Bill C-230 (Historical)

National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act

An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism

This enactment requires the Minister of the Environment, in consultation with representatives of provincial and municipal governments, of Indigenous communities and of other affected communities, to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to redress the harm caused by environmental racism. It also provides for reporting requirements in relation to the strategy.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on Bill C-230, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to call for a recorded vote on the bill as amended.

(Bill C-230 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall Bill C-230 as amended carry?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The meeting is called to order.

Obviously, we're going to have to play it by ear today, but we have with us the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Lenore Zann, MP for Cumberland—Colchester. As well, from the department, we have Laura Farquharson, Silke Neve and Pascal Roberge. We're here to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-230.

I don't think I need to read out the rules of how we conduct ourselves in a committee, especially in a virtual format. I think everyone is familiar with that.

It seems like just yesterday we were doing clause-by-clause. We will start with the fact that we're doing this pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the preamble is postponed. For obvious reasons, we've gone through this before on Bill C-12.

I call clause 2. I would like to see if we can adopt clause 2.

[Lisa Gue]

Mr. Bachrach, thanks for your long history of advocacy on environmental rights at the municipal level, as well as in Parliament.

We too are encouraged that the government has introduced Bill C-28, and at the same time, we are discouraged that it has yet to be debated. I hope to have the opportunity in the not-too-distant future to return to your committee to discuss those important measures related to environmental rights and other really critical updates to CEPA that are an important complement to Bill C-230.

In terms of your specific question about how the two relate, as Elaine already said, they are complementary. I would note that, of course, Bill C-28 is primarily amending the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the provisions related to environmental rights and environmental justice that are specific to the authorities of CEPA, whereas Bill C-230 takes a broader view of federal actions.

There are other legislative authorities relating, for example, to the management of nuclear power, nuclear waste, federal environmental assessment and pesticide regulation, just to name a few that could have implications. I think it's a strength of Bill C-230 and, again, an important complement to what's being proposed in Bill C-28, that the proposed national strategy would take a holistic, whole-of-government view to redressing environmental racism.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. Gue, as you know, the NDP has long fought for environmental rights to be recognized in legislation, and we're very pleased to see a reference to the right to a healthy environment embedded in Bill C-28. Unfortunately, that bill has been stalled. It hasn't been debated in the House yet and we're disappointed that it hasn't moved along any further.

How does this bill that we're talking about today, Bill C-230, relate to the concept of environmental rights?

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

Yes, absolutely. That actually explains why paragraph (d) of subclause 3(3) of Bill C‑230 is completely unacceptable.

I would point out that, leading up to the 2019 election, Premier François Legault sent the leader of each federal party a letter, on September 17, calling on the federal government to give Quebec full jurisdiction over the environment. Obviously, the Fathers of Confederation could not foresee in 1867 the climate crisis facing us now and into the future.

Natural resources and economic development fall within the domain of the provinces. Accordingly, we believe Quebec and the provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over environmental matters, especially considering that, in many respects, Quebec's Environment Quality Act provides better protection for the environment and goes further than the federal legislation.

Unfortunately, Quebec's act does not cover infrastructure under federal jurisdiction, such as ports and gas or interprovincial pipelines. That infrastructure nevertheless has very significant impacts on indigenous communities in Quebec, on communities that are already devalued or struggling, and on communities that are home to low-income families. Quebec's jurisdiction and Environment Quality Act—which goes further than the federal legislation and controls, for instance, noise and air pollutants—should have primacy.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for Mr. Gaudreault, who is well known for his involvement in environmental issues.

Mr. Gaudreault, you said in your opening statement that health care, education and natural resources, which are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, are crucial in fostering greater social equality.

In fact, Quebec has recognized the right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved since 2006, in its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Being a quasi-constitutional right, it protects every Quebecker. Why, then, include in the legislation provisions that have the same purpose but carry less legal force?

Do you not get the sense that, because of the exception in Quebec's case, the provisions in Bill C‑230 are of less value to Quebec than they are to the rest of Canada?

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Program Director, Healthy Communities, Ecojustice Canada]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the invitation to appear today to speak to this critically important bill to develop a national strategy to address environmental racism. As Lisa already said, the horrific occurrences of the last few weeks have made it even more apparent how desperately we as a society need to address all forms of systemic racism within our country.

I'm joining you from the traditional territories of several first nations, including the Huron-Wendat, the Anishinabe, the Haudenosaunee, the Chippewas and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

Ecojustice is Canada's largest environmental law charity. We work with and on behalf of individuals, communities and first nations, and other non-governmental organizations to advocate for stronger environmental laws in Canada. Ecojustice is committed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action towards reconciliation with all indigenous communities, and we are embedding a focus on justice, equity, diversity and inclusion in all aspects of our organization.

I will start by building on Mrs. Gue's remarks about the U.S. executive order on environmental justice. Following the executive order, the U.S. EPA developed an environmental justice screening and mapping tool, or EJSCREEN. Similar to the analysis mandated in Bill C-230, EJSCREEN exposes the substantive inequalities of environmental hazards and risk impacting racialized communities across the United States. EJSCREEN combines demographics with environmental data to calculate environmental justice indices at the census block level. Data such as concentrations of air pollutants, proximity to hazardous waste sites, proximity to waste-water pollution discharges, cancer risk from exposure to hazardous air pollutants and more are mapped and available to anyone with an Internet connection.

Communities, industries and regulators all use EJSCREEN for various purposes. For example, regulators use it to assess environmental and human health impacts at the community level; and communities access the analysis to redress environmental racism, to push back against environmental racism.

To demonstrate this point, I've pulled some information from EJSCREEN on an area near New Orleans that is infamously known as “Cancer Alley”, near a cluster of refineries and chemical plants. EJSCREEN shows that this community is almost entirely low-income people of colour. They are at the 99th percentile, among the highest in the U.S., for cancer risk from inhalation of air toxins, and similarly high for proximity of waste-water pollution discharges. That is just some of the information compiled and analyzed on the risk and hazards from pollution and toxic substances. Other hazards, such as coastal flooding from climate change, are also available through EJSCREEN.

Finding similar information on impacted communities in Canada is nearly impossible. For example, in the area known as “Chemical Valley” near Sarnia, Ontario, a cluster of refineries and petrochemical plants surround the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Reserve. While visiting homes within the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, I have seen how close industry is. I have smelled, tasted and felt the pollution in my throat and in my eyes. I recognized my privilege when I returned to my home in Toronto.

The only federal environmental database on pollution in Canada is the very limited national pollutant release inventory, or NPRI. As the title indicates, all the NPRI provides is information on pollution releases from industrial sources and other facilities. There is no demographic information and no assessment of impacts on communities. Therefore, in its present form, it is not a tool that can be used to assess and work towards substantive equality.

The data analysis mandated by Bill C-230, particularly in paragraphs 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), could start to fill this urgent need in Canada. That is why Ecojustice fully supports the bill and recommends that it be passed by all parties and that the data analysis be publicly available so that everyone, including other governments, may use it to inform decisions that impact racialized and indigenous peoples.

However, if there is an interest in strengthening the bill, Ecojustice has some recommendations for additional provisions. We recommend an amendment to set out an obligation for the Government of Canada to take all necessary measures to ensure that environmental assessments and risk assessments under federal laws identify potential impacts on indigenous and racialized peoples and ensure that approvals, permits, licences and other federal decisions do not perpetuate, intensify or exacerbate environmental racism. In addition, we recommend that the bill include a low-risk, low-barrier legal mechanism for individuals and communities to enforce an alleged failure of that obligation.

The last point I want to make is that I'm very familiar with Bill C-28 to amend CEPA, and I can reassure the committee members that Bill C-230 is entirely complementary to Bill C-28. Bill C-28 lays out the foundations for recognizing the right to a healthy environment in the administration of CEPA and requires consideration of vulnerable populations, but it does not mandate the collection and analysis of data on environmental racism as prescribed by Bill C-230, nor does Bill C-28 contain a specific focus on environmental racism. Both bills are needed and are long overdue.

I wish to thank the committee for its time. I'm happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

[Lisa Gue, Manager, National Policy, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation to join you today.

I am joining you from Ottawa on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I want to begin by acknowledging horrific events in recent weeks that have put a spotlight on racism in Canada, past and present: the discovery of the unmarked burial sites of 215 children on the grounds of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, and the murder of a Muslim family in London, Ontario, targeted because of their faith.

Bill C-230 is a starting point to address the environmental dimension of systemic racism in Canada. This is both timely and long overdue. We appreciate the committee's resuming its consideration of Bill C-230 this week, and urge you to favourably report the bill before the summer recess.

I'm grateful for the insights Dr. Jones just shared, but I would also refer you back to Dr. Ingrid Waldron's presentation to the committee on April 14. Dr. Waldron's research into environmental racism in Canada and the conceptual framework she presented to you informs the David Suzuki Foundation's perspectives on Bill C-230.

Mr. Chair, you noted that “environmental racism” is new to many people, and this may, in fact, be the first time this committee has considered legislation on environmental racism, although I can't be sure. However, it's worth noting that many of the measures prescribed by Bill C-230 mirror legal requirements in the U.S. that have been in place for a quarter century.

I will give a brief overview of the U.S. requirements, because it highlights the gap in Canadian environmental law and governance, a gap that Bill C-230 would start to fill.

The U.S. executive order on federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations dates back to 1994. It was issued by President Clinton, and has been upheld, to varying degrees, by successive Republican and Democratic administrations. The order directs every federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission”, and develop and report on environmental justice strategies.

These strategies must identify and address any disproportionate adverse health or environmental effects of government programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The order also mandates collection of information on health and environmental risks based on race, origin and income.

Broadly speaking, Bill C-230 would establish parallel requirements in Canada for the first time with respect to the key provisions in this bill, namely, the development of a national strategy on environmental racism, and mandatory requirements for that strategy to include an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk; collection of information relating to the location of environmental hazards; possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs; and the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making.

The U.S. executive order goes further, though, establishing a high-level inter-agency working group on environmental justice, comprising the heads of 11 federal agencies, as well as the White House, to support a whole-of-government approach. The Canadian equivalent might be a permanent cabinet committee or inter-ministerial working group.

Within the U.S. EPA, the equivalent to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Office of Environmental Justice provides functional capacity to deliver the agency's environmental justice strategy.

The Office of Environmental Justice also offers technical and financial assistance to communities, as well as environmental justice-related policy guidance, tools and training for EPA officials. The office supports data collection and an integrated research agenda. It's a focal point for collaboration with researchers, community organizations, and state and local governments.

Recently President Biden put environmental justice at the centre of his environmental agenda. In March, the White House appointed a new National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to provide advice on updating the 1994 executive order to address current and historic environmental injustices.

Bill C-230 offers an opportunity for alignment with the U.S. at a time of renewed commitment to bilateral environmental action. The David Suzuki Foundation urges all parties to support Bill C-230, and to work to buttress it with supporting governance structures and investments.

In this regard, I would draw to the committee's attention the brief submitted by the Green Budget Coalition, of which the David Suzuki Foundation is a member, recommending investments to establish a Canadian office of environmental justice and equity, with funding to develop a strategy on environmental racism as an early deliverable.

In closing, the David Suzuki Foundation has long advocated for legal recognition of the right to a healthy environment and the integration of human rights and equity considerations in environmental decision-making. Bill C-230 is an important step in this direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In fact, the work you've done.... You're right. The term is new to many people. It has begun to get some attention because of your work, and it has inspired Bill C-230.

Unfortunately, Dr. Jones, we're over our time for this particular portion of the meeting, but I'm sure you will have many questions and opportunities to add to your comments.

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

Thank you so much. I was saying that I'm now retired—or they say I'm retired, but I'm not really, because my activism continues.

Speaking today on this bill, I guess I have a bit of sadness. My sadness lies in the fact that, as activists, we've been trying for so long to bring the issues of our communities to the forefront. Here we are again, but this is exciting. I'm happy now that we've made it to the national level. I'm hoping for success.

I was looking at this bill and at the word “redress”. We have a saying in our community, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”, but using “redress” means there's something broken and we've come to you to help us fix it.

I come from the African-Nova Scotian community. It's long term in Nova Scotia and we are the original African people of Canada. Right now, I'm sitting in my family homestead. I don't know if many of you know Truro, Nova Scotia. I thought the best way to talk about environmental racism would be to look out my window and try to tell you the story of this little community in which I sit.

I know some of you have a hard time getting your heads around why we need this special environmental racism bill for these communities. It's because of the word “disproportionate”, which is in Bill C-230. It doesn't mean to say that environmental degradation doesn't happen in all different communities, but it is happening disproportionately in our community.

This little community of Truro has three traditional Black communities and they're nicknamed “the Island”, “the Marsh” and “the Hill”. The Island had a dump that began many, many years ago, even before my time. The Black community had to deal with all the atrocities that went along with that. The white community started to move in closer to our traditional communities, and they said, “This dump has to go. We're not having it in our backyard.” Imagine where they decided to move the dump. They moved it to another Black area of the town, the Hill. There was never a cleanup of the original dump site. There was never any encasement. Today, our children's playground sits on that dump. It's never been dealt with.

My community on the Marsh was a traditional Black community, which is now gentrified. There are only three Black families left in this community, where we were forced to live because of the racism of the day. Part of that has to do with the effect of the flooding that took place in this community. With the flooding and the lack of adequate housing and resources, the Black community has all but disappeared. Like I said, there are only three families left, because new people coming into the community— who were not from our community—had access to all the resources that go along with building and flood-proofing and not having to deal with all the degradation that the Black community has.

This bill asks only that you collaborate and develop a strategy to deal with this disproportionate impact, which is still affecting our Black and indigenous communities today. We're asking for redress. I'm also a former trade union activist. I am proud to say that I can remember, many years ago, on the Canadian Labour Congress, introducing environmental racism to what was called the “national anti-racism task force report”.

The Canadian Labour Congress, also had trouble getting its head around it. What is this thing, environmental racism, and why should you have special or distinct clauses that go along with it?

[Sylvain Gaudreault, Member of the National Assembly of Québec for Jonquière, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. I am delighted to be appearing before a parliamentary committee in another legislature, the Parliament of Canada. This is a first for me. I want to send my regards to my counterparts in the House of Commons. I recognize a few faces, mainly people I've met on parliamentary missions.

I'll start by telling you a bit about myself. I have been the member for Jonquière since 2007. Under the Parti Québécois government, I was the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land Occupancy. I am currently the third opposition group critic both for the environment and the fight against climate change, and for energy. As you can appreciate, I was very interested in Bill C‑230, the legislation brought forward by Ms. Zann. Why? Because I am realizing that, in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada, environmental discrimination based on social inequality is prevalent. In some cases, those environmental issues even reinforce social inequalities.

Here are a few examples. In Rouyn‑Noranda, the Horne smelter produces copper and emits a staggering amount of arsenic into the adjacent neighbourhood, Notre‑Dame, which is home to people with lower incomes. Historically, it's a poorer neighbourhood, a working-class community.

Another example is the east end of Montreal, where many parcels of land are contaminated. Similarly, it is a poorer part of the city than, say, the west end.

The situation is the same next door in the historic Hochelaga-Maisonneuve neighbourhood, where air quality is poor because of the Port of Montreal.

In central Quebec, asbestos mines have led to significant health issues for minors.

It is unacceptable that, to this day, many remote indigenous communities all over Canada do not have access to clean drinking water.

Those examples illustrate how environmental issues tied to social inequality affect communities everywhere. I recognize the disparity in the environmental impacts affecting poor versus wealthy populations. That is why we need to act to remove social inequalities or inequities. We must never stop fighting socially motivated environmental inequalities.

However, Bill C‑230 does not fix the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

First, clause 2 does not contain a definition of “environmental racism”.

Second, social inequalities involve a wide range of areas, from education and health care to economic development and natural resource development. Historically and under the Constitution, all of those areas fall exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. To overcome social inequalities, action must be taken in education, health care, economic development and, of course, natural resource development.

The main problem lies in paragraph 3(3)(d), which reads as follows: “assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province”. That could be a very far-reaching undertaking, something that is unacceptable to Quebec. Even the premier, François Legault, has previously asked the federal government for full jurisdiction over the environment. Quebec alone should determine which environmental projects are carried out within its borders. Paragraph (d) of subclause 3(3) could leave the door wide open to infringement of Quebec's environmental jurisdiction.

Twice, in both the former and current legislatures of the National Assembly of Québec, I brought forward Bill 391, An Act to amend the Environment Quality Act in order to assert the primacy of Québec's jurisdiction in this area. Introduced on May 30, 2019, the bill is entirely in keeping with Bill C‑225, the legislation introduced by the other member for Jonquière, the one who sits in your Parliament.

In conclusion, I believe Bill C‑230 should be defeated, ideally, or substantially amended. I urge you to take into account the fact that the provinces have jurisdiction over the environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Welcome everyone.

We will not be proceeding to clause‑by‑clause consideration today. We are here to listen to and learn from expert witnesses on Bill C‑230, a private member's bill sponsored by Ms. Zann.

We have with us Sylvain Gaudreault, the member of the National Assembly of Québec for Jonquière, and Lynn Jones, who has compiled extensive information on the subject. Both are appearing as individuals. We also have Lisa Gue, manager of national policy at the David Suzuki Foundation, and Elaine MacDonald, program director of healthy communities at Ecojustice Canada.

I know some of you have appeared before the committee in the past. The rules are pretty straightforward. Please keep your microphone on mute when you are not speaking. I would also ask you to address comments to committee members through the chair.

You will each have five minutes for your opening statement. After that, we expect to have time for two and a half rounds of questions. We have set aside the last half-hour to meet in camera, to finalize a draft report on the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It is now 4:15 p.m. The meeting will last two hours and end at 6:15 p.m.

Mr. Gaudreault, You may go ahead. You have five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This has been a very interesting discussion. Thank you to the panellists and to the members for their very good questions which brought out some insights.

Thank you to our witnesses. The witnesses are free to disconnect from Zoom.

I have a couple of items of future business that I want to mention.

There's no meeting on Monday because of the budget. Our next two meetings will be to continue the plastics study. Those are April 21 and 26. We are looking for witness suggestions for Bill C-230 by the 26th of April.

I have been advised that the minister is available on May 12 to speak to the main estimates. If there is no objection, I will invite him to come on May 12.