Environment Committee on June 16th, 2021

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

I know that not everybody is completely in tune with this bill, but we need to pass it. Canada needs it. Once we do that, we can work out all the arms and all the nuances, and all the provincial and what have you. At some point in time, we have to move forward.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé. You have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Gaudreault.

We heard about disasters that have happened elsewhere. Can you tell us about any that have affected Quebec?

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

Absolutely.

I recognize that those who live in poor communities, immigrant communities, disadvantaged neighbourhoods and racialized communities are hit very hard by environmental impacts.

The Notre‑Dame neighbourhood in Rouyn‑Noranda is a striking example. You only have to go there once to see just how close residents are to the copper smelting plant. It's practically on top of them. Research shows that both children and adults living there have concentrations of arsenic four times higher than those in a control group of residents of Amos, in Abitibi, the same region. The ethnocultural makeup of the neighbourhood is fairly uniform; the people there have worked at the Horne smelter for generations. Think about it. The presence of arsenic in those people's systems is four times higher than the arsenic levels found in a comparable group of Amos residents.

That is unacceptable. Something has to be done. That is what is referred to as environmental justice. I have no doubt that achieving greater environmental justice hinges on providing a broad range of services in a number of areas, including education.

For instance, in Quebec—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Can you give examples of the social safety net that exists in Quebec, which Ms. Zann actually recognized?

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

Yes, of course.

For instance, focusing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds to answer, Mr. Gaudreault.

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

Focusing on early childhood by establishing affordable day care through early childhood centres is one solution. Setting lower tuition fees allows families whose members have never gone to university to have a university graduate for the first time. Establishing electricity rates that are much more affordable than in the rest of Canada ensures people can heat their homes.

Those are the types of measures that can be taken proactively to reduce environmental impacts and achieve greater environmental justice for all affected communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Gaudreault.

Mr. Bachrach, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Dr. MacDonald regarding enforcement. We've just been completing a study on the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Through that study, we have discussed some really concerning barriers that citizens and groups face in pursuing enforcement of the act.

Could you speak to enforcement, in the context of the bill we're discussing today? How could it potentially be strengthened to give citizens or communities better access to redress?

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald]

The biggest barrier is probably the cost issue, the risk of adverse costs, even the cost of hiring a lawyer to access the courts. Certainly, in our experience at Ecojustice Canada, we do many litigations, and in Canada it's the cost risk.

It's not as bad, I must say, in Federal Court as it is in some provincial courts, but the cost risk is certainly an issue for many individuals and small communities that just don't have the funds. It's absolutely the biggest barrier to bringing something before the courts. That's why we suggested a kind of easy, low-risk tool that would waive costs unless the case was vexatious, for example.

There is an environmental protection action provision in the Environmental Protection Act, which we've looked at, and we have some concerns with that. It's never been used, because it creates many barriers when it's used. For example, it requires a person to request an investigation of government first, and then get a response from the minister, who's unresponsive, or no response at all. They can then move into taking this on, but once again the cost risk is really the major barrier that I see there in terms of taking that on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bachrach, you have time for a quick comment, or a short question and answer.

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

I think the follow-up would be that, in looking at the contents of this bill, does this concept of enforcement have any real bearing in this legislation in the same way that it does in CEPA, for instance, or is the main thrust of this bill not in a direction that would allow citizens to really seek that redress through the courts?

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald]

Our recommendation in terms of enforcement went with the recommendation with respect to a federal obligation to ensure the government doesn't perpetuate environmental racism. Should the federal government fail to meet that obligation, it would give citizens a tool in order to enforce that obligation on the government. The two would go together, hand in hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll go back to you, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Gaudreault. Thank you for your service in the National Assembly.

I agree with your arguments that provinces are uniquely situated. They're local and they often have the enforcement capacity to immediately jump on cases of a violation of environmental laws. I agree with that.

In my former riding, though, on a first nation reserve, it turned out that someone was charged and taken to court for the illegal burning of some wood. I think British Columbia's provincial government was looking to collect $100,000 in fines. The court found that it was ultra vires: It was actually under federal jurisdiction because it was the Penticton Indian Band reserve, which is under the federal side. Also, by the way, the Indian Act actually says that the penalty would be around $250.

As much as that argument says to me that provinces should be able to enforce their laws, unfortunately there are just some cases where provincial laws don't align.

How would you address that, sir?

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

I think the federal Indian Act is completely outdated. The example you just gave is only further proof of that.

Without question, the Indian Act has to be completely overhauled in recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the methods of today have to be used, taking into account today's realities. I would add that indigenous communities have to rely on services provided by provincial governments, for instance, hospitals, health care facilities and educational institutions such as universities.

There is much work to be done when it comes to hospitals and health care services provided by the provinces, who need to pay more attention to the needs of communities and tailor services accordingly, if only in terms of language. In addition, more services need to be available within indigenous communities.

In relation to indigenous communities, specifically, the federal Indian Act needs overhauling and the services provided by the provinces to communities need improving.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Again, I'm concerned that because this will go to Environment and Climate Change for them to consult on, it may not necessarily get the profile it needs to actually have the appropriate minister respond.

The First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia is something that the Harper government put in place to ensure first nations had more control over their health care systems. Along with that first nation band, we were able to put in more resources, including a health centre, so I appreciate that.

For my next question, I'm going to start with Dr. Jones and then open it up.

One of the challenges we have is that this is a big, diverse country. We maybe don't have as much history as some places around the world do, like Europe, but we do have a lot of history where some of these things have happened under multiple governments. How do you start? Where do you start if you have a whole mandate where you could start with first nations, where you could start with provinces or where you could start with individual communities, such as the Black community in Truro? How do you pick a priority for consultations to move forward?

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

You've presupposed that you pick a priority. What I see with the bill is very much a collaborative effort. The bill clearly states that. I don't think that it has to operate in silos. I speak often about how people try to... Often there is this “divide and conquer” kind of attitude rather than that we are all Canadians and we all want the best. We want the best for the environment. There's no reason in the world why we can't all work together to come up with a strategy, a national solution. Some of the best committees in the best community efforts that I've been involved in have been...the fact that we've done that, and I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. I think that answers the question, but there will be other opportunities.

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

That's okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Ms. Saks for five minutes, please.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'm going to pick up where my colleague, Mr. Albas, left off.

Dr. Jones, you've had such a rich life, exploring and advocating. Your historical experience in this is vast. The knowledge we're gaining from you is tremendous with regard to your personal perspective on this.

Taking up where my colleague left off, I'd ask you this: How do we ensure that meaningful engagement occurs with marginalized communities in the development of environmental policy? In your wealth of experience, what are best practices you would recommend that we consider here in this discussion?

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

Always, for me, it's to consult—because somebody has mentioned this in a different aspect—the communities concerned. They've been dealing with the land and that environment all their lives, and they might not do things the way you normally do things. They have different ways of getting together, different ways of talking and different ways of judging. It's a matter of putting people at a table and having them come up with strategies and ways they want to deal with their communities. Government has this terrible, terrible way—and I worked for government at one point—of thinking that it has all the answers in that it's the government's way or the highway. However, in actual fact, the most success we have had is when we put these communities together and they work through and come up with the best strategies. We could do that with this environmental racism bill.

In fact, as an aside, we're doing it with our Black Lives Matter fund, where the communities themselves are saying what they require and what their needs are. It's the most successful way.