest forest resources or to continue mining exploration or development within the provisional areas.

Total Impacts

• Although the areas that would be included in the EO have not been finalized, the total costs for an order applying to the provisional areas are estimated to be between $670 million and $895 million over ten years (see Table 1). These costs are reported in present value terms using a 3% discount rate over a ten-year analytical timeline (2025-2034).

Table 1. Estimated costs of the proposed EO in provisional areas (16,000 km2), (Losses Over 10 Years, Discounted at 3%, rounded, $ million).

Forestry Impacts

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)

• The total annual allowable cut volume in the proposed provisional areas is estimated to be 1.3 million m³. This represents 4% of the total annual allowable cut in the province.
  • Historically, the volume of timber harvest has typically amounted to about 65% of available annual harvest levels in Quebec. This is due to economic limitations facing the forest sector including fibre access costs and capacity limits such as the condition and location of mill facilities and the availability of workers.

Profits

• If all forest sector activity within the area of the draft order boundaries was prohibited, potential losses in forest sector net profits are estimated at $650 million to $850 million from 2025 to 2034 (discounted), or $75 million to $100 million annually (undiscounted).
• Restricting fibre harvest within the provisional areas could result in estimated losses of 2% to 3% of both annual timber harvest and net annual profits in Quebec.

GDP

According to NRCan the direct GDP impact to the forest sector in Quebec is estimated to be $168 million annually^{Footnote 61} . This represents 2.2% of forest sector GDP and 0.04% of Quebec’s total GDP.

Jobs

• Approximately 1,400 direct and 800 indirect forest sector jobs may be at risk due to the proposed EO.
• Job impacts will be felt mostly in the short-term; however, they may be mitigated over the medium-term as workers transition to other forest sector jobs or other sectors.

Mills

• There are 55 licensees with guaranteed supply agreements in the forest regions^{Footnote 62} affected by the proposed EO.
  • This includes 35 lumber mills, 3 pulp-paper mills, 10 wood product manufacturing facilities (including veneer and plywood), 2 co-generation and energy product facilities, 2 First Nations communities, 3 harvesting cooperatives.
• NRCan has identified an additional 8 pulp and paper facilities, without guaranteed supply agreements, that could be affected by the proposed EO.
  • This does not represent all secondary manufacturing as other types of secondary manufacturing facilities (e.g. wood products manufacturing) will also be affected.
  • We expect that additional secondary manufacturing facilities will be identified as the consultation process and research continues.
• The actual harvest rate by licensees is generally lower than their total allowable harvest due various economic limitations such as capacity limits of mills, the availability of forest sector workers, and transportation limitations (cost, distance to mills, etc.).
• The extent of mill curtailment or closures decisions would depend on economic factors specific to each mill or company, including mill-level profitability and importance to company value chain. Operational data was requested at general consultation with industry to better understand mill level affects, but no data has been submitted thus far.

Communities

• Analysis conducted by NRCan has shown that there are at least 28 communities that could be affected by the proposed EO due to their dependency on the forest sector and their proximity to mills operating near the proposed provisional area.
  • The proposed EO could affect eight “very highly” forest-reliant communities - Témiscaming, Kipawa, La Tuque, Saint-Thomas-Didyme, Saint-Edmond-les-Plaines, Girardville, Saint-Ludger-de-Milot, and Passes-Dangereuses.
  • The proposed EO could affect 20 “highly” forest-reliant communities including Sacré-Coeur, Kebaowek, Senneterre, Landrienne, Béarn, and La Doré.
• Many of the licensees/mills are located in “highly” or “very-highly” forest-reliant communities.

Mining Impacts

• Junior mining companies would be disproportionately affected, as they rely heavily on capital injections to carry out early-stage mineral exploration activities.
  • It is possible that some workers potentially affected by the order could find employment at other projects outside of the provincial ranges given the current momentum in the sector.
• Mining-reliant communities that could be affected include Abitibi settlements such as Val d’Or.

Context - State of the Forest Sector in Quebec

Temporary Foreign Workers Program

• In consultation, a forest sector company mentioned that their workforce has included temporary foreign workers since COVID-19. Media articles corroborate that the number of temporary foreign workers working in the forest sector in Canada is rising.^{Footnote 63} Thus, we expect that other companies operating in Quebec may also be employing temporary foreign workers.
  • Quebec had 87% of TFW permit holders destined for their province for forestry occupations in 2023, with approximately 390.^{Footnote 64} 
  • The governments of Canada and Quebec agreed to extend the measures available to Quebec employers under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program since 2021.
  • Note that logging and forestry labourers (NOC 85120) and labourers in wood, pulp, and paper processing (NOC 95103) are exempt from the requirement to provide proof of local recruitment efforts.^{Footnote 65}

Trade

• Trade exports from Quebec’s forest sector^{Footnote 63} averaged $11 billion annually between 2019 and 2023, representing 28% of Canada’s total forest sector exports. In 2023, approximately 86% of these exports were to the United States of America. Quebec also imports, on average, $3 billion annually of forest products, predominately from the United States.
• Softwood lumber exports from Quebec averaged approximately $2 billion annually between 2019 and 2023, representing 16% of Canada’s total softwood exports.
• In early 2024, the United States announced plans to increase tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber from 8% to 14%.^{Footnote 64} Considering the high reliance on the United States as a trade partner in this sector, this tariff increase is likely to impact Quebec’s forest sector.

Groupe Boisaco

• Groupe Boisaco operates out of Sacré-Coeur (headquarters), Les Bergeronnes, and Saint-David-de-Falardeau, two of which are considered highly forest reliant communities.
• Groupe Boisaco employs 600 workers and their three cooperatives have nearly 300 worker-shareholders.^{Footnote 66} 
• Groupe Boisaco has three guaranteed supply agreements to harvest in the forest regions affected by the proposed EO.
  • NRCan estimates that approximately 8% of the supply volume for Groupe Boisaco’s mills with guaranteed supply agreements would be affected by the proposed EO.
    • Boisaco has stated in their letters to the Prime Minister that they will lose 50% to 60% of their supply due to the proposed EO. This number cannot be verified without data about their operations.
    • Boisaco was present during general consultations, where requests were made for operational data (from all forest companies present) to better understand the potential impacts, however data has not been received.
  • The fibre they harvest supplies their seven operations, including their primary mills (Boisaco Inc., Bersaco, Valibois) and secondary operations (Ripco, Granulco, Sacopan, and Forrestco).

Summary of the Final Report of the Independent Commission on Woodland and Mountain Caribou

In 2022, this report, commissioned by the Quebec government, recommended that the future strategy for caribou go beyond the most ambitious of the two scenarios under study. The Commission’s recommendations are consistent with the approach advocated by the federal government.

Context

• In 2016, the Quebec government published an action plan for the management of woodland caribou habitat that, for the first time, recommended the adoption of a long-term strategy to manage the species’ habitat.
• In 2019, the Quebec government set up seven regional operational groups of the main stakeholders involved in order to identify the technical issues related to habitat management measures and to propose solutions for taking them into account in the final scenario for the Woodland and Mountain Caribou Strategy.
• On November 5, 2021, the Quebec government announced the creation of the Independent Commission on Woodland and Mountain Caribou. The Commission held hearings and collected feedback during the first few months of 2022 and published its final report in the summer of 2022.
• The Commission was tasked with soliciting the views of interested parties on two possible scenarios, as well as on possible variants or ideas that could assist in achieving a realistic and justifiable balance to reconcile the goal of protecting caribou with the economic interests at stake.
• The first scenario examined by the Commission was the product of the deliberations of the regional operational groups created by the Quebec government in 2019. This scenario identified three types of areas (vast suitable areas, habitat restoration areas and connectivity areas) where habitat disturbances would be managed in order to maintain or achieve a disturbance level below 35%.
• The second scenario, intended as a slightly scaled-back version of the first one, excluded certain portions of the territory in order to avoid additional impacts on timber supplies relative to 2022. The Charlevoix, Val-d’Or and Pipmuacan caribou ranges were completely excluded from this scenario.
• Neither of the two scenarios examined by the Commission provides for the management of habitat disturbances across the entire area covered by the caribou ranges.
• The Commission heard the views of hundreds of citizens and representatives of Indigenous communities, the forest industry, environmental groups, and various regional stakeholders, as well as many scientists and researchers.

Summary of recommendations

• The Commission indicated in its report that it [translation] “did not see any flexibility or any willingness to make any accommodations with respect to the proposed approach, which would involve abandoning some populations and focusing efforts where the chances of success were greater. What stakeholders are asking for is that all necessary measures be implemented, as quickly as possible, to protect and recover what has been destroyed.”
• The Commission recommended that the future strategy to protect caribou and support their recovery be based on the most ambitious of the two scenarios studied, from a conservation standpoint, and that improvements be made to this scenario.
• The majority of the 35 recommendations made by the Commission are in keeping with the federal government’s approach, and include the following:
  1. The need to quickly implement protection measures (e.g. moratoriums on logging to protect important sectors) for all caribou herds, even before the strategy is developed;
  2. The need to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue with the Indigenous communities concerned;
  3. The future strategy should focus to a greater extent on creating new protected areas;
  4. The strategy should include special measures for isolated herds (e.g. supplementation, reintroduction).
  5. All departments concerned should be involved in developing the strategy, to ensure that all sectors involved (forestry, mining, recreation and tourism) contribute to the recovery measures.
  6. Financial compensation programs should be put in place to help ensure a smoother transition to a more diversified economy that is less dependent on forestry activities than at present.
  7. The timetable for logging road closures and revegetation work should be accelerated to help offset the job losses that could result from the reduction in logging.

Summary of the Report of the Commission on the Management of Public Forests in Quebec

This 2004 report (also known as the Coulombe Report) called on Quebec to adopt stricter forest management policies to preserve biodiversity, including measures to protect critical habitats and species at risk.

Context

The Coulombe Commission was tasked with examining the management of public forests in the province and making recommendations that would fulfill the needs and aspirations of Quebecers. Over the years, the overexploitation of natural resources, changes in societal values, the impact of economic pressures and the need to modernize practices have led to a growing awareness that fundamental reforms are crucial.

Conclusions

The report draws several key conclusions, which highlight the need to significantly transform the way public forests are managed in Quebec.

• Need for more balanced management: It is important to achieve a balance between the economic exploitation of resources and ecological conservation. The report emphasizes that sustainability must be the guiding principle behind all forestry activities.
• Importance of stakeholder participation: A variety of actors should be included in the forest management process—not just forestry companies but also local communities, Indigenous groups, environmental NGOs and the public at large.
• Urgent need to modernize tools and practices: New technologies should be adopted to more effectively monitor the state of forests and predict the impacts of human interventions. Regulatory frameworks should also be reformed so that they are better adapted to today’s challenges, such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity.
• Recognition of global environmental issues: Quebec’s forests play a crucial role in regulating the global climate by capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The report recognizes this function and emphasizes that forest management must be viewed from a global perspective, taking into account Quebec’s international climate change commitments.

Recommendations

The report makes several recommendations to improve the management of public forests in Quebec:

• Strengthening of conservation policies: Protected areas should be expanded and stricter policies should be put in place to preserve biodiversity. This includes the protection of critical habitats and species at risk, as well as the management of forest areas that are more susceptible to environmental impacts.
• Modernization of management practices: More sustainable forest management practices should be adopted, such as selective harvesting and assisted natural regeneration, to replace clear-cut harvesting methods, which have a negative effect on the forest ecosystem.
• Inclusion of local and Indigenous communities: More active engagement of local communities, including Indigenous Peoples, in forest management is needed.
• Review of legislative and regulatory frameworks: The laws and regulations governing forest management should be overhauled to bring them into line with sustainability and conservation objectives.
• Economic diversification and innovation: Forestry sector innovation should be supported by encouraging the diversification of products and markets.

The Coulombe Report also warns against allowing any increase in timber harvesting that would exceed forests’ natural regeneration capacity. Doubling the timber harvest would also pose a risk to biodiversity and hinder conservation efforts, especially if harvesting encroached on ecologically sensitive areas.

Summary of Federal and Provincial/Territorial Collaboration on Boreal Caribou

Since 2018, ECCC-CWS has worked with the nine provinces and territories (PTs) where boreal caribou are distributed to negotiate and implement conservation agreements under s.11 of the Species at Risk Act. Section 11 agreements focus on collaboration and cost-sharing between the Government of Canada and PTs (matching cash and/or in-kind funding) to identify and implement conservation measures that contribute to the protection of boreal caribou critical habitat and support the achievement of the goals and objectives of the federal Recovery Strategy (i.e., achieving or maintaining self-sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout their current distribution).

S.11 agreements facilitate and clarify the Government of Canada's collaboration with PTs in taking meaningful actions to support the conservation and recovery of boreal caribou, including through range planning or other landscape-level planning, Indigenous engagement, habitat protection and restoration, population and habitat management, and population monitoring.

As of August 2024, the Government of Canada has signed a s.11 agreement or another type of agreement targeting similar conservation outcomes for boreal caribou (i.e., Nature Agreement in British-Columbia) with all the PTs concerned, except Quebec.

In 2019 the Government of Canada negotiated a Canada-Quebec Cost-sharing agreement for the protection and recovery of boreal caribou and its habitat in Quebec (the Agreement; 2019-2022), which committed Quebec to implement recovery actions and support Indigenous engagement while finalizing the Caribou Strategy. The Agreement expired March 31, 2022, without Quebec fulfilling its commitments.

* The Gwich'in Tribal Council and First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun are cosignatories of the agreement

Historical Background on the Species at Risk Act

Imminent Threat Assessment

Part 1 – Information on the species

Key Finding: The main factor in the decline of boreal caribou populations is habitat disturbance. Based on low population size, declining population trends, and high levels of habitat disturbance (over 60%), three populations face a particularly high degree of risk: Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan.

• Boreal caribou need large areas of undisturbed and interconnected old-growth forest to separate themselves spatially from their predators.
• High levels of habitat disturbance ultimately leads to an increase in predation pressure on caribou.
• ECCC's recovery strategy for boreal caribou established the recovery goal of achieving self-sustaining local populations throughout the species' current distribution in Canada to the extent possible.
• The federal recovery strategy also established a maximum disturbance management threshold of 35% as a component of the species' critical habitat, above which the probability of a population being self-sustaining is less than 60%.
• Taking into account the self-sustainability indicators considered (population size and trend, level of habitat disturbance), three of the 10 populations identified by the Quebec government (Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan) face a particularly high level of risk, while two other populations (Assinica and Témiscamie) are of concern given habitat disturbance in these two ranges exceeds the 35% threshold and declining population trends.

Part 2 – Information on new or evolving threats

Key Finding: Logging for commercial activities and the related road network expansion are the activities that have contributed most to the disturbance of caribou habitat in Quebec in recent decades and are therefore the two threats that were examined more closely as part of the imminent threats assessment.

• A number of anthropogenic activities contribute to the disturbance of caribou habitat and several of these activities have been carried out continuously for several decades (e.g., activities related to forestry, mining, and hydro-electricity).
• The threat assessment covers all populations of boreal caribou present in Quebec, but places greater emphasis on the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan, Assinica and Témiscamie populations, for which the level of habitat disturbance already exceeds 35%. The anthropogenic activities taking place in Quebec that have contributed the most to habitat disturbance to date are logging and the road network, which is why this assessment focuses in particular on these two activities.
• The provincial annual harvesting programs are the best available information to assess threats associated with logging and roads. ECCC used this data to quantify the threats from the planned 2023-2024 forestry activities.

Part 3 – Assessment of threats

Key Finding: The ITA found that there are no imminent threats to survival but there are to recovery, those threats are intensifying, and immediate action is required to address those threats.

This section aligns with ECCC's policy on imminent threats, which outlines key questions to support the Minister in forming his opinion. These questions are used as headings in Part 3 of the Imminent Threat Assessment, and therefore are used as headings here for clarity and alignment.

Question 1: Is the wildlife species facing a new or evolving human-induced threat(s) or is the impact of an existing human-induced threat intensifying?

Yes, according to ECCC, the impact of at least two threats (logging and the road network) has increased in recent decades and will continue to increase, according to available data on planned work, particularly for the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix, Pipmuacan, Assinica, and Témiscamie populations.

• The scope of the disturbances linked to cutblocks and the road network increased between 2010 and 2020 in these five ranges.
• According to the work planned for 2023-2024, the scope of logging and roads would continue to increase during this period in these five ranges.

Question 2a): Will the impact of the threat(s) make the survival of the wildlife species highly unlikely or impossible?

No, ECCC is of the opinion that the threats examined would not render the survival of the boreal caribou in Canada highly unlikely or impossible, particularly in the short term, because there are self-sustaining local populations elsewhere in Canada that have relatively undisturbed habitat and that would not be affected by the threats that exist in Quebec.

Question 2b): Will the impact of the threat(s) make the recovery of the wildlife species highly unlikely or impossible?

Yes, taking into account the situation of the populations in Quebec, ECCC considers that the likelihood of meeting the recovery objectives for the species is already low and would be further compromised if the threats examined (logging and road network) were to materialize.

• ECCC has not specifically assessed the effect of threats other than logging and the road network (e.g., mining, and vacation and recreational infrastructure), but anticipates that these other threats will have additional and cumulative impacts.
• The Val-d'Or population has already dropped below the quasi-extinction threshold (i.e., it currently has fewer than 10 reproductively active females), the Charlevoix population crossed this threshold in 2020 and now has just over 10 reproductively active females, and the Pipmuacan population could do so within about 10 years.
• Most other populations in Quebec, in particular Assinica and Témiscamie populations, face a certain degree of risk and could reach the quasi-extinction threshold over the longer term if no action is taken to stop their decline.

Question 3: Does the threat(s) require immediate intervention beyond existing protection measures?

Yes, ECCC is of the view that immediate action is required, beyond the measures already implemented, in order to avoid the occurrence of the threats examined and avoid further decreasing the likelihood that populations will achieve self-sustaining status.

• Although some important measures have been taken, primarily to protect individuals (e.g., putting the caribou in pens), the scope of the measures that are planned or are currently being implemented by the province to protect or restore the species' habitat is considered insufficient to address the main threats examined. Measures aimed at protecting and restoring the species' habitat are essential to enable the recovery of boreal caribou.
• As a result of ongoing disturbance, it will take longer to restore habitat, and even greater efforts will be required to maintain the populations until the habitat recovers to the point where it once again has suitable characteristics for the species.

Discussion Paper: Proposed scope of an Order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act to provide for the Protection of Caribou, Boreal population (Rangifer tarandus)

Boreal Caribou 2024 Emergency Order – Consultation Summary

ECCC continues to meet with individual organizations, when requested. The information received from the various parties will be used to refine the order area, exclusions, and prohibitions, as well as inform the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS). The RIAS will inform decision makers and the Canadian public on benefits and costs associated with the proposed emergency protection order.

Reactions that have been received so far (through meetings, emails, online survey)

Table 2: Bilateral meetings between ECCC and industry stakeholders to inform development of the socio-economic analysis to inform the scope of the order

The role of the forest industry in supporting Canada’s transition towards net-zero

Key messages

• The forest sector provides a suite of sustainable and low-carbon products that can displace non-renewable and more carbon intensive materials and fuels, thereby supporting Canada's, and the world's, transition to a net-zero economy.
• The sustainable management of Canada's forests underpins emission reductions benefits from forest products while the sector's cascading value-chain ensures that all parts of a sustainably harvested tree are used to maximize economic value.
• Canada's forest sector is continuing to innovate and diversify amid growing domestic and international demand for sustainable, circular, and low-carbon materials and fuels.

Background

Forests are part of the earth's natural carbon cycle, and when trees are harvested, some carbon remains in the forest as harvesting residues (e.g., tree tops, branches) and decays over time, while other carbon is stored in forest products (e.g., lumber, mass timber, paper). The emission of carbon across the life span of harvested trees, and forest products made from them, is carbon that was previously sequestered from the atmosphere by forests. The release of carbon from forest products is balanced by carbon absorbed during forest regeneration, which is legally mandated in Canada.

The forest sector provides a suite of products that can support emissions reductions in other sectors. This includes long-lived wood products such as mass timber, lumber, and other construction materials that can displace non-renewable and carbon intensive materials, hence reducing the carbon footprint of buildings and GHG emissions associated with the built environment. The Government's Housing Plan includes a strong commitment to building more homes, faster, with support from the forest industry. When designed with principles of circularity, wood buildings can be disassembled, re-used and recycled further displacing other carbon intensive materials.

Shorter-lived products such as drop-in ready biofuels, can also replace the use of fossil fuels in industry, buildings and long-haul transportation and industry ensuring reliable, affordable and accessible clean energy. For example, biocarbon can substitute coke used for steel production.

The Government of Canada recognizes the role the sector can play in emission reduction and carbon management across a range of sectors and supports contributions of the forest sector to net-zero through regulations, tax credits, and funding programs. Support to liquid and gaseous biofuel production is provided through the Clean Fuel Regulations and the Clean Fuels Fund, while the forthcoming Clean Electricity Regulations and amendments to the Clean Electricity and Clean Technology Investment Tax Credits is expected to drive deployment of heat and electricity from waste biomass. In addition, the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities program supports the use of biomass to help communities get off-diesel.

As demand for sustainable, circular and low carbon energy and products continues to grow, Canada's forest sector is expected to continue to develop biochemicals, biomaterials and biofuels that can displace non-renewable and carbon intensive products used currently.

Socio-economic effects of wildfire on communities

Communities across Canada will continue to experience worsening fire seasons as climate change causes fire seasons to be longer and more variable across much of the country.^{Footnote 67}  While lower severity fires may benefit forest health and diversity, when they burn near communities, infrastructure (e.g. roads, power lines, cell towers, pipelines), timber producing land base, or at a higher severity, detrimental effects are likely. Many northern, isolated, and Indigenous communities are more susceptible and exposed to fire and smoke due to their location within forested areas, socio-economic (SE) conditions, limited availability of emergency management funding and resources, and critical infrastructure gaps.^{Footnote 68} 

SE effects vary depending on the fire event, location, and community characteristics. The length of time the impacts occur range from hours, days, months, years, or to permanently post-event. Most Canadian communities face some degree of wildfire risk due to their proximity to burnable vegetation, (e.g. from forest, grasslands, agriculture, or parkland),^{Footnote 69}  but the nature and scale of that risk is highly variable, as are the potential SE effects. These may include direct effects such as human injury or mortality, structure loss, firefighting costs, infrastructure damage, timber loss and damage, loss of culturally significant areas and species, or physical and mental health impacts. Indirect effects may include business disruption, income loss, evacuation costs, lost tourism due to threat of fire or smoke, loss of sequestered carbon, water pollution, or out-migration of affected community populations.^{Footnote 70} 

This was underscored in 2023, Canada's worst wildfire year to date with respect to area burned (15M ha, over seven times the historical national annual average) and number of evacuations (232,000 people across most provinces and territories). Eight firefighters died and hundreds of homes were destroyed. In Quebec, 33 communities were evacuated due to wildfires, impacting over 34,000 people, with some communities facing multiple evacuations.

Over $1B in insured losses were reported across Canada in 2023, with $22M in Quebec. Individual fire events in other years have proven even more costly (inflation adjusted insured losses in the 2016 Horse River fire in Fort McMurray were $4.9B in 2023 dollars,^{Footnote 71}  while 2024 insured losses in Jasper are currently estimated at $880M)^{Footnote 72} . Total socio-economic losses from wildfire can far exceed reported insured losses, when costs such as human health and environmental impacts, uninsured structure loss, infrastructure damage, and economic interruption are accounted for. Many structures are uninsured, and other costs and damages are not estimated or recorded systematically within either a provincial or national damage accounting framework.^{Footnote 73} 

Other 2023 impacts included forest road closures in Quebec halting forestry activities. Quebec reported 4.4M ha burned, 1.1M in the commercial forest.^{Footnote 74}  While harvesting areas of dead or damaged trees (salvage harvesting) may occur where it is safe, accessible, and consistent with other forest value considerations, a lack of wood fibre over time may negatively impact resource dependent communities. While Quebec previously planned to grow its forest industry in the coming decades, with a goal of nearly doubling annual allowable harvest from 29M m3 to 53M m3 by 2060, recent fires and other climate disruptions have called that goal into question.^{Footnote 75}  The Quebec Chief Forester decreased Quebec's annual sustainable timber supply by 2% following the 2023 wildfire season.^{Footnote 76}  Assuming a proportional decrease in economic activity associated with this reduction, logging and mill employment may decrease by 2% (1200 jobs^{Footnote 77} ). However, often industry can find ways to mitigate timber supply reductions (e.g. salvage logging or shifting to new supply areas) and thereby limit actual impacts.

The decline of the caribou could be solved "with good will", according to the Bloc

by: Stéphane Blais
The Canadian Press (Original article in French)

With "good will", the decline of caribou in three regions of Quebec could be avoided, according to the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who did not, however, explain how, in concrete terms, the situation of the species could be improved.

Yves-François Blanchet, who denounces a possible federal emergency order to protect the caribou, believes that "there is enormous room for negotiation" that "must certainly involve First Nations, biologists, ecologists, the Quebec government, unions and the forest industry" to enable the boreal caribou to survive in regions of Quebec where forestry is altering its habitat.

According to the Bloc leader, "the only thing it takes to make it happen is goodwill".

According to Yves-François Blanchet, negotiations on the forestry regime should take place as soon as possible, before a federal election.

"You understand that the only thing worse that can happen to boreal caribou than a Liberal government is a Conservative government," said the Bloc leader on the sidelines of a press conference on another subject Monday morning in Ottawa.

Mr. Blanchet also believes that "there are people for whom it pays electorally to have no solution" to ensure the caribou's survival.

The politician didn't say specifically who he was referring to, but he did specify that it wasn't Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, as he "sincerely" believes that the latter "would prefer that there be effective negotiation between all stakeholders", even though he denounces the Liberal's methods.

The Canadian Press pointed out to the Bloc leader that, in recent years, several public consultations and discussions have taken place to try and put in place solutions to ensure the caribou's survival and the news agency asked Yves-François Blanchet what "concrete proposals" his political party had on this subject.

"It's not time for me to go out on a limb and tell you what we should do," said the Bloc Québécois member.

He added, however, that his party intends to work on "a roadmap" that it will "put into play" to "tell people, here's what we think would be possible avenues, and the decision-makers will do what they want with it".

The Bloc leader has been saying for months that the federal government is overstepping its jurisdiction by threatening to impose an order in Quebec to protect caribou in the Val-d'Or, Charlevoix and Pipmuacan areas.

"The Canadian government itself says that it's close to a billion dollars in losses in economic activity in the regions of Quebec," said Yves-François Blanchet, referring to an impact analysis carried out by Ottawa, which estimated that the order would cost the Quebec economy between $670 and $895 million over 10 years, according to Radio-Canada.

"All this is potentially to allow the Liberal government to adopt a posture that is purely electoral, because forest management, as everyone will agree, cannot mean leaving the entire forest a wasteland," added Mr. Blanchet.

The Government of Canada is currently consulting Quebec's Indigenous communities, the local population and communities, as well as industry, to define the scope of a possible order. The Quebec government has refused to participate in these consultations.

Ghislain Picard, head of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), was also present at Monday morning's press conference in Ottawa.

Unlike the Bloc leader, he reiterated his support for Ottawa's intention to impose an order to protect the caribou.

"Why do we support the approach of putting an order in place? It's because, on the one hand, we have a government that listens to us, and on the other, we have a government that doesn't deliver," he said, denouncing François Legault's government.

On Monday, Ghislain Picard and Yves François Blanchet took part in a press conference with Indigenous leaders to ask the federal government to reconsider the location of the proposed Chalk River nuclear dump.

The site is less than a kilometer from the Ottawa River, the territorial boundary between Ontario and Quebec.

Many communities are concerned about the impact the nuclear waste site could have on cultural practices, wildlife and soils, as well as the potential for radioactive waste to leach into the water.

Read the online article.

2024 Information Coops

Protecting woodland caribou: Guilbeault must be part of the solution

Ottawa, February 6, 2023 - Mario Simard, Member of Parliament for Jonquière and Natural Resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, denounces the federal government's desire to act unilaterally on the issue of boreal caribou. He calls on Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault, to work with the Quebec government and experts to truly be part of the solution.

"An order from Ottawa would be unacceptable and goes against Quebec's autonomy in managing its territory. The solutions are far from exhausted, and this issue merits negotiation and consultation with the communities involved. All I see here is a government that, on the one hand, has authorized oil megaprojects in the marine environment and, on the other, wants to improve its image in Quebec," said Mario Simard.

Over the past few months, the Bloc Québécois has held a series of meetings with representatives of environmental organizations, university specialists and industry groups, in order to maintain a dialogue between all these players interested in protecting the boreal caribou. The Natural Resources spokesperson is also awaiting the conclusions of the consultation conducted by the Observatoire régional sur la forêt boréale.

"The decline in the boreal caribou population is undeniable. The stakeholders I met all agree on the need for a solid plan to protect this endangered species. How is it possible, then, to ignore the goodwill of all concerned and try to dictate one's own will? The best thing for Minister Guilbeault to do is to listen to the stakeholders and let Quebec act," concludes Mario Simard.

44^th Parliament, 1^st session: edited hansard • no. 220

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ):

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in the House this morning because I am feeling confident. My party whip complimented me on my perfect hair before I rose to speak, so I am feeling really good about speaking to Bill C-49 this morning...

I want to talk about a double standard that I have seen emerging. There was a threat to the entire forestry sector in Quebec over the caribou issue. On numerous occasions, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that he was considering issuing a decree to ensure that caribou were better protected. At the same time, in those same weeks, he was prepared to approve offshore drilling.

That seems to me to be a double standard for two natural resource sectors. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, wildlife protection is not even on the government's radar. However, when it came to Quebec's forestry industry, the minister was ready to pounce, prepared to say he would issue a decree. In the end, the only thing that made him back down, strange as it may seem, was the forest fires. The double standards are pretty clear.

Bloc members Gill and Blanchet want a Quebec solution to the woodland caribou issue

Côte-Nord MP Marilène Gill joined her Bloc Québécois leader in Ottawa on Thursday. Yves-François Blanchet called on the Government of Canada to withdraw its order protecting caribou in three regions of Quebec. He pointed out that Quebec's forests are under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government.

The solution to the serious crisis surrounding caribou protection, without compromising jobs on the Côte-Nord and in Abitibi, must emerge from a dialogue between partners in Quebec, believes the Bloc leader. The MNA for Manicouagan remains cautious about solutions. Marilène Gill doesn't want to choose between protecting the caribou or forestry jobs – both must be saved.

Interview with Marilène Gill. Member of Parliament for Manicouagan (original interview in French)

It's all very bad for the forest industry," notes Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, "but also for the caribou. If no compromise is found, the population and workers in the affected regions will want the boreal caribou to be abandoned to its fate, the opposite of what Steven Guilbeault says he's looking for."

Unacceptable interference

According to the Bloc Québécois elected representatives from the forest regions, Ottawa must abandon this unacceptable interference and give Quebec time to consult the First Nations. On June 21, the Court of Quebec ruled in favor of the Innu communities of Mashteuiatsch and Essipit. It enjoins Quebec to carry out proper consultations with them in preparation for its own caribou protection plan.

"The solution is not to pit biologists and foresters against each other... The solution is to have the courage to trust Quebec and work with the Quebec government to find a reasonable, responsible solution that will be sustainable for both caribou and foresters," insists the Bloc Québécois leader.

Woodland caribou: "I'm the only person who can reverse the decree", says Poilievre

By William Savard, The Daily

June 23, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. (Original article in French)

While in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre declared that he was "the only one" who could withdraw the emergency order concerning the protection of boreal caribou habitat in Quebec.

During his recent tour of the province, he says he found that "people want to protect forestry jobs from Guilbeault's radical order", which he believes would jeopardize 30,000 forestry-related jobs.

For the man who hopes to become prime minister, the Bloc Québécois has "abandoned" the regions of Quebec, while its representatives have supported Justin Trudeau by 90% in the various confidence votes. "I'm the only person who can reverse the order. The Bloc cannot and will not. It will never be in government, and the order comes from a minister. I'm the only one who can appoint a minister and overturn the order," the Conservative leader told Le Quotidien during his visit to the Bagotville International Air Show on Sunday.

Targeting other issues affecting the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, Pierre Poilievre also declared his desire to "rebuild the military", in order to help soldiers and develop the economy around bases such as Bagotville. He also said he wanted to focus on green aluminum and the substitution of Chinese and American imports linked to this industry. "We will have a plan that favors domestic production over foreign production," he added.

Since Wednesday, the politician has been criss-crossing the province, visiting towns such as Trois-Rivières, Richmond-Arthabaska, Rivière-du-Loup and others. After Saguenay on Sunday, he will leave for his final day of touring, which will take place in Quebec City on Monday.

"The people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean want someone with common sense, who respects the regions and will cut taxes. They want a smaller government to leave more autonomy to Quebec and more money for Quebecers."

- Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

In his words, his visit to different parts of the province enabled him to identify a number of commonalities that unite these voters who live outside the metropolises. He stressed that his party's proposals make it the "only real party" to respond to these demands. "It's only the Conservative Party that is the party of the regions, that will cut taxes in addition to freezing spending to repair the budget, that will build streets and highways, defend hunting weapons and rebuild the military. These are messages that people in the regions want to hear," he explained.

Conservative Party of Canada comments related to Quebec Caribou

Bring Back Common Sense - Protect Our Jobs - Conservative Party of Canada

Saguenay, QC — The Hon. Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Official Opposition, stands with forestry workers in opposing the Trudeau government's imposition of a Ministerial Order to block the logging of several thousand square kilometres of Quebec's forests for the purpose of protecting woodland caribou.

"The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region will be hit hard if the Minister of the Environment decides to go ahead with his proposed order. Justin Trudeau is directly attacking jobs in the region," said Mr. Poilievre.

"The forestry industry is one of the pillars of the region. The Liberal order could put an end to approximately 1600 direct and indirect jobs in the sector, weakening the entire processing chain. We're talking about paycheques that allow workers to put food on the table for their families who are already facing Justin Trudeau's inflation. Now the Liberals are telling them they're going to lose their jobs. It doesn't make sense," said Poilievre.

"The prosperity of the Saguenay-Lac-Seint-Jean region depends on the responsible development of its natural resources. Justin Trudeau is an obstacle. In 8 years he failed to negotiate a new deal with the Americans on softwood Lumber, which the Harper government did in its first year in office. He opposed the LNG Quebec project that would have created thousands of jobs in the region. Now he is attacking the forestry industry."

"As Prime Minister, I will reverse this order- I will work with the Quebec government and the businesses in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to protect the environment and jobs- It is entirely possible to do both and to encourage projects that are beneficial to the region. Let's bring back common sense- Let's protect our jobs.

The Quebec government is preparing to table its plan to protect the woodland caribou by June 2023. Until then, the federal government should not interfere with provincial decisions. It is a question of respecting provincial jurisdiction.

Trudeau And His Environment Minister Put Quebec Forestry Jobs at Risk

Posted on: March 19, 2024

Ottawa, ON — Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative Quebec Lieutenant, and Richard Martel, Conservative Shadow Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, have issued the following statement opposing the out-of-touch threats by Justin Trudeau and his Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault, to block the harvesting of several thousand square kilometres of Quebec forests to protect woodland caribou:

"The forestry industry is a cornerstone of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. It provides thousands of workers with meaningful paycheques that allow them to put food on the table. The Minister's proposed order is a direct attack on these paycheques, putting approximately 11600 direct and indirect jobs in the sector at risk.

"This comes at a time when workers are struggling more than ever to make ends meet Amid rising grocery and gas prices, a doubling in housing costs, and record food bank usage across the country, Trudeau is now telling workers in the region that they may soon be out of a job.

"The federal government should end its Ottawa-knows-best approach, respect provincial jurisdiction, and let the Government of Quebec make decisions affecting the jobs and livelihoods of Quebecers. 'Common Sense Conservatives understand that it's possible to protect the environment while also protecting jobs. A Common Sense Conservative government will work with the Quebec government and the businesses in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to ensure that Quebecers can bring home powerful paycheques. It's common sense."

Evidence of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development - Evidence No.117 - 44-1 (PDF)

Evidence of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development - Evidence No.118 - 44-1