The affected wildlife include the wood turtle, which is recognized as vulnerable under Quebec law.World Wildlife Fund
Records from Quebec’s environment ministry show just three instances in the past six years in which it denied applications to alter the habitats of at-risk animals, but incomplete data make it impossible to evaluate how the rules are enforced and, critics say, hinder the province’s conservation efforts.
The documents, obtained by The Globe and Mail through an access to information request, list 1,528 applications to alter the habitats of at-risk wildlife for reasons that range from building a fence to drilling and logging. Of those, three were rejected, five were still under review and the rest were approved.
Affected wildlife include the wood turtle, recognized as vulnerable under Quebec law, and the woodland caribou, which has populations classified as either vulnerable or threatened, the province’s most dire legal status for at-risk species.
But the records represent only part of all applications.
The ministry said it could not give a complete breakdown of developments denied or authorized in habitats where at-risk animal species live as it does not collect provincewide data on this issue. Officials gathered data from the ministry’s 17 regional authorities – which varied widely in their interpretation of the request and ability to provide data – before sharing the results with The Globe.
Fanie Pelletier, a professor at the University of Sherbrooke’s department of biology, said the available data show that at-risk species “do not have effective protection in Quebec.”
Dr. Pelletier, a member of Quebec’s advisory committee on at-risk wildlife species, added that the lack of complete data on ministry authorizations is a problem. “Honestly, I don’t see how with this process we can have an integrated vision of the conservation of biodiversity in Quebec,” she said.
Merlin Voghel, a former lawyer for the Quebec Environmental Law Center (CQDE), a non-profit organization advocating for stronger environmental policies, said the figures compiled by The Globe “are certainly worrying” because of the low number of refusals. He added that this could, however, be driven by the fact that developers know and respect mitigation measures the ministry expects from them.
Nonetheless, “the laws and regulations relating to the protection of species have deserved to be dusted off for a very long time in Quebec,” Mr. Voghel said in an interview. He echoed long-standing calls from environmentalists for more transparency in decisions relating to at-risk species and better application of existing protections. (Mr. Voghel was employed by the CQDE when he spoke on this issue with The Globe.)
In an email, Quebec Ministry of the Environment spokesperson Sophie Gauthier said that despite data gaps, officials can evaluate the overall impact of development on species throughout the province. However, the authorization process looks only at activities’ impacts on at-risk species locally, she said.
The Globe submitted an access to information request for this story in July, 2023. In September, weeks past the legal deadline, the ministry denied the request on the basis that answering would require “computation or comparison of information.” The Globe appealed this decision, attended a mediation session with ministry officials and subsequently obtained the records.
The Globe’s request targeted authorizations under the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, but at-risk species concerns are also examined for authorizations under the broader Environment Quality Act. The ministry said it could not provide data on requests affecting at-risk wildlife treated under the EQA.
Ms. Gauthier said that “a very large number of authorized projects” are modified to mitigate their impact on wildlife and others are withdrawn by promoters when mitigation measures prove too burdensome, which is not recorded among refusals.
“It would therefore be inaccurate to extrapolate the number of refused requests to a significant impact on the habitats of threatened or vulnerable species,” Ms. Gauthier said.
Data from the Mauricie and Centre-du-Québec regional authorities include only applications affecting “fish habitats likely to harbour at-risk species.” These regions are together responsible for the most authorizations, with 879. No requests were denied.
Some regional authorities (Bas-Saint-Laurent, Outaouais, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, North of Quebec, Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lanaudière and Laurentides, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean) only compiled applications made on legally designated “wildlife habitat.” The provincial government can protect such habitats by regulation, but only six out of 65 wildlife species deemed threatened or vulnerable in Quebec benefit from this mechanism.
In these regions, 316 applications were granted, three were denied, and two were still under review.
In a peer-reviewed essay published in the journal Facets in April, scientists advising the Quebec government, including Dr. Pelletier, identified the lack of blanket protection for at-risk species’ habitats as one of several major flaws of the provincial legislation.
Other regional authorities (Montreal, Laval, Montérégie, North Shore) compiled data for The Globe on applications affecting “habitats likely to harbour” at-risk species, thus including habitats that were not legally designated. In these regions, 312 applications were granted and none was refused.
The Quebec City and neighbouring Chaudière-Appalaches regional authorities, which compiled applications for projects affecting designated wildlife habitats and others affecting fish species, approved 13 projects and refused none. Three demands were still under review.
No data was available for the Estrie region.
Editor’s note: An earlier version contained an incorrect description of how the woodland caribou population is classified. This version has been corrected.