Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

My understanding is that the technical tests have been done for those witnesses with headsets, of which there is one. It's all good.

Today we have two hours for hearings on Bill C-226. We have two panels. The first one includes Ms. May, the sponsor of the bill and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands. Appearing along with Ms. May is Dr. Jane McArthur, toxics program director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

I think you discussed with the clerk, Ms. May, that both of you combined have 13 minutes, if you would like to take that to the full.

We'll let you get started. Please go ahead. Congratulations on getting your bill to this stage of the legislative process.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my fellow members for being here.

This isn't the first time the committee has studied this bill.

I want to start by acknowledging that this bill was in the last Parliament, came before this committee, had hearings and had amendments made. I particularly want to thank the former member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann, who brought it forward then as Bill C-230. I was honoured, at the time. I have never before had a member of another party ask me to second their bill. I was the official seconder on Lenore's bill, back then. I'm grateful that my bill also has bipartisan support.

I want to split up my time as follows.

As the name suggests, the bill is about the development of a national strategy to deal with environmental racism and to advance environmental justice. I will share our ideas on what an environmental justice program should look like and what such a policy should cover.

I'll be sharing my time with Jane McArthur, who will explain what environmental racism is.

I may have surprised some of you by saying that I didn't, before this moment, know Dr. Jane McArthur.

The name Dr. Ingrid Waldron is certainly known to everybody who has looked at the question of environmental racism across Canada. Dr. Waldron has done a lot of research. She was unable to be here today. She played a key role with Lenore Zann in bringing the bill forward and providing its academic and evidence-based underpinning. When Dr. Waldron wasn't able to attend, I asked her if she could recommend someone who could give us the same kind of evidence. She referred me to Dr. McArthur.

I would now like to turn it over to Dr. McArthur for three or four minutes of her expertise in terms of what this bill addresses and what evidence we have that there's a problem that requires this bill.

It's over to you, Dr. McArthur. Thank you for being here.

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur, Director, Toxics Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank everyone on the standing committee for inviting me to appear as a witness today. Of course, I want to thank Dr. Waldron for all her work and for allowing me to speak when she was unable to today.

As Ms. May said, my name is Jane McArthur. I'm the toxics program director with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I am a settler, here today from my home on the traditional territories of the three fires confederacy of first nations comprised of the Ojibwa, the Odawa and the Potawatomi. This region was also a terminal on the underground railroad network. Today we refer to it as Windsor-Essex, Ontario. In part because of its historical roots, it's still home to many racialized people.

Windsor's history is significant in understanding the present and the bill before us today. The region is known as the auto capital of Canada, a manufacturing hub and the site of the busiest international border crossing in North America, where tens of thousands of transport trucks cross each day. The conditions of my home lead to toxic exposures. The environments where these pollutants are emitted are also places where more racialized people live.

The reality of toxic exposures through air pollution and other means is lived by residents, but often the data to illustrate this is incomplete, in part because Canada does not track racialization and health as some other countries do. When passed, Bill C-226 will be one step toward documenting these realities and also policies and laws to prevent future exposures and the health impacts that are disproportionately experienced by racialized people.

Windsor is only one example of the problem of environmental racism in Canada. As a white settler bringing a relatively high amount of privilege to the table today, the reason I know these truths is that racialized and indigenous people share their experiences of colonization, oppression, environmental racism and ill health.

At CAPE we collaborate with many people sounding the alarm on environmental racism, including Dr. Waldron and the members of the Canadian Coalition for Environmental and Climate Justice; our board member Dr. Ojistoh Horn, a Mohawk and Haudenosaunee woman practising medicine in her community of Akwesasne, living the adverse health impacts of toxic exposures, and the people in her community feeling the same; and my toxics program manager colleague Melissa Daniels, a nurse, lawyer and member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, whose practices, traditions and health are in danger because of tar sands developments.

We know that the groups most impacted by climate change and environmental hazards are indigenous, racialized and otherwise vulnerabilized people. The toxic burdens faced by racialized communities are linked to high rates of cancer, reproductive diseases, respiratory illnesses and a myriad of other health problems. This alarm was sounded long ago by indigenous and racialized communities who have lived and died from the impacts of environmental racism and toxic exposures, but these people have been structurally excluded from decision-making, with their concerns ignored, downplayed and justified in the name of economic progress.

From the impacts of fracking operations in northern British Columbia to pulp mill effluent in Pictou Landing First Nation’s boat harbour, toxic landfills in African Nova Scotian communities, mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows First Nation, and exposures from petrochemical facilities by Aamjiwnaang First Nation people in the chemical valley in Ontario, the legacy of environmental racism can no longer be ignored.

The strategy created with the passage of Bill C-226 will be an important starting point for addressing a phenomenon that should never have occurred and must be ended.

Thank you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Dr. McArthur.

I was delinquent in not recognizing that I'm here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. Parliament is on their land.

I want to pick up where Dr. McArthur left off and then explain the path to environmental justice.

I first started working with and using the term “environmental racism” in approximately 1994, 1995 and 1996, in working to get the cleanup of the toxic Sydney tar ponds. The community of predominantly Black people of Whitney Pier, Nova Scotia, and the indigenous land of the Mi'kmaq people became the most toxic site in Canada, located between the coke ovens and the steel mill.

I came upon a program in environmental justice that quite inspired me, and also the use of the term “environmental racism”, which informed my work. It came from no radical organization. It came from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which, from 1992 until now, has had an office of environmental justice.

It provides specific assistance to communities, such as the communities described by Dr. McArthur: people of colour, indigenous peoples and, also, communities that are marginalized economically, where you know for a fact, you don't even need.... To point it out is to answer the question. You're not going to find a toxic waste site in Rosedale. You're not going to find people living with environmental quality that threatens their health in Shaughnessy, Vancouver. We know the neighbourhoods and we know the peoples who disproportionately are exposed to toxic chemicals and poorly regulated waste sites, whether we're talking about Kanesatake right now, or whether we're talking about the ongoing generational abuse of Grassy Narrows, first drawn to light, by the way, in the 1970s, by a book by the late environmental journalist Warner Troyer, who wrote the book No Safe Place about what Reed Paper was doing to the people of Grassy Narrows.

I'm not going to take much time, but I will say that the path ahead with this bill's passage will be to environmental justice. It's not about blaming and shaming people for the conditions we experience. It's for making it better.

Under the U.S.'s environmental justice program, the Environmental Protection Agency and a few programs provide funding so that communities threatened by pollution have access to experts.

It's really important for communities to have their own agency to be able to contact epidemiologists; to have their own studies done; to have evidence-based decisions around what can be done for cleanup and what we are prepared to spend; and to see if we can trace down the original polluter and make them pay for the cleanup. The main essence of this is that no Canadian should live in conditions that other Canadians would never accept.

I remember taking Mike Harcourt on a tour of the Sydney tar ponds. He was at that point the former premier of British Columbia and was with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which used to exist. I'll never forget Mike Harcourt saying that, if anyone had tried this in Vancouver, they would have all been hoisted up on ropes and executed, point blank. He was so shocked that we had cancer rates through the roof in specific communities.

We managed to get the Sydney tar ponds cleaned up, but there's no systematic program. At the U.S. EPA, not only do they have the program for superfund sites, but they have specific programs in environmental justice.

This year.... I just decided to pull this off the U.S. EPA website:

The Budget invests more than $1.45 billion across the Agency’s programs [to] clean up pollution, advance racial equity and secure environmental justice for all communities. To elevate environmental justice as a top Agency priority, EPA has proposed a new national environmental justice program office, to coordinate and maximize the benefits of the Agency’s programs and activities for underserved communities.

I'll close on this thought. We need to make sure that, as this bill goes through the House—and I hope the Senate—quickly, we will begin to hear from Environment and Climate Change Canada that they have thoroughly reviewed what the U.S. EPA is doing now and prepare that Canada do at least as much for our citizens.

The last time I checked, Environment Canada had not yet looked into what the U.S. EPA does.

This bill, I hope, will pass with all of your support, but once it's passed it's not about window dressing or bumper stickers. It's about addressing a real problem in real time with solutions. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have models.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Now we'll start the first round of questions.

Mr. McLean, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witness and also to our colleague, Madam May. Thank you for being here today presenting your bill to us. Thanks for the bill.

One thing I note in the bill, and in your presentation, are these notions of environmental racism and environmental justice that you spoke to. In my world, where I grew up, justice is good and racism is bad. I think that's true for most of us. Doing away with racism and getting justice for all is something we all strive for. I'm questioning some of the nature of what we're talking about in the bill here.

Can you talk about a clear definition around what “environmental racism” might be for the legal community, because I know we're going to have to come to it quickly? The legislation we have around racism currently, right now, is around hate speech. Let's discuss how we're actually going to define “environmental racism” in a legal context. Would you speak about that, please, Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thanks so much.

I do have a background as a lawyer, so I'm very cognizant of how the law plays out and how we want to make sure terms are clear.

The question of assessing environmental racism also has to do with the collection of information. As Dr. McArthur mentioned.... Jane, if you want to jump in anywhere, just flag me. I'll try to watch you on the Zoom screen.

What we're looking at particularly is the content of the strategy included in subclause 3(3). We are looking at a study to examine “the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk, and (ii) information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards”. Specifically in subparagraph 3(3)(b)(iv), it says, “the collection of information and statistics relating to health outcomes in communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.” It's very specific.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'm sorry, Ms. May, but I have limited time here. Thank you.

We're going to try to get to a definition based on the study that comes out of this at the end of the day. That is what I'm hearing you say.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

When there are differential impacts from environmental risks and they affect different communities based on socio-economic status and race, that constitutes a lack of environmental justice, which you can sub for environmental racism.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. That's understood. Thank you.

Let's move to something else here.

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur]

Mr. McLean, perhaps I could offer what the ENRICH Project offers as its definition for “environmental racism”. The ENRICH Project was spearheaded by Dr. Ingrid Waldron. Their definition reads:

...refers to racial discrimination in the disproportionate location and greater exposure of Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities to contamination and pollution from industry and other environmentally hazardous activities; the lack of political power these communities have to fight back against the placement of these industries in their communities; the implementation of policies that allow these harmful projects to be placed in these communities; the slow rates of cleanup of contaminants and pollutants in these communities; and the lack of representation of Black, Indigenous, and other racialized communities in mainstream environmental groups and on the decision-making boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies.

I think you'll be able to see that, when Ms. May was talking about the strategy itself, what the strategy is doing is really trying to address that definition.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay, Ms. McArthur, thank you. I appreciate that definition.

Can we move towards what we talked about here and where you are going on this?

There's a little background, of course. The first time you buy a Lonely Planet about Canada you find that Trail, British Columbia, is the most toxic site in North America. When the immigrants, at that time it was the Italian immigrants, came to Trail to work in the smelter there, the men all died by the time they were 50. It's a town full of old women with no old men. I know that's not racial, but it's still environmentally disproportionate on a community. That is a marginalized community from an economic perspective, not a racial perspective. There's no racism involved there. This is what I'm dwelling on: whether we're dwelling on this with racism as opposed to marginalization. Yes, there are rural areas. There are places in this country where industrial activity has harmed the local people who work there and live there.

Is this a rural versus urban type of approach? In that case, shouldn't our rural and racialized communities be allowed to develop and find their way out of this and get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act?

I'll put it to Ms. May first.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

First of all, I don't think it's a rural-urban divide. I think you'll find that, in urban communities, quite often racialized and lower-income people are quite exposed to risks that don't occur in rural communities. For instance, when you look at the research on contamination with lead and the epidemiological work that was done to ban lead in gas, many of the populations that were experiencing a statistically higher level.... I shouldn't say “higher”. Those experiencing low IQ rates that correlated to exposure to lead were overwhelmingly in urban environments.

Yes, you're right anecdotally. Certainly the Trail smelter is an international case that created the good-neighbour principle. Also, if you look at Délı̨nę in the Far North, that Inuit community is a village of widows because their husbands carried bags of yellowcake from uranium mines on their shoulders without protections.

The bottom line here is that no Canadian—urban or rural, white, Black or indigenous—should be exposed to unsafe levels of chemicals and toxins just because they're developing a mine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, we'll have to stop there.

We have to go to Ms. Taylor Roy right now. We've exhausted six minutes in a very interesting exchange.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our colleague and witness, Ms. May.

Thank you for the work you've done and all the knowledge you have on this. It's clearly a passion. You've done so much. I really appreciate this legislation coming forward.

I want to just turn it over to you to continue the answer you were giving to Mr. McLean first and then I'll add a question.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That's terribly kind of you, Leah.

I don't want to go on forever about it, but for this bill, I know some people get hung up on the word “racism”. There's no question that the research points to a very significant difference in exposure to toxic chemicals for people of colour and indigenous people. Again, it's not exclusively racialized, but predominantly it is.

If you don't mind, Ms. Taylor Roy, can I just throw that to Dr. McArthur, if she has any additional points on the statistics that give us an underpinning that points to racism?

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur]

I don't have statistics at hand, but I can say that what Mr. McLean is saying about the problem of marginalization of other forms is not wrong. However, we do know and we have evidence—from a tremendous number of mapping projects, including the ENRICH Project, for example—in Canada and in many places around the world that shows us we are locating industry in proximity to racialized and indigenous communities.

We also know that, for example, even in urban settings, we will find what we call grocery store deserts, where there isn't access to good grocery stores for predominantly Black communities. Even Dr. Waldron, in her definition of environmental racism, recognizes this intersectional standpoint. We just don't have racism standing on its own as an independent variable. It often does intersect with low socio-economic status and poverty.

Of course, there are examples where white or European poor people are experiencing these same high levels of toxic exposures, but it is a phenomenon that is recognized around the globe. The UN special rapporteur just released a report a couple of days ago on contemporary forms of racism and the intersection with climate justice and racial justice. It pointed to Canada and the example of Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia, where there are high levels of a whole host of health problems, from cancers to respiratory illnesses, going back to the early 2000s. A community-led research project there documented a skewed sex ratio due to the exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Disproportionate numbers of males to females were born.

There are plenty of examples of where this is a problem of racism—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Jane, can I turn it back to Leah?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you so much.

I was remiss not to welcome you and to thank you for being here, too, Dr. McArthur. I appreciate that.

Fighting over whether this is racism.... The basic idea, which the member opposite also mentioned, was that this is about environmental justice. You're asking for research to be done on the links between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk. This will not rule out communities that have been affected because of socio-economic status.

I did want, though, to understand this, Ms. May. You're asking for a strategy to be developed. You referenced the EPA and what they're doing. I'm wondering if there are any specific aspects of what the EPA is doing or anything else that you could see being in this strategy that you've already thought about, given the amount of time you've spent on this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

Certainly this bill is not about getting a study done. This bill is about collecting the information, going forward and having a strategy that actually addresses and prevents environmental racism and promotes environmental justice.

Again, when a community is having adverse health effects, one of the first things that happen—I'm going to be blunt—is that the industry in question hires what I like to call “consultitudes”. You pay the dollars and you get the report you want: Guess what—there may be a lot of toxic waste here, but somehow, theoretically, through mathematical models worked out by the “consultitudes”, none of that hazardous toxic material is ever going to hurt anybody, so we'll just leave it there.

The community needs to have access to its own experts. It needs its own epidemiologists. It needs its own toxicologists. When a government pairs up with a community to increase its sense of agency, to improve on, as Dr. McArthur mentioned, its lack of equal political power in the situation, so that the community that's experiencing adverse health effects and that also is exposed to high levels of an environmental contaminant has access to the experts working at its direction, and the government ultimately makes a decision about the cleanup and how it will be costed and how people's health will be protected, the community itself is empowered to participate with the same degree of resources or at least some degree of resources against a large polluter.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

I was going to mention that movie—I forget what it's called—Dark Waters or Black Water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's Dark Waters.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

It's such a great film on exactly that point.

A lot of what we're doing now with respect to locating sites is asking for full and free informed consent. What is your perspective on whether that's possible when communities do not have the same economic opportunities or when their basic social needs—I was going to say amenities—are not met the way they are for the rest of us? Do you think that's possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It has to be a yes or no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes.