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.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, brought forward by the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Before I speak to the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize former MP Linda Duncan for her important work on this bill in previous Parliaments.

I would also like to acknowledge that, much like the bill's former sponsor, the bill's current sponsor, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has dedicated much of his career to being an educator and proponent of conservation and environmental protection. I thank him for his important work in these areas.

Returning to Bill C-219, the bill proposes to recognize the right of every person residing in Canada to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include this right as part of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The bill also sets out a number of procedural rights. These include the rights to access information and participate in environmental decision-making, request reviews of federal environmental laws and policies, and access courts and tribunals for matters regarding the protection of the environment.

While the purpose of Bill C-219 and its proposals are intuitively appealing at first glance, upon deeper reflection and examination, they raise a number of significant legal, practical and policy concerns.

The government recognizes that environmental stewardship is essential for the well-being and prosperity of Canadians, and it is devoted to working with the sponsor and all members of Parliament to secure a healthy environment.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has been mandated by the Prime Minister to follow the clear direction given by Canadians, to take bold, concrete action to build a healthier and more resilient future. More specifically, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was tasked with recognizing the right to a healthy environment in federal law and introducing legislation to require the development of an environmental justice strategy.

We have taken action to meet these commitments. On June 13, a right to a healthy environment was recognized under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, known as the CEPA. With the passage of Bill S-5, work is under way to begin developing an implementation framework, which must be completed within two years of royal assent. It would set out how the right must be considered in the administration of the CEPA and, thus, bring the lens of a right to a healthy environment to the programs that the CEPA enables.

The government has also committed to making an environmental justice strategy a reality by supporting a private member's bill, Bill C-226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice. Instead of introducing its own bill, and in line with the government's support of Bill C-230, the government reaffirmed support for Bill C-226.

If Bill C-226 passes, the national strategy would provide an opportunity to examine the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk, as well as to discuss how best to address environmental risks faced by historically marginalized communities.

It would help structure discussions on addressing these inequalities and discrimination, which are the root causes of many vulnerabilities. It would also complement other efforts that contribute to advancing environmental justice in Canada, even where the cause of environmental injustice or environmental racism may not have been directly identified or acknowledged. Supporting and advancing these initiatives is where our focus should be now, especially given the flaws in Bill C-219.

I will now turn to outlining a few specific issues with Bill C-219. Although both bills recognize a right to a healthy environment, the approach in Bill C-219 is at odds with the approach that was taken with Bill S-5, which is now in the amended CEPA.

I will first talk about the path we are currently on following the passage of Bill S-5 and then address how Bill C-219 clearly departs from it. As we know, Bill S-5 recognized that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, the cornerstone of federal environmental protection laws. The right to a healthy environment is a new concept in federal law. Given this, Bill S-5 included clear and robust provisions on the process to describe how this right would apply under CEPA and how it would be reported upon annually.

Bill S-5 proposed that the meaning of the right under CEPA be developed in consultation with Canadians and elaborated upon through a concrete implementation framework to ensure that the right is meaningful and tailored to the regime at hand. That framework, which is now under development, will set out how the right will be considered in decision-making. It will also describe how related principles, such as environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity, will be considered. I believe these additional details are very important.

Bill S-5 provided a concrete path for clarity and greater certainty over time on what adding a right to a healthy environment to CEPA will mean. It also included related amendments that would support the protection of that right, built from established procedural rights and specific provisions for public participation, including public comment and notice periods and the right to request investigations into alleged offences.

While we are already on this well-considered path, which has been carefully studied here and the other place, Bill C-219 proposes a very different path. The approach in Bill C-219 is unclear. It would likely lead to uncertainty in its application and we would have to resort to the courts to resolve the issues. The bill recognizes the right to a healthy environment, which is still a novel and undefined concept, but it does not set out its meaning or provide a process, such as the implementation framework in Bill S-5, to work out the definition and how it applies. That very likely means it is the courts that will determine what it means in the course of litigation.

The right to a healthy environment in Bill C-219 is broad and applies to all federal laws, and it is difficult to predict how it would be interpreted by the courts. We must avoid environmental rights being so unclear that timeliness and certainty in federal decision-making are compromised and the right becomes a burden falling on litigants to operationalize.

The approach already adopted via Bill S-5 is different, and I will remind the House that it is also better. Our approach is centred on public consultations and proposing a concrete way to elaborate on the meaning and the content of the right through an implementation framework. It applies only to CEPA, the pillar of federal environmental protection laws. This is what an issue of this novelty and complexity demands.

If Bill C-219 goes ahead, we would end up with two different versions of the right to a healthy environment in federal statutes, one set out in CEPA through Bill S-5 and another set out in Bill C-219. This would result in two different framings of the right and two ways to implement it. The misalignment between the two approaches could hamper progress on this important and complex issue and slow down decision-making across government. If the main objective is to truly secure a healthy environment for Canadians, moving forward with the approach that is now set out in the amended CEPA is the only prudent approach. We cannot just suddenly endorse and bring in the new and uncertain elements of Bill C-219.

Bill C-219 would also make changes to the Federal Courts Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights is not an appropriate statute for a new environmental right. As I said earlier, our government is committed to taking bold, concrete action to build a healthier and more resilient future with measures that are clear and effective. The proposed Canadian Bill of Rights amendment could provide neither clear nor effective guidance on this front.

The Canadian Bill of Rights only codifies pre-existing rights as they were understood in 1960. For more than 60 years, that has been its sole purpose. Its interpretation always refers back to those historical origins. With the proposed amendment, Parliament would recognize and declare, through section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, that there “have existed” historical rights that have already included a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

It is uncertain how courts would attempt to interpret this new but backward-looking right, what pre-existing content they would find in it and where they would look for it. Not only would the amendment be wholly unclear, but it would introduce significant uncertainty into the interpretation of the Canadian Bill of Rights itself.

[Laura Tanguay, Water Policy Coordinator, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Hello, and thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to speak here today.

With me is CELA’s executive director and counsel, Theresa McClenaghan, who will join me for the Q and A period.

CELA has made written submissions to this committee regarding the freshwater study as well as a supplementary brief that will be provided later today.

Today I will be bringing three issues to your attention for your consideration. One is the inequity surrounding who has access to consistent, safe drinking water. Two is the state of contaminants of concern in Canada, including PFAS and radionuclides. Three is the processes for determining the role of the Canada water agency.

First, all of us deserve access to clean, reliable drinking water, but in Canada that's not the case. Particularly vulnerable are first nations reserves. Bill C-226 and the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, of which we await an update, are steps toward Canada's righting this wrong.

CELA recommends that Canada co-develop appropriate reforms with indigenous communities to better accommodate, integrate and assist source protection planning for drinking water systems that serve their communities and also to follow the Green Budget Coalition's 2024 preliminary budget recommendations, and specifically, the provisions for investment and long-term funding for an office of environmental justice for the development of a tracking and mapping program similar to the United States' EJScreen, which identifies and monitors areas of environmental injustice concerns, and also to strengthen environmental enforcement and compliance through ECCC's branch designated to do so for areas of environmental injustice.

On contaminants of concern, PFAS are a class of human-made chemicals with approximately 12,000 substances in the class. They're used extensively worldwide in various industries for their properties to repel water, oil and grease. They're persistent and very mobile in the environment, and they have been detected extensively in the water, including in the Great Lakes basin. Evidence shows that they have impacts on human health and disproportionately affect women and other vulnerable groups, including children.

CELA recommends that Canada list PFAS as a class of toxic chemicals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; that the federal government develop a strategy to eliminate the class and address the full life cycle of PFAS; that PFAS' releases and contamination be tracked and reported through the national pollutant release inventory; and that the data be made public.

On radionuclides, CELA and colleagues drafted an alternative policy for Canada on radioactive waste management and decommissioning in March 2022. It's linked in our supplemental brief. It advocates for a framework that makes the nuclear industry more accountable to protect human and environmental health.

In May 2023, Canada released its long-overdue policy, which we found deeply disappointing. CELA strongly recommends, particularly given the large increase of federal funding toward new nuclear projects, that Canada revisit the national radioactive waste policy and integrate CELA's recommendations to protect freshwater sources for all from tritium and other harmful radionuclides.

Last, CELA is supportive of the creation of the Canada water agency to streamline water governance across the country. As the office is now established, CELA recommends that Canada, per the Assembly of First Nations' July 2023 resolution, centre indigenous water stewards, guardians and decision-makers in Canada water agency's decisions, advance reconciliation and apply the UNDRIP Act to Canadian water policies.

We also recommend that Canada clarify what the role of the Canada water agency will be and develop a process of how to determine that role. We advocate for a centralized data system for water governance to reduce duplication, promote knowledge sharing and improve baseline datasets and ecological and climatic predictions.

We encourage watershed collaborations at a national scale with a focus on freshwater ecosystem restoration and opportunities for indigenous conservation areas, and we recommend that the Canada water agency's mandate include language on Great Lakes and vulnerable communities.

To reiterate, the three priorities we are bringing to your attention today are the inequities surrounding who has access to consistent, safe drinking water, the state of contaminants of concern in Canada, including PFAS and and radionuclides, and, last, the processes for determining the role of the Canada water agency.

Thank you so much for your time today.

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak this evening as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. The themes we are discussing are definitely linked to this issue. Of course, we are all in favour of trade, but not at any environmental, human or social cost. I believe that this means that we should study this bill very diligently.

Before dealing with the substance of the bill, I would like to salute the absolute sincerity of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and also of Senator Miville‑Dechêne. Since 2018, they have tried three times to pass a bill about this issue. Therefore, I want to say that I admire their efforts.

We know that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood has been looking at potential corporate abuses abroad for a long time. Back in 2010, he introduced a bill to make Canadian mining companies abroad accountable. It was defeated. We had a minority Conservative government at the time. With support from the opposition parties, it could have passed, but it was defeated because too many members of his own party had fallen ill at the same time. Consequently, he did not have enough votes to get it passed. It is a shame, because it would have been a bit of a step forward at the time.

I also have to say that this is an issue that is very important to me, both personally and in my capacity as critic. I recall moving a motion for unanimous consent that set out what a true due diligence policy could look like. I think that is the right term. Unfortunately, I could hear shouts of “no” off to my right, in every sense. The Conservatives yelled “no” so it did not pass.

I also tabled a petition in favour of such a law, such a policy, last June, if I am not mistaken, signed by nearly 2,000 Quebeckers who were calling for due diligence legislation.

I also have here the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade that was tabled in the House not that long ago, regarding the study it did on the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. We heard a lot of testimony on that subject, some of which made my blood run cold. We are talking about mining companies, of course, because we have often heard about the abuses committed by Canadian mining companies abroad. However, we could also talk about the textile industry, which, as members know, is hardly above reproach. Then there are the coffee, cocoa and palm oil industries. There are tons of industries like those, where we know that their activities and ways of doing things are having real consequences. Even if we like to have these sorts of products on our store shelves, there is an ethical and humane way of doing things.

It should be noted that Canada is a paradise for mining companies. Because Canada is a flag of convenience, a lot of companies that are not actually Canadian will come register here, incorporate here, because of the legal, tax and speculative advantages that the Canadian framework provides. After that, there is no real mechanism, except for this puppet ombudsman that was created by Ottawa a few years ago and that ultimately just gives this or that excuse, giving the government the right to say that it has taken action.

Taking action can be dangerous. Empty shells can be dangerous. Even certain policies can be dangerous, when they start out with laudable intentions but ultimately cause us to sit back and do nothing, unfortunately.

I would of course also like to talk about Bill C-226, which was proposed by my NDP colleagues and which I am co-sponsoring. I gladly put my name on it. A cause like that should not be partisan. It is too important. Lives are at stake; human dignity is at stake. That is why I am co-sponsoring the bill.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to make a comparison that is not very flattering for Bill S-211 and compare it to Bill C-262. The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability produced an excellent document entitled “Don't Mistake Reporting for Accountability”.

The subtitle states, “Canada must require Canadian companies to respect human rights throughout their supply chains.”

This document contains a wonderfully clear, concise chart that compares the two bills. I would like to read it for all our colleagues who are present. This chart compares the features of Bill S‑211 and Bill C‑262, the bill I co-sponsored that was introduced by our NDP colleagues.

The first question is, “Does it require companies to respect human rights?”

In the case of Bill S‑211, unfortunately the answer is no. The chart states that the bill requires companies “to report annually on whether they took steps to identify and prevent the use of forced labour, and what they found. It does not require companies to respect human rights.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes. The chart states that the bill “recognizes that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, and must proactively take steps to prevent human rights violations throughout their supply chains and global operations.”

Here is the second question: “Does it require companies to prevent harm?”

In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no. The chart states that the bill “requires an annual report” but that it “does not require companies to prevent harm.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes. The chart states that the bill “creates an explicit obligation for companies to prevent serious adverse impacts throughout their supply chains and global operations.”

Here is the third question: “Does it require companies to take steps to identify, mitigate, prevent and account for human rights and environmental harm in their supply chains?” We are talking about due diligence here.

In the case of Bill S‑211, unfortunately, the answer is no. The chart states that “[c]ompanies are not required to take any due diligence measures. A company may report that it has not taken measures and be in compliance with the law.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes because there is “an explicit obligation for companies to put in place adequate due diligence procedures.”

The fourth question is, “Are there meaningful consequences if companies cause harm or fail to implement adequate due diligence procedures?”

In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no, because “[t]here are no consequences for failure to prevent harm or for failure to implement due diligence procedures.” In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes because the bill “provides people with a statutory right to sue a company”. That is the important part. That is what is missing from the role of the ombudsman, which basically serves as an online complaints office. It is a nice website the government created a few years ago.

The fifth question is, “Does it help affected people to access justice or remedy?”

In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is no. The bill does not address this. In the case of Bill C‑262, the answer is yes, because “[t]here are several ways in which the legislation helps address existing barriers to accessing Canadian courts.”

The sixth question is, “Does it provide agency to impacted communities / workers?”

In the case of Bill S‑211, the answer is “no”, because “[t]here is no role for impacted community human rights defenders and workers.” In Bill C‑262, however, “[c]onsultation with rights holders is required in a company's due diligence procedures.”

Here is the seventh question: “Does it apply to companies of all sectors and all sizes, down the entire chain?”

Bill S‑211 applies only to “companies with 250+ employees, with significant revenue or assets.” However, Bill C‑262 “applies to companies of all sizes, from all sectors, down the entire value chain.” Human rights abuses need to be called out, no matter how big the business is or how much money it makes.

Here is the eighth question: “Does it apply to all human rights?”

Bill S‑211 applies to forced labour and child labour. We applaud that and are quite pleased. However, “[t]his ignores the internationally accepted principle that human rights are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, a principle upheld by successive Canadian governments.” In contrast, Bill C-262 “upholds the principle that companies must respect all human rights. It makes reference to the core international human rights conventions, the fundamental ILO conventions...” and even “makes specific reference to the right to a safe, healthy and sustainable environment.” Now that is real legislation with teeth.

Now, what do we do with Bill S‑211? Of course we know that it could be a step in the right direction. We know that an obligation to report cannot be a bad thing in and of itself. However, as with the ombudsman created by the government, these situations have extremely serious consequences, particularly at a time when we are thinking about a new world order post-COVID-19. In this new world order, trade would not be an absolute, and we could show more respect for sovereign states, the environment and peoples. Unfortunately—

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of C-226 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the third time and passed.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her hard work and her abiding passion. She is the epitome of environmental activism. We do not always agree, but I welcome her contributions.

The French Revolution introduced the concepts of liberty and equality and, in its wake, started a movement in support of those concepts. Since the liberties of some groups sometimes clashed with the liberties of others, there was inevitably a reckoning around the imbalance that was created among the various parties, an imbalance that lead to inequality.

There is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to the people of Canada. Some citizens experience inequalities in their relationship with the environment. While we recognize that inequalities do exist, we cannot at this point conclude that these inequalities are attributable to race alone.

The Bloc Québécois supports the intention expressed in the title and preamble of Bill C-226, a bill that seeks to advance environmental justice. If Parliament is to pass new legislation, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject or central concept, so to speak.

The living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in—and I am thinking here of drinking water, for one—are unacceptable. Governments must live up to their responsibilities in that regard. That is why we think that the House is justified in expressing its desire to act against the environmental inequality and discrimination covered in Bill C‑226 and why we think that it should study these phenomena in greater depth in order to understand the mechanisms and explore possible solutions.

I would now like to talk about three assumptions.

The first is that, if Parliament is to pass a new law, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject and central concept, the foundation on which we build, the starting point.

Second, there is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to certain populations in Canada who are facing inequalities in their relationship with the environment.

Third, the living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in, including their access to drinking water, are unacceptable, and governments need to live up to their responsibilities.

Before I talk about environmental justice, it is important to talk about justice itself. What is justice? Although everyone talks about justice, it is not an easy concept to understand or define. Is justice equality? Is it equivalency? Is it legality? Is it equity? What is justice?

To learn about and understand a concept, there is nothing like a bit of exploration to figure out what we are talking about. The concept of comprehension is interesting in and of itself. The roots of the word are cum and prehendere, which means “grasp the whole”. Comprehending means grasping the whole.

In a debate like this, we cannot have tunnel vision or a partial vision of the whole. Equality means we are all the same. Equivalence means we are all equal. Legality implies conforming to a standard. What do we do when there are no standards? The reason for our debate today is to determine whether there will be a standard.

In the absence of guidance, what we need to strive for is equity. Equity is the fair assessment of what each individual should get. I would add that it is the fair assessment of what each individual should get, but without letting ideology get in the way. Equity is a more perfect form of justice because it considers exceptions. When we introduce a rule or a law, we are essentially drawing a straight line between two points. However, by drawing a straight line, we are excluding people who are near the line, but not on the line. As a result, they are excluded often. Equity adapts in order to do justice to the greatest number of people, to do justice to everyone.

This bill strikes a good balance and includes some compensation. Our objective should be to ensure that Bill C-226 provides equity to all and does justice to all.

Before concluding, I would like to flag three major problems with Bill C‑226.

First, the bill will probably not have any significant impact on the populations affected by pollution that the bill's proponents say they want to help. We are skeptical.

Second, the proposed pan-Canadian approach is not in line with Quebec's reality and goes against the clearly expressed will of Quebec's National Assembly.

Third, Bill C‑226 focuses less on advancing real environmental justice and more on introducing the concept of environmental racism into Canadian discourse and law to secure an ideological victory in order to serve a cause.

In conclusion, I will reiterate what was said by my esteemed and irreplaceable colleague from Mirabel, whose community is going through a disastrous situation with respect to environmental injustice. His riding includes the neighbouring municipalities of Oka and Kanesatake, where the tension could be cut with a knife.

There is a recycling company that is depositing toxic and hazardous materials, or allowing them to be deposited, in a landfill located on indigenous territory, yet the federal government is not doing a thing about it. It is not lifting a finger. By failing to take action, Ottawa is allowing the residents of the nearby municipalities of Oka, Saint‑Placide and Saint‑Benoît in Mirabel to be called racist for complaining about the landfill located on indigenous territory, when they, too, are victims of this inaction. Residents are legitimately afraid to drink the water or to use it for their crops. The situation is serious.

In this case, we need to put things in perspective and not call this environmental racism when it basically boils down to inaction and deliberate indifference on the part of the federal government and the RCMP. I mention the RCMP because the media has repeatedly reported and proved that Kanesatake is controlled by criminal groups and that the band council is not taking action.

This is a clear case of environmental injustice, and the federal government already has the means to act in this matter. The people of Oka are entitled to clean drinking water too. Something needs to be done soon.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill C-226, which was introduced by the leader of the Green Party. I believe she once again holds what I would call a historic title, one she deserves. She took a few breaks during her career and her party has taken a few breaks, but I think that everyone recognizes that the leader of the Green Party, the member from British Columbia, is the embodiment of the Green Party across Canada.

The title of the bill is an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

I want to set the record straight right away. We are all in favour of fighting against racism. Racism is a scourge, a problem, a cancer in all societies of the world. We need to address it. We are also all striving for greater justice, a better balance and better opportunities for everyone in society. Anytime we have been in office and have had the pleasure and good fortune of honouring people's trust, we have always focused on and achieved those objectives, while recognizing that in some ways this is a never-ending battle, because we must always strive for greater justice.

We recognize that climate change exists, that it is the result of human activity, and that, for this reason, humans must invest in reducing the impact of climate change. Of course, we also recognize that the right to live in a healthy environment must exist. In fact, this is reflected in Bill S-5.

The take-away from what I just said is that we all agree on the goals: striving for less racism and more justice, addressing climate change and ensuring we live in a healthy environment. The path we are proposing to get there, however, is quite different and, from our perspective, far more realistic and responsible.

I say this because for the past eight years, the Liberals have been governing by spending a lot of time lecturing everyone about climate change. They have been insulting us at every turn, as if we have done absolutely nothing. However, under our watch, the energy sector, for one, saw greenhouse gas emissions drop by 2.2%.

The government certainly enjoys lecturing others on the environment, but what has it actually accomplished over the past eight years? The news is not good. It did not achieve its targets, except recently and only because the Canadian economy, like the global economy, slowed down during the COVID‑19 crisis. That is why emissions fell. Under their stewardship, the Liberals never managed to meet any targets whatsoever.

Need I remind anyone that they were very proud to say, back in 2018, when signing the Paris accord with 195 other countries, that Canada would be a leader?

I clearly remember the founder of Equiterre, now Minister of Environment and Climate Change, saying that he was finally proud to be Canadian because the Canadian government was going to take action. Unfortunately, the Canada of this Liberal government is not one of the 13 or 14 countries that hit the Paris targets.

It was quite a damning assessment to get during the recent COP in Egypt, which, as we know, is an ideal place to talk about climate change and bring the world together. Where did Canada rank? It is 58th out of 63 countries. The UN ranked 63 countries. After eight years under the Liberal government, what is Canada's rank? It is 58th out of 63.

In a lecture-giving contest, the Liberals would most certainly rank first. In terms of achievements, however, they are 58th out of 63. That is their record and their signature. The Conservatives—who are attacked daily by these people on the environment—are not the ones saying this. No, it is the UN, which made a neutral, objective and, above all, non-partisan scientific observation. What result has this Liberal government obtained for Canada? It is 58th out of 63.

What is their magical solution? They tax. According to them, taxation will reduce pollution. It does not work that way. Pollution has increased on their watch. The Conservatives' approach is completely different. Our approach to climate change has four basic pillars, which I will explain. The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in high-tech solutions through favourable tax policies.

The people who emit pollution know why and how they emit it, and they are the ones who can lower emissions, because the objective is always the same: to reduce pollution. It is not to meet numbers and percentages pulled out of thin air. It is to reduce pollution.

Yes, we have to reduce it. When will we achieve a great reduction? Will it be this year? What will we do on January 1? We have to continue. It is a never-ending story. A government led by the member for Carleton, a Conservative government, would address it correctly with concrete solutions based on new technology.

The second pillar is “green light to green energy”: no more red tape, no more paperwork. We are fast-tracking the green light project, green light to green energy. This is exactly what we want.

I will give the following example. The current Government of Quebec, which was re-elected with a strong majority, is pondering the possibility of creating new hydroelectric dams. If, by chance, that is what it wants to do, we will respect the Government of Quebec's will to generate electricity with new dams. Contrary to the legislation passed by the Liberals here, we will not conduct a second environmental review of the project like they want to do. We think that the experts in Quebec are capable of assessing the environmental impact. There is no basis to assume that the people in Ottawa are better than the people in Quebec, yet that is exactly what the Liberals want to do. We will use the accelerated process and will not repeat what others have already done. We will give the green light to green energy.

That brings us to the third pillar. Let us be proud of being Canadian when it comes to the environment. We have here, in our country, a considerable amount of expertise in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it comes, for example, to traditional energy, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy and wind energy. Let us be proud of being Canadian. Let us export our expertise. Let us always be the first to defend Canadian energy.

As a Quebecker, I, like everyone else, saw that a report from the school of business Hautes Études Commerciales found that, last year, Quebeckers consumed 18 billion litres of gasoline. I do not see that as positive or negative; it is simply a statement of fact. What bothers me is that 47% of that energy comes from the United States and 53% of it comes from Canada. Canada is a producer, so why do we have to send billions of dollars to Texas and Louisiana? I have nothing against Texas and Louisiana, but I know that neither of those states contributes to equalization. I checked this morning, but perhaps things have changed since then.

Finally, the fourth pillar, which is at the core of all of this and the foundation on which everything must be built, is first nations. We need to work together with first nations to make them partners in our country's major environmental and economic prosperity projects.

About a month and a half ago, in Vancouver, our leader, the member for Carleton, launched a broad, positive consultation with first nations. That is the key to the solution. We must partner with the first nations that contribute to and approve these major environmental projects, which are needed to tackle the challenges of climate change. It has to be done in partnership with first nations.

That is why we believe that the best way to combat racism is to partner with first nations, who were subjected to racism in the past under horrible circumstances, to the great shame of our country.

Members will recall that, in June 2008, the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, acknowledged the terrible wrongs that the Canadian government had committed against first nations over the course of more than 100 years at residential schools by delivering an apology in this place. That was the right thing to do. Now, it is in the past. The future must be built on prosperity, and we must put an end to racism, which is unacceptable.

There is no clear definition of environmental racism in my colleague's bill, nor is there any mention of the economic impact that it might have. Overall, we believe in what the member is proposing. Yes, we need to fight racism; yes, we need to advance justice; yes, we need to address climate change; yes, we need to live in a healthy environment, but the path proposed by the member is not the path we believe needs to be taken. What we want are concrete, immediate, realistic and responsible solutions with a real impact on the fight against climate change.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my comments with respect to Bill C-226 and acknowledge that we are here today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. The land acknowledgement is really important in understanding why we are talking about this bill. It is because what we are discussing really impacts the marginalized, racialized and indigenous communities of this country, which have struggled with environmental injustice for decades.

I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-226 because, as mentioned, this bill has been sponsored by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I will note, as she did, that it was first introduced in the 43rd Parliament by a friend and colleague, Lenore Zann, who is the former member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester. I had the honour and privilege of working on that bill in the 43rd Parliament with my colleague from Victoria. As the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands noted, bringing the bill to this point really does feel like a mothering process in many ways. We are getting to see this day come for what we knew, as women, was so important for so many vulnerable communities across this country from coast to coast to coast, and we are getting the bill to where it is today in the chamber.

Until its introduction in the previous Parliament, environmental racism had been recognized as a problem for quite a long time, particularly in the United States, but it was still a fairly new concept here. We were not sure how to address it or discuss it. With its passage, this legislation would require for the first time a national strategy to address environmental racism. This whole process, whether it was in the 43rd Parliament or where we are now, has encouraged us to finally have this important conversation because many women and many leaders across this country have been having this conversation and pushing this issue for decades.

It comes at a time when Canadian society has a renewed focus on trying to understand the essential work of combatting both systemic racism and climate change. For many it was a question of how these things go hand in hand, but they do. Environmental racism really has to be part of the conversation when we talk about climate change. We cannot ignore what was really a blind spot for many in terms of addressing what environmental justice is.

We have talked about unconscious bias when it comes to racism and the potential unintended consequences, even in the House recently, of the many issues we are discussing that lead to racism in our society. Being Jewish, I see a rise in anti-Semitism now as well. We have to talk about these things, even when they are uncomfortable, and environmental justice is included in that.

We are in the process of updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act at this time. It is a very good sign that here in this place, we are making sure that environmental racism and the right to a healthy environment are part of the debate and the discussion tonight, as well as in the environment committee and other spaces.

Environmental justice and the impacts of environmental racism are now an important part of the national conversation and not just here in this chamber but with the many folks we have met along the way. Whether we look back at Bill C-230 in the 43rd Parliament or we look at Bill C-226 today, the advocates across Canada have really been pushing us along and mothering this bill in many ways. It is important to define and frame the conversation so that we understand why it is so important.

Environmental racism happens when environmental policies or practices, like the placement of polluting industries, result in a disproportionately negative impact on groups or communities based on race or colour. Affected marginalized communities often lack the political power to influence decisions or advocate for stronger standards. That is why they rely on us, as parliamentarians and as these women's voices, to push this along.

It has become increasingly apparent that environmental benefits and harms are not shared equally. We talk about equity in many other aspects of Canadian life, but it is important that it is placed clearly here as well because environmental justice and environmental equity should be shared equally among all members of our society. This is not a new problem, but it is a new realization. Those in power have not discussed this in terms of addressing it with our marginalized groups, who have finally said it to us. Dr. Ingrid Waldron shared that for 70 years, communities in Nova Scotia have been waiting for us to have a substantive discussion on this. That time has come.

Indigenous and racialized communities, particularly those with lower socio-economic status, bear a disproportionate share of the environmental burdens and consequences when we deal with pollution, exposure to toxic substances, and land and water degradation. There is no magic bullet to fix this. I do not think anyone in good faith would suggest that the bill's purpose is to do that. I know that in previous debates, some of my Conservative colleagues said there is no point as we will never get it done. There is no magic way to fix systemic racism. There is no magic way to fix climate change. However, we have to start. We have to begin the process, and Bill C-226 clearly has the first steps.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that no one's health is compromised and no one's quality of life is compromised because of where they live or, more importantly, because of who they are. This is about ensuring the health and dignity of all peoples regardless of their background. It is not a bill of one-off action. I know my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has asked for us to consider a more robust approach than the national strategy, but I really want to applaud that we have gotten here to the first step.

Communities across the country have been affected, whether through higher rates of cancer and other diseases or through the destruction of local habitats and natural environments. At the end of the day, we have to address those environmental impacts so that the quality of life for these communities going forward, after years of disproportionate impacts, starts to change.

I know my time is coming to an end, so I want to circle back to the idea of women. I think there is a really important role for them to play. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the member for Victoria and I have been involved in this process, as have others. As women, we are the ones who notice things first. We are the observers, often in silence, of the damage being caused around us. We know when things are off. We know when someone is not okay. We know when someone's health has been compromised because we have watched it from generation to generation.

To each of the women who were part of the journey for Bill C-226, including Dr. Ingrid Waldron, we have heard the journey to get to this point. The passing of this legislation today is really about the work of the women of these communities who have been fighting for the health of their communities, the health of their families, the health of their children and the health of the future so they can promise their children and generations going forward a safer and cleaner environment. Frankly, there is no other option than to push forward and contemplate these things.

In answer to my colleague in an earlier debate who said we will not get this done, I will share something that comes from my own tradition. We say, “It is not upon you to build the kingdom, but it is your responsibility to begin the work.” Women have been doing the work on this, from our friend Lenore Zann to those who are here today to the women of the many indigenous and racialized communities across this country who care about the future and health of generations to come. By putting this into law, we are acknowledging their work and putting a process into place.

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

,

seconded by the member for York Centre, moved that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the third time and passed.

She said: Mr. Speaker, there are not really words to describe the joy, pleasure and deep sense of gratitude when a private member's bill gets to third reading, and the member who has proposed it gets to stand before colleagues, to both ask for further support and express gratitude for the support the bill has received.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are here on the territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. To them, I express a deep meegwetch every single day that we stand on their territory. Part and parcel of what we are addressing in the piece of legislation today is the impacts of the history of settler culture on Turtle Island and the impacts of policies of exploitation, of amassing fortunes, of capital raised and capital in bank accounts based on taking natural capital, taking it from what is alive to what is dead, at which point we see profit.

We also see a disproportionate impact for those people who are racialized, low-income or indigenous and the distance between those people and the large profits that are amassed quite far from where they have been exploited.

The concept of environmental racism may be new to some people in this House, but it certainly was not a new concept to the first member to bring this bill forward. Although Bill C-226 came to this House what feels like a long time ago, in terms of Private Members' Business it was not that long ago. This bill came to this Parliament on February 2, 2022 at first reading.

However, that was not its first incarnation. Its first incarnation was as Bill C-230. It was a private member's bill of a Liberal member of Parliament, who was at that time the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I can say her name out loud here. That is one of the sad things about this. When one of our friends and colleagues is not re-elected, their name is speakable. I thank Lenore Zann, who brought this bill forward. She is still rooting for it. We are still working together. In the previous Parliament, she did me the honour of asking me, a Green Party member of Parliament, to be her official seconder, even though she is a Liberal. It is quite unusual to ask someone from another party to second a bill, and I was honoured to do so.

We worked together on this, and it got all the way through second reading and all the way through the environment committee. It had amendments made to it in the last Parliament, and then, as we all know, there was an election that intervened, and the bill died on the Order Paper.

Since that time, in bringing it back, I have had so much support from so many members whose names I cannot say here because they are still members and working hard to help. I want to start, of course, by thanking the Minister of Environment, who, as minister, has this in the mandate letter, but in discussions that were enormously collaborative he decided that perhaps it might advance more quickly as my private member's bill.

We really have a sense of urgency about getting the bill passed. As we know, the House calendar can get clogged with government bills. This one was ready to go, and I drew a low number in the lottery, so we moved forward.

From the very beginning, I had the support of my friend, the member for Victoria, who also laid hands on this bill. One could describe this bill as having many midwives. This is a process and we are not done yet. There is the hon. member for Nunavut and the hon. member for York Centre, who is seconding the bill here tonight. We had hon. members from many parties, including the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, the hon. parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg South and the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I know I am going to leave people out if I keep going.

I have many friends in the other parties, and I wish I had been able to convince my Bloc Québécois friends to support Bill C-226.

Unfortunately, right now, they are not on my side when it comes to this private member's bill, but perhaps they will change their minds before the final vote. I hope so. Right now, the Conservatives are opposing this environmental justice effort.

I would have loved to have every member of Parliament in this place support the legislation, but thank heaven, and thank all the members who have seen it in their hearts to support the bill, we have the votes for third reading support, please. Today is the last moment of debate at third reading.

I have another 10 minutes, and I do want to speak to the issues that this bill addresses.

We can name the places and think of them, and they conjure much longer stories, such as Grassy Narrows. What does environmental racism mean when we would allow Reed Paper to contaminate the community of Grassy Narrows with mercury, decade after decade?

The Sydney tar ponds are now cleaned up. However, for decades it was a racialized community with a Black population who came from the Caribbean to work in the steel mill. The land where the steel mill and the tar ponds were located was a toxic mess of carcinogenic toxic waste. It was the fishing grounds of the Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Pictou Landing, more recently, is still at threat from Paper Excellence, which bought the mill that was shuttered.

There is the illegal dumping of toxic waste in the Kanesatake First Nation, there is the Wet'suwet'en territory, and we can add Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, where Imperial Oil's Kearl mine leaked toxic waste for nine months. Not the regulator, not the province and not the company ever thought to warn the community.

In those cases, if members wonder what environmental racism is, they can just ask themselves this question: Can they imagine that happening in Westmount, the south end of Halifax, or any of the settler-culture neighbourhoods, which are the wealthy neighbourhoods, the white neighbourhoods? Would Imperial Oil have dared to poison a neighbourhood of their wealthy shareholders with the toxic waste seeping from the tar, from the tailings, from bitumen production in the oil sands? The answer that presents itself is obviously no. That is the difference.

There is a lot of academic work that has been done on this, so I do want to start by giving an enormous vote of thanks to Dr. Ingrid Waldron, who is the champion of environmental racism and promotion of environmental justice in Canada. Her book There's Something in the Water was turned into a film documentary. If members want more information on this, they can find it on Netflix. On Netflix, there is a film documentary made by Canadian actor Elliot Page. He based the documentary on Dr. Waldron's book.

Dr. Waldron founded the ENRICH project, which stands for environmental noxiousness, racial inequities and community health project.

Dr. Waldron's work has been central to this. Dr. Waldron worked in a collaborative fashion with Lenore Zann in developing this bill in the first place.

What does it look like? What kind of definitions does one bring to bear? Dr. Waldron's definition is more, but it includes this: “the disproportionate location or siting of polluting industries in communities of colour, indigenous communities, Black communities and the working poor.” It is pretty comprehensive. We know what that means.

However, it is more than that. Dr. Waldron has also said it is “how racist environmental policies...have enabled the cultural genocide of Indigenous, Black and other racialized peoples”.

Having looked at environmental racism, the question is this: What is it that Bill C-226 would do about it? It would demand of government to develop a strategy to promote environmental justice.

What does environmental justice look like? We do not have to look too far. Tomorrow, in this place, U.S. President Joe Biden will be speaking to us.

I hate comparisons where Canada does not look good compared to the United States of America, as I like the smugness of knowing that we set a good example, but unfortunately, we do not look good on environmental racism or climate. In 1994, the U.S. President acknowledged and created a program, by executive order, in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote environmental justice.

The environmental justice program and the U.S. EPA this year will spend $100 million on programs at the community level to assist communities to have the tools they need to fight the polluters back; get cleanups; prove that the cleanups are needed; prove the health information; get access to epidemiologists, toxicologists and lawyers; and get the chance to beat back the polluters. The polluters will always say, “There is not enough here to poison anyone. That would be quite far-fetched.” Environmental justice programs make the difference by empowering communities so that the polluters do not get away with murder, and I do not mean that purely rhetorically.

The U.S. EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of protective environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

We have a long way to go in this country, but we are not without a road map. We know what can be done. If we get this bill through third reading today and send it to the other place, it will then need to have the support from the government of the day and the support of the finance minister to fund the programs, so that communities of colour, indigenous communities and poor communities are not left without access to environmental justice.

We have made some changes in Bill S-5, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, thanks to the Senate. There is more recognition in that bill of aspects of environmental justice and environmental racism.

We are making progress. We are inching along, but we need to be bolder. We need to move fast. It is my deep hope that, if this bill passes, it will go through the Senate relatively swiftly. We will then be able to say to every Canadian that justice includes the right to a healthy environment, that justice includes climate justice, that justice includes the indigenous peoples who live in Saanich—Gulf Islands, that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans no longer can say, “Sir, one cannot harvest any shellfish from one's traditional waters because we have decided, without doing any testing, that that shellfish is probably not safe to consume.” It is safe to consume, all right. It is just that it is an indigenous community and taking away their right to fish is perfectly okay with DFO, with no testing.

These are issues that can be solved. As someone who stands before us as a woman of privilege, by the colour of my skin, I am deeply honoured to work with the communities for whom this legislation will make an enormous difference, for all of the babies, the sons and daughters, of the peoples in those communities.

I ask members to please assist this bill to be more than a strategy, to be more than a private member's bill, but to be the law of the land to create new rights and bring environmental justice to every Canadian.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in Bill C-226 at report stage under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

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

To Mr. Moffet's point, while there was reference to vulnerable populations, the Senate amendment substantially expanded what will be occurring under future Canadian Environmental Protection Act policies and implementation around vulnerable populations.

To answer the second part of the question first, Dr. Lewis, I have no objections whatsoever to an amendment that says “but is not limited to”.

Lastly, I would say to any group that finds it a difficulty, that this is the very specific definition that adds to a very general definition that is currently included in the act. It provides greater guidance. It is not overly general, but it does not apply in all circumstances. It's a population, when exposed to....or in the words of the bill now, in the Senate amendment to item 2(iii.2) on page 11, it's where there is a “vulnerable population...in relation to the substance”. It's not a general statement that your population is always vulnerable; it's a statement that your population is vulnerable in relation to a substance regulated under CEPA. That becomes one of the context-setting elements to the question of toxicity, vulnerability and whether the government needs to take steps.

All the language that was adopted in the Senate committee on S-5 is very consistent with the bill this committee has already passed without amendment, Bill C-226, my private member's bill on environmental racism.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Thanks, Melissa.

Hello again, Mr. McLean. I was here on Bill C-226.

I think my colleague with the David Suzuki Foundation, Lisa Gue, spoke to this to some degree in the first panel. We believe that these pieces of legislation would be complementary. Part of it is in the implementation and the establishment of how both of these pieces of legislation would be moving forward to address the problems of environmental injustice and environmental racism.

One of the things that Bill C-226 lays out is very clearly around the problem, specifically, of environmental racism. What we see with CEPA and Bill S-5 is a broader framework that recognizes that intersection of racism, but in the broader environmental justice framework and around vulnerable populations.

I think these are complementary pieces that are both critical to our understanding.

If I may, we are coming to you as an intersection of environment and human health—

[Melissa Daniels]

Thank you for your question.

I'm going to defer this question to my colleague Jane, as she was the one who testified on Bill C-226.

[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.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have worked on the Canadian Environment Protection Act since before its first reading in the late 1980s. I was in the office of the minister of environment, so I know the bill quite well. It is with the greatest and most profound sense of sadness that I see what we have before us, because so many opportunities to modernize and do what needs to be done are lost.

I fervently hope that this bill, which comes to us from the Senate, will be significantly improved at committee. Many members have spoken to areas that need improvement, and I want to emphasize the ones I can in my time.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that a lot of what we have discussed today on Bill S-5 has been about the climate crisis. I want to identify that I think the Environmental Protection Act has tools we can use to address the climate crisis, tools the current government is not using.

I want to make a point that is not made very often in this place, and that is that, when we talk about the climate crisis, we are incorrect when we classify it as an environmental issue. The U.S. Biden administration has correctly classified the climate crisis as a security threat. There is much that we need to protect in our environment, and this bill speaks to a number of areas that are not specifically about climate, but that create tools we could use. We should use those tools in part four, and I will speak to that later, but we should stop assuming that, when we talk about the climate crisis, that we are talking about an environmental threat. We are talking about a threat to the survival of human civilization.

Looking at what we have before us in Bill S-5, on protecting the environment, I want to approach it in three categories. The first is what is missing. The second is what is wrong in the act, and the third is what is better because of some amendments that were recently made.

What is missing is a long list. This is a big act. When it was bought together, as I mentioned, back in the 1980s, it took a number of bits of different legislation on ocean dumping, clean air and commercial chemicals and lumped them together. We called it the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It has served us well. It has survived a Supreme Court challenge. I want to return to that, but one of the things that is missing in this act is that not all sections of the act are being reviewed or amended, which means that if we, as parliamentarians, see an opportunity to improve something that is in the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we cannot touch it in committee. It would be outside the scope of the act.

For instance, we can look at part six, which deals with ocean dumping and genetically modified organisms. Here we are, the only country on earth that has regulated and approved genetically modified animals for human consumption, and we are not modernizing that section of the act.

We have, in fact, approved something called AquaBounty Atlantic salmon, which is genetically engineered. We should be looking at the genetically modified organisms part of part six, but we are not.

Another part that is missing is the right to a healthy environment. It is mentioned, yes, and we have talked about it. A number of members have mentioned the gaps there, including, very recently in this debate, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Here is the problem: The government says that it is going to create a right to a healthy environment, but it will not be enforceable. A right that is not enforceable is no right at all.

This point has been made by many who have looked at the act, including the very important observation note that came to this place, attached as a note from the other place, where they studied the bill and made amendments. They said that we cannot have a right to a healthy environment if we leave in place all of the barriers to enforcement that exist in section 22 of the act.

We have to get to that. We cannot have that ruled outside the scope of what a committee gets to look at.

What is wrong? My gosh, I never thought that, in 2022, we would have a climb down from the advances in environmental protection brought about by the Mulroney government. In 1988, the act was better at listing toxic chemicals than what we have in front of us right now.

If members think I am angry, I am. I am appalled.

Schedule 1 in the current act, as it has been since 1988 when it got royal assent, says that it is the list of toxic substances. The title is “List of Toxic Substances” in schedule 1. Here we have this proposal from the current government to take that away and not use the term “List of Toxic Substances”. The climbdown to a two-list category is absolutely wrong-headed and baffling. It also undermines the constitutional underpinnings of this act.

We should look at the fact that in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hydro-Québec, found that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was within federal jurisdiction specifically because it used the criminal law head of power in dealing with toxic substances.

If we take out the word “toxic”, we are going to get constitutional challenges. We have already seen some industry coalition folks start talking about it last year, when we saw the first version of this act. I am going to quote from a blog from a very important group. The expert NGO on this is the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and its lead counsel, Joe Castrilli, said this: “[L]egislative drafting should always try to avoid playing with constitutional fire.” This is a big mistake. This is very wrong.

Another problem we have is that since the year 2000, of the substances listed for pollution-prevention planning, only 25 out of 150 have seen pollution-prevention plans. Therefore, we are failing to meet the expectations of Canadians. We are listing something as a toxic substance and telling Canadians, “This is a threat to your health and we want to see pollution-prevention planning, only we are not going to make it mandatory. Oh no, it is something you can do if you feel like it and you are in an industry that is producing toxic substances.”

That is so far from good enough. The need for pollution-prevention planning on chemicals that are dangerous to our health, that cause cancer and that cause birth defects does not bear repeating. We have to fix this, please. We have to make pollution prevention mandatory. We also have to create the opportunity for governments to do the research that needs to be done, not as an opportunity that the minister has, but as a requirement: The minister must do this research.

We have looked at a number of areas in this bill where much more needs to be done. We have to make sure we delete the section that would create a two-list system and make sure the list is defined, as it has been since 1988, as a list of toxic substances. Let us not undermine that, and let us strengthen pollution-prevention planning.

Let me just close on what is better. I have covered what is missing and what is wrong. What is better, thanks to the other place, is the strengthening around issues of vulnerable populations. Additional language is very much appreciated.

I have a private member's bill, and I have had the honour to see it supported in this place. It has now passed second reading. It is going to the environment committee, and many of the specific amendments that were just made in the Senate really helped put us on the road. The bill I am speaking of is Bill C-226, to confront environmental racism and create programs in environmental justice.

Much of what we have before us now gets us ahead on how we create programs that are forward-looking to promote environmental justice. One of them, of course, will be to join the 150 countries around the world that already have legislation that requires a right to a healthy environment. We are not inventing something here. We should know how to do it, and we should not wait two years.

We also have very specific guidance here in what we have before us in Bill S-5. It is better. It has good definitions and good sections on how we protect individuals in vulnerable groups from toxic substances.

We can do better than what we have before us in Bill S-5. We have waited 20 years to look at this bill again. It was always good legislation. It always could have been better. We cannot let it get worse. We cannot allow it to be weakened in this place in the year 2022. Let us improve this bill in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I have seen the evolution of discourse in the House and in legislation. It is nice, heartening and encouraging to see references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an increasing number of pieces of legislation. Again, that speaks to the way the notion is permeating our political culture.

Yes, I am very encouraged by that, but the bill's focus is also on vulnerable populations. If we were to marry it up to Bill C-226, it would take reconciliation a few steps forward because these measures recognize that there are populations, many of them indigenous, that have suffered disproportionately from the impacts of industrialization and pollution. This bill recognizes that fact and points us in the right direction.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. Before I get into the substance of Bill S‑5, I would like to share a brief history of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and before I do that, I want to talk about the harmful effects of pollution on human health and emphasize how crucial it is to keep enforcing tough regulations to minimize pollution.

In 2017, The Lancet commission on pollution and health concluded that pollution is the greatest environmental risk factor for disease and premature death worldwide. An update to the original report published in 2017 was recently released. It finds that pollution is still responsible for a staggering nine million premature deaths per year, which is one in six deaths worldwide. These nine million pollution-related deaths each year are nearly 50% higher than all deaths worldwide attributable to COVID‑19 to date. They are also higher than all deaths in 2019 attributable to war, terrorism, AIDS, TB, malaria, and drug and alcohol use combined. Air pollution is the largest contributor to pollution-related deaths, accounting for 6.67 million total deaths.

I would like to go back to the Constitution of 1867 and remind everyone that there is no reference to the environment in terms of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. I would presume that if the fathers of Confederation were here with us and we used the term “environment”, a question mark would appear over each of their heads. Of course the Constitution talks about forests and fisheries, but purely from the perspective of resource development, not from the perspective of resource protection.

The division of powers in environmental matters is not a static thing. It is a result of court rulings or the product of case law. That case law does not grant sole responsibility to any one level of government. In other words, the environment is a shared jurisdiction.

At this point, I would like to talk about the well-known Hydro-Québec case, when the Supreme Court decided that the federal government did indeed have the right to legislate on the regulation of toxic substances under criminal law. In this case, Hydro-Québec, a Crown corporation, was charged with dumping polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, into the Saint-Maurice River in the early 1990s under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In its arguments, the Crown corporation stated that the regulation of toxic substances did not fall under criminal law and that the federal government was using criminal law as a pretext, or colourable device, to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. In a rather close five to four decision, Justices La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin said, and I quote:

The protection of the environment, through prohibitions against toxic substances, constitutes a wholly legitimate public objective in the exercise of the criminal law power.... The legitimate use of the criminal law in no way constitutes an encroachment on provincial legislative power, though it may affect matters falling within the latter's ambit.... The use of the federal criminal law power in no way precludes the provinces from exercising their extensive powers under s. 92 to regulate and control the pollution of the environment either independently or in co-operation with federal action.

In other words, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is a cornerstone that is rooted in our criminal law. It is serious business. Anyone who says that the act is not robust or strong is minimizing the powers enshrined in the act.

What does Bill S-5 do? No doubt it has been mentioned in other speeches, but it does the following: It recognizes the right to a healthy environment. This is something that many constituents have written to me about. They are asking for this bill to incorporate it. It also confirms the government's commitment to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill recognizes the importance of minimizing the risk to vulnerable populations, namely children and those who live in high pollution areas. Very importantly, it requires that cumulative effects, that is, how chemicals interact with each other, be considered in substance risk assessments. That is not nothing; this is something that is value-added to this legislation.

Of concern also to many of my constituents, the bill seeks to reduce the use of animals in testing the safety of products. Also, Canadians would be able to request that specific substances be assessed outside the government's particular assessment priorities. There is a role for citizens in this bill and that is in regard to the role and right to request that specific substances be assessed.

Let us go back a bit in the history of CEPA. Let us go back to 1999. The first update to CEPA was in 1999. I remember that very well because I was working on the Hill as a political staffer and the MP I worked for was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. There were lengthy consultations with stakeholders on how to amend the bill. The committee hearings were quite extensive and involved.

CEPA, 1999 incorporated for the first time the precautionary principle, which, again, is not nothing. The precautionary principles states:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

I remember there was a lot of debate around that definition of the precautionary principle. No doubt many people would like to see the definition perhaps be a little stronger and maybe not mention the term “cost-effective” as in cost-effective measures. Nonetheless, it is there in the bill.

Also in CEPA, 1999, there was a focus away from managing pollution after it had been created, to preventing pollution in the first place. CEPA, 1999 also included provisions for regulating vehicle emissions which, as we know, the government uses in the battle against climate change.

Finally, CEPA, 1999 established a new, more rigorous and timely approach to assessing whether a substance is or may be considered toxic to the environment or to human health. In the act, toxic is defined as having “an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity” constituting or possibly constituting “a danger to the environment on which life depends” or constituting or possibly constituting a danger “to human life or health”.

Bill S-5, as I understand it, would inject more rigour into the process. Here I quote:

The new regime will retain the risk-based approach in the current Act. For substances assessed as meeting the criteria to be considered toxic under CEPA, the amendments would then require that the Ministers give priority to prohibiting activities in relation to said toxic substances of the highest risk. The criteria for substances of the highest risk would be set out in regulations, and would include persistence and bioaccumulation as well as criteria for such things as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity. These regulations will be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

We are talking about a bill, and this is a complex area. Clearly, regulations will be required. One cannot put everything in the bill. Much of the detail will have to be contained in regulations.

Another interesting fact about Bill S-5 is that the bill, if it is passed and I assume it will be, would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to publish and maintain a watch-list. This is something new. By watch-list, we mean a list of substances that have been determined to be capable of becoming toxic under CEPA. We are not just talking about substances that are determined to be toxic, but those that could be determined, after study, to become toxic, if, for example, exposure is increased. The watch-list would help importers, manufacturers and Canadian consumers to select safer alternatives and avoid regrettable substitutions.

Another interesting fact about CEPA, which I do not think has really been talked about too much is that CEPA is relevant in the context of the fight against climate change. When we talk about the measures to battle greenhouse gas emissions, we refer a lot to the price on carbon, the price on pollution, but we do not really focus on CEPA.

I was elected and already sitting in the House in 2005, and I remember that the government of Paul Martin added greenhouse gas emissions to CEPA, 1999, namely those emissions from large industrial emitters, citing the “worldwide scientific consensus that there is sufficient and compelling evidence to conclude that greenhouse gases constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.”

This was almost 20 years ago. Even back then the Liberal government had the foresight to understand that climate change was a real and growing problem and made amendments to CEPA, 1999 to give itself the leverage, the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I do not recall the Conservatives being thrilled with this change at the time, although today they happily preach the regulatory route to supporting clean technologies as the preferred alternative to putting a price on carbon.

It has been mentioned and talked about even today in this debate that one of the major steps forward through Bill S-5 is the introduction of the right to a healthy environment. I will read the new section 5.1(1) of Bill S-5, which says:

For the purposes of paragraph 2(1)‍(a.‍2), the Ministers shall, within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, develop an implementation framework to set out how the right to a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of this Act.

I will come back to this in a moment.

There is another very important aspect of Bill S-5 which should not be minimized. It has been mentioned; the member for Victoria touched on it. The bill seeks to minimize risks to the health of vulnerable populations. By vulnerable population, we mean “a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances.”

Those with greater susceptibility may include, for example, children and those in poor health. Those with greater exposure may include workers and those living in areas where levels of pollution are particularly high.

In addition, the new law would require that the government conduct research and studies, including biomonitoring surveys specifically in relation to the role of substances in illnesses or in health problems which may relate to vulnerable populations.

This is where Bill S-5 intersects with Bill C-226, which in this Parliament is being sponsored by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but was first introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester in the last Parliament. It has been referred to as the bill on environmental racism.

Bill C-226 is identical, except for a couple of grammatical changes and some wording, to the bill that came out of the environment committee before the last election. This bill goes a bit further than Bill S-5 in being very proactive and prescriptive in engaging with vulnerable populations on the risks they face.

For example, Bill C-226 requires the minister to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to advance environmental justice, and to assess, prevent and address environmental racism.

The bill requires that this strategy include a study that includes an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk, information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards. It must include measures that can be taken to advance environmental justice and assess, prevent and address environmental racism and that may include possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, the involvement of community groups in environmental decision-making, and lastly, the collection of information and statistics relating to health outcomes in communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.

In an effort to leverage the new right to a healthy environment and the protection of vulnerable populations, it has been suggested that Bill S-5 be amended to require that the minister specify what actions the government will take when ever a substance for which an ambient air quality standard has been established, when the average ambient concentration of such a substance in a geographic area exceeds the standard.

I think this is very important. I think it was alluded to by the member for Victoria. Going back to the beginning of my speech, this is where pollution really impacts human health. It is often through air pollution. Many are calling for an amendment to the bill that would require the government to develop actions whenever it is determined that the ambient air quality in a particular area is above standard.

I understand there are some federal and provincial jurisdictional issues around doing this, but I hope it is something that the committee will explore with expert witnesses and perhaps an amendment will be introduced to this effect.

This connects to another issue that I received a lot of mail about in the last few years. The bill seeks to reduce reliance on animal testing. I have many constituents who have written to me in relation to animal testing for cosmetic product development. They have written to me saying that we have to stop this. In fact, the bill opens the door to minimizing the use of animal testing. The Senate made some amendments to make that part of the bill even stronger.

I have met with stakeholders, particularly animal rights groups like the Animal Justice Canada, Humane Canada and the Humane Society International/Canada. They have recommended strengthening this part of the bill even more. The Senate amendment talks about refining the use of animal testing, but that leaves the door open a little too wide according to those I have met with.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition about environmental racism, particularly at the G&R Recycling facility in Kanesatake, Quebec.

Concerned citizens of Canada are calling upon the House of Commons to mobilize the vast resources of the federal government to secure and decontaminate the G&R recycling facility in Kanesatake and others like it; and to put forward concrete plans to enact the measures addressing systemic environmental racism as proposed in Bill C-226. Incidentally, I am very happy about the vote on that bill.

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-226 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the importance of the bill and what I wanted to underscore is that it is operative.

Earlier today, of all coincidences, I was speaking at a conference marking the 40th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the University of Ottawa law school with many brilliant people. I was not one of the brilliant people, but I was invited anyway. We were reflecting on 40 years of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what was missing: What do we need going forward? There were perspectives on the need for socio-economic rights, that we address the enormous income inequality that is growing in Canada and globally, that we address the needs that we express in terms of human rights, but also the rights that were missing from the charter. We spoke of the importance of addressing this gap through environmental rights.

I will note parenthetically that Bill C-226, while being complementary to this right that we should have but do not yet have, we will not have this right if Bill S-5 passes and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act amendments do not create environmental rights as they should, but perhaps we can fix that through amendments.

What are rights without tools to enforce them? The environmental justice program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has, since 1994, created tools that can be used by communities, indigenous communities, people of colour communities, Black communities and low-income communities, who have been historically, and are to this day, deprived of a healthy environment, because they do not have the clout of white, wealthy neighbours. The tools are to hire a toxicologist, to hire an epidemiologist, and are so abbreviated and so well known in the U.S., the EJ program of the U.S. EPA. Environmental justice: that is what we are here for.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about the bill brought forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Bill C-226, an act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Before I speak about the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Lenore Zann, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester, because it was her important work on this bill in the previous Parliament that really kick-started this process. I am really happy that we get to stand today and continue the work that she started on it.

I would also like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for carrying forward that important work and reintroducing this bill.

Returning to Bill C-226, the bill proposes to develop a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and advance environmental justice in consultation with any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities, including representatives of governments in Canada and indigenous peoples.

The minister would be required to develop a strategy within two years of the bill receiving royal assent and to report on its effectiveness every five years.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is mandated to develop an environmental justice strategy and examine the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk.

Given the important objectives of this bill and its clear alignment with the government's commitment as declared by the Prime Minister, we support this bill.

It is important to also recognize that, while the development of our environmental justice strategy reflects a new approach, it is well aligned with a broader range of Government of Canada policies and initiatives. In fact, there are a number of complementary efforts under way that will support environmental justice for all Canadians and inform the strategy developed under Bill C-226. For example, the government introduced Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, in the Senate on February 9. Bill S-5 aims to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to as CEPA, with a particular focus on recognizing a right to a healthy environment as provided under that act and strengthening Canada's chemical management regime.

If it is passed, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health will be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how the right to a healthy environment would be considered in the administration of CEPA. Among other things, the implementation framework would elaborate on principles to be considered in the administration of CEPA, such as environmental justice, which includes avoidance of adverse effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. The framework would also elaborate on non-regression, which generally refers to continuous improvement in environmental protection. Canadians would have an opportunity to participate in the development of the implementation framework.

In addition, the ministers will be required to conduct research studies or monitoring activities to support the government in protecting the right to a healthy environment. This requirement could provide valuable information as the government moves forward on environmental justice issues. For example, it could include the collection and analysis of data to identify and monitor populations and communities that are particularly vulnerable to environmental and health risks as a result of greater susceptibility or greater exposure.

Additional amendments proposed in Bill S-5 would recognize in the preamble the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing risks related to chemical substances, as well as the importance of minimizing the risks of exposure to toxic substances and the cumulative effects of toxic substances.

The amendments would also set out requirements for a number of new elements, including requiring that the Minister of Health conduct biomonitoring surveys that may relate to vulnerable populations, ensuring that vulnerable populations and cumulative effects are taken into account when developing and implementing the new plan for chemical management priorities, and requiring that the ministers consider available information on vulnerable populations and cumulative effects when conducting and interpreting risk assessments.

The proposed bill reflects the need to better understand the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk. This government has prioritized science and evidence-based decision-making, and this is a key component in setting a course for environmental justice.

In short, good information is crucial for providing the evidence-based foundation needed to enable informed policy actions. Ensuring that our policy actions are based on facts, science and evidence will strengthen our capacity to achieve the outcomes we strive for.

For example, it is important that science and how we manage risks from chemical substances systematically account for potential adverse impacts on vulnerable populations. The government will continue to consider available information on vulnerable populations when assessing risks related to chemical substances under CEPA, a practice that would be codified with Bill S-5.

In addition, in this context, biomonitoring data are an important source of information on levels of exposure for vulnerable populations, as well as on combined exposures to multiple chemicals. For example, the maternal-infant research on environmental chemicals research platform has been used to collect data on pregnant people and children. Furthermore, the issue of cumulative effects of toxins may be especially problematic for indigenous peoples.

In support of world-class scientific research and monitoring, the government provides funding for the northern contaminants program. It aims to reduce and, where possible, eliminate contaminants from the Arctic environment while providing information to northerners about contaminants in traditional country foods to allow them to make informed decisions about their food use.

Further, I would also like to make note of the recently released 2030 emissions reduction plan that sets the stage for continued emissions reductions and highlights the importance of cutting emissions as a means to fight inequality in communities more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This plan also reflects the importance of engaging with indigenous peoples, and pursuing equality and justice in economic and sectoral transitions that will support emissions reductions.

In addition to these efforts, our existing legislation and policies continue to assist in advancing environmental justice. In August 2019, the Impact Assessment Act came into force and put in place better rules for federal assessment of major resource projects. The Impact Assessment Act reflects values that are important to Canadians, including early, inclusive and meaningful public engagement, partnerships with indigenous peoples, timely decisions based on the best available evidence and indigenous knowledge, and fostering sustainability for present and future generations.

The Impact Assessment Act provides more and earlier opportunities for participation by indigenous peoples, historically marginalized communities and all Canadians. Public participation provisions across the act would help to ensure the participation was meaningful and that in particular indigenous peoples have the information, tools and capacity they need to contribute their perspectives and expertise to project reviews.

For example, the planning phase would ensure early discussions and dialogue with indigenous groups and the broader public. Canadians want to know that industrial and resource development activities are appropriately planned and properly regulated in ways that account for the full range of impacts on Canadians, including on communities that are experiencing marginalization. The Impact Assessment Act would ensure robust oversight and thorough impact assessments that take into account both positive and negative environmental, economic, health and social effects of a project, including potential cumulative effects.

To understand how projects may impact diverse groups of people differently, the act requires that a gender-based analysis plus, GBA+, be applied to the assessment of project effects. The act also expressly requires that decision-making processes recognize and respect indigenous rights and knowledge. The act ensures that the effects within federal jurisdiction of projects are reviewed fairly and thoroughly in order to protect the environment and support economic growth. Budget 2022 contained impact summaries for each new budget measure in terms of gender, diversity and other factors as part of our continued commitment to GBA+.

In conclusion, we see the bill and the activities proposed by the bill as another way to advance and make progress in equality and diversity, which are fundamental to creating a thriving, successful and inclusive country. I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing forth this important bill, and I am very pleased to say that we will be supporting it.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is the last Friday of this session in the House. If I may, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge everyone who has supported our work throughout this past parliamentary session. This includes the interpreters, the pages, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team, maintenance staff, cafeteria employees, IT support staff, law clerks, analysts, and so on. Not only do these people help us represent our constituents to the best of our ability, but they also make our job so much more enjoyable simply because they are so incredibly nice.

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, Fridays can be a little colourful in the House compared to most other days. We are often treated to all kinds of surprises, including new faces in the chair you are now occupying. I want to congratulate everyone who has taken a surprise turn in the chair over the past few weeks. Everyone did a great job. Let me single out my colleague from Joliette, as well as the member who spoke right before me, my colleague from Kitchener Centre.

As I said, Fridays are full of surprises, and parliamentarians' schedules are sometimes turned upside down. I would therefore like to say a quick hello to Marie‑Andrée Cardinal's special education class at École Marguerite‑Bourgeoys. I was supposed to meet with them this morning, but unfortunately had to reschedule. I look forward to meeting them, and I know that it will happen another time. In the meantime, I wish them a great end of the school year and above all a good summer vacation.

I will come back to our current subject, Bill C‑226. This is not the first time that a bill on environmental justice has been tabled in the House. In the previous Parliament, the then member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann, introduced Bill C‑230, whose objectives were fairly similar to those of the current Bill C‑226.

When the vote was held at second reading, the Bloc Québécois did not support the bill. Specifically, we raised questions about interference in Quebec's jurisdictions, because, as drafted, it contained provisions that directly attacked Quebec's environmental sovereignty. I will come back to this point later.

The bill did make it to second reading and the committee was able to correct these and other aspects, which made it possible for the Bloc Québécois to finally support it. What happened next is history. The bill died on the Order Paper when the government called an election in the summer.

Discussions about bills similar to Bill C-226 are not just a thing of the past. The other chamber is currently holding a similar debate on Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. We can see that people want something to be done about environmental human rights, and the Bloc Québécois thinks that is a good thing. Since Bill S-5 is broader in scope when it comes to addressing environmental injustices, one has to wonder whether, if it passes before Bill C-226, Bill C-226 will then become obsolete. We will see.

In short, Bill C-226 is no doubt inspired by a very noble desire to advance environmental justice. However, what starts out as a good intention unfortunately does not always lead to a good end result, or the implementation of a good policy, and we believe that Bill C‑226 has some shortcomings. I mainly want to focus on two of them today.

As has already been mentioned, Bill C‑226, like the first version of Bill C‑230, would create a Canada-wide strategy, which, in a federative context, might not be the right approach. Any action by the Canadian government must take into account that Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over environmental protections and health and social services. More specifically, it should recognize that the Government of Quebec has authority over these matters. We therefore believe that it would be inconsistent to claim to be fighting for environmental justice at the federal level without, at the same time, defending the environmental sovereignty of Quebec.

Parts of the federal infrastructure, such as wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, federal property and so on, are not subject to our environmental protection laws or municipal bylaws. Quebec's environmental protection and land-use planning laws must apply to all Quebec territory and must not be overridden by federal laws.

This reflects the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly, which, on April 13, 2022, voted in favour of the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment and opposed any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory.

I want to add that, in Quebec, the right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved has been enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a quasi-constitutional statute, since 2006. I mentioned Bill S‑5 earlier, and I want to point out that one of the objectives of this bill is to enshrine this type of right in Canadian legislation.

Because this happened last time, the Bloc wants to remind the House that respect for Quebec's environmental sovereignty cannot be sidestepped during the study of this bill.

The other concern I want to raise about Bill C‑226 is that it should focus on environmental justice rather than environmental racism. Not only are there issues with the definitions, but also the notion of environmental racism might not be universal enough. Many people may slip through the cracks, even though we should be tackling the environmental inequality they experience too.

My colleague from Repentigny did a great job of summarizing the situation when she spoke to the former Bill C‑230:

My thought is this. If we introduce new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a healthy environment, everyone should benefit from it. Furthermore, if the policy is well thought out and targeted, it will correct unequal situations. Those who suffer the greatest injustices will then receive help and support from the government, and even reparation for the harm done. That's my understanding. The rights and the criteria for receiving state protection and support are universal. If the principles are truly applied to everyone, without discrimination, then the policy will have the effect of reducing inequalities based on differences.

Leaving aside issue of interference for now, here is my question: If the only inequalities covered by Bill C‑226 are race-related, are we leaving out other people who also deserve protection?

The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec also addressed the issue of the systematic correlation between certain social inequalities and the notion of race.

...the idea that socio-economic, cultural and political differences between groups of individuals can be based entirely or in part on biological and genetic disparities has been widely rejected by most researchers in the social sciences.

Here is a concrete example. If the population of eastern Montreal, which is diverse and has its historical roots in the working class, were affected by air pollution, which we know it is, would it be subject to or excluded from the strategy? Furthermore, we must question the criteria used.

Similarly, would the municipality of Rouyn-Noranda, which is grappling with serious problems of air quality and overexposure to arsenic, be covered by the bill? This matter does raise issues of environmental justice, because, like David against Goliath, citizens whose life expectancy has been cut by five years are fighting Glencore and its $4-billion profits. Would Rouyn-Noranda, on the sole basis of environmental racism, enjoy protection under the law?

In short, this seems to be a matter of universality. We know that a policy is good when its measures are reasonably flexible. Throughout history, the social policies that have best served the advancement of rights and social protections and reduced inequalities, in other words, the development of a welfare state, have been universal policies. The best way for the government to avoid discriminating based on differences is to blind itself to differences.

If our institutions implement new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a clean environment, everyone should have them. If the policy is well-thought-out, if the implementation measures manage to remedy inequitable situations, then those who suffer the most from injustice will receive help and support from the government, as well as reparation for any harm done. If the rights and the eligibility criteria for government protection and support are universal and if those principles are applied to everyone without discrimination, then the policy will also eliminate inequalities based on differences, all differences.

These are two things that we should think about in order to improve the bill. I will end there.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak 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, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is far past time we addressed environmental racism and the disproportionate siting of polluting industries in Black communities, indigenous and racialized communities and those of the working poor. These are communities that typically lack an economic and political base to fight back. It is impossible to ignore the reality that governments have consistently put harmful industries and dumpsites dangerously close to some of the most marginalized communities across the country. This is a systemic issue that not only negatively impacts those residents' physical health and wellness through abnormal instances of cancers and other diseases, but also discourages others from moving into that area, deterring growth and new opportunities for those within it.

These decisions also impact the environment around those who live there, affecting drinking water and food sources for indigenous communities in particular. All of this has a negative impact on the mental health of these residents, compounded by gaslighting, with the onus routinely placed on those impacted most to prove the situation is leading to these adverse effects and that change is required. I would like to share a few examples.

Africville was a Black community in Nova Scotia established in the 1850s on the outskirts of Halifax. The community was pushed to the margins and did not receive the same services or infrastructure as others in the nearby city. Over the decades, undesirable developments were built in or near the community, including an infectious disease hospital, a dump and a prison. Africville's water and land were contaminated. Eventually the city relocated residents in 1964 without meaningful consultation or compensation.

Another is the toxic dumping in Kanesatake, Quebec, a community that is suffering ongoing health impacts because of the toxic waste from a recycling facility which has not been cleaned up despite repeated calls.

We can take the example of when a pipe at a pulp mill ruptures, spilling untreated effluent into a Pictou Landing First Nation wetland and it takes six years to solve the issue.

Closer to my community, in Ontario, there is the mercury-poisoning crisis in Grassy Narrows First Nation and neighbouring White Dog Independent Nation, one of Canada's worst environmental disasters that is still ongoing. A recent CBC investigation found that 90% of the population of Grassy Narrows experienced the symptoms of mercury poisoning, which include neurological problems, seizures and cognitive delays. Many homes do not have safe drinking water in an area with very limited health services and no on-reserve mental health care. The community has been fighting to have this contamination cleaned up for over 50 years without result.

These are just a few of the many examples of how Black, indigenous and racialized communities have been disproportionally impacted by neglect and the siting of environmentally harmful industries.

We can also see environmental racism and injustice showing up in other ways, like when racialized neighbourhoods do not have the same access to green spaces, public trails and playgrounds, or even street trees in their area.

Personally, I have learned so much on this topic from the incredible work of Dr. Ingrid Waldron and the ENRICH Project, a collaborative, community-based project investigating the cause and effect of toxic industries situated near Mi'kmaq and African Nova Scotian communities. It is a project that Dr. Waldron started and has led since 2012.

Dr. Waldron literally wrote the book on environmental racism. It is called There's Something in the Water, which was turned into a 2019 documentary of the same name, co-produced with Elliot Page and Julia Sanderson.

Dr. Waldron says it best, “In Canada, your postal code determines your health.” She went on to say, “Environmental racism is about a pattern and it is historical. It is rooted and embedded in historical inequities and it is about the lack of response by government to act on the citing of these industries and communities of colour and indigenous communities.”

Dr. Waldron went on to lay out two ways we can meaningfully address environmental racism. One is to develop legislation across the country and the other is to provide education on the subject in schools.

Collectively as parliamentarians in the House of Commons we can take action on the first. In Canada we need to be honest. We are way behind. As an example, in the United States, the office of environmental justice was formed as part of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992. That is more than 28 years ago.

Dr. Waldron has been making incredible progress over the last number of years. Dr. Waldron worked with then MLA Lenore Zann on what was Bill 111, an environmental racism protection act in the Nova Scotia legislature in 2015. The bill was defeated at second reading.

When elected as an MP representing Cumberland—Colchester, then MP Lenore Zann in the previous Parliament brought forward Bill C-230, which forms the basis of this piece of legislation before the House today. While Bill C-230 had widespread support, it died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

It is part of why I am so glad that my colleague, the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, has now brought back Lenore's private member's bill, as Bill C-226. I am also glad that as it has been brought back, it includes all of the work that has already been done to this point. It has already been to committee, for example. It has had an amendment adopted. The only difference between the current bill and the one in the previous Parliament is that the amendments that had been proposed are now included in the specifics of the strategy that would be developed should the bill be passed.

The bill has all of the benefit of the cross-party support that the previous version of the bill already had. It is for this reason that I am hopeful that Bill C-226 will continue to have the widespread support across party lines, recognizing that there is nothing partisan about ensuring that we take immediate steps to address environmental racism and environmental justice in this country. It is my hope that parliamentarians from all parties will choose to fast-track this legislation, recognizing it has already been studied, so that we can send it to the Senate as quickly as possible and ideally have it passed into law.

In conclusion, we know that for decades environmental racism has been neglected by all levels of government and to some extent the environmental movement itself. We must take action now to ensure that no community suffers the same harms as Africville, Grassy Narrows and so many others have. It is far past time to develop a national strategy to redress the harm of environmental racism and lead us into a just climate future for all.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for sparking the discourse, the controversy and discussion. I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois have taken this very seriously. We discussed it for over an hour. However, we may not agree on everything.

There is no doubt in our minds that the federal government has a responsibility to certain populations in Canada, people who face inequalities in their relationship with the environment. The state and quality of the environment has had serious repercussions on our lives over the past two years. We know that this is of paramount importance to everyone.

The Bloc Québécois supports the intention expressed in the title and preamble of Bill C-226 when it comes to environmental justice. If Parliament is to pass such a law, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the be the main subject and central concept.

The living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in—and I am thinking here of drinking water, for one—are inconceivable and unacceptable in a supposedly wealthy G7 nation.

That is why we think the House is justified in expressing its desire to act against environmental inequality and discrimination, to study these phenomena in greater depth, to understand the mechanisms and to explore possible solutions. That is all fine.

The existence of geographical differences in standard of living and access to a quality environment is a concern. We should worry about the fact that citizens who are immigrants, who belong to visible minority groups and indigenous communities or who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are directly affected by these differences.

That is why the Bloc Québécois supports government action to address environmental inequality affecting all communities. However, we are not convinced that implementing this from coast to coast to coast across the federation is the right approach if we want to protect the rights of all people to health and access to a quality environment.

Any action the Government of Canada takes must take into account the prerogatives of Quebec and the provinces because environmental protection, health and social services are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The government must therefore acknowledge Quebec's expertise in this area.

In any case, we are convinced that it would be inconsistent to claim to fight for environmental justice at the federal level while failing to advocate for the defence of Quebec's environmental sovereignty.

Some federal infrastructure is not covered by our protection laws. I will talk about a very specific case, that of the Limoilou area, which is next to the Port of Québec. Quebec's environmental laws, which are much more stringent than the federal ones, do not apply there because ports fall under federal jurisdiction. Consequently, everyone living in Limoilou, whether they are immigrants or not, are seeing the quality of their environment and their health deteriorate as a result of dust from ore transshipment. Everyone in the Limoilou neighbourhood is suffering. This is known as a low-income neighbourhood.

Nevertheless, the House rejected the solution proposed by the Bloc Québécois several times by voting against our bill on Quebec's environmental sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to the unanimous will of the National Assembly of Quebec expressed on April 13, 2022, which members will agree is fairly recent, to support the primacy of Quebec's environmental jurisdiction. Members were unanimous in opposing any federal environmental action on Quebec's territory.

In Quebec, the right to live in a healthy environment that respects biodiversity has been included in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms since 2006.

The House of Commons will have an opportunity to follow our lead because Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act, is currently being studied in the Senate. It must come back to the House, and we can only agree with introducing this right into Canadian legislation.

Environment-based human rights need to be developed. The best protection against inequality is Quebec's social safety net and the defence of our collective choices.

I remind the House that there is a consensus that socio-economic disparity, limited access to decision-making bodies, and a lack of political power and representation are all at the heart of this quest for environmental justice. When we talk about environmental justice, we are talking about all of this.

The factors I just mentioned cannot be ignored if we want to pursue justice. This is no small feat. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Quebec has chosen solidarity. Quebec has the best record in North America when it comes to the distribution of wealth. This can be measured. Pan-Canadian standards and strategies often run counter to our collective choices. There are a number of examples of this in the most recent budget, which we have been debating. The federal governments' interference in social affairs is harmful and does not reflect Quebec's reality.

The Bloc Québécois works and advocates for Quebec to be its own country, a country founded on mutual recognition among indigenous nations, a country in which all citizens, no matter the colour of their skin or where they were born, are equal and entitled to equal enjoyment of the benefits of social and environmental justice.

A good policy is obviously a policy whose measures are characterized by a reasonable degree of flexibility. There are certainly extreme situations, such as unacceptable living conditions, that require an appropriate public response. However, let us remember that good policy is universal. It serves the common good and applies to everyone.

Universal public policies—and I must emphasize this—also dismantle unequal structures and discriminatory practices. Be it in Quebec, France or elsewhere, social policies that have done the most to advance rights, develop the social safety net and eliminate inequality—or, in other words, develop the welfare state—are, as I said, universal policies intended for everyone.

The Bloc Québécois wishes to emphasize its commitment to the principle of universality, which enables all members of society to pursue economic and social well-being.

If we institute new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a clean environment, everyone, without exception, should have them. If the policy is well thought out and the measures implemented have a real impact on these inequalities, those who suffer the most from injustice will receive help and support, or reparation for the harm done, from the government.

If the rights and the eligibility criteria for government protection and support are universal and their principles are applied to everyone, without discrimination, then the policy will eliminate inequalities based on differences.

I want to share some lines from a song by Gilles Vigneault, a great Quebec poet who sang Mon pays, which has been adopted as a Quebec anthem. This song evokes the warmth and universality of the Quebec people.

About my solitary country
I cry out before I am silenced
To everyone on earth
My house is your house
Inside my four walls of ice
I take my time and my space
To prepare the fire, the place
For the people of the horizon
And the people are of my race

The Bloc Québécois believes that these rights, and the policies that stem from them, will have to be universal. Everyone must have them, regardless of their differences.

Then we will have powerful legal tools to address inequities and discrimination, including on the basis of origin, language or cultural background, which are induced by unequal environmental factors such as exposure to pollution or lack of access to clean water or life-sustaining resources.

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I am honoured to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-226. The bill is being sponsored today by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but it was first introduced in the 43rd Parliament by Lenore Zann, the then member for Cumberland—Colchester. It was quite a visionary bill, because the concept was not talked about at the time. I hope she will be back in the House soon.

In a way, it is indeed a new concept. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned that environmental racism has been recognized as a problem for quite a long time in the United States, but it is still a fairly new concept.

I think Bill C-226 comes at a good time for our society, as that society is questioning the very systems it created. When we talk about discrimination and racism, whether it is environmental or otherwise, we recognize that it is not just a matter of personal prejudice, but that it exists, perhaps impersonally, in the very systems that we have built and that reflect a certain way of thinking and of ranking priorities.

This bill makes us think about that idea, which was not really well known until Lenore Zann introduced her bill. I am very grateful that she took the time back then to talk virtually about her bill to the Lac-Saint-Louis youth council, whose members were also unaware of this notion of environmental racism in the context of the concept of environmental justice.

I would like to talk a little bit about what Bill C-226 proposes.

The bill outlines the components that would be included in a national strategy, such as a study that would include an examination of the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk. It also sets out a non-exhaustive list of measures that may be taken to advance environmental justice. These measures would assess, prevent and address environmental racism, including possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs; compensation for individuals or communities; and the collection of information and statistics related to health outcomes in communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.

This is what it is all about at the end of the day. We want to make sure no one's health is compromised and no one's quality of life is compromised because of who they are and which group they happen to be living in proximity to. It is about quality of life and dignity for all peoples, regardless of background.

The bill would require the minister to table a report setting out the national strategy within two years of the bill receiving royal assent, publish that report on the departmental website, and prepare and table a report on the effectiveness of the strategy every five years. The bill aligns with this government's plan to develop an environmental justice strategy and to examine the link between race, socio-economic status and exposure to environmental risk.

We look forward to working with others toward not only getting this bill passed but also supporting its quick passage through the House of Commons. Supporting quick passage through Parliament is important, as the bill comes at a time of heightened awareness of systemic racism and growing concern for environmental justice among Canadians and around the world. It has become increasingly apparent that environmental benefits and harms are not shared equally among different members of society.

Certain groups and communities, namely indigenous and racialized communities and those with lower socio-economic status, often bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens, such as environmental pollution and degradation. I think it was mentioned by the member for Repentigny that in some cases those who are disadvantaged by a government decision, at whatever level of government, are not necessarily part of racial group per se, but are actually defined by a lower socio-economic status.

I was reading the other day about an area of Montreal called Goose Village. It no longer exists. It was basically wiped off the map around the time of Expo 67. Goose Village was close to Griffintown in Montreal. It was a poor neighbourhood, but the people had their dignity and their properties were well kept. At the time it was felt by the mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and his administration that this area, which was close to the site for Expo 67, was a bit of an eyesore for those who would be visiting the city for the world's fair. This was before environmental assessments and before the kind of activism that we see today.

It was decided that this area should be razed, and they said it was because of unhealthy conditions and because public health was not good there. What I read is that when they looked at the report from the public health department of Montreal, it said that it was a well-kept community. It was of low socio-economic status, but it was very well kept. People took pride in their homes and their surroundings. Again, this was not racially motivated. It was using the power of government to suppress the rights of a lower socio-economic group.

That led me to think of the construction of the Ville-Marie Expressway in Montreal. It was not built through the highest-income area, and in this case it did displace a racialized community. It displaced a good portion of the African-Canadian community of Little Burgundy. Today, Little Burgundy is not as whole as it used to be. There is an expressway running through it, and it is at bottom of a hill in Montreal, not at the top of a hill.

This is a very historic community. Oscar Peterson came from that community. The Union United Church is in that community. Jackie Robinson, when he played for the Montreal Royals, went to the Union Church. It has a deep history. There is film footage of housing being torn down to build the expressway. It was not an exclusively Black neighbourhood, but it was a poor neighbourhood.

This makes us think that we need an approach to looking at how we make decisions that makes sure we do not have these implicit biases in the kinds of decisions that governments make. Environmental justice is a step forward for our society. It means that we are getting better at recognizing people's interests, dignity and quality of life, regardless of their background, socio-economic status or race, and that decisions need to be proper.

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

,

seconded by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, moved that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here this evening because this is a very important private member's bill.

I am very honoured to stand here to present Bill C-226 in the first hour of second reading. I want to begin with a very heartfelt meegwetch and a recognition that we stand on the territory of the Algonquin nation. It is their land.

I want to take a moment to describe how we got to where we are today, because it is rare for a private member's bill entering its first hour of second reading to have already had any parliamentary history at all, and this has a lot of parliamentary history.

I will start by saying that this bill received wide support under a different mover in the last Parliament, as Bill C-230. It was moved by the magnificent former member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann. Lenore was elected as a Liberal member of Parliament here, but she is quite a non-partisan individual. She also served with distinction in the legislature of Nova Scotia as a New Democrat MLA and has carried with her a concern for environmental racism for a long time. She did me the great honour of making this a non-partisan bill, and I am very honoured to have the hon. chair of the environment committee as the seconder of this bill now. We wanted to make this a non-partisan effort from its very inception as Bill C-230.

Bill C-230, with the same title, was an act to address and assess environmental racism and move forward to environmental justice. It received support at second reading and actually got to committee. Amendments were made at the environment committee, and I adopted those amendments in Bill C-226 at first reading. What we have in front of us therefore represents work already done by Parliament.

It is my deep hope and desire that all of us here, regardless of party, will find it in our hearts sometime in the near future to give this bill unanimous consent so that it can skip through stages that were already done and be sent to the other place. It would then become law, and we can start working proactively to advance environmental justice. That is the hope with which I speak to members tonight.

I am grateful for the non-partisan support the bill already has, and members will hear that in the speeches that are coming up. We also know from a question that I put to the Prime Minister in question period that the government's position is to support this bill. We feel optimistic that it will become law, but we would rather it was sooner than later.

I will now turn to the history. This is not a recent issue, and we are late to act. However, before I start on that, I need to dedicate this bill to the memory of a friend of mine: Clotilda Coward Douglas Yakimchuk. She was a magnificent woman and a hero in the community. Her parents came from Barbados in the earlier part of the last century to work in the Sydney steel mill.

Clotilda was a proud Black woman. She was the first community activist with whom I ever worked on the issue of environmental racism. Clotilda Yakimchuk died just about a year ago on April 15, 2021. She died of COVID. She was the first Black person to receive a nursing degree at nursing school in Nova Scotia. She was the first Black woman to be the president of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Nova Scotia. She was aware of and fought against the pollution of the coke ovens of the Sydney steel mill and the steel mill itself, which led to high cancer rates in the community of Whitney Pier. When this bill becomes law, I hope people will remember that it is dedicated to the memory of Clotilda Yakimchuk.

One of the things I know from cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds with Clotilda is that we can recognize as a reality that toxic chemicals do not discriminate. They do not pay attention to the colour of our skin when they lodge in our body, when they pass through placenta to children, when they cause cancer and when they cause birth defects. They do not care about the colour of our skin. However, the public policy that puts indigenous peoples and communities of colour far more frequently at risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals does notice skin colour. It does notice whether we are marginalized or not. It does notice whether we have money or not.

Therefore, this is absolutely the case in this country, with all of the evidence that we have of racism that cannot be denied. I know this bill makes people uncomfortable. Is there racism in Canada? Yes, there is. We just had a report today about the racism that repulses people as new recruits out of our military. Every institution in our country experiences racism. Environmental racism is not something new.

Let me go through some of the history we have of that in this country. I am going to turn to books for a moment. The first book that really focused on this problem was in 1977, by one of Canada's great journalists, Warner Troyer. The book is No Safe Place, and it is the story of the contamination by the Dryden paper mill of the indigenous community at Grassy Narrows. We are still dealing with that mercury contamination.

Another book on the same topic of the mercury contamination of Grassy Narrows is A Poison Stronger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibwa Community, by Anastasia Shkilnyk. She was one of my constituents and, also in her memory, I bring this bill forward today.

In 2000, actually, I co-authored with Maude Barlow, who was then the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, the book Frederick Street: Life and death on Canada's Love Canal, dealing with the issue that I mentioned, and I referenced it. That is where Clotilda Yakimchuk and I first became friends. The contamination of the Sydney tar ponds led to the highest cancer rates in Canada. They were in industrial Cape Breton. The place that became the tar ponds was an estuary where the Mi’kmaq community had traditionally had summer fishing camps. The land was stolen, of course, and then became the worst pollution zone in Canada with the pollution from the coke ovens and the steel mill.

In between was a community called Whitney Pier, which was virtually entirely immigrant Canadians, including a lot of people from Ukraine. I mentioned Clotilda's last name was Yakimchuk. Her husband, Dan Yakimchuk, was a steelworker from Ukraine. Whitney Pier is a melting-pot community. It is a fantastic place, but the cancer rates are through the roof. The land was stolen from the Mi’kmaq. They got the contamination too. So did the only Black community in Cape Breton. As Clotilda described it to me, and I recorded it in the book, it was impossible to find housing anywhere but in that community, so the racism was enforced. We did not have Jim Crow laws in Nova Scotia in the 1970s, but we might as well have, because an experienced nurse who was Black, having moved back from Grenada with her children after her first husband passed away, could not get housing anywhere except in the most contaminated neighbourhoods. That is called environmental racism. That is what it is.

Therefore, we have a history here.

Looking at books, the most important, without a doubt, is the 2018 publication of Dr. Ingrid Waldron's book There’s Something In The Water: Environmental Racism in Indigenous & Black Communities. It has changed the conversation in Canada. That was fortified a year later, when Dr. Waldron co-produced the film, with the brilliant Nova Scotia actor Elliot Page. They introduced people to this concept. That is part of the history.

Let us look at where else people have done anything on environmental racism. I have been a bit shocked and perturbed, as has been my friend Lenore Zann, by some of the social media reaction to us tabling this legislation, as if we are kind of weird lefties and we made it up because we just want to make racism a thing. No, this is empirically established. We know this is true.

In 1994, the U.S. government took action because it was clear on the evidence that if people lived in a community of colour or an indigenous community, they were far more likely to be exposed to levels of toxic contamination that imperilled their health and the health of their children, their family, their neighbourhood, their community and also other people who were not of colour but who were marginalized. Therefore, it has to do with a bunch of different issues. If people have power and money and they live in Shaughnessy or in Westmount, nobody opens a toxic waste dump in their backyard. That is the reality. In Canada, as in the U.S., if people are marginalized, without economic power, if they are people of colour or indigenous, they might be much more likely to be exposed to toxic contamination. The U.S. recognized this and, since 1994, the U.S. government, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has had a program that is well resourced for environmental justice.

What does that justice look like? It looks like putting tools in the hands of marginalized people to fight for their own health, making sure there are resources for epidemiologists, making sure there are resources for toxicologists and making sure that governments spend the money to clean up the mess.

We are late in Canada. The U.S. took action. Again, I ask that members hear me: the U.S. took action 28 years ago. This is not a new issue. We are late, so we need to get this bill passed. We need to see environmental justice being championed in this country with a well-resourced program in environmental justice where we take our blinders off and say, yes, there is a thing called environmental racism. We are not going to water it down and ignore it, because it is still happening. It is happening today when they try to reopen the Pictou mill and reopen the contamination that has so affected the people of Pictou Landing.

By the way, I see the minister of immigration in the room, so I am just going to give a shout-out to him for being the first federal member of Parliament from that area, Central Nova, who was prepared to say that this mill should close because the jobs were not worth the damage that had been done to Boat Harbour, the indigenous community of Pictou Landing and the neighbourhoods in Pictou. For him just to say that was brave. They are still trying to open it again.

It is seen in Kanesatake, where there is still illegal dumping of toxic chemicals in and around that Mohawk community. That should not be allowed. It would not happen in other communities.

We are looking still at Grassy Narrows and Sarnia, at the first nation of Aamjiwnaang. I invite colleagues from any party to go to Sarnia and visit the enclaves surrounded by petrochemical plants, where the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Cemetery is. They are completely surrounded, and the industry just got a two-year extension to clean up the sulphur dioxide from that refinery. That affects settler-culture Canadians too, but in that community those toxic contaminants completely encircle Aamjiwnaang's centre.

Look at the Lubicon, and the oil sands that have contaminated the communities of Lubicon first nation now for long enough that we wrote about it in 2000, in Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada's Love Canal.

We do not need to look far. We do not need to look back at deep history, but we do need to be honest about the fact that this is a pressing issue and requires action. I am sorry to say this: Liberal colleagues are supporting this bill, so I say it without malice, but it is a terrible shame that the election was called when it was because this bill, having gotten a lot of support, died on the Order Paper, so we are starting again.

I, and my friend Lenore Zann, who is here in Ottawa today as a former member of Parliament and the original sponsor of the bill, would really love to see the bill go to second reading for the second time. We would really love it. I am sure other members of every party in this place would appreciate that we do not need to take it to committee again and study it again. We cannot make the same amendments, because this bill includes the amendments the committee made last time.

Let us do something for environmental justice. Let us stand up and say there is a better way to deal with a right to a healthy environment that we actually do not have in this country. There is a way to make it real to have the right to a healthy environment for every citizen, regardless of the colour of their skin or their economic status. In the case of indigenous peoples, there is the double horror of having their land stolen and then filled with toxic chemicals. This is not something that any parliamentarian should feel comfortable allowing to continue, so I really beg this of all my colleagues, regardless of party.

I understand that this is an especially difficult issue because it is about racism and inequality, and it is a matter of words. I urge everyone to support this private member's bill.

I have, I think, 35 seconds left, so I just want to say again that this bill will be from all of us. This is not Green Party legislation. I mean, I am completely supported by my colleague for Kitchener Centre, but we do not want to own this. Collectively, all of our hands are on this baby. This bill will matter. It matters for environmental justice. It matters for our future. It matters for who we are.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, Lenore Zann, former member for Cumberland—Colchester, introduced a landmark bill, Bill C-230, to develop a federal strategy for environmental racism and a move toward environmental justice.

The environment committee, after widespread support in this place, studied the bill and made amendments. I recently had the honour to reintroduce it as Bill C-226 in order to work toward getting the bill passed.

I ask this: Will parliamentarians in the House work together to ensure passage of this important bill, and will the government support the bill once again?

Royal Recommendation for Bill C-237

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Yesterday evening, Monday, February 28, the Speaker said:

I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to [Bill] C-237...to do so at an early opportunity.

I am rising on a point of order this evening in relation to that.

I admit that I was surprised by this statement. Royal recommendation is the mechanism by which a private member's bill cannot have any financial implications unless it is recommended by the Crown.

Financial implications refers to both new expenditures and reallocation of funds for other purposes. Bill C-237, which I am introducing, does not do either.

In my view, it is clear that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation and has the potential to be voted on by the House at all stages and implemented, for the following five reasons.

First, it does not require any new spending.

Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them.

Third, it does not change the purpose of the transfer. The Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same goes for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has “a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”.

Fourth, it does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and margin of appreciation required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions in the Canada Health Act.

Finally, precedents are on my side. There have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without any financial implications. I actually found 31 bills that amend the Canada Health Act, and not one required a royal recommendation.

For all these reasons, I believe that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation.

Let us examine it in detail. Bill C-237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways.

It provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. This means that it is an equal amount or a zero sum.

The bill adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province “has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. In short, the purpose of the transfer does not change either.

This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn.

The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It is up to the minister to determine whether it has a comparable program.

Without any conditions on how the province runs the program, the transfer still serves the same purpose, which is to ensure that students can access financial assistance.

This same principle is in Bill C-237, which I introduced. It does not change the amounts or recipients, the distribution of the amounts among them, or the purpose of the transfer. It simply reduces federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. Again, this is about provincial management of provincial programs. That is the only thing that is impacted here, and it has little to do with the prerogative of the federal Crown.

Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, this one just for Quebec. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities and retirement homes. I assume that they will be included in the Canada Health Act, since long-term care facilities fall under the definition of “extended health care services” in the act.

Since Quebec was the only one to object, Bill C-231 would exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the Canada Health Act, much like the proposal by my colleague from Montcalm to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in his Bill C-226 in the 43rd Parliament, which did not require a royal recommendation.

The Canada Health Act does not have financial implications per se. It sets out a normative framework, five principles for the government to consider in the Canada health transfer, which is provided for in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is the latter act that has financial implications.

My bill, Bill C-237, does not change the purpose of the Canada health transfer. It does not change the purpose of the transfer defined in paragraph 24(b) of the fiscal arrangements act as “contributing to providing the best possible health care system for Canadians and to making information about the health care system available to Canadians”. Bill C-237 does not change this section of the act, which sets out the purpose of the transfer.

Under the Canada Health Act, the government is responsible for determining whether the provinces are in compliance. In Bill C-237, the government determines whether the province has “a program whose objectives are comparable”. Personally, I would have preferred not to include that clause in Bill C-237, but I realized that this would have changed the purpose of the transfers and could therefore have required a royal recommendation.

Bill C-237 has no financial implications in terms of the amounts, their destination, their purpose or the general conditions. Only specific conditions in the Canada Health Act are affected.

Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise in the House and I am having a hard time delivering my speech.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I initially asked in question period late last year, on December 2, 2021. The question ended up with the Minister of Fisheries. This topic that I am going to raise again tonight crosses several different departments federally. At its core, it is about environmental racism. It is about the illegal dumping of toxic waste on Mohawk territory. I cannot imagine any non-indigenous or non-Black community allowing it, but we do have an environmental racism problem in this country. I hope my private member's bill, Bill C-226, will be passed soon. It is a non-partisan effort to make sure the federal government adopts a strategy to deal with environmental racism, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done for decades.

To my specific example, this was part of my question on December 2:

On the Mohawk territories of Kanesatake, there is a toxic waste dump. It has been leaking harmful chemicals, and it also affects the wildlife and the fish. It is not as though the government has not said something about it.

There was a directive delivered to the toxic waste facility from the federal government on November 18, 2020, to call for the toxic waste site to be cleaned up and for the dumping of toxic waste to stop. I asked the government, “Could the minister update us on what is being done to remove the toxic waste facility from Kanesatake?” The answer came from the hon. Minister of Fisheries. I think her answer was sound, but we did not have the details. The minister said that disposing of waste in this manner is dangerous to people, fish habitats and fish, and said, “We will hold any individuals who violate this act to account.” As things progressed, it is clear that the illegal dumping continues.

The Province of Quebec allowed dumping outside the confines of the specific permit that was given in 2015 for a recycling landfill, which is what it was originally licensed for. The Province of Quebec gave that permit to G & R Recycling in 2015 and by 2016 the complaints had begun. They continued as residents nearby smelled toxic and nauseating fumes and became sickened by these fumes. Finally, in September 2020, the Province of Quebec revoked the licence. Again, as evidence of environmental racism, it was not until the black ooze from this toxic waste facility began seeping onto settler culture farms outside of the Mohawk community that the province took action.

The federal government is still looking at this situation and the figures are just astonishing. This facility was licensed for storing up to 27,800 cubic metres of waste and it now has 400,000 cubic metres of waste, or 15 times what it was originally licensed for. This should not be tolerated. The community of Kanesatake is calling out for justice.

Chief and former RCMP investigator, Jeremy Tomlinson, has said that these facilities are being built and people are paying to haul the waste away, but “instead of getting rid of it at a designated site, they’re dumping it here. Think about it, they’re building on land that was stolen from us and dumping on what little land we have left. People have had enough.” I am hoping in the late show we can get to some solutions for this community.

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to introduce this private member's bill. It deals with a critical issue and it is very important to act against environmental racism.

I am very honoured to present this bill, and I want to take a moment to thank the member of Parliament who initially put it forward.

It is appropriate today to bring this bill forward as we begin February and Black History Month. This is a way to confront racism. Part of me thinks it is also appropriate to present it on Groundhog Day, because here we go again.

This bill was initially presented by the wonderful former member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann. Lenore did me the enormous honour of asking me, a member of Parliament from a different party, to second the bill when it first came forward in this place. The bill enjoyed widespread support, as members will remember. It cleared second reading and went to committee.

A lot of work has been done, and I want to keep this non-partisan. This is a bill that has enjoyed widespread support, and many members of Parliament are very keen to see it pass. I urge all colleagues to reflect on the fact that the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency, for more than three decades, have had active programs to confront environmental racism, while the term is hardly well understood in our country. I look forward to working with colleagues across party lines.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)