44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 23, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/23/23 2:39:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that CSIS warned Ontario Premier Doug Ford of potential interference in the last provincial election.
More importantly, we know that this interference targeted the area around Don Valley North, the riding represented by the federal MP named in the Global News allegations yesterday. We know this because Mr. Ford has said so publicly and transparently.
Did CSIS warn the Prime Minister that it was talking to Doug Ford about potential Chinese interference during the Ontario election?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 2:41:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we also know that Vancouver's outgoing mayor, Kennedy Stewart, discussed potential interference from China with CSIS before the last municipal election. We know that because he, too, said it publicly.
Did CSIS advise the Prime Minister that it had discussed China's potential interference in the Vancouver municipal election?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 2:42:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in summary, CSIS is openly talking about Chinese interference with cities and it is openly talking about Chinese interference with provinces, but we are to believe that CSIS is not talking about it with the federal government? Apparently the Prime Minister had to find out from the news that one or more of his MPs had diplomatic ties to Beijing. Either CSIS is keeping the Prime Minister abreast of everything that is happening at every level, except in his own backyard, or CSIS is talking to everyone but the federal government. What are we to believe? When will there be a public, independent inquiry?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1068 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
