Evidence of meeting #35 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call this meeting to order.
We're having meeting number 35. We are televised, and we're dealing, of course, with Bill C-469, an act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, sponsored by Linda Duncan.
Joining us for the first hour is Matthew Firth, senior officer of health, safety, and environment, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Welcome, Mr. Firth. I'll ask you for your opening comments. And please, if you could stay within ten minutes, we would appreciate that.
Matthew Firth Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before the committee.
As stated, my name is Matthew Firth. I am a senior officer in the health, safety, and environment branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, which is Canada's largest trade union, with approximately 600,000 members.
CUPE's national president, Paul Moist, wanted to meet with the committee today but could not because he's overseas at Public Services International meetings, so I am here in his place.
CUPE is a socially active union, and this social action extends to environmental issues. CUPE works to improve all facets of our members’ quality of life. We see that enhancing the natural environment augments the quality of life of our members and, by extension, all Canadians. Therefore, CUPE supports Bill C-469.
Specifically, CUPE will put its support in context by pointing to the timeliness of this bill with respect to the state of the global natural environment and with respect to an emerging trend to enshrine environmental rights as a response to ecological stressors.
Secondly, CUPE supports the need for the bill because of Canada’s declining environmental record, as shown via various indicators, as a way to improve Canada’s protection and enrichment of the natural environment.
Lastly, CUPE will highlight the importance of certain key points of the bill that it supports.
Presently, the state of the Canadian and global natural environment is perilous. Various environmental factors show that more protection is called for due to decades of environmental degradation and exploitation of the planet’s natural resources. Climate change, diminishing biodiversity, deforestation, deteriorated water and air quality, as well as other environmental problems show the timely need for an environmental bill of rights.
There are indications that the world is moving toward enshrining the rights of the planet. For example, in April 2009 the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed April 22 to be International Mother Earth Day, a step up from Earth Day. Speaking to the declaration, Bolivian President Evo Morales said the world body had “taken a historic stand for Mother Earth”. The UN declaration states that “the Earth and its ecosystems are our home” and “it is necessary to promote harmony with nature and the Earth”. Furthermore, Morales dubbed the declaration a first step toward making the 21st century the “century of the rights of Mother Earth” in the same way the 20th century was characterized as the century of human rights.
A next step would be taking up this opportunity in Canada by laying out a declaration for an environmental bill of rights and for the planet. We use this example to show that Bill C-469 is in step with what is an international trend to integrate human rights with ecological rights to ensure human prosperity. Adopting Bill C-469 would be a progressive environmental move by Canada and would help further the movement toward linking ecological well-being and health with social and economic prosperity, rather than seeing the natural environment and the economy as being separate and/or at odds, which is an outdated viewpoint inadequate for the 21st century.
Closer to home, Ontario, the Northwest Territories, Quebec, and other jurisdictions have environmental statutes that call for environmental rights, as do dozens of other jurisdictions across the world.
Numerous environmental performance indices point to Canada’s faltering environmental record. For example, Yale University's environmental performance index for 2010 assessed 163 countries on 25 performance indicators measured across ten policy categories, covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality. The indicators provide a gauge on a national government scale of how close countries are to meeting their established environmental policy goals. Overall, Canada ranked in 46th place out of 163 countries, with a score of 66.4%, a percentage score equivalent to a C grade. The ranking puts Canada in the middle of the pack, behind developing nations such as Mexico and Romania, and well behind other industrialized nations such as Switzerland and Sweden. Canada scored well on its water quality index, access to sanitation, access to water, and on indoor air pollution levels. Canada received failing grades on ecosystem vitality, fisheries, climate change, and air pollution.
Canada scores worse when environmental indicators are narrowed to, for example, climate change, which is presently the most serious global threat to environmental stability.
The social research centre Germanwatch, along with Climate Action Network International, issues yearly reports on the nations that are responsible for more than 90% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Countries are assessed on their emission levels, emission trends, and on their national and international climate policies. Canada’s national climate change policy was assessed as “very poor” and is centred out for specific comment in the 2010 report. The report points to Canada’s rising emission levels: 34% above its Kyoto target level. Overall, the report ranks Canada second to last, in 56th place of 57 countries, a ranking that is unchanged from the 2009 index. These results highlight that Canada needs to do more to improve its environmental performance, something Bill C-469 would help ameliorate.
Specific aspects of Bill C-469 will help strengthen and expand Canada’s environmental performance. For example, the bill confirms that the Government of Canada has a public duty to protect the environment. The bill also takes a long-term, multi-generational approach by stating that future generations have a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Moreover, the bill recognizes the inherent value of essential ecological processes, meaning natural systems are viewed as vital, not simply from a resource or commodity perspective but implicitly and fundamentally. This marks a shift in thinking about the natural world, which will benefit all Canadians.
Another key facet of the bill is the precautionary principle, which is deemed a basis on which actions can be taken to address environmental wrongs. Too often, actions on environmental problems are shackled by what is construed as conflicting evidence. The precautionary principle would improve this standoff by allowing actions to be taken to preserve the integrity of the natural world simply by virtue of the fact that a threat is very likely apparent and/or imminent. Such an approach is proactive and progressive. Likewise, the principle of environmental justice described in Bill C-469 provides a democratic view of the natural world.
The foundation of this bill is the right to a healthy environment for all Canadians, another key point that CUPE supports. Ensuring accountability via making environmental information available to the public in a reasonable, timely, and affordable fashion also shows the strength of the bill.
The process by which this bill would be enforced is credible, through investigations, judicial review, and subsequently through various remedial actions. The bill’s language on reprisal could be bolstered to prohibit reprisals so that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall dismiss, discipline, penalize, coerce, intimidate, or harass an employee because that employee has applied to the commissioner for an investigation under the terms of the Canadian environmental bill of rights. A provision like this would fully ensure worker protection.
Lastly, the proposed amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights to ensure consistency with an environmental bill of rights indicates a more holistic perspective that is in step with current movement toward reintegrating humanity with ecology, as witnessed in the UN Mother Earth Declaration, other laws in other jurisdictions, and other actions.
In summary, Bill C-469 would expand the scope of environmental protection of the Government of Canada, which would help improve our country’s environmental record and help advance the rights of the planet at a time of major ecological challenges.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before the committee this afternoon.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you, Mr. Firth. You came within your time limit.
With that, we're going to go to our seven-minute round.
Mr. Kennedy, you can start us off.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Firth.
I know you weren't necessarily here to hear some of the concerns expressed about the bill. I was following this through Hansard: essentially, the existence of the bill, some of the rights for the environment, would be a direct affront to our ability to nourish the economy and generate jobs and so on. I don't, on the face of it, accept that argument. I think environmental protection actually can be reconciled. But I want to know, from the standpoint of your members and so on, whether you have considered those kinds of arguments and what you might say to that. I won't try to articulate exactly what was said, but I think you probably get the gist of people being concerned that this creates a disincentive compared to other jurisdictions, that kind of thing. I'm wondering how your organization has assessed those kinds of concerns.
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I'll say right off the bat that sometimes people find it a bit of a strange marriage—someone working for a trade union and the environment. But CUPE in fact has done a lot of work on environmental issues and is actually in partnership with different environmental groups. We have pushed in many instances for environmental improvements on various issues. For instance, we have taken positions on climate change, and tried to make sure that they contain provisions such as a just transition for affected workers.
So we don't see this as being out of step with the principles of trade unionism. At the same time, if we recognize that our economy is moving to more sustainable methods of production and job growth, then it is clear that unions have an inherent interest in the environment. We want to be part of that process rather than an impediment to it.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you.
This is a bill entitled a Canadian Environment Bill of Rights, though it is attached in part not to the charter, but to the older bill of rights. Some people have argued that this is inadequate, that it won't give it enough force or priority over other laws.
I'm wondering if your organization has considered this limitation, or whether you think it's a true limitation or not. I notice in your presentation you talk about this as being an effective means of getting at some of the responsibilities towards the environment. Was this possible constitutional limitation a concern in any of your discussions?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Sorry, what was the first part of the question?
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I asked about the difference between the Charter of Rights in the Constitution and the reference in this bill, which is to the Canadian Bill of Rights brought in by Mr. Diefenbaker and having no constitutional status. Is this a source of concern for your organization?
Some other presenters have said they would like to see some of the clauses referenced to the Charter of Rights. This would be tantamount to constitutional change, but that's where they say they would like to see these references reside. I wonder if you considered that point.
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
No, we haven't. It's not something that CUPE has looked at. So I don't have much to add on that.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Part of what we're being asked to consider is how many tools we need in the tool box. When we look at the record and the stuff you tabled from the Yale study, we see that we have a sustainable development plan originating from a previous private member's bill. It passed and is now obligatory for government departments. We have a clock ticking when it comes to climate change.
Are there specific expectations that you have for this bill? What would it fix that isn't being fixed right now? Are there problems in Canada that would be solved by this bill, or is it just in its generality that you support it?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I cited various tables, and I don't think this bill is going to rocket us to the number one spot in them. I presented those indices more as context for where we are. Obviously there's room for improvement. Is this bill going to be a silver bullet? Perhaps not, but it's certainly not going to hurt.
One of the best benefits of the bill would be that it would engage more citizens in the environmental debate. In a sense, I see it as a parallel to existing occupational health and safety legislation, under which workers in all jurisdictions, including the federal jurisdiction, have the right to know, the right to participate, and the right to refuse unsafe work.
I see parallels between that legislation and what this bill could be leading toward. It addresses the right to know about environmental issues and the right to participate, which is exactly parallel to existing occupational health and safety legislation.
If we're going to grant these rights to workers in the workplace, then why not extend that privilege to citizens? I think this would engage citizens more fully.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Coming back to the original question, you indicated that we're sitting fairly low in the standings. There are other rankings that support that idea. We have a threat to some of our water flow. We have a threat to our air quality, especially in certain parts of the country, and so on, and there's a sense that we're losing rather than gaining. Some people would set that up as the cost of the economy moving forward.
I guess our view would be that in fact there isn't a trade-off necessarily. There's a reconciling that has to happen, and if implemented this bill and other environmental protection measures could cost us some jobs in the short term. Our idea would be that in the long term we're going to have more jobs that we need to force ourselves to consider and that we need to get into some of the behaviours that make us more efficient.
We have a huge carbon footprint. It's like walking around in size 17 sneakers. We have a big water footprint--some people say two to three times the size of what is sustainable for our watersheds and our aquifers and so on.
At the end of the day, that means making decisions. Whether it's in the oil sands or here, we may have to slow the pace of development. We may have to do some things, but always, I think, with an eye to having a proper reconciliation.
I'm just coming back to your organization and your members. Do you think that people are ready for that idea? Ready for the fact that we need to take the environment, our children's heritage, into account in making those decisions? And it's not just how big an economic case you have, and therefore we go ahead and run ramshackle over the environment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Firth, you're going to have to give a quick response, because Mr. Kennedy's time is up.
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Yes, our members are ready.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our witness for his brief and his presentation.
I suppose that, basically, the union you represent is interested in clauses 24 and 25 of the bill. I feel that these are very important provisions for your organization. We're talking about protecting whistleblowers here.
A few years ago, the government introduced a bill to protect public service employees. I understand that clauses 24 and 25 of the bill are fundamental for you, but I want to be sure. Clause 25 reads:
(2) For the purposes of this section, an employer has taken reprisals against an employee if the employer has dismissed, disciplined, penalized, coerced, intimidated or harassed, or attempted to coerce, intimidate or harass, the employee.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an employer has taken reprisals on a prohibited ground if the employee in good faith did or has attempted to do any of the following for the purpose of protecting the environment …
Existing legislation aside, you feel you need clauses 24 and 25 to protect your employees. Is that what you were suggesting in the statements you made today?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Yes, I would say that clauses 24 and 25 about whistleblowers are important, but our support for this bill is not limited simply to those two clauses. In fact, it spans the bulk of the bill. We like to think of CUPE as being a very socially active and progressive trade union, which means extending our work beyond the core worker protection in the workplace things that some people traditionally associate with trade unions.
We are also interested in enhancing the full quality of life of our members, which extends beyond the workplace to our communities and to our natural environment. So clauses 24 and 25 are key, but so are many other clauses in the bill.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Do you have examples to give us of federal employees from Environment Canada or Health Canada—probably more specifically Environment Canada—who, in the past few years, have been threatened with dismissal, reprisals, intimidation or harassment when carrying out their duties, in this case for wanting to apply the existing legislation? As for some Environment Canada reports, middle managers apparently stepped in with employees in that department and elsewhere to tell them not to make that information public.
I would like to know whether, in the past five or six years, some Environment Canada or Health Canada employees have been victims of intimidation or harassment, or have been threatened with dismissal for wanting to disclose environment-related information to the public.
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I guess the most prudent answer is no, I can't provide examples because we don't represent workers in Health Canada and Environment Canada, number one. Those workers are represented by the Public Service Alliance rather than by CUPE. So no, our own members have not been affected by that.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Fine.
On page 4 of your document, near the end, you say:
Lastly, the proposed amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights to ensure consistency with an environmental bill of rights indicates a more holistic perspective…
I am trying to understand what you said. An amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be made through a constitutional amendment. But, I do not think that this is the purpose of the bill before us. Perhaps we are not interpreting it the same way, but I do not think that this bill can amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Perhaps the word “amendment” was the incorrect word. I forget which section it is in the bill. It's right toward the very end. By “holistic”, I guess I was talking about expanding the definition, making it broader by bringing environmental considerations into it. But that's the only way in which I used the word “holistic”.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
According to you, could clause 23, which aims to establish civil recourse against certain legal entities, have economic consequences and repercussions on your workers? Aren't you afraid that this clause will end up preventing projects from being completed and, in the end, inconveniencing your members?
Senior Officer, Health, Safety and Environment, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Not if the actions that are brought forward are.... And I'm not even 100% sure on what the process would be. That would be the role of the commissioner to vet such actions, for lack of a better word. But I think there are instances of other jurisdictions that have legislation in place where the experience shows that the courts are not flooded with frivolous use of the bill. So no, that's not a fear that we have.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Firth, I'd like to thank you very much for your thoughtful presentation and your very thoughtful efforts at response. I understand that you're not a lawyer and sometimes it's tough to try to come up with a legal opinion to a rather legalistic bill. I think you've done an admirable attempt at that, so thank you for your efforts.
I really appreciated the approach that your union has taken in this brief. It's much more sort of a broad-based holistic approach. And I really appreciated the efforts that both your union and other union reps in the environment committee of the CLC have taken to give their feedback on the bill. I very much appreciate it.
I understand that there's a particular interest in this bill by your union members in having stronger commitments by the Government of Canada to the precautionary principle. I'm wondering if you'd like to elaborate a bit more on that aspect of the bill.