Environment Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur]

It's a recognition that race and socio-economic status are part of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk a little bit about the impact on indigenous communities. Members of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, who live near chemical valley, have increased rates of asthma, reproductive effects, learning disabilities and cancer. Beze Gray, an Anishinabe land and water protector from Aamjiwnaang First Nation, said this:

Pollution has impacted food sovereignty. People in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation are losing access to traditional food sources due to the impact of pollution in the area.... It is also impacting the traditional language. Because pollution has wiped out so many things in their community, we have lost traditional words. And we don’t have traditional words for the pollution that surrounds us.

Ms. McArthur, I'm wondering if you could speak to some of the far-reaching impacts of environmental racism. This includes access to clean drinking water and clean air, and access to green space as well.

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Collins. It's an important one.

Perhaps I could talk a little bit about the point of view that we're trying to operationalize at CAPE. We're trying to really see these issues through a planetary health lens. A planetary health lens is akin to what we call a socioecological model of health, which is to say that there are various levels of influence on our health. It's not just that we as individuals make certain choices about what we're exposed to or not exposed to, or that we choose where we live or that we are in certain jobs. It is that individual level, community level and occupational level, but governance, policy, history and time all intersect to influence how we experience health or ill health.

For indigenous peoples who live on these lands, that legacy of colonialism, which continues today, and the disproportionate locating of people in those areas where toxic exposures are prevalent does mean that every aspect of their lives is being impacted. The Aamjiwnaang First Nation is one example of many.

I too have spoken with people from Aamjiwnaang First Nation. I recall a time when we hosted Lindsay Beze and her sister to come to Windsor to talk about their experience at Aamjiwnaang. At the time, there were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to stop there and go to Mr. Kurek.

[Dr. Jane E. McArthur]

Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam May, for being here, and thank you to Dr. McArthur.

You know, it's been interesting, because I look at this from the context of a lot of my experience as a member of Parliament from rural Canada, and the people I represent, and also having the chance to connect, over the last three years, with many people across the country. Seeing some of the challenges that have been highlighted, the trouble that certainly my constituents have is a lack of trust that a process like developing a framework like this wouldn't have a very negative impact on their livelihoods and their future. As an example, about 10,000 people in my constituency are directly or indirectly employed by the oil and gas sector, are very proud to be so and have an exemplary record of environmental stewardship.

Madam May, certainly one of the concerns I have with this bill is that there seems to be this intent to transition away from energy sources that provide significant employment to people in my constituency, including indigenous peoples and people of colour, and in communities that in many cases were very marginalized but, because of energy development, were really given an economic hand-up.

I am curious as to some of the concerns I have about that.

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

First of all, Damien, forgive me, but you are being very formal in calling me Madam May. I'm just going to out the fact that we're friends.

Any examples of exemplary environmental records need fear nothing from a bill that's focused on the very worst of the worst—environmental contamination that threatens human health and affects certain communities more than others. I appreciate the chance to just get on the record a clarification, because we have spent a lot of time talking about it. It's true that the Horne foundry's arsenic levels are off the charts, but what I want to put on the record is that an exception to the rule doesn't mean that there is not a problem. Just because some communities that are settler-culture white Canadians face toxic chemicals doesn't negate the overwhelming evidence that, disproportionately, far more people of colour and far more indigenous people will experience environmental contamination and other environmental impacts that threaten their health and the health of their communities.

Your constituents should know that you're a very able MP who represents their interests so well, and I don't think they have a single thing to worry about from this bill.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that. I represent 53,000 square kilometres and about 110,000 people. That's represented by 12 city blocks. One of the challenges my constituents have.... I've heard from some of the indigenous leaders who are dismayed and really don't trust the government's environmental climate policy, because they have seen economic opportunities taken away from them as a result of some of the actions that have been taken.

My concern is that we have a framework that may have an outcome that, instead of empowering people and addressing what its intent is, ends up holding them back. That's certainly the bigger concern I have, whether it's indigenous peoples....

There was a great deal of excitement—and I heard from indigenous leaders—when, I think, 18 first nations signed an agreement to take partial ownership of and significant economic benefit in an energy development project. There was a great deal of excitement, especially for young people being able to put things like environmental degrees to work.

Again, my concern is that we see an outcome that may, in fact, if we're not very careful, have a negative impact from this bill in particular but also the bigger conversations around environmental racism. It may have an opposite effect.

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

Quickly, this bill is not primarily focused on the climate crisis and shifting away from fossil fuels. Let's park those discussions and have them on another day in this place or another place where we can really talk. The reality of this bill is that it's to protect those communities that are most vulnerable, victimized and experiencing harm, and that's a very different conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Duguid, you have the floor.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the honourable Ms. May and Dr. McArthur for presenting today and for all of their good work, which I support.

The Liberal platform had CEPA reform and introduced legislation related to environmental racism and environmental justice side by side. I don't know if you read the platform.

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

Yes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's very good.

As we are debating Bill S-5—

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

You may regret that I read it carefully.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

If you listened in last night as were debating—or trying to debate—Bill S-5, we mostly were talking about the price on pollution.

Please talk about potential synergistic effects between those two bills and how they can work together or how they might be knitted together.

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

Thank you for a terrific question. I also read the minister's mandate letter, and for those who are interested, the minister's mandate letter also includes bringing in this legislation. I will be very transparent that I drew a low number in the private members' lottery, which is good news.

In conferring with the minister's office, Dr. Waldron, Lenore Zann and Laurel Collins, we're trying to figure out the best way to get this legislation through. It looked like I'd have a better chance getting it forward because the House agenda gets so clogged. I was hoping we might even be able to skip all the steps, because it's so hard getting private member's bills anywhere down the road. Let's, by unanimous consent, say that this one's already been studied and amended. Let's just get it through.

That was my original hope, and I remain grateful for the fact that we have enough support that this bill passed second reading and is here. I'd love the Conservatives and the Bloc to join us, support this bill and get it through unanimously to the Senate. That would be ideal.

The two bills now are much more. Bill S-5, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and C-226 now have much more alignment than they had before the Senate amendments. I hope the government will defend the Senate amendments, which also begin to operationalize what environmental justice can look like. Those are very good developments.

I see the two as running on parallel tracks, but definitely not parallel tracks that don't intersect. They are quite intertwined at this point, and I think both bills passing would be great. It will be better if Bill S-5 passes with an enforceable right to a healthy environment and improving the various elements that I've spoken about already on Bill S-5 before the House.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

My final question, Mr. Chair, is also to Ms. May, although Dr. McArthur may want to weigh in.

There's an inner-city neighbourhood in Winnipeg that you may know, Point Douglas. It has quite an interesting history going back a century and a half. There's a large first nations community and a large immigrant community, which is mostly African, and it has many refugees. Obviously, it's very much the subject of your bill.

I wonder if, in a practical way, you could talk about how this bill helps a community like that. There's industry nearby. There's evidence of pollution. They don't have the capacity, the tools or the resources to prove their case. How does this bill help them?

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

It will help them if the government takes the bill seriously once it's passed and puts in place environmental justice programs that are meaningful. Those often involve resources to the communities concerned.

Do you have access to air quality readings? Are you able to make sure that the families in those communities recognize whether it's the case that they are actually disproportionately affected and that the health of their children could be affected? Then the question is, what protective measures do we take? It's evidence-based at every turn, but it really is about the steps.

I hope this bill will pass. I hope it won't just be a bill that passes because the government can tick a box and say, “Did that.” It's going to take work, and it's going to take resourcing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

This concludes our first panel. It was a very interesting discussion. I would like to thank Ms. May and Dr. McArthur.

We're going to break for three or four minutes and get started on the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will begin our second panel.

We are supposed to have three witnesses. Two have logged on successfully. Each witness will have three minutes. Please stick to three minutes or under.

We have with us Ms. Lenore Zann, who originally sponsored this bill in the 43rd Parliament.

It's nice to see you, Ms. Zann.

We also have Mr. Ross, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. He's the member for Skeena.

We'll start with you, Ms. Zann, for three minutes, please.

[Lenore Zann, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you. I hope you can see and hear me.

I am grateful to live in the unceded traditional land of the Mi'kmaq, the people of the dawn, in Nova Scotia.

Thank you for inviting me to speak today on Bill C-226, the national strategy respecting environmental racism and environmental justice.

As you said, I first introduced this bill in the House of Commons in February 2020, just three months after being sworn in as a new member of Parliament. It was an amazing day. I'll never forget it. I'm deeply grateful to the good people of Cumberland—Colchester for electing me to serve them, which made that possible. Many thanks, as well, to all members of the House and this committee who supported the bill, which I was pleased to report back to the House with amendments on June 22, 2021.

Now it's with great gratitude that I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for reintroducing this bill as Bill C-226, again in February of this year.

The seeds of these federal bills lie in a private member's bill I first introduced in 2015 as a member of the Nova Scotia Legislature, after working with Dr. Ingrid Waldron and a number of indigenous and Black grassroots grandmothers: Bill 111, an act to address environmental racism.

The provincial and federal bills all mandate government to examine the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental and health risks due to the disproportionate number of toxic waste sites, landfills and corporate polluters placed in or beside indigenous, Black or other racialized communities. Environmental racism occurs when environmental policies or practices, intentionally or unintentionally, result in disproportionate negative impacts on certain individuals, groups or communities based on race or colour, lack of political will and unequal economic status or access to environmental benefits.

A broad, diverse coalition of environmental and civil society groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice, spent close to two years urging Parliament to approve Bill C-230. When the House of Commons environment committee completed its review last year and approved the bill with amendments, it marked a critical first step towards acknowledging the inequities caused by environmental racism.

If passed, Bill C-226 would become a Canadian first. We have no time to lose to ensure that this long-awaited legislation becomes law. Therefore, I strongly urge all parties to approve Bill C-226 and move it through the final stages.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Zann.

Mr. Ross, please go ahead for three minutes.

[Ellis Ross, Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Skeena, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I know this is subjective in terms of where you're situated in Canada. We're situated in B.C. and first nations over here are tired of policies or agendas that are used by third parties, with first nations stuck in the middle. We're talking about this happening all over Canada, but it's happened predominantly in B.C.

We already have paternalistic ideas about funding first nations in Canada through the Indian Act. We don't need any more policies like this, especially when you think about what we're trying to achieve here as first nations leaders. We're trying to dig ourselves out of poverty and the violence of poverty and it's working. It's been working from 2004 to 2017. It contributed to the standard of life, which had a reversal. It built a future for our people and it actually achieved independence for a band like my own.

When you think about some of the activities we did, like mining, forestry and LNG, it was my band, the Haisla Nation, that pushed that on Canada and B.C. You also talked about some other developments. Some of the biggest polluters in Canada are cities and towns and their landfills. Guess what. First nations utilize that just like everybody else. The other thing you have to consider is that the lifespan of first nations has actually increased due to the development that we've been undergoing.

You're doing something that is redundant. We already have processes here. First nations' interests are already covered in the Constitution of Canada under section 35 and the case law that was decided in the courts of Canada and B.C. at the same time. Underneath that, you also have the interests of first nations' leaders participating in environmental assessments, both federally and provincially, to cover off more than what you're talking about here.

Do you know what we did here in B.C.? We accomplished something Canada didn't. We actually resolved Canada's shame in terms of the exclusion and the racism, and we did it on our own terms.

Because three minutes is not a lot of time, I'll leave you with this: Where does this end in terms of financial costs? Everything I've seen in terms of government policy always ends up on the ratepayer, the taxpayer, or it actually chases investment out of provinces. First nations people are citizens of this country just as much as the non-first nations. They depend on hospitals and schools. They depend on the highways and the shopping just like everybody else.

At a time when Canadians are facing the worst unaffordability in my history, at least, this is not a time to talk about this kind of policy that is big and general. If you really want to support indigenous people, support them through existing mechanisms that are already proven to be highly effective. Don't do what they did in B.C. Don't use first nations as a shield for somebody else's agenda. That's just shameful.