THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 21, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Paul Massicotte, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of this committee.
Welcome to today’s meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I’d like to start with a friendly reminder and ask that, before asking or answering questions, the members of the committee and witnesses in the room refrain from leaning in too close to their microphones or remove their earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any audio feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting with the senator to my right.
Senator Verner: I am Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I am Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice. For our first panel, we have joining us, as individuals, Ingrid Waldron from McMaster University, Élyse Caron-Beaudoin, Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto, and Sarah Marie Wiebe, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Administration and Acting Director of the Studies in Social Justice Program at the University of Victoria.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us. You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Ms. Waldron, followed by Ms. Caron-Beaudoin and Ms. Wiebe.
[English]
Ingrid Waldron, McMaster University, as an individual: Good morning.
From the dumps and landfills in the African-Nova Scotian communities of Africville, Shelburne and Lincolnville, to the pipelines planned for Sipekne’katik First Nation and Wet’suwet’en First Nation, and the petrochemical facilities surrounding Aamjiwnaang First Nation and the mercury dumped in Grassy Narrows First Nation, there has been a disturbing legacy of environmental racism across Canada since the early 1940s.
What is environmental racism, and how do we define it? Environmental racism is racial discrimination in the disproportionate location and greater exposure of Indigenous and racialized communities to contamination and pollution from polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities.
Since the fall of 2012, I have been examining the ecological, health, political and social impacts of environmental racism through a community-based collaborative approach that has included research; publications, including a book and journal publications; water testing projects; community engagement; community consultations; community advocacy; multimedia, including a Netflix documentary and media interviews; mapping using GIS analysis; education through workshops, symposiums and other events; and legislation.
This brings us to Bill C-226 — a bill that emerged from Bill 111, which is a Nova Scotia bill that Lenore Zann and I collaborated on, and that she introduced in the Nova Scotia Legislature in April 2015. Bill C-226’s strength is that it is broad enough to capture the shared experiences of Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities that have been impacted by environmental racism. Bill C-226 is simultaneously specific enough in its understanding of the importance of looking at the intersections of race, socio-economic status, environmental risk and health.
The bill’s intersectional framework also acknowledges that environmental racism can’t be understood independent of the complex web of inequalities that combine to create social, economic, political and health inequalities in Indigenous and racialized communities.
Environmental racism does not manifest in a vacuum isolated from other structural inequalities occurring in Indigenous and racialized communities. Rather, these structural inequalities lay the ground for environmental racism to take root and manifest over generations. These structural inequalities include policies and actions within our social structures or institutions that lead to underemployment and unemployment; income insecurity and poverty; over-policing and racial profiling; underachievement in the school system; food insecurity; housing insecurity; poor public infrastructure, such as lack of green space, trails and sidewalks; and poor health. Therefore, addressing these structural inequalities within our social structures that operate in tandem to enable environmental racism is important if we are to achieve environmental justice for racialized communities.
The strength of Bill C-226 is that it uses an environmental justice lens that not only focuses on industry, waste, contaminants and pollutants, but also on the historical, socio-political and economic context within which environmental racism manifests in these communities across Canada. It also clearly identifies the steps that are needed to achieve environmental justice, including research, consultations with impacted communities, the involvement of impacted communities in policy-making and compensation for impacted communities. After 12 years of fighting for environmental justice for these communities, it is rewarding to see Bill C-226 waiting to be voted on at third reading in the Senate. I urge you to pass this bill. Its time has come. Thank you very much.
Élyse Caron-Beaudoin, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto, as an individual: Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to be here with you today. My name is Élyse Caron-Beaudoin, and I am an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Toronto. Through engaged scholarship, my lab highlights community knowledge as a valuable source of information to explore the relationships between environmental factors and health in the context of environmental justice.
I hold a doctorate degree in biology with a specialization in toxicology from the Institut national de la recherche scientifique in Quebec. From 2018 to 2020, I was a Canadian Institutes of Health Research-funded post-doctoral fellow at the Université de Montréal School of Public Health. During my fellowship, I investigated whether women living close to unconventional oil and gas wells were more likely to experience harmful birth outcomes, such as prematurity and low birth weight, in northeastern British Columbia.
Unconventional oil and gas extraction is often referred to as “fracking.” Fracking for gas takes place in parts of British Columbia and Alberta, often located close to rural and Indigenous communities. The extraction process involves drilling holes vertically and then horizontally for several kilometres, followed by injecting a mix of water, chemicals and sand at high pressure to release the gas. This industry can impact local air and water quality, and release potentially harmful contaminants in the vicinity of fracking operations. Today, I would like to share some key findings of my research regarding disproportionate exposure to contaminants from unconventional oil and gas development.
Although Canada is one of the main producers of natural gas in the world, we lead one of the few research groups actively investigating the impacts of that industry on human health. Our studies are the only published scientific literature on biomonitoring data in the context of unconventional oil and gas in British Columbia, Canada and worldwide. Biomonitoring refers to the measurement of chemicals in human body fluids, such as urine, hair and blood. Co-designed in partnership with Indigenous communities, our research showed higher levels of multiple chemicals with known harms to human health in indoor air, tap water, urine and hair samples of pregnant women living near this industry in northeastern British Columbia compared to the general Canadian population. Of note, indoor air, tap water and biological levels of multiple of these contaminants were higher in Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous pregnant participants.
Why does this matter? Public health concerns about unconventional oil and gas include known carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals used by this industry, and for which releases in the environment have been well documented. Sex, gender, Indigeneity, race and socio-economic status have been associated with heightened exposure and health risks from industrial activities. A scoping review recently published by our team found that the vast majority of published epidemiological studies reported associations between increased proximity to unconventional oil and gas development and various harmful health effects, including impaired fetal growth, prematurity, congenital birth detects, poor infant health, exacerbations of asthma, cardiovascular disease, higher hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality.
In addition to the growing body of evidence investigating health outcomes related to this industry, recent literature has begun to explore how resource extraction also results in inequitable distributions of environmental hazards. Systematically and structurally disadvantaged communities often experience disproportionately high exposures to environmental contaminants. Environmental injustice is a great concern for Indigenous communities already facing health inequities, and where many health conditions attributed to poverty, genetics, an inadequate health care delivery system and systemic racism can also be compounded by exposure to contaminants.
I am encouraged to see this bill being discussed. My main recommendation is that Bill C-226 be enacted. Indeed, while we and others observed disproportionate environmental burden in a variety of settings, legislation dealing directly with the inequities created by environmental injustice is, for the most part, non-existent in Canada, at least for now. In addition to this bill, the establishment of a permanent interdisciplinary institute fully devoted to funding environmental health research within the Canadian Institutes of Health Research would be a significant asset to advance environmental justice. Thank you for your time and your attention.
Sarah Marie Wiebe, Assistant Professor, School of Public Administration, and Acting Director, Studies in Social Justice Program, University of Victoria, as an individual: Good morning. It is a privilege to be here on the Algonquin Anishinaabe territory — all the way from unceded Coast Salish territory — to speak with the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to convey my support for Bill C-226.
As explained by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Canadians have a responsibility to witness, support, promote and facilitate truth and reconciliation events at both national and community levels. This applies to environmental injustice and racism, as we are here to discuss today.
Several of my Indigenous colleagues at the University of Victoria speak to the political significance of bearing witness respectfully, which goes beyond the transmission of data, knowledge or facts. It is about accountability, listening and transforming the status quo.
I speak with you today in my capacity as a community-engaged researcher and assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria. Since 2010, I have built relationships with community members and leaders from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, an Indigenous community located in the heart of a region known as Canada’s Chemical Valley. You’ll hear more about this place from Chief Plain directly later this morning.
It’s not my intention to speak on behalf of this community, but in solidarity — as a non-Indigenous Canadian citizen — to share my perspective as a participatory researcher who lived in Sarnia, Ontario, during my doctoral studies, and worked closely with the band’s environment committee to raise awareness about the uncertainties related to how ongoing pollution exposure affects their environmental health, culture and everyday life.
The findings of my research are discussed at length in my book entitled Everyday Exposure: Indigenous Mobilization and Environmental Justice in Canada’s Chemical Valley. The struggles for justice persist, as many who call this place home continue to express concern about the harmful mixture of chemicals in the atmosphere, affecting the air, water, land and animals on a daily basis.
Aamjiwnaang band member Sylvia Plain’s testimony on Bill S-5 further elaborates these concerns, which she refers to as placing the community in a “sacrifice zone.” This situation is not an accident, but a result of inadequate, discriminatory and racialized policies at all levels of government.
Let me paint you a picture: Imagine you are visiting the community for the first time, as I was a decade ago when Ada Lockridge — who is watching today — a community member who co-chairs the Victims of Chemical Valley group, met me at the Leaky Tank for a meal. This diner, now closed, sat just a few kilometres away from the densest concentration of petrochemical and polymer refineries in Canada, including entities such as Imperial Oil, Suncor and Shell. Ada then took me on a toxic tour. Let me share with you how this impactful tour affects the senses. Please close your eyes. You can see the tall smokestacks piercing the air above — visible from nearly each household and community building: the health centre, the daycare and the band office and, most hauntingly, the cemetery. I recall the smell of rotten eggs in the air. Each Monday, you’ll likely hear the alert siren going off — a drill to ensure that the refinery staff and emergency coordinators respond effectively to accidents.
During this toxic tour, I saw “Keep Out” warning signs next to waterways, preventing community members from the traditional right to taste vital food sources, like fish, without fear of ingesting toxins. This toxic tour ended at the band cemetery as I fought back tears. I once witnessed a funeral, and the sounds and vibrations of the chemical refineries drowned out the ceremonial drumming and songs. This is not a place where loved ones easily rest in peace.
Now open your eyes.
This is a matter of environmental racism, and it does not have to be this way. Bill C-226 can address these policy injustices and prevent more situations arising like this in Aamjiwnaang and across the country. Let’s reimagine this decolonial future together.
I want to be very clear about my recommendations today: First, enact Bill C-226; second, create a national office of environmental justice from a collaborative governance, multi-jurisdictional approach with community-led leadership; and third, adopt an intersectional planetary health lens to guide future environmental justice regulatory developments and administrative programming.
I will elaborate — as your questions permit — upon each recommendation during our deliberations this morning. My submitted policy discussion paper further explains these recommendations with justification based on evidence from community members and environmental health experts. You’ll find a range of sources from the voices of those with direct lived experience and peer-reviewed studies.
As Dr. Ingrid Waldron — whom you’ve met this morning — the director of the ENRICH Project and the author of There’s Something in the Water, informs us, we need to dismantle environmental racism for environmental justice to flourish. Thank you, meegwetch.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. My first question is for Dr. Waldron.
When we look at the Indigenous and Black communities that reside in racially segregated, low-income neighbourhoods — with high rates of unemployment and underemployment, income strategy, food insecurity, transportation barriers and other social stressors — how did they get there, and is it possible for environmental policy to play a role? Residential context plays a role in health disparities, especially when resource-extractive industries play a role in creating these neighbourhoods. When we go into the interjurisdictional role that environmental racism plays and that environmental justice will play, how can you see this gap being filled?
Ms. Waldron: Every issue these communities are facing — whether you’re talking about underemployment, poverty, food insecurity or public infrastructure inequalities — are outcomes of policy actions created by policy-makers who often do not look like the communities that we’re talking about. It’s created through policy-makers who are often creating policies that are not concerned about the lives of Indigenous and other racialized communities. It happens in the same way that environmental racism happens. Environmental racism doesn’t just happen. When we see the spatial patterning of industry in certain communities disproportionately, it’s a result of policy actions that are taking place in environmental departments across the country.
The reason why I think it’s important to also understand environmental racism within the context of these socio-political issues and social inequalities is because those inequalities that I mentioned — food insecurity and unemployment — in many ways weaken the fabric of those communities, making it much easier to come into those communities and place industry there. It’s not that these communities are weak. We know that these communities are strong, but it weakens the fabric of these communities socially and economically. These communities, therefore, become very distracted by some of these social ills that they’re dealing with.
We know that when these industries are placed in these communities, they’re being placed there because there’s a sense that these communities are less likely to fight back — they’re less powerful. Environmental racism is about communities that do not have social, political and economic clout. Interestingly enough, the communities that we put these [Technical difficulties] in do not have social, political and economic clout. While they have a voice — all of us have a voice — they’re often not heard.
In order to address environmental racism, we have to understand how it operates within many of these social inequalities, and also try to address those other social inequalities as well. If we don’t, we don’t really get at the root of environmental racism. While we’re dealing with toxic industries in these communities, we also have to deal with issues of poverty, underemployment and public infrastructure inequalities which intersect very much with environmental racism.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. My second question is for Sarah Wiebe. You said, “imagine a decolonial world,” and in your book entitled Life Against States of Emergency, you state:
As Chantal Mouffe highlights, the deconstruction of essential identities . . . as a “necessary condition” for an adequate reflection of the variety of social relations in pursuit of a more just political order.
It signals a need for a new vision of citizenship, while decentring the essentialized qualities of a coherent, colonial nation, which have and continue to sustain relations of subordination, that this nation is premised upon systems of domination between power elites and the subjugation of Indigenous people’s lands and knowledge.
Could you please explain the importance of that? I’m thinking about oil and gas, as well as the First Nations in Alberta who have taken on the economy without looking at their social order, and all the negatives — suicides have increased, and the gangs, even with money.
Ms. Wiebe: Thank you, senator, for the question and for reading this book so carefully and highlighting some of the more complicated writing that I’ve done. As I hear that, I think, “Wow. There’s a lot to unpack there.” So thank you for that opportunity.
You mentioned Chantal Mouffe, who is a French philosopher who talks about the democratic paradox. In Canada, we like to think of ourselves as very multicultural, diverse and welcoming, and I think that these issues related to environmental justice really throw that image to the wind. That’s what we’re here to discuss today.
In that passage by Chantal Mouffe, she’s talking a bit about the paradoxes, the ironies, the contradictions, that we face in Canada, and also the duties we have — as citizens — and the need to think differently about how policies affect citizens in this country in different and disproportionate ways.
Your remarks further highlight the need to bring an intersectional lens to this work. In the policy discussion paper that I prepared, the third recommendation is about why we need that intersectional approach. That also came up today in the comments by Dr. Waldron, in her words and research elsewhere. This is really vital to look at the way in which socio-economic status is linked with gender and health; all of these facets come into play in how people are affected by certain developments. For example, when we’re looking at oil and gas, fracking, the renewable energy sector or electric vehicle parts, there are so many different sectors that rely on extraction, and the problem of relying on extraction is that it often leaves some people behind. There are health impacts to that, and for many Indigenous communities — as is well articulated in the literature and by leaders — land is so central to identity and core to one’s being. Any future development really needs to respect Indigenous rights, and it really needs to take that intersectional approach to heart and to understanding, and not just think about land and water as resources.
This is a committee on natural resources — not just as something to extract, and not something to take, but a relationship. Really, we’re talking about a different way of knowing and relating to nature here that is not about possessive property rights; it’s about care, community and relationships, and not thinking that humans are masters of nature. I really think at the heart of it is a totally different approach that would make us all better off.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: I have two questions, but not necessarily directed to a specific person. There has been a lot of work on the relations between the environmental factors, the contaminants and the health impacts. There is so much literature about that. I am appalled that we are in 2024 and we are still fighting to make the demonstration that there are health impacts and that there is environmental racism there.
First, what are the challenges? Why is this research not being used by the federal government to enact earlier or move faster?
The second part of the same question is this: Last year, we adopted the long-awaited — it took 23 years — reform to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, which included the development of an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment. We know that the right to a healthy environment is an essential part of environmental justice. However, when listening to Environment and Climate Change Canada, they repeated a few times this week that this right only applies to the application of CEPA.
Can you please tell us how you hope to see this right to a healthy environment will interact with this strategy that we are discussing today? Maybe we can start with Ms. Wiebe, then Dr. Waldron and Ms. Caron-Beaudoin.
Ms. Wiebe: I’ll answer the first part of the question and see if panellists want to jump in.
Something that came to mind right away was this: Why isn’t the government using the research that’s out there already? That’s a great point. I want to emphasize that there’s good work being done. I know there’s been other staff members from Environment and Climate Change Canada here who have a commitment to environmental justice and intersectionality, and they are starting that good work. I think this strategy will build on that.
Something that’s important to mention again is that Indigenous communities fall within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that’s really important in the strategy.
When it comes to research and evidence, it’s important to know that our society tends to create a hierarchy of data and evidence. That’s problematic. We tend to look at large numbers as truth or the pinnacle of academic excellence, but we need to start treating community knowledge as evidence.
Here is an example: I worked closely with a woman named Ada Lockridge over the years who has gone door to door in her community gathering information about health concerns. Again and again, her knowledge gets discredited. “That’s not evidence.” It is evidence.
For sure, we need peer-reviewed studies; we absolutely need that kind of data. We need that alongside community data.
This would be my plea for those who are involved in the implementation strategy here: We must be treating community expertise as evidence alongside longitudinal studies. We need the statistics and the epidemiological studies. Ms. Caron-Beaudoin could speak well to those. However, we also need to notice the research that is there, and gather that.
My understanding of this bill is it would advocate for a strategy that would be collecting good data. That’s a starting point. That good data does need to have multiple sources and types. I just wanted to make that clear.
Ms. Caron-Beaudoin: Thank you for the question, senator.
This is one thing I would add: One issue we face is that the application of the precautionary principle is challenging. In my opinion, that leads to the kinds of scientific studies that we publish being put on the side or not necessarily considered in policy, because the weight of evidence required to implement changes in policy is really high and difficult to achieve, especially when we work in rural communities where we don’t necessarily have the luxury of a large data set.
I can give an example with fracking. There are a lot of great epidemiological studies on proximity to fracking and health outcomes coming from the United States. A lot of the fracking operations in the United States are occurring both in urban and rural settings. For researchers who work in urban settings, they have access to a large administrative health data set that can include hundreds of thousands of data points. Just from a statistical perspective, the types of results they generate are stronger — only from a statistical standpoint.
When we move to Canada, most of the fracking operations are in rural settings, and a smaller proportion of people live in these regions, so we just have limited data that we can access. Therefore, from a statistical perspective, our results are a bit weaker. Nonetheless, they tell a similar story as in the United States. But they are not considered as reliable or strong.
Coming from the precautionary principle, the weight of evidence that we have so far should be enough to implement stronger policy. I believe this should become a second sense of implementing the precautionary principle. We should consider studies from rural or Indigenous communities to be as strong and reliable as studies being conducted in urban settings with larger data sets.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you to all the witnesses. That was very interesting testimony. It gave us some real facts and data to help us understand this issue.
To me, Bill C-226 is really a document giving the minister direction to develop a national strategy, and to move action forward on this important subject.
This is a bit repetitive to Senator McCallum’s first question: How do you think community-based organizations and community members can best collaborate and advise the federal government in the development of a national strategy?
I’m also curious to know if any of you think that amendments are required at this time on this bill, or if the purpose of the bill is to get it to the minister and the strategy will maybe define more of the details.
I’m going to start with Ms. Caron-Beaudoin. Ms. Wiebe, you actually answered my question a bit in your response, but feel free to elaborate. Ms. Waldron, thank you; I know you addressed Senator McCallum’s question. I’d love to hear from all of you — if you can time your answers so that I can hear from everybody. I probably have about four minutes right now. I’ll start with Ms. Caron-Beaudoin.
Ms. Caron-Beaudoin: Thank you for your question, senator.
To answer the question regarding how community members and community organizations can participate in the process, I will go back to one of my recommendations, which is to create or implement a permanent interdisciplinary institute fully devoted to funding environmental health research, potentially within the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Within that, I believe the governance structure of this institute should include committees strategically composed of multidisciplinary and diverse groups of researchers and citizens who have various lived experience, expertise and geographic representation, as well as diversity in terms of gender, sex, Indigeneity, race, et cetera.
Having that representation within the governance structure of such an institute would really advance environmental justice research and policy. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Sorensen: Do you feel this needs amendments at this time?
Ms. Caron-Beaudoin: No, I do not think so. I would enact the bill as is.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. That’s helpful.
Ms. Waldron: It’s actually already in the bill. Having consultations with impacted communities is one of the strengths of the bill.
One of the definitions of “environmental racism” is that the communities that are impacted by environmental racism do not have a seat at the table. One of the definitions — the five tenets of environmental racism — is the fact that they don’t get opportunities to participate in decision making, and they’re not on regulatory bodies, different organizations and environmental non-governmental organizations, or ENGOs. The fact that the bill indicates that they would have consultations with communities is its strength.
That’s happening. Last week, I joined the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, in the Black community, and we had a consultation. I see a model for how consultations can go. He sat down with the community in Shelburne, and he listened to their concerns. There were about 10 people around the table. He listened to their concerns, and they posed this question to him: “What are you going to do?” He gave them some sense of what he will do and how he would collaborate with other people to address some of their concerns. Broad consultations with impacted communities across Canada are key.
I think one of the best ways to start that off is to identify grassroots individuals who are respected in the community, as well as non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, or community-based organizations that are very connected to the community and have respect in the community. They can then identify individuals in those communities who would be interested in doing consultations, focus groups or different kinds of consultations with the government on these issues.
In that way, those communities are co-creating policy. They’re co-creating the national environmental justice strategy, which is also mentioned in the bill.
One of the strengths of the bill is that it’s going to allow impacted communities — probably for the first time, as I don’t know if this is typical of government — to be heard on their concerns and to be involved in policy-making, because they’re co-creating that national strategy.
Senator Sorensen: What do you think about amendments?
Ms. Waldron: Oh, no. The bill is perfect.
Senator Sorensen: Good. If we had a model of what consultation should look like every single time, our jobs would be way easier. The problem is that consultation looks very different to different people, depending on the ministry and the topic.
Ms. Wiebe: I will echo the words of my colleagues. Having an interdisciplinary research institute that focuses on environmental health is important to gather the kinds of data sets we need. We need those statistics. My colleague Ms. Caron-Beaudoin spoke about the importance of large-scale samples and small-scale samples. We need studies that include both the large and small scales.
To echo what Dr. Waldron said, the federal government’s role is really to listen, to convene, to coordinate and to take direction from affected communities. That’s a really key point to emphasize here. I think it’s very well articulated in the bill, so I wouldn’t propose amendments.
The Chair: Before we proceed to the second round, I want to note that Senator Prosper has joined us.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses, for your contributions so far.
Dr. Waldron, I have a question about projects where there are Indigenous partnerships with extractive companies. Have you seen a different approach or outcome when there are cooperative agreements between Indigenous communities and the extractive companies?
Ms. Waldron: I don’t think I could speak to that. I’m not the best person. Maybe Ms. Wiebe could speak to that; she works more with Indigenous communities. That’s not something I have witnessed.
Ms. Wiebe: I have an example that comes to mind as you asked that question. I had the fortune of working with the Attawapiskat First Nation, which Senator McCallum referred to with respect to the book earlier. The De Beers diamond mine was located close to that community. Over the years, one of the concerns they had was around their impact benefit agreement. Often, the leadership wanted to revisit that agreement and bring a treaty relation forward.
The problem is that sometimes these agreements are negotiated privately and then are not up for public consultation or deliberation, whereas the community leadership was looking to open that up and have a conversation.
I think the challenge arises here when you have these hierarchical, top-down executive agreements without meaningful community input. A lesson learned is that you need to create space for collaboration and meaningful listening, and the opportunity for input — free, prior and informed consent is critical.
I want to rearticulate here the importance of acknowledging those treaty rights, and industrial proponents need to acknowledge those rights when engaging in these conversations. I certainly don’t see this bill as anti-development. It’s about doing development in a good way. I think that bringing treaty relations forward, having opportunities for meaningful input and ongoing consultation, and revisiting agreements on an ongoing basis are some of the policies that would make that a lot better. I know there are a lot of hard feelings in the North about the legacy of the De Beers diamond mine.
Senator Wells: I’m not so much talking about treaty rights; I’m talking about willing partners collaborating on a project. I would be loath to step in and say that a band or nation must be open or closed with their consultations. That’s their private business. That’s a separate topic, and I’m not asking about that.
I’m asking about where there is an open and cooperative agreement, which there is. That’s the practice; it’s not just the trend. It’s the common practice nowadays to have open partnerships with Indigenous communities.
Have you seen — in your experience or research — differences in the levels of toxins that might be released from the projects? Is it something that’s aside from Indigenous communities, or perhaps cooperative with Indigenous communities? Is there a difference?
Ms. Wiebe: In terms of different kinds of relationships that I’ve witnessed or seen, I can speak to what I’ve observed in Chemical Valley. For example, there are different associations, like industry-led environmental associations, that I think were sincere in their efforts trying to look at health concerns locally, including the broader population of Sarnia, as well as Aamjiwnaang. So I definitely think there have been good faith efforts and attempts to try to understand the disproportionate impacts.
The challenge that often comes up, though, is again related to scale and sample size.
In Chemical Valley, there’s been something called the Lambton Community Health Study that involved multiple parties. The problem was the scope of this study. It broadened out to the entire County of Lambton, which is a population of 120,000, whereas the population of Aamjiwnaang is closer to 1,000.
The challenge we have with getting good data is that we need to think beyond that large-scale sample size.
In terms of cooperation, I think there have definitely been good efforts. Even within the various industries, there has been a lot of good relationship building happening among members of the band. But their health concerns are still the main problem. There are a lot of uncertainties because there’s that lack of good data about how it affects the specific community.
Senator Wells: I come from a background in this. Wouldn’t the regulator have the only role in saying what’s acceptable from an environmental point of view? The regulator sets the rules — that’s the deal. And the operators follow the rules — that’s also the deal. In the Newfoundland offshore, where I have the most familiarity, that would be a condition of licence to follow the rules, which is a pretty heavy hammer.
Wouldn’t the regulator have a role to play in this?
Ms. Wiebe: You raise a couple of good points about the role of regulation.
What I’ve observed over the years is the influence of the provincial Ministry of Environment, for example, in terms of regulation. The challenge with a place like Chemical Valley is that it’s not just one facility; it is dozens. It is over 40 facilities on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border that cumulatively affect the health of the community. It’s easy to say, “That wasn’t our concern,” so there’s this sense of feeling lost in the cracks there. There is a regulatory responsibility, but there’s a lack of follow-through sometimes.
However, there have been instances where different facilities have been fined, for example. What happens, to my knowledge, is that when there’s a spill or release, and they’re penalized, for example, that money is collected municipally. It’s not always distributed back to the band. There’s an inequitable allocation of resources there as well.
I agree with you that there is a role for the regulator, but it’s not quite working in its current form at multiple scales.
Senator Wells: Okay, thank you.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to go back to Senator Galvez’s question.
Before I do that, I wanted to comment that the bill has been purposeful in ensuring that it is not prescriptive, because if it were prescriptive, it would be parliamentarians once again deciding how to address racism. That’s something we’re trying to get away from. It was said that it was philosophical, but that is how First Nations did their governance, and they always have. That’s where they start. We are going to go back to that.
When we look at the right to a healthy environment only applying in CEPA, that is once again putting into a silo that we can be healthy in CEPA but not everything else. How can we move ahead without the goal of a healthy environment when it came from our governance structure? Article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:
States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
This would lead to a healthy environment. It is in our Constitution as First Nations. We are in ill health because of environmental racism. That is one of our goals. If we can’t have it, then what happens?
The Chair: Is there a question in that?
Senator McCallum: I asked it. What would happen?
Ms. Wiebe: Should I pause to see if anybody else wants to respond?
Ms. Waldron: Can you restate the question?
Senator McCallum: It was said yesterday that the right to a healthy environment belongs in CEPA. If we are looking at environmental racism, and we are going to go to environmental justice, does that not include the right to a healthy environment?
Ms. Waldron: Yes. That’s where those two bills intersect: We understand that health is crucial in these communities. These communities have had major health impacts. They intersect in that way.
The health of Indigenous communities — which is, as you know, very holistic — is what some people don’t understand. There’s Indigenous epistemology which understands health as connecting to all things: land, animals and people. There is a holistic understanding of health. In the Euro-Western model, we separate those things.
With environmental racism, there is something stated in Bill C-226, where it talks about the need to do a study on environmental risk, socio-economic status and the health effects.
From my perspective, the health effects are often undermined or dismissed. This is the challenge I had when I started my project: When I went to government and talked about the health effects, I was dismissed. It has a lot to do with the way in which we teach health in Canada and the way in which we teach environment.
When you look at many of the environmental science departments across the country, or environmental studies departments across the country, health is divorced from what many professors are teaching.
Then, when you go to the health departments and health faculties, they don’t see environmental issues as social determinants of health. Much of this tension we have around health is rooted in the fact that health doesn’t seem to be as important for environmental scientists who do much of this work, except for a few environmental scientists.
For folks who do health — and I was in the health department — they’re not that interested in environmental issues. That intersection is something that is not being addressed fully; we see that in how health is dismissed often and undermined.
CEPA is a great act. I have my own problems with CEPA. It does not mention racialized communities. It doesn’t mention Black communities. It doesn’t have an intersectional approach.
One of the reasons I think Bill C-226 is strong is that it includes Indigenous communities and other racialized communities, and it has that intersectional approach where it’s looking at race. It acknowledges that race is a factor — a major determinant of health. It talks about socio-economic status. It does talk about health. That’s the strength of this bill, and I think it’s stronger than CEPA in many ways because CEPA is not intersectional for me.
When we start to do the work through the bill, we also have to understand differing understandings of health. For some communities, like Black communities and Indigenous communities, it’s a holistic understanding, so doing away with your Western model — or what we call the “medical model” — is really important. I see this bill engaging with that, because we’re going to be doing consultations. We’re going to be hearing from communities about how they understand health, so that’s its major strength.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Ms. Wiebe: I think what Dr. Waldron just explained supports well what Dr. Caron-Beaudoin mentioned about an interdisciplinary health institute. An institute like that should bring that holistic approach; that’s central.
If we were to think about the implementation, and I know that’s not our specific task, but eventually — for those listening who might think about this going forward — bringing that kind of planetary, intersectional approach to the interdisciplinary health funding is really critical to move beyond that siloed way of thinking. I hope that can bring these pieces together.
Ms. Caron-Beaudoin: Perfect.
Senator Galvez: I want to make a comment: Coming from research and having belonged to several organizations, groups and institutions, I know we can create many institutions and institutes, but that doesn’t guarantee that the government is going to take that. It’s extremely important that we know that. We can create something, but not necessarily achieve the goal that is intended.
I was so happy that Senator Wells brought up the communities that have agreements and cooperation with industries that may end up polluting water, air or soil. That makes me reflect on the fact that we are having two kinds of cases.
We have the historical cases where the contamination is old. There are these impact benefit agreements, which probably did not consider this situation and which are confidential. Nobody knows anything. It’s in contradiction with the UN right of free, prior and informed consent; that is public. We have to solve this issue of the past, and I think this strategy will hopefully make the difference.
We have the new projects, as Ms. Caron-Beaudoin said, which are precautionary; we have to put emphasis on precautionary to prevent any new situation of environmental racism. For that, there are the two acts: CEPA — the new CEPA — but also the modernized environmental impact assessment, which should take into consideration all this intersectionality.
In regard to these situations of all contamination and reparation — because who will pay for the reparation — and the new situations that will arise, as we’re going to continue expanding some types of projects, how do you see it preventing environmental racism from happening?
I will direct my question to anybody who wants to answer.
The Chair: You are addressing that question to all three?
Senator Galvez: Yes, I thought the three of them would have things to say.
Ms. Caron-Beaudoin: Thank you for the question.
You talked about the precautionary principle. I’ll reiterate that point. To clarify, its interpretation will be helpful for multiple levels of governance. That’s one thing.
In terms of environmental risk assessment, another point I would make is to clarify this: How do we consider cumulative impacts in those larger-scale industrial projects?
A short example I can give with regard to unconventional oil and gas is that, often, those projects will be evaluated by Indigenous communities one well at a time — one permit at a time — instead of having this more holistic approach: What is the projected extent of this development? There’s not going to be only one well.
Right now, there are around 35,000 wells in northeastern British Columbia. If they’re evaluated one at a time, not only is it time-consuming and energy consuming, but it’s also not necessarily scientifically accurate to evaluate environmental risk and risk to human health. Having some sort of structure to evaluate cumulative impacts — rather than project by project or step by step in a project — would be helpful. I hope that answers some of your question.
Ms. Waldron: One way to prevent future cases of environmental racism is in the environmental assessments that we do. We talked earlier about silos. I’m aware of a professor who is doing some work around bringing together folks from different disciplines — psychology, sociology, health and environmental science. For me, that’s the way to go. I don’t know if it’s possible. In the past, we focused on certain professionals or certain disciplines in terms of who gets to be involved in environmental assessments, and this is an intersectional issue. If we’re not bringing in, for example, a health person, we’re not getting a sense of how the health effects are impacting these communities. An interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary team of experts and community members in different disciplines, like sociology, health, psychology, political science, environmental science, et cetera, is ideal because I think solutions to environmental racism — and solutions to any problem — are interdisciplinary.
I’ve come to see that in my own work because I’m extremely collaborative. I’m a sociologist, but I brought everybody on board from different disciplines. I see how those knowledge gaps that I might have, or that they may have, are resolved because we come together with different knowledges. I think environmental assessments that bring together different disciplines and experts from different fields — and not simply the environmental scientists — is the way to go, and I don’t even know if that’s possible.
Also, it’s about understanding Indigenous epistemology. If you don’t understand, for example, the social determinants of health and the holistic ways in which Indigenous people understand the world within that environmental assessment, then we’re going to continue to do what we’ve been doing.
We require a different type of philosophy. We require an understanding of Indigenous philosophy, and we also need to bridge the gaps. The way to bridge the gaps is by bringing together a multidisciplinary team of experts along with community members who are impacted.
Ms. Wiebe: I agree with everything my colleagues have just shared.
I want to go back to the point about research and policy. I think that’s why this bill is so important. Without a bill like this, we lack a little bit of the policy pressure that it provides to signal to the government that we need to take action here. Otherwise, it kind of falls between the cracks. That’s the role of this bill — to create space as a kind of catalyst for the good research that is happening.
I want to go back to the point about environmental assessments, because I think that’s a really important one: Doing environmental assessments in a good way can prevent environmental racism and promote environmental justice. I’m not sure if Dr. Dayna Scott is on the witness list, but that would be another person for this committee to reach out to, or read her work. She has done a lot of work with Indigenous communities to cultivate some strategies for Indigenous perspectives, approaches and rights in the environmental impact assessment process.
I couldn’t agree more about the need for these multidisciplinary teams. I think that’s critical to this approach, as well as having different kinds of expertise and acknowledging that communities have a lot of expertise. Earlier, I mentioned the example of working with members of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, who have done a lot of health studies, and supporting their leadership, knowledge and evidence — really supporting community-based evidence and knowledge as well as the academic peer-reviewed teams. That is really central to the success of this work.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you. Your input has been very helpful. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. Your contribution is especially relevant.
For our second panel, we have joining us Chris Plain, Chief of Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Welcome to the committee, Chief Plain, and thank you for being with us. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which, senators will ask you questions. The floor is yours.
[English]
Chris Plain, Chief, Aamjiwnaang First Nation: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Plain, and I’m the elected Chief of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation. I’m here today to share our community’s experience living in an environmental sacrifice zone.
The United Nations describes environmental sacrifice zones as extremely contaminated areas where residents — often compromised, vulnerable and marginalized groups — suffer devastating physical and mental health consequences and human rights violations as a result of living in pollution hot spots and heavily contaminated areas. Unfortunately, Aamjiwnaang has been identified as an environmental sacrifice zone by the United Nations and others.
For over a century, the people of Aamjiwnaang have been forced to endure disproportionate environmental health impacts from toxic industrial pollution in our territory. The constant pollution has caused disturbing health effects for our people, and has affected cultural relationships with the land and waters by impacting our ability to engage in traditional practices that are constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
Aamjiwnaang is an Anishinaabe community located near the City of Sarnia, in what is now southwestern Ontario, on the south end of Lake Huron, on the east side of the St. Clair River and across from the Canada-U.S. border in Port Huron, Michigan. We have approximately 2,500 members, of which 900 live in the community, and about one quarter are children.
In our language, “Aamjiwnaang” means the place of the spawning stream, referencing the strong sturgeon stock located in our area. Aamjiwnaang’s oral history traces the lineage of our people back to the water origins. Our ancestors have witnessed the ice age, two great floods, changes in the lake levels and the arrival of the first Europeans to our territory. Together with all living things, we have grown and prospered through ages, nourished by the wealth and generosity of the lakes and rivers around us.
Aamjiwnaang is a sovereign nation, with an inherent right to self-government. The leaders of Aamjiwnaang have negotiated a series of treaties with the British Crown, beginning in the 17th century. In 1827, Aamjiwnaang entered into Treaty 29 with the Crown and promised our people the continued use of the land and water. I’m a descendant of four of those treaty signers.
We have never surrendered our Aboriginal rights, and we have agreed to share our territory with the Crown and its subjects.
The development of heavy industry in Sarnia in the early to mid-20th century was directed and supported by Canadian governments. During the Second World War, Canada and its allies needed rubber, and, when cut off from global supply, the federal government decided to produce it in Sarnia. The construction of a federally owned polymer plant occurred rapidly. Academia described this development as follows:
The pace was terrific and unrelenting, despite shortages of labour and key construction materials and the cruel working conditions imposed by an unusually long and harsh winter. Thirteen months later (and two months ahead of schedule), on the backs of nearly 5,500 labourers, the Polymer industrial complex in Sarnia was essentially completed. . . . The cost was equally enormous: in total, the construction of Polymer cost about $51 million, then the largest single public expenditure on any single wartime project in Canadian history . . . .
The story then of the making of Canada’s Chemical Valley in the second half of the 20th century is mostly a federal one — a large public investment, followed by timely and appropriate public policies and actions to accommodate the requirements of a growing industry sector, which nudged together a dense nucleus of private sector companies that stimulated further investment. Were it not for the actions taken by the federal government to stimulate the growth, the industry’s development in Sarnia may have well been stalled.
After the war, Canada continued federally owned production, and set its sights on making Sarnia an industrial powerhouse. Over time, other chemical plants moved in, taking up our lands and contaminating them, and thus began the multi-generational poisoning of our people. The legacy of these unlawful and dishonourable decisions has exposed our community to relentless environmental harm.
Aamjiwnaang is situated in the epicentre of what is referred to as Canada’s Chemical Valley, so named because the area contains 40% of Canada’s chemical industry. Chemical Valley has been described as the most disconcerting example of environmental injustice in Canada.
Over the past 100 years, lands and waters in Aamjiwnaang have been impoverished by over-exploitation. All facets of Aamjiwnaang’s environment are polluted, including air, land and water. Experts refer to Aamjiwnaang’s traditional lands as overburdened or saturated, meaning the area has reached a state that cannot accommodate any further pollution, and it is likely that Aamjiwnaang’s traditional lands reached this state many years ago.
Community members who grew up swimming in the waters and harvesting fish and traditional medicines now report negative health effects from engaging in these traditional activities that are constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
As it stands, there is practically nowhere in the vicinity of Aamjiwnaang where our members can practise their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights without worrying about the bioaccumulation of chemicals in traditional plants, animals, fish and birds. Pollution can cause the air to smell like rotten eggs, and induce dizziness and nausea. Residents face constant flaring noise, sirens and the occasional shelter in place, and physical and psychological health problems are common, including high rates of miscarriage, child asthma and cancer.
In 2017, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Dianne Saxe, said Aamjiwnaang is among the most polluted places in Ontario because of the large number of heavy industries located so close to the residential community. This situation is a legacy of land use planning decisions that would never be allowed today.
Environmental racism can be defined as the deliberate or intentional siting of hazardous waste sites, landfills, incinerators and polluting industries in communities inhabited by minorities and/or the poor. The concept of environmental racism is rights-based, and observes that the communities subject to this kind of racism are frequently impoverished, excluded from dominant cultures and denied full citizenship. This marginalized status leaves communities politically powerless and without representation in the policy-making process.
Aamjiwnaang is surrounded on three sides by over 60 industrial refineries — the closest of which are literally across the street from, most importantly, community meetings, such as the band office, our church, our cemetery, our resource centre and many residences. These facilities represent 40% of Canada’s chemical refineries. It has been this way for many generations. While settler communities have been relocated at no cost to them, we remain here on our land. To us, it’s been an experience of profound environmental racism.
In 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes made an official visit to Canada which included a visit to Aamjiwnaang and the City of Sarnia. In its final report, dated November 27, 2020, he made the following observations — there are three on the list:
The situation of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Sarnia is profoundly unsettling. Deeply connected with their land, the residents on the reserve have been invaded by industry as far back as the 1940s.
Actually, it was in the late 1800s when Imperial Oil was there, but these are the refineries. The report continues:
They are now almost entirely surrounded by over 60 industrial facilities whose presence creates physiological and mental stress among community members because of the risk of impending explosions or other disasters and because of chronic exposure to unquestionably poisonous substances. Sarnia, one of the most polluted places in Canada, has been dubbed “chemical valley.”
Various interlocutors acknowledged that existing regulations do not protect the health of the Aamjiwnaang. Improvements can be made in terms of investigating the health impacts, conducting proper monitoring and enforcing existing standards. Risk assessments do not fully take into account the cumulative health impacts. The environmental injustice to which the Aamjiwnaang are subjected is an ongoing tragedy, the legacy of land use planning that would not be allowed today. Encouragingly, the community and companies have increased cooperation and engagement in recent years, including through financing for the communities to hire their own environmental scientists to facilitate meaningful participation.
Furthermore, as they live on the fringes of protection from toxics, indigenous and racialized communities are more likely to be exposed because they lack enforceable environmental rights, typically do not have the political or financial means to challenge powerful polluting industries and often face societal pressures to accept such industries because of the need for employment, among other factors. Adding insult to injury, “lifestyle choices” associated with poverty are cited to dismiss, discredit and even blame victims of discriminatory toxic exposure who develop diseases and disabilities, instead of placing the burden on polluting actors to demonstrate that they did not contribute to adverse health impacts.
Am I doing okay for time?
The Chair: If you can sum up in a couple of minutes, that would be appreciated.
Senator McCallum: We brought the witnesses here because a lot of senators have not experienced first-hand environmental racism. Part of this exercise is to put into evidence what people actually experience. If it were possible, could we let him complete his —
The Chair: I am. In fact, we’ve exceeded the time allotted, and given the importance of it and given we have no other witnesses, I’m very flexible.
Mr. Plain: Thank you very much. In the United Nations Special Rapporteur’s final report, that report made several recommendations to the Government of Canada, including the following:
Recognize the right to a healthy environment in its legislation, eventually, through a constitutional amendment, and ensure that that right includes the duty to prevent exposure to hazardous substances;
Bring federal, provincial and territorial legislation fully into line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
Ensure that environmental standards on reserves are as strong as or stronger than the standards on neighbouring provincial, territorial and federal lands, to ensure equal protection for indigenous persons;
Amend the federal Impact Assessment Act to require consideration of the impacts of proposed projects and policies on human rights, particularly the rights of vulnerable populations;
Improve the capacity of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to initiate investigations and pursue environmental and human rights-based initiatives, including on toxic exposure, including through budgetary allocations and research promotion;
Require the protection of vulnerable populations at all stages of the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and categorize chemicals as toxic based on their hazard, not their risk;
Implement legal requirements for robust mandatory human rights due diligence and provide redress where activities of business enterprises both at home and abroad are associated with impacts of toxic exposure, with a cause of action for victims both in the host country and in Canada;
Revise the avenues available to access justice, to give full effect to the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights through the court system in Canada, engaging civil society and indigenous peoples in that revision;
Establish a sound environmental justice framework based on the principles of procedural justice, geographic justice and social justice;
Involve indigenous peoples and other population subgroups in self-assessments to complement assessments by members of other population subgroups.
Also, the report has direct application to the committee’s mandate regarding Bill C-226 with regard to the UN declaration. I’m not going to read them all, but I will reference Articles 21, 24 and 29.
In 2021, the Government of Canada enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to propose the following:
(a) affirm the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law; and
(b) provide a framework for the Government of Canada’s implementation of the Declaration.
With the recommendations, Bill C-226 currently provides that:
The Minister must develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to advance environmental justice and to assess, prevent and address environmental racism.
The bill goes on to provide that:
(3) The strategy must include
(a) a study that includes
(i) an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk, and
(ii) information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards . . . .
While these are important factors to be included in the study of environmental racism, the list is incomplete and it does not include a consideration of how colonialism has specifically impacted Indigenous peoples. In 2022, in an article in the journal Canadian Family Physician, medical experts made the following observation:
It is also crucial to recognize the intersection of colonialism and other determinants of health, specifically those related to the health of Indigenous peoples. Canada’s history has included broken treaty promises, discriminatory acts and policies aimed at assimilation, and the appropriation of land and resources to the exclusion of Indigenous peoples. Colonialism directly affects Indigenous peoples health and well-being. In the context of environmental racism, colonialism has led to structural and institutional racism that continues to shape environmental policies and practices today.
We would, therefore, recommend that clause 3(3)(a)(i) of Bill C-226 be amended as follows:
(3) The strategy must include
(a) a study that includes
(i) an examination of the link between race, the impacts of colonialism, socio-economic status and environmental risk . . . .
In conclusion, thank you for allowing me to extend my time. The environmental injustice that the people of Aamjiwnaang have been subjected to is an ongoing tragedy and is a stark example of environmental racism. Today, it would be unfathomable to construct such a large number of industries next to homes, schools and workplaces. Ask yourself if you want to raise a family here. Do you think this would happen in Oakville or Rockcliffe Park here in Ottawa? The UN Special Rapporteur’s 2022 report states:
The continued existence of sacrifice zones is a stain upon the collective conscience of humanity. . . . The people who inhabit sacrifice zones are exploited, traumatized and stigmatized. They are . . . treated as disposable, their voices ignored, their presence excluded from decision-making processes and their dignity and human rights trampled upon.
Governments must take the necessary steps to ensure environmental standards are enforced and protective of our members’ health and reduce pollution in our community. Government standards do not fully consider the cumulative health impacts, and despite countless letters, studies, petitions, protests, reports and calls for legislative reform, the harm continues every single day.
The situation of Aamjiwnaang is not a knowledge problem; it’s an inaction problem. In addition to that, we need to mend the treaty relationship between Aamjiwnaang and the Crown, where Aamjiwnaang has an equal voice in decision making affecting our lands and waters, and decisions that directly affect our members. We need a seat at the table, and our concerns must inform the path forward. We want to be part of the solution. We want to feel confident that the air we are breathing isn’t slowly killing us. We want to live with peace of mind that our children will not get sick and die before us.
We hope that your work on environmental racism marks the beginning of a new honourable relationship where Aamjiwnaang can see measurable results from a government committed to doing better. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, chief. Anything else you wanted to add?
Mr. Plain: No, but I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the time to be here today. This work and the work we do at home are important, and I can’t summarize it in that short period of time. The amount of pollution in our area is — we only have 900 people living in our community. There’s continuously been somebody who has cancer for at least the last 20 years, and we all know each other. It’s a small demographic to be facing those kinds of health impacts continuously. The amount of noise pollution, air pollution and constant light are sacrifices we live with every day — people might not realize how profound the impacts are from just living in proximity. It is something to be acknowledged as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll go to question period.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to go back to your suggestion for amendment regarding the examination of race and the impacts of colonialism. When you look at the bill, the content states:
(3) The strategy must include
(i) an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk . . . .
(ii) information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards . . . .
When we look at the other speakers and they looked at the location, it had to do with race and colonialism. Those have been taken into account. It was purposely left non-prescriptive because then each group could put into the study what affected them — because racism is the foundation of environmental. Could you explain whether your suggestion goes beyond what’s in here?
Mr. Plain: Sorry, in terms of the recommendation, I want to make sure I understand what you’re asking so I don’t waste the committee’s time.
Senator McCallum: It was an examination of race and the impacts of colonialism.
Mr. Plain: I want to make sure I understand the question correctly.
Senator McCallum: My question is that the recommendations that you are requesting are already in the bill.
Mr. Plain: Okay, then I guess we’re reaffirming the importance of that and, due to the ongoing notification, the studies we’ve been producing.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. How can this bill support Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination? You mentioned treaty making, and that it is critical to have treaty making involved in the process. Can you remark a bit about the importance of treaties? Because I do believe that they are very important.
Mr. Plain: Treaties are different across Canada. Of course, we have a pre-Confederation treaty. We had a land session treaty where it was agreed to share the land. We understand the importance of treaties in sharing the land. I’m not too sure where your question was going in terms of —
Senator McCallum: A lot of people think that treaties shouldn’t enter into environmental racism or that treaties do not encompass all our lives, or that it is integral to —
Mr. Plain: When we signed a treaty, we had ceded 2.2 million acres to the Crown, save and except four tracts of land for our nation, which turned into four First Nations and four communities. We’ve agreed to share that land. We set aside 10,000 acres for our community to enjoy in terms of their prosperity, and to be able to enjoy life as it was prior to the treaty. We’re down to 2,500 acres — 7,500 acres was taken from us to build this Chemical Valley on. We don’t even have the amount that was set aside in the treaty through a number of land grabs. We’re down to 2,500 acres. Chemical Valley is built on what was set aside for our community in terms of treaty.
If that doesn’t describe environmental racism, I’m not sure what does. We shared over 2.2 million acres, and we’re down to 25% of what our original land base was in terms of the treaty, which was only 10,000 acres of the 2.2 million acres. Yet no industries are built on any of the land that wasn’t outside of our community. Chemical Valley is built on what was the reserve at one point.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much, chief, for coming here and sharing your experience with us. I want to echo what my colleague Senator McCallum said: Only a few of us have experienced this first-hand and have visited some of these areas. This is very important.
You have told us a horrible story that has lasted for decades and decades, and that shows us what is enshrined in our environmental protection laws and acts — the polluter pays and pollution prevention — doesn’t work. They don’t work because this is what happens. Pollution is not prevented; pollution is permitted. We sometimes focus on pollution control and pollution management, but we do not do pollution prevention.
In this framework proposal, the first one states that measures that can be taken to advance environmental justice can include possible amendments to federal laws. I can see very easily and quickly some of the possible amendments to the laws that are there today.
The second one states, “. . . the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making.” Because I do exchange a lot with Indigenous communities, I have heard that they are a bit tired of being consulted with no action. Thank you so much for agreeing. We have to change this to not just listening but also acting on these consultations.
The third states, “. . . compensation for individuals or communities.” Compensation — I don’t know, but I’m asking you this: Who should be affording the compensation? Should we say that “the polluter pays” should be implemented or enacted?
My last point is about the collection of information and statistics relating to health outcomes. We just heard from previous witnesses — you just mentioned that it’s just 800 people. You have personal experience and knowledge of these impacts. I would like to know if you have considered collaborating with health academics to put this data in a robust way that can be used for policy-making. I know my question is very long; I apologize.
Mr. Plain: In terms of compensation and who pays, we’re not looking for compensation. We’re looking for the ability to live in a clean environment with clean water and clean air. They have been making strong efforts to clean up, but, at the same time, there is further development that is happening, and there are also continued environmental standards that are not being enforced. That is basically why I’m here today.
Right across the fenceline, we have a high level of benzene that is coming into our playground area and the area of our administration complex. They’ve been put on notice, and they’ve been given standards that they will not follow, and there is no enforcement from them.
We’re not here looking for compensation. My community does well in terms of economic development. There’s no amount of money that could satisfy us while having us subjected to this environmental racism. We’ve invested over $200 million in clean energy projects. That’s where we generate our revenue from to be able to pay for the studies that tell us how poisoned our community is from the surrounding environmental impacts. We do contribute to what we think are green energy projects. We do a lot of economic development within our treaty territory. We have a lot of joint ventures. But we also have this principle that we go by: We don’t support businesses that have the ability to provide negative impacts to our community. Whoever is paying compensation, we’re not in line for that. We’re looking for the ability to sustain our community for seven generations forward. I’m sorry if I’ve misled the committee to think that we’re looking for any type of compensation.
The other question I think you had was in terms of consultation. We’re over-consulted. The consultation process and accommodation are always worrisome to me, because if we have 14 concerns with a project and 3 of them cannot be compromised or cannot be addressed, 11 out of 14 is a good scorecard for some people, but not for us. What we have to put forward is heavier in terms of the cumulative effects. That’s one of the problems we have. When an industry is looking to develop within our area, it’s the cumulative impacts of the neighbouring facilities that we’re trying to address. We don’t have anything in Ontario that deals with cumulative impacts, like they do in the West, from the — decision.
Senator Galvez: We modernized the Impact Assessment Act. After 23 years of waiting, we modernized it to say that we should also consider the intersection — gender, climate change and cumulative impacts — and we didn’t talk about indirect impacts, which I tried to amend, because indirect is also very important.
As you’re saying, implementation doesn’t get to the community. I’m not saying we are good, but we are becoming better in terms of modernizing these environmental protection acts — but implementation is crucial, and we are not there.
One of the reasons I think we are not performing right in that is because the expertise of our federal government is draining; it’s going away. We are reducing the government and we are increasing administration, but the expertise is going away.
Mr. Plain: It’s coming to our side. That’s what we need to tell the government.
Senator Galvez: Please.
Mr. Plain: We hire environmental consultants, and they come with expertise. A lot of times, they’ve worked for the government before.
Senator Galvez: They are very expensive? Tell us more about that because I really want to understand.
Mr. Plain: They are expensive, but, at the end of the day, we have a fiduciary responsibility to protect our community members, and we will do that at any cost. If we have to go out to hire the best, we will hire the best, because hopefully you might listen to them. You won’t always listen to us or the people who live there, so we have to bring people in from Ottawa and all over the place to tell our story for us at the cost of a dollar.
Senator Galvez: What you are saying is you have studies accumulating somewhere?
Mr. Plain: We have studies — academic. We have partnerships with universities in both Canada and the United States. They have come to partner with us. We can’t partner anymore. We have to act as a community. This environment is taking away from our ability to be a regular First Nations community. The environment is 90% of what we do. Every day is about the environment.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you so much, chief, for coming before us and providing your testimony.
In a previous life, I was a chief within my community in Nova Scotia. I appreciate your passion, vision and determination to do what’s best for your community. It was quite enlightening to witness your approach. I think the words you used were that you can’t partner anymore and you need to act as a community. You have extensive information and studies. You have invested and you have created those partnerships to really tell the story about what has taken place within your community.
Chief, you talked about the seven generations. Ultimately, your community looks to you for leadership to help steer the course and to guide the health and well-being of everyone in the community. What is your vision? What would you like to see? This is a bill, yes, that can go a ways in terms of trying to get some movement on your particular issues, but, at the end of the day, what does the elimination of environmental racism — or the core elements of this framework — mean for you as a leader within your community?
Mr. Plain: That is a pretty heavy question, because I only have one opportunity to answer that based upon 24 years of being in leadership in my community. The first year that I was chief, my 15-year-old cousin got a nosebleed. He died two weeks later from leukemia. There was no indication that he was ill. This trend has continued.
What I’d like is the ability to have enforcement of existing regulations so that we understand that we have allies in the Canadian government who recognize that our contributions to our area and this country are valuable. We want to work with these people to be able to continue and sustain this relationship that was brought together in 1827 under this treaty. That vision, I’m sure, was carried on by my ancestors and my seventh great-grandfather. I’m the seventh generation of that treaty signer. I can’t imagine that has changed.
But the influence outside of our community can’t change what we know from inside. The vision is not mine; the vision is that of my community. I’m the spokesperson. That vision will not change. What I see, everybody else sees around me: an environment that looks like it’s compromising to us.
I would like to see protections of regulations that are already put in place. I would like the opportunity to have meaningful dialogue when there are additional projects that are going to be developed in our area, and be listened to. I’m talking about studies — 800 people. If we have people continuously going to their houses to ask the same questions, they will get tired of these questions when there’s inaction. We rely on academics and people to put our story together and share them, but there’s nobody willing to listen when we’re willing to share.
That is one of the issues. I would like somebody to listen to us and acknowledge that we are valuable members of society. We are contributing members of our economy. We are not a community that has our hand out. In my experience, we’re one of three communities in Ontario that makes more money for the federal government than we receive in any type of core funding. So we’re more valuable because for all the pipelines that go through our community that we receive no money for — all the hydro transmission, and all the stuff that goes through our community — you’ve built billion-dollar industries around us. Everything has a plug that goes through our community. We receive no money for that. Talk about compensation. There are communities that generate revenue from leasing. We don’t even have that opportunity to generate any money from the activities that are going on around us. That is the reality of our world.
That’s why we have to invest outside of our community, because there’s no opportunity to invest in our community. There are pipelines and transmission lines running through our community that hinder our ability to practise our traditional customs and rights. We’re down to 2,500 acres. We have 2,500 people. You come from a First Nations community. We rely on the land. There’s not enough land, because 7,500 acres have been taken to develop the Chemical Valley, which is now confining us to an area that concentrates us, where we can’t look anywhere in any direction without seeing environmental impacts. There’s only one spot in our community, and it’s a low valley where we have our powwow, where you can’t see a smokestack from our community. I have a corner office. Everybody wants a corner office. From one window, I see INEOS. From the other, I see Imperial Oil, and out of the other window, I see Polysar. Those are the three industries I see out of my corner office.
To answer your question — I know it is a long answer — we would like to be able to be heard. We would like to have some of these studies seen, and some meaningful dialogue in terms of future development in our area that is compromising our health. We’ve been there for generations, and we’re going to continue to be there for seven generations, and I’m not sure the committee understands this trait about our people: We don’t do stuff for ourselves for today. We do that for seven generations ahead. I’m not sure too many people in this room — aside from the Indigenous people — would know where they came from seven generations ago, but I walk on the same land that my ancestors walked on for the last seven generations. It will be there for the next seven generations as well. We have to make sure there’s not this continued effort — it seems like — to be able to develop this country on the backs of the Indigenous community that I represent.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We heard you loud and clear. We appreciate very much you sharing your thoughts, expertise and experience. I think it will be very useful to the committee.
Mr. Plain: Thank you for the opportunity. I would be remiss if I did not say that I think there’s not one person in my community — who I could think of — who could be able to capture what we’ve been put through for the last hundred years in a short amount of time in order to provide it in a meaningful, impactful way, but I’m here to do my best.
Senator McCallum: I just have a comment. When you review the tapes, if you have additional information that you would like to give the committee, you can send it in for us to review and use.
Mr. Plain: Ironically enough, if I can add, adjacent to my community, at one time they developed a community and called it Blue Water. Many of the people there were French. They built a school, and they transitioned our students into that school.
That community was there for approximately 15 years. All that is left of that community now — which was part of our reserve, and it was neighbouring us — is a plaque that indicates that community was once there to develop part of the Chemical Valley, and due to the dangers of living in that area, they were moved up to the north end of the city. But here we remain.
All that is there in recognition of that community development is a plaque, and the reason they left was because of the impact of the pollution they were facing.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Thank you to Chief Plain and all of you for sharing in this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)