Thank you for that, Madam Chair.
Let me take a step back and provide an example from our work relating to environmental justice. In “chemical valley”, which is located just outside Sarnia, Ontario, sirens can blare at any time of the day to warn people to stay indoors when all too frequent pollution incidents occur. In 2011 the World Health Organization said that the people of Sarnia breathe some of the most polluted air in all of Canada. The approximately 800 residents of Aamjiwnaang First Nation live next to industrial facilities that account for approximately 40% of Canada's petrochemical industry.
We recommend the following to incorporate environmental justice considerations into the IAA.
First, there should be definitions of ”environmental justice“ and “vulnerable populations”.
Second, there should be a new consideration under proposed section 22 of the act relating to whether the area impacted by the project is home to vulnerable populations and whether the human health or environmental effects of the project, including its cumulative effects, may be disproportionately high and adverse with respect to those populations.
Finally, there should be a decision-making criterion in proposed section 63 concerning the extent to which the designated project contributes to environmental justice.
The situation in Sarnia also reveals another gap in the IAA and that is the failure to provide for assessments of projects not only on federal lands but those with federal proponents or that are federally funded. In December of last year a chemical company produced a new polyethylene facility in chemical valley designed to increase its polyethylene production capacity by 450 kilotonnes per year. The federal government will contribute $35 million to that project, yet it will receive no federal or provincial environmental assessment. That's an unacceptable oversight. We therefore recommend that proposed section 81 of the act be amended to ensure that effects of all federal activities, whether as proponents or funders, be assessed. Those assessments should use the expertise of the newly created impact assessment agency, which will ensure that assessments of federal projects are independent and seen to be independent.
Finally, I note that the courts are the proper arbiters of when an assessment report is legally compliant and whether the decision conforms to the evidence before the decision-maker. Appeals should be rare but there should be recourse to them where necessary. I note the discussion yesterday concerning a potential appeal or review tribunal, which we absolutely support. However, if that is impossible at this stage, the IAA should provide for a right to review reports under the Federal Courts Act and to appeal the final decisions on questions of law and jurisdiction.
Thank you very much.