Summary of the Consultations on the Proposed Scope of an Emergency Order for Boreal Caribou in Quebec

Acknowledgements

Environment and Climate Change Canada would like to thank everyone who took the time to participate in the consultations on the proposed scope and prohibitions for an emergency order to protect boreal caribou in the province of Quebec. We greatly appreciate all the comments and questions received through the various information sessions, bilateral meetings, emails, and survey responses.

Executive summary

On June 19, 2024, following direction by the Government of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada announced that it would begin public consultations to inform the scope and prohibitions of a potential emergency order to address the imminent threats faced by the three most at-risk boreal caribou populations in Quebec. To support this work, Environment and Climate Change Canada posted 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) on the Species at Risk Public Registry to support a three-month consultation period (June 19-Sept 15, 2024). The process sought input from Quebec First Nations, the Canadian public, stakeholders and other interested parties, including local communities and industries. This report provides a summary of the comments on key themes received and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s responses to those comments.

Key themes that emerged from the comment submissions include.

• Consultation process and duration
• Socio-economic impacts on industrial sectors and communities
• Need for urgent action to protect boreal caribou and biodiversity
• Prohibitions and exemptions
• Provisional areas identified for an emergency order
• Impacts on First Nations’ rights and importance of caribou
• Collaboration and relations with the province of Quebec

Background

Boreal caribou was listed as a threatened species under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, with the status re-examined and confirmed in 2014. The federal Recovery Strategy for boreal caribou, developed with input from provinces and territories, was published on the Species at Risk Public Registry in 2012 and amended in 2020. The recovery goal outlined in the Amended Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada is to achieve self-sustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout their distribution across Canada, to the extent possible. This recovery goal was determined by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to be both technically and biologically feasible.

Caribou population trends indicate that the species’ local populations are declining across much of its Canadian distribution. In Quebec, the majority of the 10 local populations identified by the province in 2021 are in decline. Given this decline and concerns with the ongoing delay of the publication of a provincial strategy to protect boreal caribou, many First Nations, environmental organizations, and members of the public have called for immediate action to protect the species, including through the use of a section 80 emergency order under SARA. Section 80 of SARA contains provisions to protect species at risk and their habitat on non-federal lands and specifies that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) is required to recommend to the Governor in Council that an emergency order be made if the Minister is of the opinion that the species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery.

In winter 2023/24, ECCC conducted an imminent threat assessment (ITA) on all boreal caribou populations in Quebec, but focused on the five local populations that are facing a particularly high level of risk (Val-d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan) or that have a level of habitat disturbance exceeding the 35% threshold identified in the federal Recovery Strategy (Assinica and Témiscamie). The ITA is an important tool used to evaluate whether a species is facing imminent risks to its survival or recovery. It involves a thorough assessment of best available scientific data and the urgency of threats to the species.

In May 2024, the Minister formed the opinion under section 80 of SARA that boreal caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery, based on the above-mentioned ITA, due to intensification of the impact of at least two threats (logging and the road network) that are increasing in scope in select ranges in Quebec. As required under SARA, the Minister recommended the making of an emergency order.

The Government of Canada directed the Minister to proceed with consultations on a potential emergency order that would protect habitat and prohibit activities that may adversely affect the species and its habitat in the three most at-risk populations in Quebec (Val d’Or, Charlevoix, and Pipmuacan). On June 19, 2024, the Minister launched a public consultation with the purpose of consulting with the Government of Quebec, Quebec First Nations, stakeholders, and interested parties on the proposed scope and prohibitions for an emergency order under section 80 of SARA.

Consultation process

ECCC consulted with Quebec First Nations, the public, stakeholders, and other interested parties, including local communities and industries, to gather information needed to refine the proposed scope and prohibitions of a potential emergency order, identify the possible impacts, and support discussions on how to mitigate any anticipated impacts. For more information on the scope of the consultations, please see 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) (the Discussion Paper).

Public consultations took place between June 19, 2024 and September 15, 2024. The consultation period was initially planned to conclude on August 18, 2024, however, the period was extended by four weeks following requests from First Nations, industry, and other interested parties.

Following the launch of the consultation period, ECCC sent invitations to First Nations, municipalities and regional county municipalities (MRCs), industry stakeholders, including forestry, mining, and tourism, non-governmental organizations, and scientists and researchers interested in the conservation of the species to attend information sessions on the proposed scope of an order. Emails with information regarding the proposed scope of an emergency order and the consultations were also sent to the Government of Quebec.

ECCC used the previously developed ECCC-First Nations’ round table and related working groups to collect input and feedback from Quebec First Nations on the proposed scope of an emergency order. Feedback collection was also facilitated through the information sessions, which were targeted towards organizations and individuals located in Quebec who could be directly or indirectly impacted by an emergency order. The goal of the sessions was to provide information on the proposed scope of an emergency order, as a supplement to the Discussion Paper, and to provide clarifications as needed.

Technical sessions, designed to provide more information on how ECCC would be collecting and analyzing data shared by interested parties, were also scheduled. In addition, bilateral meetings were held throughout the consultation period, as requested. Between the consultation sessions, the technical sessions, bilateral meetings, and ECCC-First Nations’ round table and working group meetings, ECCC held a total of 32 meetings.

The primary avenues for collecting feedback on the proposed scope of an emergency order were through ECCC’s dedicated caribou email and the consultation survey, both of which were published on the Species at Risk Public Registry at the beginning of the consultation period and shared through ECCC’s social media accounts (see Annex 1 for the survey questions). In total, 350 responses were received through the consultation survey and 63 formal reports submitted.

Through the consultations, ECCC received feedback from at least 550 individuals/organizations. This number may be higher, as the anonymity of the survey makes it impossible to determine if those who completed the survey also sent emails or participated in the consultation sessions.

On August 19, 2024, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI) met to discuss a request to undertake a study on the proposed scope of an emergency order. The ENVI passed a motion to complete the study through a series of meetings on the caribou protection measures and their impacts to the forest sector. The ENVI meetings on the topic of an emergency order concluded on September 18, 2024, with the fourth and final meeting in the series. These meetings included testimonies from 41 witnesses. ECCC listened to all the testimonies provided during the meetings and reviewed all briefs submitted to the committee, which were taken into consideration for a potential emergency order.

Figure 1: A breakdown of how interested parties participated in the consultations and the number of individuals and organizations who provided feedback.

Figure 2: Snapshot of the feedback and questions received during the consultation process. The top comments and concerns depicted in the first pie chart directly correspond to the themes of the most common comments and concerns explained below. Frequently asked questions included, but were not limited to: requests for the spatial data related to the maps of the provisional order area provided in the Discussion Paper; clarifying questions about what the proposed prohibitions and exemptions were and where they would apply; questions related to caribou conservation and measures other than an emergency order; questions about the timeline and steps of the consultation process; how to go about making requests for areas to be added or removed from the provisional order areas; and how ECCC was considering socio-economic impacts.

Figure 3: The proportions of the top comments and concerns by theme from each participating group as a percentage. The total number of comments received by each participating group across all themes is presented in parentheses above each column.

Most common comments and concerns and ECCC’s response

Theme: Consultation process and duration

After the first month of public consultations, ECCC began receiving extension requests indicating that the 60-day consultation period would be insufficient to properly assess the potential impacts of an emergency order and provide fulsome and informed feedback. A letter writing campaign requesting an extension resulted in 353 form letters (that is, letters using a common template), in addition to individual requests.

Comments were also received indicating that the timing of the consultations were not ideal as they took place over the summer months and occurred at the same time that the Government of Quebec was consulting on its pilot projects for the Charlevoix and Atlantic-Gaspésie caribou populations.

ECCC response: ECCC recognized that it was essential for all interested parties to be able to participate fully in the consultations, while also respecting the urgent nature of the situation.

On August 6, 2024, the consultation period was extended by four weeks to September 15, 2024. All parties who had requested an extension or who had attended an information session were informed via email that the consultation period had been extended. A statement from the Minister was also issued to inform Canadians. This extension was intended to provide more time for interested parties to participate and help address concerns raised with the consultations taking place over the summer months.

Theme: Socio-economic impacts on industrial sectors and communities

Concerns were raised that prohibiting forestry activities in the proposed scope of an emergency order area would result in a decrease in the supply of wood to mills, leading to mill curtailments or closures. As a result, there would be a decrease in employment opportunities in the forest sector, weakening communities dependent on this industry, and threatening industries, businesses, and workers linked to it. These concerns were raised by all interested parties consulted but were primarily raised by industries and members of the general public, many of which indicated that they would prefer a collaborative approach to addressing the threats to caribou, and that it should be balanced with socio-economic considerations.

Comments were also received that emphasized the importance of forestry activities for wildfire management, as well as comments that raised concerns that by limiting forestry, there could be a push towards alternative products that increase greenhouse gas emissions and would have an impact on climate change mitigation.

“We care about our precious village and all the natural riches that can be found there. Our village would become a ghost town.”

In addition to concerns raised by the forest sector, concerns were also raised by mining, energy, and tourism sectors about potential direct or indirect impacts of an emergency order on their operations or development.

ECCC response: ECCC was diligent in taking steps to fully understand the potential socio-economic impacts of an emergency order. Throughout the consultations, ECCC considered the potential impacts of an emergency order on the sectors and industry-dependent communities. ECCC sought input from First Nations, industries, and other stakeholders to limit the impacts of a potential emergency order on the economy and local communities, where possible, while taking into account the needs of the species for its recovery.

ECCC understands that the last decade has been difficult for the forest sector. Forestry jobs in Quebec have declined due to lumber price volatility, technological advances, variations in export tariffs, and a long-term decline in demand for traditional paper products (for example, newsprint, printing, and writing paper), challenges that are now exacerbated by the tariffs put in place by the United States on March 4, 2025. ECCC also understands 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. ECCC assessed the potential impacts in the context of the current situation.

The Minister is responsible for implementing SARA and providing for the recovery of listed wildlife species that are endangered or threatened as a result of human activity. SARA authorizes the making of emergency orders in situations where it is necessary to act expeditiously to protect a listed wildlife species and its habitat. The proposed emergency order aimed to target caribou habitat of highest conservation value while limiting socio-economic impacts, wherever possible, as per Government of Canada direction. The final determination as to whether to adopt an emergency order was based on an assessment of various factors.

Theme: Need for urgent action to protect boreal caribou and biodiversity

“With so many activities still permitted and no other measures to protect the species, how can the federal government expect to see a real difference in the protection of boreal caribou? We recommend the use of a range of solutions adapted to the different areas, taking into account their socio-economic impacts, with adaptive silvicultural activities, predator control and other measures…”

ECCC received a number of comments expressing general support for an emergency order and the federal government taking action, with some noting the larger benefits of an order for conservation of biodiversity and ecological services. Some comments stated that more will need to be done but that this is a good first step. Other conservation actions identified include habitat restoration, predator control, collaboration with the province and all partners and stakeholders, and addressing the effects of climate change on caribou conservation. These comments were primarily received from First Nations, environmental organizations, the general public, universities and researchers, and other sectors. For example, some First Nations highlighted the need for urgent action, commenting that the disappearance of boreal caribou would represent the loss of an integral part of their cultural identity and of their rights, and that declining populations have already resulted in inestimable cultural loss. Members of some industrial sectors and the general public shared comments that other actions to address predators and climate change (as opposed to an order) were needed.

Some interested parties raised concerns that only protecting some caribou populations could increase the risk on the other populations, in particular by redistributing logging pressures elsewhere in their territory.

“This emergency order to counter the imminent threats to boreal caribou and their habitat in Quebec should have been put in place much earlier. The scientific community, including some experts who have devoted their careers to this species, has been saying for a long time that the species is in great difficulty and that protecting its habitat is essential to ensure its survival.”

There were also concerns raised regarding the timeline for implementing an emergency order, and the continuation of industrial activities in areas that would be affected by an order before it comes into force.

ECCC response: An emergency order is a tool that would have allowed the government to proceed in a targeted manner focused on the threats identified in the ITA, specifically those largest in scope (i.e., logging and the road network). These consultations were a vital step in ensuring the Government of Canada heard from a wide range of interested parties and stakeholders. The Government of Canada recognizes that additional actions are required to support the species’ recovery and continues to encourage the Government of Quebec to deliver on its commitment to publish a comprehensive caribou strategy, including measures to reduce the rate of disturbance to reach 65% undisturbed habitat within the range of each population, and support the implementation of other habitat and population management measures to support caribou recovery.

Theme: Prohibitions and exemptions

“[We] do not agree with the [exemption] of all critical minerals considering that caribou need the best possible habitats. Unlike caribou, critical minerals will always remain in place. It would be possible to mine them when the caribou population is restored.”

Comments received regarding the prohibitions and exemptions were mixed. Some proposed additional prohibitions on additional threats such as mining projects and vacation leases, while others proposed the removal of forestry activities from the prohibitions. Comments were also received asking for clarification on what would be included in the proposed prohibitions.

Several comments included requests for exemptions from the prohibitions. These included exemptions for industries for certain types of development projects such as clean energy. Some First Nations also asked for exemptions to exercise their treaty rights and traditional activities.

“[We] recommend excluding wind and bioenergy projects using residual forest biomass from the list of activities potentially prohibited by the Order, in the same way that "projects whose primary resources are on Canada's list of critical minerals, regardless of their stage of development" are exempt.”

ECCC response: Supported by the ITA, the Minister formed the opinion that boreal caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery, based on an assessment of populations in Quebec. The most significant imminent threats to recovery are due to the intensification of the impact of at least two threats (logging and the road network) that are increasing in scope in selected ranges in Quebec.

ECCC carefully reviewed the proposed prohibitions and exemptions and took into account the best available information on the habitat that is necessary for the recovery of the boreal caribou in each of the ranges, while limiting socio-economic impact, where possible. In this process, ECCC also sought input from Natural Resources Canada to help assess the potential socio-economic implications.

Theme: Provisional areas identified for an emergency order

“Recommendation: That the Government of Canada ensures that all sectors included in the provisional areas for the three populations targeted by the order are of real biological relevance.”

Comments were received requesting both the addition of areas to, and the removal of areas from, the proposed scope of an emergency order. Proposed inclusions/exclusions were either based on conservation benefits for caribou (for example, recent and historical use or where caribou are known not to occur and therefore would not be a valuable location for an order) or to limit socio-economic impacts (for example, industrial project locations).

ECCC received comments that the proposed exclusions (for example, for critical mineral projects) should be reconsidered as these projects have a negative impact on caribou habitat.

ECCC also received comments to exclude areas or activities, such as additional mining areas, critical mineral exploration, and advancements in clean energy, from the proposed scope of an emergency order to limit socio-economic impacts.

“[We recommend] the following in regard to the [emergency order] for [boreal caribou]: expand the exclusions for mineral development from the provisional order areas to all mineral development stages…”

Comments were received on the Habitat Suitability Model (HSM) that ECCC used when determining the provisional order areas. Some comments stated that the HSM focuses on habitat type and quality and does not incorporate known caribou location data or other areas known to be important for caribou. It was suggested that these areas, as well as additional considerations such as landscape configuration (for example, connectivity within an emergency order and between caribou ranges, and small or isolated patches), should be taken into account.

Several comments also mentioned the need to take action for Atlantic-Gaspésie caribou, and for other populations of boreal caribou not covered by the current process.

ECCC response: ECCC used best available habitat, identified through the HSM, as the basis for identifying areas necessary for boreal caribou recovery during the development process to identify the provisional order areas identified in the discussion paper. At the time, this was determined to be the best approach given the information and time available.

ECCC considered additional data and information provided during the consultation period, including areas identified as important for caribou (e.g., caribou locations, wintering and calving grounds, and movement routes).

Comments regarding proposed exclusions were considered against the overall objective of an emergency order to protect areas of caribou habitat required for its recovery, while limiting socio-economic impacts where possible. Potential exclusions identified in the discussion paper to mitigate socio-economic impacts that were subject to the consultations included: approved and “in progress” mining projects in the impact assessment and environmental assessment processes, advanced mining development projects, and critical mineral projects. All relevant data provided during the consultations were considered and used to inform the Government of Canada’s decision on whether to implement an emergency order. The data were also used to support the socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts of an emergency order.

The Atlantic-Gaspésie population is listed as a separate wildlife species under SARA, and therefore was not included in the ITA for boreal caribou and was not considered as part of this process.

Theme: Impacts on First Nations’ rights and importance of caribou

Most of the First Nations noted the importance of caribou for the transmission of knowledge and culture to future generations, and that if measures are not put in place to protect caribou habitat, there could be significant negative impacts on the practice of traditional activities and on Indigenous and treaty rights. Some noted that the cost-benefit analysis that will be completed for an emergency order should take into consideration the value of caribou to First Nations and their rights, as well as the value of protecting its habitat.

“We are in favour of [the federal government] continuing to take steps towards the application of an emergency order for the protection of [caribou], in close collaboration with our First Nation. This is your legal obligations to protect species at risk and to respect our Aboriginal rights.”

Several Nations mentioned the importance of accessibility to the territory, and that an emergency order and its prohibitions must not interfere with ancestral rights, such as traditional activities, the right to occupy and use the territory for the practice and enhancement of Indigenous culture.

ECCC response: During the consultation period ECCC met with First Nations through the ECCC-First Nations' round table and related working groups to ensure the cost-benefit analysis of an emergency order accurately incorporated their concerns and information provided. ECCC considered the information received from First Nations in determining how to minimize any impacts that a potential emergency order may have had on their ability to access and occupy their traditional territories.

Theme: Collaboration and relations with the province of Quebec

“We have collaborated in the past with the provincial government and are always ready to be part of the solution by bringing together all the stakeholders concerned to find the best possible solution. It is time to put aside provincial and federal bickering in order to tackle the issues and properly analyze all the facets of the problem.”

Most of the groups and sectors consulted noted that a collaborative approach is the preferred path forward for caribou conservation. They called for the federal and provincial governments to work together to find a balanced approach that would protect caribou and communities. Many respondents indicated that they wish to collaborate and be part of the solution and offered to continue discussions on the topic if a collaborative approach were to be chosen.

ECCC response: As jurisdiction over species at risk is shared, ECCC recognizes the need to work together to protect and recover species such as the boreal caribou. For more than 10 years, the federal government has encouraged the provinces and territories to develop range plans to outline how they will protect boreal caribou critical habitat.

In 2016, Quebec announced its intention to publish a provincial strategy for woodland and mountain caribou by 2018 and, in summer 2022, publicly recommitted to releasing the strategy. At the time of the publication of this report, a full caribou strategy has not been released.

ECCC invited the Government of Quebec to participate in the consultations and remains open to collaborating with, and supporting, Quebec in the implementation of its caribou strategy or other relevant measures.

Next steps

ECCC greatly values the collaboration of all interested parties. We thank everyone for taking the time to provide feedback during the consultations and recognize the significant resources and time of those who participated. For more information on the Government of Canada’s next steps for the conservation of boreal caribou in Quebec, see the Minister’s statement here: Statement: Government of Canada’s Approach to Addressing the Imminent Threats to Boreal Caribou in Quebec

Annex 1: Addressing imminent threats to Boreal Caribou in Quebec – consultation survey questions

The following questions were included in the consultation survey, which was available for input from June 19 to September 15, 2024. Similar questions were included in the discussion paper to help guide input received through other avenues, such as the caribou email.

1. Have you reviewed the Discussion Paper?

Yes

No

2. In which province or territory do you live?

Alberta

British Columbia

Manitoba

New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador

Northwest Territories

Nova Scotia

Nunavut

Ontario

Prince Edward Island

Quebec

Saskatchewan

Yukon

None of the above

Prefer not to answer

3. Please select the Boreal caribou range of interest (Select all that apply)

Val-d'Or

Charlevoix

Pipmuacan

Other, please specify:

Prefer not to answer

4. Do you live or work within one of the three boreal caribou ranges for which the emergency order would apply (Val-d'Or, Charlevoix, Pimpuacan)?

I live in one of the three ranges

I work in one of the three ranges

I live and work in one of the three ranges

I don’t live nor work in one of the three ranges

I don’t know

5. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement.
“I support the federal government in pursuing an emergency order to address imminent threats to boreal caribou and its habitat in Quebec”.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

5.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

6. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement.
“I support the proposed prohibitions for the emergency order in Quebec”.

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

6.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

7. Within the proposed scope of the emergency order, do you anticipate experiencing benefits resulting from the implementation of the emergency order?

Yes, large benefits

Yes, moderate benefits

Yes, small benefits

No benefits

Unsure/Need more information

7.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

8. Within the proposed scope of the emergency order, do you anticipate experiencing challenges resulting from the implementation of the emergency order?

Yes, large challenges

Yes, moderate challenges

Yes, small challenges

No challenges

Unsure/Need more information

8.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

9. Within the proposed scope of the emergency order, do you anticipate any direct or indirect financial benefits or costs to you or your community?

Direct benefits

Direct costs

Indirect benefits

Indirect costs

No

Unsure/Need more information

9.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

10. 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 land within the proposed scope of the emergency order?

Yes - positive impacts

Yes - negative impacts

No

Unsure/Need more information

10.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

11. 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 land within the proposed scope of the emergency order?

Yes - positive impacts

Yes - negative impacts

No

Unsure/Need more information

11.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

12. Are there areas you would like to be included in the emergency order? Please provide a rationale, maps, spatial data, or specific terms, if possible. If you would like to share maps or spatial data, please send the files to caribou@ec.gc.ca
Please refrain from using personal identifying information.

13. Are there areas you would like to see excluded under the emergency order? Please provide a rationale, maps, spatial data, or specific terms, if possible. If you would like to share maps or spatial data, please send the files to caribou@ec.gc.ca
Please refrain from using personal identifying information.

14. Is there anything else that you would like us to consider? (Select all that apply)

Impacts to recreational activities

Closing roads

Areas outside of the proposed order area

Additional prohibitions

Other, please specify:

15. In Canada, an Indigenous person is someone who identifies as First Nations (North American Indian), Métis and/or Inuk (Inuit), and/or those who report being Registered or Treaty Indians (that is, registered under the Indian Act of Canada), and/or those who have membership in a First Nation or Indian band.

Do you identify as an Indigenous person?

Yes, First Nations, which includes Status and Non-Status

Yes, Métis

Yes, Inuk or Inuit

No

Prefer not to answer

16. Within the proposed scope of the emergency order, do you anticipate any positive or negative impacts to your ancestral rights, cultural values, or traditional practices?

Yes - Positive impacts

Yes - Negative impacts

No

Unsure/Need more information

16.a. Please provide a rationale for your response (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)

17. In which group do you best fit?

Forestry Industry and/or associated union

Mining Industry and/or associated union

Tourism Industry and/or associated union

Municipality and/or local government Environmental organizations

Other public sector

Other private sector

General Public

Other, please specify:

Prefer not to answer

18. Do you have any additional comments? (Please refrain from using personal identifying information.)