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, nonregression 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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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.