Environment Committee on June 16th, 2021

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

I'm not sure, and I can't answer your question directly, but I can answer from having gone through the environmental racism bill that Ms. Zann presented at the provincial level. An example is the ENRICH project. There are many people from the first nations community that are part of the development, and even within Ingrid Waldron's book you can see all the consultations, so I have no reason to expect that consultation hasn't taken place, because it takes place all the time.

I just wanted to add that there is direct consultation at all times, and the community is part of the organizations.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I guess, really, we are looking at a bill that's dealing with a very critical issue, and we also have a declaration that is very critical. As you may be aware, the actual “how a government will implement its commitments” becomes very aligned and meshed, so that certainly speaks to concerns that we have when the government makes a commitment and then perhaps moves forward with legislation. We can look at a number of environmental legislation pieces where we have government officials announcing or saying they haven't consulted.

I guess I'm just trying to align those concepts as we try to deal with an issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that comment.

Mr. Saini, you have six minutes.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time today to make us a better-informed committee.

Ms. Gue, I'd like to start with you. Could you explain for the committee's interest the difference between the concepts of environmental justice and environmental racism, and how they're linked?

[Lisa Gue]

I would refer you back to the testimony provided by Dr. Ingrid Waldron on the link to environmental justice or, really, on the definition of environmental racism. Certainly, these are embedded concepts.

You'll notice in my presentation of the U.S. government structure and legal requirements flowing from the order on environmental justice that that's the term employed in the U.S. However, we also see that the functional definition of “environmental justice” that the U.S. EPA uses specifically names discrimination based on race with respect to environmental harms as one of its focus areas. I would say that it's broadly accepted that environmental racism is one aspect within the broader concept of environmental justice.

One other thing I might add is that my understanding of the environmental justice movement in the United States, which has a much longer history—at least in terms of its legal, legislative manifestations—than here in Canada, is that it has really been driven by the African-American communities that have been affected by environmental pollution and degradation. Certainly, it's at the core of the concept.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'll just follow up on that. Maybe I'll get your comment, and I can ask Dr. MacDonald for her comment.

This is still staying on the environmental justice and environmental racism piece. Do you think that addressing the broader inequalities that are encompassed by the concept of environmental justice can play an important role in addressing environmental racism specifically?

[Lisa Gue]

I'm conscious of this bill's specific focus on environmental racism. I think it's appropriate to profile it in that way. Does the Government of Canada need to take broader action on environmental justice? Absolutely. It would really be a tragedy if this became an either-or conversation. I would encourage the Government of Canada and the committee to move forward boldly with a specific attention to environmental racism, as well as with broader measures to bring better governance around environmental justice in Canada.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Dr. MacDonald, do you want to make a comment?

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald]

I would agree with Ms. Gue's comment in that respect. I would want to honour the focus that the drafters of this bill placed on environmental racism. I wouldn't want to see it diluted—I don't know if that is the right word—or broadened to cover all the aspects of environmental justice.

Certainly, work on environmental justice is needed. My hope is that maybe some of the amendments coming forward in CEPA one day might help with that as well. However, this bill, I really believe, should stay focused on environmental racism.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay, just going with that.... One of the things is that presumably there will be a strategy to address environmental justice and racism, and it will need to both address the acts of racism that have already occurred and prevent it from continuing to occur in nature. What sorts of measures should a strategy contain to heal the wounds of environmental racism that has already occurred, and how should it prevent further actions from furthering environmental inequality?

Ms. Gue, you can start.

[Lisa Gue]

I think this is why this bill is an important starting point. There is some strategic thinking needed to really determine where to start, and to take a broad look at the gaps that exist in the way we currently do business in Canada with respect to environmental laws and governance.

I maybe would invite Dr. MacDonald as well, to speak more to the suggestions that she offered around strengthening the enforcement provisions, because I agree that providing citizen access to justice would be an important way to improve accountability for the commitments being made under this bill.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Would you like to comment?

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald]

Yes. I can certainly talk a bit about what I said in my five minutes. We suggested an additional provision that would actually put an obligation on the federal government not to perpetuate environmental racism through its own decision-making, whether it be through environmental assessments, risk assessments under legislation like CEPA, or any kind of decision that may come out of the federal bucket of laws that could contribute to environmental racism. There should be a mandatory obligation that each decision is screened for its impacts on racialized and indigenous communities, and that decisions do not perpetuate or further environmental racism.

That's kind of a forward-looking piece. I also suggested, with respect to upholding that obligation, that there be a citizens' enforcement tool whereby citizens could have a low-risk, low-barrier way to hold the government accountable to that obligation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

One last point, please, and then we have to move on.

[Dr. Elaine MacDonald]

In terms of the redress, the backward-looking aspect, that's a little harder. The bill speaks to compensation within the strategy, and I think that is one aspect that could help with the redress.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Madame Pauzé.

[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?

[Sylvain Gaudreault]

Thank you for your question.

That is precisely what I was trying to convey in my opening statement. Although the right to a healthful environment is recognized as a value in Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, it's important to go a step further. Entrenching the right in the charter is a step forward, but it has to be recognized as grounds for discrimination; that recognition does not currently exist.

I agree with you, but I would add something. If we want to fight social inequalities, which are caused and reinforced by environmental issues, we have to act on all fronts. In other words, actions have to target health care, education, social policy and natural resource development. All of those areas fall under provincial jurisdiction. We need to focus more on that dimension, as far as provincial jurisdiction goes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

In a previous Parliament, I brought forward a bill on environmental sovereignty. The honourable member for Jonquière, Mario Simard, whom you know well, introduced similar legislation. This position is not exclusive to the Bloc Québécois. Rather, it is a position historically and consensually held by the Quebec government. Basically, we believe that Quebec's laws protect Quebec's environment and that those laws take precedence over Canada's laws, because the territory of Quebec belongs to us and the federal government should not interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction over the environment. As I said earlier, that belief is not exclusive to the Bloc Québécois and is among Quebec's historically held positions.

[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. Gaudreault.

My other question is for Ms. Jones. You've just heard what Mr. Gaudreault said about Quebec's jurisdiction over environmental matters. Considering that and considering the realities facing a number of communities in their relationship with the environment, don't you think it's up to the provinces in question to assume their responsibilities, and strengthen their environmental legislation and social safety nets?

[Dr. Lynn Jones]

You've asked the wrong person this question. I say that because of having dealt for a very long time with issues of racism and anti-racism. I'll go back to the previous question, which talked about justice: environmental justice, including racism.

I'm old, right? I'm growing old, but I've been around during the environmental “justice” movement, and during that time, I never saw issues in my community addressed—or in any marginalized, racialized communities, such as indigenous communities. Black communities, indigenous communities.... They didn't talk about us, and our concerns weren't on the table when we talked about environmental justice, even though you would think they would be, because it's justice for everybody. We weren't included, and that's why it's so important that, number one, we talk about racism, because then we get included.

Whenever you say the word “racism”, somehow or other you hit that brick wall, and I don't think that when it comes to provinces and national concerns it's any different. My personal feeling, because you've asked me, is that unless we look at this bill in terms of national incentives, we will not have uniformity in the country in terms of dealing with racism and, in this case, environmental racism—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm going to stop you there, Ms. Jones.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're out of time for this round, unfortunately, but you'll have another turn.

Mr. Bachrach.