:
This meeting is called to order.
Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 24, 2021, the committee is commencing consideration of Bill , an act respecting the development of a national strategy to redress environmental racism.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules. Members and witnesses may speak in either official language, because, among other things, interpretation services are available for this meeting.
Dr. Waldron, I guess you have seen that you can choose to listen to the floor version, the English version or the French version.
For members and witnesses, please wait until you are recognized before clicking on your microphone icon to unmute your mike. The rest is pretty much common sense.
Each witness, Ms. Zann and Dr. Waldron, will have five minutes for opening comments. Then we'll go to a round of questions—actually two rounds of questions, because this first hour is dedicated to our two witnesses. Then we'll have some departmental officials for the second hour.
We will now start.
Ms. Zann, congratulations on getting your bill through second reading to the committee. The floor is yours for five minutes.
:
Thank you, everybody, for being here, and thank you for your comments in the House at second reading. They were very interesting.
I'd also like to thank Dr. Waldron for being here today, because she really has been the inspiration for me for presenting this bill, Bill , the National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act
Colleagues, like systemic racism, environmental racism is something that, sadly, has been part of the fabric of Canada for too many years. Environmental racism refers to the fact that communities of colour are disproportionately burdened with health hazards due to policies and practices that have been forced upon them and forced them to live in proximity to sources of toxic waste, such as dumps, toxic waste sites, sewage works, mines, landfills, power stations, chemical plants, major roads and emitters of airborne particulate matter. As a result, these communities suffer greatly and they suffer greater rates of health problems attendant on hazardous pollutants.
Although the term “environmental racism” seems new to some, it was actually coined in 1982 by African American civil rights leader Benjamin Chavez, who described it as “racial discrimination in environmental policy-making, the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of colour for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of colour from leadership of the ecology movements.”
Public awareness has grown about this issue in the last number of years and there is no doubt in my mind that the time has come for government to act both to acknowledge and address the issue. Surely we owe this to all Canadians.
I am sure that as lawmakers we all can agree it is a human right for all Canadians to have clean air and water in their communities. I know our government is working very hard to make sure that happens.
I did become aware of this issue only about seven years ago when I first met Dr. Ingrid Waldron when she explained what her research and data collecting was proving about the existence of environmental racism in Nova Scotia. If anyone still questions the reality of environmental racism, I really recommend Dr. Waldron's book, There's Something In The Water, or to watch the Netflix documentary based on the book.
The short summary of the bill requires that the Minister of Environment, in consultation with representatives of provincial and municipal governments of indigenous communities and other affected communities develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to redress the harm caused by environmental racism. It also provides for reporting requirements in relation to the strategy and collecting data, including on the socio-economic circumstances and the physical and mental effects on communities across Canada that are affected by environmental racism.
We know that these effects are wide-ranging, from skin rashes and upset stomachs, to more serious illness, such as respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, reproductive morbidity, including pre-term births and babies born with Down's syndrome, as well as various cancers that disproportionately affect women.
There is evidence that many chronic diseases in indigenous communities, for instance, are not primarily due to genetics or internal factors, but actually to external factors, that is, what's in the air, in the water, in our environment.
I am grateful to members who have already supported my bill thus far, including the member for , who seconded Bill .
I would suggest that this is an example of what Canadians truly want to see in their government, especially in these dangerous times, parliamentarians working together to improve life for all Canadians.
Bill is a bill that would make Canada an international leader in addressing environmental, social and public health issues that impact indigenous, Black and other racialized and vulnerable communities from coast to coast to coast.
This issue has become even more urgent, I would say, in light of the growing public awareness of systemic racism and the epidemic of racism, misogyny, gender-based violence and femicide that the COVID-19 pandemic has stoked, since it has disproportionately impacted vulnerable communities.
Please do the right thing, colleagues, and support Bill .
The strategy must include measures to: examine the link between race and socio-economic status and environmental risk; collect information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards; collect information and statistics relating to negative health outcomes in communities that have been affected; and assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province.
It must also include measures to address environmental racism, including: possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs; the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making; compensation for individuals or communities; ongoing funding for affected communities; and access of affected communities to clean air and water.
With that, colleagues, I will leave it there.
Dr. Waldron will continue.
:
Dear members of the environment and sustainability committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to Bill , and environmental racism more broadly.
I would like to begin by addressing arguments—persistent arguments over the years—that since race is not a biological fact, systemic racism could not possibly exist in Canada. Indeed, it is the case that race is neither genetically programmed nor a biological fact. For example, there are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Black people but not by non-Black people. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all white people but not to non-white people. Different races are not marked by important differences in gene frequencies.
However, while race is not a biological fact, it is a fact that race has been and continues to be used to categorize and divide people based on physical traits such as skin colour, hair texture, facial features, etc., and to include and exclude based on these physical traits. Society is racialized and race is part of that social reality. Race developed over the years as a principle of social organization and identity formation. Humans create divisions and produce racial categories. Race has social currency and is used as a basis to deny certain groups access to various resources, services and opportunities.
Systemic racism is indeed a reality in Canada and around the world. Systemic racism refers to the laws, rules and norms woven into our social systems that result in the unequal distribution of resources, such as the denial of access, participation and equity to racialized people for services such as education, employment and housing. Racism—systemic racism—manifests in the policies, practices and procedures within our systems that may directly or indirectly promote, sustain or entrench differential advantage or privilege for people of certain races.
In other words, race is a material reality—I should know, I am Black—that has consequences for people on the ground. The material reality and consequences of racism for indigenous, Black and other racialized groups in Canada include higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of income insecurity, higher rates of poverty, segregation in poor neighbourhoods, poorer health outcomes and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards due to the placement of dangerous projects by government. Environmental racism, then, is a form of systemic racism because it manifests in environmental policy-making and decision-making in ways that disproportionately burden certain communities through the placement or siting of environmentally dangerous projects in their communities.
Why is Bill important? It is urgent that we address over 70 years of environmental racism that has disproportionately impacted those communities—communities whose social and economic well-being and health have already been compromised by long-standing structural determinants of health, such as unemployment and underemployment, over-policing and over-incarceration, income insecurity and poverty, food insecurity and housing insecurity. Bill C-230 would provide the government with a framework to examine how race, socio-economic status and residence in remote areas that are near environmental hazards intersect to shape health outcomes in these communities.
Bill would also provide affected communities with opportunities to be involved in environmental policy-making and decision-making, which they have been excluded from. It is important that the communities that are most burdened by the siting of hazardous projects in their communities be given opportunities to have a say in what happens in their communities.
In conclusion, it is important to state that in the case of environmental policy-making, a rising tide does not lift all boats. The approach to environmental policy-making in Canada has reflected a kind of universalism that suggests if environmental burdens experienced by all Canadians are addressed, those who are most affected by those burdens will benefit. The notion that environmental policy should not focus on specific racial groups dismisses the long history of placing these hazardous projects in our most vulnerable communities. It is an approach that has failed, since polluting industries continue to be disproportionately located in these same communities.
The truth is that policies work best when they are strategic and directly target the social ills in communities that are most affected. Therefore, it is crucial that we have legislation that centres race in environmental policy-making and decision-making, since the communities that are disproportionately harmed are those that are racialized. Once again, race is real. It has material realities. My hope, then, is that Bill is that legislation.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much, MP Baker.
I started a long time ago with Ingrid Waldron talking about environmental racism in Nova Scotia. We were able to clock and map the entire province where we could see the disproportionate number of communities that were placed on or beside toxic sites. They were indigenous and Black communities.
Dr. Waldron has done further research now and discovered that, in fact, this is the case across Canada. It is our intent with this bill to be able to consult with communities right across the country who are affected and to document what are the health effects, what are the health disaffects that have been produced by the proximity to these toxic places.
If you don't have the data, you can't do anything. Unfortunately, women and racialized people have been basically ignored for too many years. It's time for us to start to collect that data now and then we can act to prevent this from continuing.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
[English]
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—
You'll understand that because of the Quebec exception, Bill and Bill 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?
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.
:
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.
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.
:
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.
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 .
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?
:
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.
Dr. Waldron, I'd like to address you.
Ms. Zann spoke earlier about the study that you conducted across Canada.
I'll address the issue of nuclear waste, which is particularly close to my heart. I don't know if you're familiar with the Chalk River Laboratories, which aren't far from Ottawa, and all the dealings around the disposal of radioactive waste in Labrador.
We certainly understand that remote indigenous communities need energy. However, nuclear energy means nuclear waste. Small modular reactor projects are often presented as partnership opportunities with these communities.
Canada used its declaratory power to make nuclear energy a federal jurisdiction. What is your position on the government's responsibility with respect to nuclear waste management?
:
I have no idea where it should go, but I do know that it shouldn't go in an indigenous community again, right? That's what, I guess, environmental assessments are for, right? Environmental assessments are about determining where particular projects go. Thus far, environmental assessments have not been equitable. They haven't considered existing vulnerabilities in indigenous and other communities. They haven't considered what we call the social determinants of health.
The question of where something should go is not my role, because I'm a professor, but it's the role of the people who make those decisions. What I'm asking for is that the people who make those decisions, through an environmental assessment or whatever tool they use, make decisions that consider existing vulnerabilities in these communities. These communities have had, as I said, long-standing structural inequities due to colonialism, and they should make sure that what they do doesn't further compromise their social well-being and health.
I have no idea where it should go, but what I'm asking, and what this bill can do, is ensure that government makes much more considered decisions in that assessment. Look at the full context of these communities, the social, economic and political context and their health and vulnerability, before they make decisions that will further compromise the well-being of these communities.
:
Some indigenous communities have asked for indigenous-led environmental assessments because they felt excluded. There's this term, as you know, “participatory democracy”. It's not simply about including people in decision-making, but also the way you do that in culturally specific ways.
Indigenous-led environmental assessments would allow not only indigenous people to have a say at the get-go, not at the end, not in the middle, but right at the start, on what's happening in their own communities, but it would also be done in a way that respects indigenous ecological theory or model. In your western understanding of the environment, in our understanding of your western-trained individuals, we see a separation between land and body and animals and plants. That's the classic Euro-western understanding of the world. Indigenous people and African people see it very differently. They have a much more holistic understanding of our world. They see the connection between the land and the body and animals. Everything is one. If you desecrate their land, you are harming them. You are harming their bodies, their communities, their health and their well-being.
An indigenous-led assessment would allow for the incorporation of what is called the indigenous ways of knowing. One of the reasons I think we do what we do is that we have a very different understanding from indigenous people about the fact that if you're harming the land, you are going to harm me as a community. People who are trained in Euro-western ways of knowing don't really get that. They don't understand that. That's why we have the separation between.... We have psychology departments. This separation from the body, we see the mind as very separate in Euro-western philosophy.
An indigenous-led assessment would be about all of that. It would be about not just allowing them to be in the process from the get-go, but making sure it's done in culturally specific ways, making sure you're doing it in their communities, making sure you're communicating the information to them in culturally specific ways, making sure they get to have their indigenous ways of knowing, indigenous epistemologies incorporated into environmental assessments.
Poverty is a strong determinant of health. All the communities we're talking about are not only racialized, they're also low-income or poor, and they also live in remote areas. The intersection of poverty and race and residential patterns makes for the lack of power that these communities have to fight back against environmental racism.
I understand how the Liberals do not like to hear these things, but it is the truth. Of course, I would suggest that we've already, through testimony, heard that the indigenous communities are one of the main ones targeted by this legislation. Also, clean air and clean water are the primary things we're talking about with environmental things.
The Auditor General went on to say that many first nations communities are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases, such as the virus that causes the coronavirus disease, because of social, environmental and economic factors.
The Liberal government has completely failed to keep the environment clean on first nations reserves. How do you think this will change if this legislation happens to get passed?
:
No, I'm always a hopeful person. That's just my personality.
I think the bill is very pointed. It's obviously just a bill. It's a page long. It's not extremely detailed, but it speaks to all of the issues that are important to me in terms of the collection of data, the intersections of race and socio-economic status.
I feel that in this environment people are willing to listen more. With everything that happened last year, I'm very hopeful there will be movement on this. There is a different understanding about the issue. I think awareness has been raised over the past several years. The environment is right. I think the government is very interested right now in collecting information on systemic racism more broadly.
I just feel there's a right time, and I have a personality that is always really hopeful. I'm so happy that I met Lenore, because she's just like I am. She's persistent and consistent. She is hopeful.
I believe that you attract negativity if you are negative. I am very positive about this. I don't know what the process is like, but I think at some point, this year, hopefully, it's going to move ahead.
I believe in Lenore. I'm here. I don't know whether or not I'm able to support, but I'm here if anybody wants any support or help.
Dr. Waldron, it's just a thrill to have you at our committee.
Thank you so much, Lenore, for bringing us all together and for bringing this forward.
I was speaking with a class at the University of Guelph last week, Ajay Sharma's POLS 4280 class. I said we were going to be talking about environmental racism and they were excited. They said they don't usually hear governments putting those two things together.
Dr. Waldron, I was thinking as you were speaking about Africville in Halifax and how for several hundred years now it's located by rail tracks. I have visited the original settlement community. There's a garbage dump, industrial site, train tracks; the cheapest dirtiest land you could find to put people on is where the Black community was located.
We have intersections between municipal decisions on zoning, provincial decisions on environmental issues on site, and then possibly some federal guidelines in terms of setting direction for the country on what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in terms of how these locations are determined.
In your work have you been tying in the municipal, provincial and federal, or so far municipal and provincial. How does that look?
:
No. I haven't looked necessarily at the federal, but my work has mostly focused on the provincial and the Department of Environment.
With Africville it was the City of Halifax, of course, which created that problem. It was both a problem of gentrification or urban renewal as well as environmental racism. There has been a focus on provincial, but I am starting to venture more into other areas.
I formed a new coalition late last year, a national coalition, with various environmental and climate change groups. We're hoping to do mapping across Canada. I have done that mapping for Nova Scotia, but I'm trying to look more broadly at Canada.
I would say that for the past nine years it has been very focused on Nova Scotia, but I hope to change that.
:
Good afternoon. I am Laura Farquharson. I am director general of the legislative and regulatory affairs directorate of the environmental protection branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I'm accompanied by my colleagues from ECCC: Pascal Roberge, director of the program integration division for the national pollutant release inventory at the science and technology branch; and Silke Neve, director of the information and indicators division of the strategic policy branch. As well, David Morin is here from Health Canada. He is the director general of the safe environments directorate at the healthy environments and consumer safety branch.
[Translation]
We are pleased to appear today to participate in your study of Bill .
As you know, this bill requires the to develop a national strategy to redress the harm caused by environmental racism, in consultation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and indigenous and other affected communities, persons and bodies.
This bill comes at a time when, as public servants, we are seized with issues around diversity, equity and inclusion and with combatting systemic racism, and when Canadian citizens are becoming increasingly seized as well.
[English]
In my remarks, I'll focus on some of the proposed or existing legislative or policy frameworks that, to some extent, address the subject matter of this bill. Then I will turn to David, who will speak about Health Canada's role in protecting the health of Canadians from environmental risks.
[Translation]
You discussed the definition of environmental racism.
While there is no commonly accepted definition of environmental racism, it generally refers to racial discrimination in environmental polices, practices and actions, and includes the way in which minority groups may bear a disproportionate burden of adverse health and environmental impacts from environmental pollution. Think, for instance, of landfills or polluted air.
Existing federal legislation and recent amendments ensure the government seeks to protect the environment and health of all Canadians, including vulnerable populations.
[English]
Yesterday, as you know, the government tabled Bill , which aims to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, with a particular focus on recognizing a right to a healthy environment as provided under that act.
If passed, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health will be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of the act. Among other things, the implementation framework will elaborate on principles such as environmental justice and non-regression. Interested persons, such as stakeholders and partners, will have an opportunity to participate in the development of the implementation framework.
In addition, the ministers are required to conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the government in the protection of a right to a healthy environment. This requirement could, for instance, assist in addressing environmental justice issues. For example, it could include the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks.
Additional amendments proposed in the bill tabled yesterday would recognize in the preamble the importance of considering vulnerable populations and cumulative effects. They would codify a number of new elements, including defining “vulnerable population”; requiring the Minister of Health to conduct biomonitoring surveys, which may include vulnerable populations; ensuring that vulnerable populations and cumulative effects are taken into account when developing and implementing the new plan of chemicals management priorities; and requiring that the ministers consider available information on vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when conducting and interpreting risk assessments.
To turn to another area of work, ECCC has been working closely with Indigenous Services Canada—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Good afternoon.
As my colleague, Laura Farquharson, indicated, my name is David Morin. I am the director general of the safe environments directorate at Health Canada.
[Translation]
I welcome this opportunity to discuss Health Canada's role in protecting the health of Canadians from environmental risks.
Specifically, I would like to spend the next few minutes speaking to Health Canada's activities related to the health of indigenous peoples and racialized communities and the environmental health risks they face. This includes risks associated with exposure to toxic chemicals, air pollution and water pollution.
[English]
Exposure to toxic chemicals represents an ongoing health risk facing indigenous peoples and racialized communities, as well as other vulnerable populations.
In response, Health Canada has been working to better integrate specific considerations for vulnerable populations when conducting chemical risk assessments and implementing risk management activities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. These improvements include the establishment of a vulnerable populations panel to help better understand the real-life exposures of vulnerable populations to chemicals.
In parallel with these efforts, Health Canada has also undertaken science and research initiatives targeting the environmental health risks facing Canada's indigenous populations. For example, Health Canada, in partnership with the Nishnawbe Aski Nation as well as Indigenous Services Canada and other partners, recently completed the Sioux Lookout zone children's environmental health study.
[Translation]
The multi-year study was undertaken to characterize indoor and outdoor air quality in first nations communities in Canada because of the high levels of respiratory illness, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, in children.
[English]
The study provides valuable insights into the linkages between housing, indoor air quality and health.
We now better understand the current state of housing in the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, but we also have a better understanding of issues related to air quality.
Finally, since 1991, Health Canada, along with other federal departments, has supported the northern contaminants program. The objective of this program is to reduce or eliminate contaminants in traditional foods and to provide information on contaminants to individuals and communities so they can better protect themselves. This program includes biomonitoring of contaminant levels in northern populations.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to highlight examples of activities Health Canada has undertaken to address the environmental health risks faced by segments of the population.
Thank you very much for your attention.
:
Bill recognizes a right to a healthy environment for every individual, as provided under CEPA, and then requires the development of an implementation framework to elaborate on the way that right will affect the administration of the act. There's no requirement to create a vulnerable populations panel, but perhaps it was that implementation framework that you're referring to.
At the same time, though, there are a number of specific references to vulnerable populations in the bill, and there are probably two ways in which Bill addresses the issue underlying this bill.
The first is in the research requirements. Amendments would require the Minister of Health to conduct biomonitoring surveys, and the bill specifically says that those could be in relation to vulnerable populations.
Also, there's explicit recognition that the government's duty to exercise its powers must be undertaken in a way that protects the environment and human health, including the health of vulnerable populations.
Both ministers must consider available information regarding vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when conducting and interpreting the results of certain risk assessments and in developing the plan of chemicals management priorities.
Maybe I'll stop there. That's probably enough. Those are all ways that, I think, get at some of the issues that underlie this bill as well.
:
If you'd like, let me add from a Health Canada perspective to what my colleague Laura just mentioned. We have over the past many years started including vulnerable populations in the risk assessments we do.
One exercise we did established a vulnerable populations panel. This allowed us to better understand and appreciate the range of vulnerable populations that exist and how each could individually be affected by chemical exposure and what their particular uniqueness is.
Really, what makes the difference in our true ability to factor in vulnerable populations, then, resides in the availability of data to get a sense of what levels of particular chemicals we are seeing in vulnerable populations and where they happen to be located with respect to sources of exposure to chemicals. It is that combination.
It's great to have a panel to identify and expand our understanding of vulnerable populations. It is largely driven by the data that's available. Definitely, as we go forward, the establishment of panels such as that will help broaden our understanding of the issue as we take into consideration the perspectives and the views of a range of other vulnerable populations.
I'd like to thank everyone here to help us move forward.
My question is for Ms. Farquharson.
There's an “Interpretation” section in Bill .
However, it doesn't provide a definition of the concept of environmental racism. It seems to us that the introduction of a new concept in the act, especially if it stems from a particular theory, deserves a definition. In society and in academia, concepts evolve, but those that are in legislation should always be understandable, known and recognized.
What are the challenges or implications for you of implementing policies resulting from legislative provisions that present concepts that aren't clearly defined?
:
Thank you very much. That was unexpected.
I think we have to be careful here. If you take a look around, everybody on screen, including me, is white, and Dr. Waldron is saying there are unconscious biases, and that's why this bill, Bill , is so important. It puts the focus back on the fact that racialized people have been treated differently in the past and we need to make sure that stops.
Also, I think we have to be careful not to say things like, instead of “Black lives matter”, “All lives matter”. This is a specific bill about race and about the fact that some people have been treated as less important than others. That's why we need to change the way things are done. I would like to make that point. I don't think the bureaucrats can answer that, but that's my two cents' worth.
Thanks.
:
If the amendments to CEPA that were introduced in Bill pass, then the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will be required to undertake research and studies, and the Minister of Health will be required to undertake research and studies, including biomonitoring surveys which could focus on vulnerable populations. That gathering of data and the requirement to gather that data, as I think your previous witnesses talked about too, are really crucial to understanding what the issues are and being able to come up with solutions that will work.
I think, as well, we have the right to a healthy environment. That's been recognized under the act, and in that, an implementation framework will be developed.
To the point of how important it is to have people involved in that, it has to be developed in two years. There will be consultation on that, so that we understand what's important to people in developing what a right to a healthy environment means under CEPA.
An implementation framework must address principles of environmental justice, which is obviously a broader term than environmental racism, but I think captures the intersectionality—