Bill C-226

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act

An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice

This enactment requires the Minister of the Environment, in consultation or cooperation with any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities, to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to address the harm caused by environmental racism. It also provides for reporting requirements in relation to the strategy.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to switch now to Ms. Daniels. Thank you very much for your testimony.

We have gone through legislation here just recently in this committee with Bill C-226. It was a private member's bill brought forward on environmental racism. There are numerous parts of this bill that we're looking at today that, in my opinion, seem to overlap, including the consideration of the effect on vulnerable populations, such as indigenous populations. Much of that is what you spoke to.

Do you think that addressing it in this bill, which is updating a very important piece of legislation that the government has, and having another bill is going to cause some confusion? Do we need to have two bills that address the same environmental racism or the consideration of the effects on vulnerable populations?

[Lisa Gue]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

These proposals, as amendments to CEPA, would complement the requirement under Bill C-226, once passed, for a national strategy on environmental racism and environmental justice.

One of these key principles, the principle of environmental justice, the key principle of the right to a healthy environment, requires the integration of a human rights lens into environmental decision-making to ensure that environmental protections protect every Canadian. This has been a blind spot in Canadian environmental law.

In the absence of these clear requirements, what we see is that sometimes policies are set and risks are assessed based on outcomes for the general population, which is one important assessment, but that can mask particular risks to particular communities or individuals. Too often, those are also economically disadvantaged communities and racialized communities, groups of people who also lack power in the decision-making process.

Integrating a human rights lens into environmental decision-making, as Bill S-5 proposes, will force a bit of a paradigm shift here. It's important that this bill does require the development of a framework about exactly how to implement that in the CEPA decision-making, because it's a muscle that isn't being flexed right now, and it will be such an important update to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I think this needs to be part of decision-making across the board, but CEPA is a very good place to start.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

It seems very clear that these three principles need to be put into the legislation as duties.

You talked a bit about how the principle of environmental justice, as a duty, is especially complementary to Bill C-226 on environmental racism. I think both of these bills also speak to the need for a separate office of environmental justice to help carry out this work. I'm curious about your opinions on that.

[Lisa Gue]

Thank you for the questions.

In the section related to the implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment, Bill S-5 requires that the framework elaborate on “the reasonable limits to which that right is subject, resulting from the consideration of relevant factors, including social, health, scientific and economic factors.”

We're proposing an amendment to this section, because it's a mistake to consider that relevant factors would be relevant only in terms of limiting the right. If these factors are relevant, it should be acknowledged that they are relevant more broadly. The law needs to allow for consideration of those factors in order to justify, in some cases, the full application of the right or even expansion of the right—not only its limitations.

We would suggest an amendment to reword that section to require relevant factors to be considered in interpreting and applying that right, and in determining any reasonable limits to which it is subject.

In terms of the key principle of the right to a healthy environment, I'll first highlight the principle of environmental justice, which is something this committee recently examined in its study of Bill C-226. I'll read for you, again, a definition the U.S. Office of Environmental Justice offers:

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This goal will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

In our view, again, this key principle needs to be established as a duty to be upheld throughout the administration of the whole act, not just considered in relation to the implementation framework—which, at the end of the day, will live as a policy document outside the act. This is the opportunity for you, the legislators, to anchor these essential principles in the law and ensure their applications throughout CEPA.

Very quickly, the principle of non-regression is borrowed from international human rights law and prohibits backsliding or the weakening of environmental protections, once granted, in the absence of a scientific basis.

The principle of intergenerational equity simply requires fairness among generations in the use and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C‑226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Very well. So I'll start with this one.

I'll provide a brief explanation of why we're bringing this amendment forward.

At the Bloc Québécois, we are in favour of the desire for environmental justice that is expressed in the title and preamble of the bill. We believe that, if Parliament is to pass a new law, it is the concept of environmental justice that must be put forward, that must be the main subject, the central concept.

We support government action to address the inequalities experienced by all communities in their relationship with the environment. We want this action to include everyone. There are problems of geographical disparities in living standards and access to a good environment, and that is a concern. It is of concern that these disparities have a direct impact on citizens who are immigrants, visible minorities, indigenous communities or socio-economically disadvantaged. Following what I told you on Tuesday, I would even add to the list other categories of citizens who are truly disadvantaged. For example, have we looked at where detention sites are located, whether they are prisons or psychiatric hospitals? That would help to understand their exposure to environmental hazards.

That's what we want to do. In North America, this has been going on since the 1980s. We want to broaden the scope of the proposed measure to include as many people as possible.

I will reiterate what Mr. Greg McLean said on Tuesday, addressing what might be described as a case in point. It kind of supports what I said earlier. He said that he grew up in a world where justice was good and racism was bad. As he said, eliminating racism and achieving justice for all is a goal we all want to have. I think he was very clear. I agree with him completely.

On Tuesday, I spoke about arsenic in Rouyn-Noranda, red dust in Limoilou, and pollution from refineries in East Montreal, where I live. Mr. McLean, on the other hand, was raising the experience of Italian immigrants who died because of their work in the smelters. He wasn't just talking about one particular case. That's what we want, too: a broader aim.

In passing, Mr. McLean raised the issue of the form of discrimination related to geographical location, or rural isolation. He did not say that this was racism, but suggested that in some way the plight of marginalized communities, not just racialized communities, should be highlighted.

When we talk about marginalized communities, we are also talking about socio-economically disadvantaged communities. This goes back to the example I gave you earlier, about detention sites.

For each line of the bill I am proposing to amend, the objective is the same: that everyone be offered the same protection and that the entire population have access to real environmental justice. Although we in the Bloc Québécois recognize that the element that I will refer to in this context as skin colour is certainly a factor of discrimination and inequity, several other factors underlie environmental racism, as understood in the bill before us.

Last week, a luncheon lecture was held here on Parliament Hill featuring Dr. Judith Enck, who is an expert on plastic pollution and was appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency by President Obama during his first term. In her lecture she raised the issue of the location of certain chemical plants. She explained that some very polluting chemical plants had targeted a number of states to develop and expand in. I wanted to know her opinion on the phenomenon we are discussing today, whether economic insecurity and demography had anything to do with it. So I asked her. Neither she nor I used the term “environmental racism”. She only used the term “environmental justice”. Indeed, there is something more comprehensive when the conceptual reference is environmental justice.

In the last Parliament we heard from Ms. Waldron, founder of the ENRICH project, on the study of systemic racism in Canada. She gave us her academic perspective on the environment and discrimination. According to her, there is a lack of political power to curb the establishment of industries that are harmful to human health and the environment. There are also factors related to education and economic insecurity. It is a global phenomenon. I would add to that access to clean housing and clean water.

These are all factors that, alongside those related to racism, form the breeding ground for the lack of environmental justice for all marginalized communities.

There is the socio-economic character, which I have talked about more than once.

I'll stop here. I have presented practically all of our amendments to you together.

This morning, I was given a report from the David Suzuki Foundation, which calls on the government to take concrete action for greater environmental justice. This report, written among others by Léa Ilardo, always refers to the notion of environmental justice. It describes what is happening in this regard in the east end of Montreal, a particularly disadvantaged sector. They want to set up an industry that will generate, according to forecasts, 300,000 container movements per year, 1,000 truck crossings per day, in and out, as well as numerous train movements. Why is this industry being established in the east end of Montreal? It is because it is an area where disadvantaged people live.

When I asked Ms. Lenore Zann if Bill C‑226 would affect the people living around the Horne Foundry, she said no. That is why we are proposing to broaden the scope of the bill.

That's it, I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon, everyone. We'll get the meeting going.

We have Mr. Benzen substituting for Mr. Kitchen, and we have Mr. Fragiskatos substituting for Ms. Taylor Roy. Welcome, both of you, to this meeting of the environment committee, which has a goal to get through clause-by-clause on Bill C-226.

From the Department of Environment, we have Laura Farquharson, director general, legislative and regulatory affairs, environmental protection branch, and we have Susan Martin, director general, strategic policy directorate.

I will read some opening remarks that have been given to me by the legislative clerk.

We welcome Mr. Lafleur and Mr. Méla to assist us in this exercise.

I'll just let you know that the idea is that if we get through this and there's still time, we will go in camera and have a bit of a meeting on future business to discuss how we're going to go forward, given that we've received legislation from the House, Bill S-5.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-226.

This is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may then explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

The chair will proceed slowly, so that everyone can follow the proceedings well.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all clauses have been voted on, the committee will hold a vote on the title and the bill itself.

The committee shall also give an order for the bill to be reprinted so that the House has an updated version at report stage.

Finally, the committee shall request the chair to report the bill to the House. This report shall contain only the text of the amendments adopted, if any, and an indication of the deleted clauses, if any.

I think that is pretty clear. Most of us have been involved in a clause‑by‑clause review of a bill.

(On clause 2)

Yes?

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

That's a lot. Thank you.

I also want to thank Ya'ara Saks, who seconded this bill with Lenore Zann at the time.

I want to try to bring it back to how Bill C-226 could be a way of assisting the community of Kanesatake and other communities, but I can't start or open my mouth without saying that, Ellen Gabriel, you are the bravest human being I know. You are grounded in principles, values and integrity that are breathtaking.

Yes, this is probably one of the most complicated jurisdictional and dangerous issues I have ever seen in decades of working on issues of toxic contamination and endangered communities, and it is very difficult to see from where help will come. I am very grateful that this committee has created the opportunity for you to speak directly to MPs, who, regardless of party affiliation, want to help.

I want to bring it back to Bill C-226 and say that, in terms of confronting environmental racism and advancing environmental justice, one of the corner pins of this bill is to give communities that are at risk the protections and the support they need. If the bill were brought forward as law and we had a program for environmental justice, what might you see as the most...? You've mentioned a commission on the issues of Kanesatake, but how would we use environmental justice programming to protect your community and clean it up?

I know you said that without systemic change, if you clean up one waste site, there will just be another one. For members of this committee who don't know, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I don't know how many years ago, made an order that the site had to be cleaned up and that has not been enforced.

How could we ensure a cleaner and safer future for your community?

[Ellen Gabriel, Onkwehón:we Rights Activist, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk and provided the following text]:

Wa’tkwanoweron Katsi’tsakwas ne iontiáts tánon Wakeniáhton, Kanehsatà:ke akenàkere.

[Witness provided the following translation]:

Warm greetings. My name is Katsi’tsakwas. I am turtle clan, and I am from Kanesatake.

[English]

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the subject of environmental racism. It's important to stress that the issue of environmental racism is rooted in the past, tethered to systemic racism, the Indian Act and the genocidal acts of the Indian residential school.

It is incumbent upon me to address the past, my community of Kanesatake's past, which was shaped by racist genocidal acts under colonial powers and created over a century among all Crown actors—federal, provincial and municipal governments—and the colonial creation that became the indigenous band council system.

All of the above situations and actors' apathy have led to Kanesatake's current situation. G&R Recycling facility, on the Kanesatake land reserve, has 160 Olympic swimming pools' worth of toxic waste lying in the small community of Kanesatake's lands, along with the multiple side dumps it has spawned and their effects on our community's health and well-being.

Details of this site's impacts are fully documented in the brief I submitted. A network of over 100 allied organizations, including some of our country's largest unions and civil society institutions, have already expressed their concern on this issue. The dump is a mere system, and we need to get to the root of this problem.

The fact that indigenous communities have become convenient places to dump toxic construction waste, raw sewage and other waste products that would never be accepted in a white community speaks volumes in itself. The fact that this is the norm is a mere symptom of the problem of environmental racism. In order to find solutions, we must address the root causes, and we must dig deep into those causes, among which is colonial genocide.

Environmental racism is a wicked problem. These are problems that became enormous, knotted up in all levels of governments' culture of bureaucracy, placing the burden to act, to stop the continuation and protect the environment, onto vulnerable community members, who are ignored and so must live with the consequences of corruption mingled with apathy, enhanced by fear and coercion.

The federal government, which has known about this problem in our community since at least 2019, has not yet found a way to resolve it. We have a provincial government in Quebec that has also not helped and refuses to acknowledge any form of systemic racism, environmental or not. This issue is complicated, because, like all such issues facing my community, it is rooted in past wrongs that need systemic, ongoing reparations. It requires reparations and restitution for the failure of governments to act and to do the right thing.

The issue of toxic dumping in my community cannot be resolved simply by cleaning up one site. It is the interplay between the past and the present and all of the dysfunctions it has created that need to be addressed. I assure you that, without that, there will be many more toxic dumps popping up in my community for every one that is ordered shut and cleaned.

If I might quickly quote the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 4(c) states, “Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.”

Bill C-226 must...and its approach to environmental racism is that it addresses the systemic nature of these issues and goes to the root causes.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

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

Thank you very much.

To finish, Mr. Ross, do you support Bill C-226?

[Lenore Zann, As an Individual]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Ms. May.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. That takes us right up to four minutes. That was a nice wrap-up.

Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Thanks to all the witnesses who shared their perspective on this project. Thank you, Mr. Masse.

We'll be doing clause-by-clause study on November 15. On November 1 we will dive into Bill C-226 on environmental racism. We'll go on with that and then come back to this bill on November 15

Thank you, everyone, for participating. Have a wonderful weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.