Evidence of meeting #25 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Zann and Dr. Waldron, thank you for being with us today. You are absolutely right to say that health and the environment are closely linked.
Yesterday, the government and the Minister of Environment introduced a bill on modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which includes two important provisions: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of vulnerable populations.
Ms. Zann, don't you feel that the government's bill, which is broader in scope—it seems to have a more binding application and is intertwined with current environmental policy—sort of makes your bill obsolete?
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much for the question.
I think that the government's bill yesterday is a very good step forward, and I'm very pleased to see it. Obviously, a private member's bill takes a lot longer to get through the House. It has to go through all of these various levels and then go to the Senate. You just never know; it might even get stalled in the Senate. It's a lot harder to get a private member's bill passed, so I'm very pleased to see what happened yesterday.
Again, I think that this bill would dovetail nicely with CEPA, with the changes to CEPA. However, I believe it's important that we, as a government, put the emphasis also on race, as Dr. Waldron expressed, because this has not necessarily been—
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'm sorry, but I'd like to talk about Quebec.
In Quebec, the right to live in a healthy environment that respects biodiversity has been recognized since 2006, and is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To the extent that this right is quasi-constitutional in scope and protects all Quebeckers, I question the appropriateness of including in the legislation sections that have the same purpose but less legal weight.
Don't you think the bill should have been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution rather than in the preamble of an act? It seems to me that it would carry a lot more weight if it were included in a quasi-constitutional charter rather than in the preamble of an act, no matter how good it is.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you for your question.
First of all, I want to commend Quebec for so many of the progressive things that it does there, including in arts and culture, early childhood education, affordable child care. I'm a big fan of what it does there, and the [Technical difficulty—Editor] is so important.
Again, I do think it's important that we introduce a bill that would address the issues of systemic racism and environmental racism that have been affecting Canada. I want to work with the Province of Quebec. We want to work with the Province of Quebec to make sure that we can make things better right across Canada and in Quebec. I would be open to your suggestions as well.
Thank you.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
You'll understand that because of the Quebec exception, Bill C-230 and Bill C-28 are of less interest to Quebec than to the rest of Canada.
I'll ask you another question. One of the fundamental principles guiding the action of my political party is the defence of Quebec's environmental sovereignty. This isn't just the position of the Bloc Québécois, but also the position taken by the governments of Quebec throughout history.
Bascially, it's Quebec laws that protect the environment in Quebec. We think these laws take precedence over Canadian laws because our territory belongs to us and because the federal government doesn't have to encroach upon Quebec's environmental responsibilities. I'm thinking of the drinking water in particular.
Bill C-230 directly challenges the enforcement of environmental laws in the provinces and even purports to assess their enforcement and monitoring. Did you think about this crucial aspect when drafting this bill? Are you sensitive to the constitutional reality of Canada and the official position of the state of Quebec?
If so, how do you reconcile this understanding of the division of powers in Canada with the provisions in your bill?
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Absolutely.
I definitely accept and recognize Quebec's special situation. I think it would be incumbent upon us, as a government, to directly work with you and work with Quebec to try to make this bill work for you as well. Again, I think it's important to set a symbol for the rest of the world that Canada means what we say when we're going to deal with racism, particularly systemic racism and environmental racism. It doesn't matter where in Canada it is, it has taken place, and environmental racism is a real thing.
I open my arms and say let's work together and make this work for all of us.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much, Ms. Zann, for bringing forward your bill. Congratulations.
Thank you, Dr. Waldron, for your presentation. I know five minutes doesn't come close to being enough time to get into all of the impacts and the meaning behind the bill in front of us.
Ms. Zann, The definition of “environmental racism” that you present is such a succinct one. I think any Canadian would understand it intuitively as being an egregious problem.
When I think about environmental racism in the region I represent in northwest British Columbia, I think about the disproportionate impact of global climate change on indigenous people who rely on resources like wild salmon, especially those in indigenous nations like the Wet'suwet'en, the Gitxsan, the Tsimshian, the Heiltsuk, and the Nisga'a, which are all up and down the north and central coast of British Columbia. I talk to people every single week who are heartbroken at the changes they're seeing in the environment around them. They want justice for their kids and want to see action so that these resources come back in more abundance.
I wonder if you could unpack this a bit for me, because with the definition you presented, it seems like a toxic waste site near a racialized community is very different as a problem from something like global climate change and its impact on indigenous people. Perhaps you could share with us your thinking about how climate change is dealt with by your bill and how it might be strengthened to better consider the disproportionate impacts of climate change on indigenous people.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I am totally open to anything that will strengthen this bill, as long as it doesn't water it down and weaken it.
Dr. Waldron and I have discussed at length the fact that climate change and environmental racism are inextricably connected. Women are connected too because it has affected women disproportionately. Climate change, which is obvious with the rapid change in our climate, and the pandemic which is happening now are affecting racialized people and women more. This shows that they're all connected.
That's why I believe in a bill like this, which puts a spotlight on the fact that racialized people have been ignored for too long and their health has been affected more disproportionately than white people's health. We need this bill to bring attention to this issue, because it's been ignored for too long.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Ms. Zann.
Dr. Waldron, I wonder if you'd like to comment on climate as a form of environmental racism.
Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
There's a burgeoning climate justice movement in Canada and around the world. That movement demonstrates quite clearly that environmental racism and the placement of polluting industries in certain communities is inextricably linked to climate change in several ways.
The kinds of emissions that come out of polluting industries actually have implications for climate change. The same communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental racism are the same communities that are disproportionately impacted by climate change. The long-standing structural inequities that Black and indigenous peoples in this country experience—separate from climate change and environmental racism—actually put them at risk. People don't often talk about what exactly puts people at risk. It's not just geography. It's not just where indigenous people live. It's about the structural inequities, whether it be poor housing, neighbourhoods with poor-quality public infrastructure, food insecurity, housing insecurity, income insecurity or under-education. Those are the structural inequities that put communities at risk for climate change, as well as for the placement of polluting industries in their communities.
When we talk about the after-effects, because of the long-standing structural inequities they've faced, these communities find it much harder to fight back against climate change, to come back from climate change and to address climate change because, as Lenore mentioned earlier, those are the communities that have less clout. They have less political, economic and social clout. They don't have the networks. They don't have this thing we call social capital that allows them to come back from climate change quickly.
Part of the definition of environmental racism is not simply the location of polluting industries in those communities. There's a five-part definition of environmental racism. Lenore talked about the disproportionate location, but it's also about the lack of political power these communities have for resisting the placement of industrial polluters in their communities. It's about the implementation of policies that sanction the harmful, and in many cases life-threatening, poisons in these communities. It's about the disproportionate negative impacts of environmental policies that result in differential rates of clean up.
It's also about the history in Canada of excluding indigenous and racialized communities from mainstream or environmental groups, boards, commissions, regulatory bodies and decision-making bodies. Essentially, this is about systemic racism. It's about the issues and the structural inequities independent of climate change and environmental racism that put these communities at risk in the first place.
At the back end, it's about the fact that the lack of clout makes it much more difficult for them to come back and address it. These are issues that are inextricably linked. In Canada, I think people are starting to see those links.
We then talk about the identities, race, gender and the fact that women around the world bear the brunt of climate change impacts, particularly in developing countries.
We also need to think of policy. We need to look at those intersections of race, class, socio-economic status and gender. In Nova Scotia, I've noticed that it's the indigenous women who seem to be on the front lines. They are the ones doing much of the work in terms of addressing it because it's part of their culture and of their tradition.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You'll have an opportunity, Dr. Waldron, to continue with your line of thinking, perhaps in response to other questions.
We'll go now to the second round.
Mrs. McLeod, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
I do want to pick up on the area of provincial jurisdiction. Madam Pauzé spoke to that particular concern.
We have a Constitution in Canada. Not only Quebec has special concerns. I think it's fair to say that every province, whether it's Alberta or British Columbia, wants to have their jurisdiction respected. For you to say that measures will be undertaken and that you're going to assess the effect of environmental laws in each province, to me that's terribly “father knows best”. I don't see the provinces appreciating that kind of intervention into what is clearly their area of jurisdiction. That's my first area of concern.
As I said, it's not just Quebec. You talked about Quebec, but you didn't say that maybe there are other provinces that won't really appreciate that. Are you willing to remove that section, period? It clearly interferes in provincial jurisdiction. It's clearly “father knows best”.
Quite frankly, British Columbia has done some very good things over the years. For the federal government to impose upon them their thoughts is, I think, very patronizing.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much for your question.
Actually, all the bill talks about is consultation. It's right in the bill. It says:
In developing the strategy, the Minister must consult with representatives of provincial and municipal governments, of Indigenous communities and of other affected communities, as well as with any other affected persons and bodies.
It's about consultation, not about telling the provinces what to do. This is about gathering the information and then reporting back to government with recommendations.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Certainly, assessing the environmental laws in each province is from my perspective a little bit more.
As the next area I'd like to talk about, there has been a sort of reference made to the missing and murdered indigenous women. I sat on a special committee for over a year. I read more than 70 different studies on that issue that had been formally done. We have recommendations. I acknowledge that the inquiry was ultimately supported by all parties, but then there was to be an action plan. This is something people have been asking for all along, an action plan. Of course, it has been delayed. It was supposed to be out last June. We're still waiting for an action plan.
What I worry about is what my colleague worries about. Instead of having something specific that is going to make a real difference, such as that participation will be X on this committee.... In British Columbia, one of the first nations had their own environmental assessment process as part of planning around a mine. Instead of doing something that actually is going to make a difference, however, what we have is “wait, dialogue, wait and see”. Some things should be very specific.
With regard to the example of murdered and missing indigenous women, you held that as a good example, but I still see no action plan, no action and there are horrific incidents still happening in our communities across the country. It certainly doesn't give me any relief that this bill would move us in a positive direction.
Liberal
Lenore Zann Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Well, I have to agree with you. What is happening is outrageous and disgusting with respect to the way women are treated. The femicide, toxic masculinity, all of these issues, need to be addressed and addressed now. This bill obviously isn't going to go that far. This is about environmental racism, but they're all connected.
You're concerned about whether the government is going to tell the provinces what to do. Actually, what we're doing is consulting with the provinces and affected communities, then making recommendations as to how we can change things.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
As for the way I'm seeing things, I can use some examples.
There are environmental projects that have actually been approved by the process. Your government shut them down, when indigenous people were keen for them to move forward. I can give you example after example of projects.
What you're talking about is not economic opportunity; this is about decision-making and having structures in place for appropriate decision-making and including communities.
Again I'll use first nations as an example, because certainly in British Columbia in the riding I represent, they need to play a critical role in saying yes or no to projects. What I'm hearing is a process that is again paternalistic.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're unfortunately out of time.
We'll go to Ms. Saks for five minutes.
Liberal
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Zann for this important bill, which has been brought forward to committee.
Dr. Waldron, I've been reading up on your work. I am pleased to see you here today.
I'd like to pick up on some of the questioning of my colleague Mr. Bachrach to allow Ms. Waldron to unpack it perhaps a bit more. I think this is an important point as to why we're here today discussing Bill C-230.
Could you speak to the manifestations of systemic racism as it affects environmental policy, since we are going to go through a process of unpacking policy?
We have dark episodes in our very own Canadian history that are more easily identifiable, such as the residential school system. Environmental racism truly may be a less direct or less visible issue, and Canadians may not really understand why the matter is so important and why my colleague Ms. Zann felt it was important to bring it to the House and to committee.
How might systemic racism become manifest in our environmental policies?
Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
The spacial patterning of industries primarily in indigenous and other racialized communities is an outcome of systemic racism that has been inscribed within environmental policy and is not dissimilar from any other policy, whether you're talking about health policy, policy in education, or immigration policy. It stems from the people who get to make decisions. The people who get to make decisions are never people who look like me typically, or just one or two.
This is once again about power. When we look at departments of environment, the people who have the most power, the people who get to write policies are those who are middle class and white. Directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly, as people we hold the least perceptions about other people. We certainly hold beliefs about those who are “othered”.
Those ideologies, beliefs and perceptions that we hold about those who are considered to be “other” get inscribed within environmental policies in very subtle ways. That's why we call it systemic racism, because it's not overt. It's not direct. It's subtle. It's silent.
The way it gets inscribed within environmental policy is through ideologies that determine who matters and who doesn't. That's very difficult for white people to admit to, I understand, but we all hold what we call unconscious biases. When you write those policies, in very subtle ways you want to make sure that your group is protected.
That was highlighted to me during a presentation I gave at Dalhousie when a white student stood up and said to me after I gave a talk, “So what are you proposing, Dr. Waldron, that they put it in our community?” When she said that, I thought, “Ah, there we go.”
We may not want to admit that, but we hold ideas about who matters, who doesn't matter, who has value and who doesn't have value. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that people who look like me, and indigenous people in this country and around the world are seen as having less value and less worth.