Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, introduced in the House of Commons on May 19, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 13, 2024; and

That the committee be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, provided that it then be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting following the one on which the depositing is recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I’d like to speak briefly — though not as briefly as George Baker — at third reading of Bill S-16, the Haida Nation Recognition Act. This legislation is an important step forward in the ongoing process of recognizing and realizing Haida rights.

[English]

In accordance with a tripartite agreement reached last year between the Haida Nation and the governments of British Columbia and Canada, Bill S-16 would recognize that the Haida Nation holds inherent self-governance rights, that it is governed by the Council of the Haida Nation, and that it is a legal entity with all related privileges and liabilities.

Haida representatives travelled all the way from Haida Gwaii to be here in the gallery in February when this bill was introduced. Afterward, in the Senate foyer, they joined the federal and provincial ministers, as well as their member of Parliament, at a press conference underlining the bill’s importance to them.

The tripartite agreement requires both provincial and federal ratifying legislation. The British Columbia bill was adopted almost exactly a year ago, in May 2023. So, the Haida have been waiting since then for a federal bill to pass.

In fact, they’ve been waiting much longer. At committee in April, the President of the Council of the Haida Nation said there’s a written record of Haida leaders telling federal officials in 1913 that they had:

. . . never ceded, surrendered, signed a treaty or been defeated in war, and that all the Haida Gwaii is Haida territory. . . .

As Senator Martin noted at committee, “. . . you’ve waited a long time.”

[Translation]

This is absolutely true, and the Haida will have to wait even longer after the Senate passes this bill, because it will still have to be studied and passed in the other place.

All the more reason to complete third reading in the Senate as soon as possible.

[English]

Clearly, the Haida Nation is watching us. In recent days, their President wrote this in an email received by all senators:

We understand that the conclusion of the Senate process is close, and we look forward to Bill S-16 moving to the House of Commons for final approvals. Haawa (thank you) for your ongoing commitment to moving our work forward together in a respectful and timely manner. This has been a long time in coming for both the Haida Nation and for Canada.

Colleagues, I think that’s their polite way of reminding us that the Indigenous Peoples Committee finished clause-by-clause consideration almost a full month ago, and they would like us to get on with it.

We’ve certainly had a lot on our plate in this chamber recently, but I hope that we can meet the Haida Nation’s expectation and pass this bill very soon.

I extend my thanks to Senator Greenwood for being an able and dedicated sponsor, and to all the committee members for their work as well.

At committee, the Haida president explained that the term for reconciliation in the Haida language literally means, “people working together to make things right.” In that spirit, I invite all honourable senators to join me in supporting Bill S-16.

Thank you,

Háw’aa.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Housakos, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sorensen, for the third reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

Now that our former colleague Senator Boisvenu has retired, I have taken on responsibilities as the critic of this bill. Senator Moncion’s bill would designate the second week of May as jury duty appreciation week — it’s this week, in fact.

Colleagues, I will be frank: When I was preparing to scrutinize this bill at our Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee meetings, I was skeptical. There is an abundance of Senate public bills in our chamber at the moment. We spend a great deal of time and resources studying them. With so many appreciation days and weeks on the calendar already, it is not easy to persuade me that it is critical to introduce another.

It was with this orientation that I attended our first meeting on this bill in February, when we heard from Senator Moncion. However, colleagues, her testimony changed my mind. Senator Moncion was honest, forthright and vulnerable in sharing her experiences of being a juror, and the impacts that the experience has had in an ongoing way on her life.

I had some questions about her bill; perhaps you do too. Senator Moncion very aptly addressed my concerns. I will share her answers with you now. However, I recommend that you go on to SenVu and watch her appearance at our committee, if you haven’t already. It is an hour of testimony that is truly worthy of your attention.

Senator Omidvar posed two questions that I shared: Why did Senator Moncion propose an appreciation week rather than a day? Why did she choose the second week of May?

Senator Moncion explained that a week provides more time for awareness campaigns to reach the public to foster understanding of what jury duty entails. The second week of May was chosen to align with the week that is already recognized in some jurisdictions — though not all — in the United States.

Senator Moncion also noted that the courts try to wrap up trials during the month of May, and, therefore, she argued May could be a valuable time to bring awareness and recognition to the challenges that jurors face.

Senator Cordy then asked about what an appreciation week might mean to Canadians who have served on a jury and to Canadians who have not served on a jury.

Senator Moncion spoke about the alienation that can come from being a juror. She reminded us that, until recently, jurors were not able to speak to a psychologist or psychotherapist about their experiences. She hopes that an appreciation week will bring former jurors together. She said:

. . . being on a jury and hearing the story from others brings a connection between us. We find that we’re not the only ones who feel like this . . . .

For Canadians who have not been on a jury, the week would serve an educational purpose. Most Canadians do not know what being on a jury involves. Furthermore, many employers don’t know what jury duty entails.

Senator Moncion pointed out that there are costs associated with being a juror that many do not anticipate. An appreciation week would provide an opportunity to share information about these aspects, but also on mental health, access to justice and our judicial system.

I asked Senator Moncion whether jury duty appreciation week might deter people from becoming jurors. Senator Moncion explained that while there are good things about being a juror, such as becoming familiar with the judicial system, there are also consequences. She cautioned that there are good reasons for people to not become jurors, such as pre-existing mental health challenges and financial constraints. More awareness would equip Canadians so that they would better understand what is being asked of them when they are summoned to jury duty.

I also asked Senator Moncion about compensation for jurors, which varies widely across Canada. This bill does not specifically mention compensation, but lack of adequate compensation does influence who is able to become a juror. An increased awareness of this challenge could lead the provinces and territories to adjust their compensation schemes so that serving on a jury is accessible to all Canadians.

All of my colleagues on the committee asked thoughtful and important questions of Senator Moncion and of all our witnesses.

We heard from seven other witnesses during our study of Bill S-252: Tina Daenzer, who was the head juror during the Paul Bernardo case in 1995 and is the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Canadian Juries Commission; Mark Farrant, who served as a juror on a graphic first-degree murder trial in 2014 and later founded the Canadian Juries Commission; Dan Cozine, a high school principal who served on a murder and attempted murder trial in 2016; Patrick Fleming, a municipal employee who spent 10 months as a juror on a high-profile murder trial in 2014; the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, former chief justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who presided over the Paul Bernardo case in 1995 and arranged for counselling to be provided to the jurors; Dr. Patrick Baillie, a psychologist who has worked with former jurors; and Jolene Hansell from the Criminal Lawyers’ Association. I thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony.

Ms. Hansell reminded our committee that Black people, Indigenous people and people of colour are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, but are under-represented as jurors in cases with these defendants.

Dr. Baillie reiterated the challenge of low pay for jurors, and explained that this makes it hard to have diverse juries. He explained:

. . . unionized employees often have it written into their contract that they’ll continue to receive their salary while they’re away from work, sometimes for a fixed period of time. So we end up with juries that are often made up of pensioners or union members and therefore not necessarily representative of the community. . . .

He told us that he had recently spoken to a former premier and a former justice minister about compensation for jurors. Both reportedly said, “I thought that had been taken care of.” He argued that jury duty appreciation week will remind provincial governments and citizens across the country of the duty they have.

Colleagues, none of the witnesses who appeared at our committee argued against Bill S-252, nor did the committee receive any correspondence critical of the bill. We, therefore, passed the bill unamended.

I will leave you with the words of Mr. Cozine, the high school principal and former juror from Saskatchewan. He told us the following:

I walked into a jury box having no idea what I was in for. I learned so much about the justice system and the professionals in the courts, from police, lawyers, doctors, coroners and even the judge. It was such a valuable learning experience. The public has a very negative point of view when it comes to being on a jury. This is a week that can potentially change that. This week can highlight that while it can be a difficult task to undertake, it can be a rewarding one — one of service to country and the justice system and of learning. This week can also educate employers that do not, or in some cases cannot, work with employees to help with pay, benefits and time off to act as a juror and potentially time off post-trial to recover. The act we are discussing here today will be of great benefit to the justice system, as it will allow for more information to be shared about juries, their function and their importance.

Colleagues, the testimony I heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology persuaded me that this bill should pass. I hope that you, too, have been persuaded of this bill’s importance, and that it will be approved by our chamber soon so that it can proceed to consideration in the other place.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved third reading 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.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to begin third reading debate on Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

I thank former MP Lenore Zann, who first introduced an earlier version of this legislation — the former Bill C-230 — on February 26, 2020. I also thank MP Elizabeth May, the bill’s sponsor in the other place, for her years of working with grassroots and advocates to lay the groundwork required to introduce this bill. I thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee, as well as the many groups who submitted briefs to the committee. Finally, I thank the senators on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their engagement, open-mindedness, deliberative discussions and collegiality as we worked our way through this bill.

Colleagues, Bill C-226 intentionally does not include definitions of “environmental racism” or “environmental justice,” and this speech will speak to the reasons behind that decision. Bill C-226 is also intentionally not prescriptive in how to undertake the development and execution of the national strategy, as it must be developed in concert with affected individuals and communities. It is critical for people to speak on their own behalf about their first-hand experiences with environmental racism, and to be allowed to participate directly in environmental and policy-making decisions. As such, it must be their experiences that will inform the framework as they educate and create awareness of how environmental racism developed — and continues to develop — in their territories.

We heard in committee that some people did not know what environmental racism is. This was a very telling statement about the degree of education and awareness that is required to make Canadians better understand this class of racism. With this bill, the affected individuals and communities can share their solutions to inform a strategy that will better equip them in their fight against the racism that has affected them directly. Most simply want basic necessities and the things we all take for granted on a daily basis: access to clean and safe water, the right to health, environmental protections, community development and mitigation of destroyed environments.

Honourable senators, after excellent witness testimony, the committee agreed unanimously that there were to be no amendments to this bill. I would like to note that there was discussion of possibly including reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in the preamble; however, it must be noted that the bill before us will not only benefit First Nations and Inuit communities who experience this type of racism. Rather, this bill will also help improve the lives of countless African-Canadian/Black, Asian and other racialized communities, as well as women, the 2SLGBTQIA community, the disability community and others who face marginalization and discrimination across Canada.

However, under clause 3, subsection (2), entitled “Consultation,” it states that in developing this strategy, the minister must ensure that it is consistent with the Government of Canada’s framework for the recognition and implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Colleagues, I reference Elizabeth May in her witness testimony when she stated that she first became aware of the issues of environmental racism in dealing with Canada’s largest toxic waste site — the Sydney Tar Ponds — located in what was the only Black community on Cape Breton Island and in what had been Indigenous fishing grounds in the Muggah Creek estuary. That community work for environmental justice was documented in a 1999 film entitled Toxic Partners by Cape Breton filmmaker Neal Livingston.

Also, member of Parliament May quoted Dr. Ingrid Waldron — who holds the HOPE Chair in Peace and Health in the Global Peace and Social Justice Program in the Faculty of Humanities at McMaster University — and other Canadian academics extensively who documented the disproportionate proximity and greater exposure of Indigenous, Black and other racialized communities to polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities in Canada.

Dr. Waldron, in her presentation at committee, stated:

Since the fall of 2012, I have been examining the ecological, health, political and social impacts of environmental racism through a community-based collaborative approach that has included research; publications, including a book and journal publications; water testing projects; community engagement; community consultations; community advocacy; multimedia, including a Netflix documentary and media interviews; mapping using GIS analysis; education through workshops, symposiums and other events; and legislation.

She goes on to say:

The strength of Bill C-226 is that it uses an environmental justice lens that not only focuses on industry, waste, contaminants and pollutants, but also on the historical, socio-political and economic context within which environmental racism manifests in these communities across Canada. It also clearly identifies the steps that are needed to achieve environmental justice, including research, consultations with impacted communities, the involvement of impacted communities in policy-making and compensation for impacted communities. After 12 years of fighting for environmental justice for these communities, it is rewarding to see Bill C-226 waiting to be voted on at third reading in the Senate. I urge you to pass this bill. Its time has come. . . .

Chief Chris Plain from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation shared with the committee his history of environmental degradation that has developed in his community. He stated:

Aamjiwnaang . . . situated in the epicentre of what is referred to as Canada’s Chemical Valley, so named because the area contains 40% of Canada’s chemical industry. . . .

Over the past 100 years, lands and waters in Aamjiwnaang have been impoverished by over-exploitation. All facets of Aamjiwnaang’s environment are polluted, including air, land and water. . . .

Aamjiwnaang is surrounded on three sides by over 60 industrial refineries — the closest of which are literally across the street from, most importantly, community meetings, such as the band office, our church, our cemetery, our resource centre and many residences. These facilities represent 40% of Canada’s chemical refineries. It has been this way for many generations. While settler communities have been relocated at no cost to them, we remain here on our land. To us, it’s been an experience of profound environmental racism.

Chief Plain also told the committee:

. . . we need to mend the treaty relationship between Aamjiwnaang and the Crown, where Aamjiwnaang has an equal voice in decision making affecting our lands and waters, and decisions that directly affect our members. We need a seat at the table, and our concerns must inform the path forward. We want to be part of the solution. We want to feel confident that the air we are breathing isn’t slowly killing us. We want to live with peace of mind that our children will not get sick and die before us.

We hope that your work on environmental racism marks the beginning of a new honourable relationship where Aamjiwnaang can see measurable results from a government committed to doing better. . . .

Honourable senators, these are very powerful words. Another committee witness, Rueben George from the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, or TWN, stated the following in his briefing note to the Energy Committee:

In a 10 km stretch of Eastern Burrard Inlet, the core territory of the TWN, there is an aggregation of six industrial-scale above-ground oil storage facilities and their associated pipeline infrastructure, as well as marine and rail shipping activities. The Parkland oil refinery, which produces fuel for the Lower Mainland, is located directly across the water from the TWN community. A flaming tower burns waste gas here, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Westridge Marine Terminal, the terminus of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is also located just across the inlet and is slated to have daily transiting of tankers carrying diluted bitumen starting within the next month. These sites have histories of spills and environmental incidents. These facilities are not situated in the wealthier neighbourhoods of West Vancouver or Kitsilano, they are situated adjacent to our reserve.

Mr. George continues:

The Federal Government has committed to reconciliation with First Nations, but TWN has observed federal agencies continue to make decisions, develop legislation, policy and programs that have disproportionate negative implications for Indigenous peoples. The Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project . . . is an example of this. TWN demonstrated to the government of Canada and to the Canadian Energy Regulator . . . National Energy Board . . . that the Project would unjustifiably infringe Tsleil-Waututh’s Aboriginal title, rights, and interests with our Indigenous law-based Assessment of the Project. Disregarding the findings of the Assessment, Canada approved the Project, prioritizing tenuous economic benefits over impacts to TWN rights and interests . . . Tsleil-Waututh . . . provided extensive data, evidence, and dialogue to Canada — including the likely extinction of the Southern Resident Killer Whales from marine shipping impacts.

Colleagues, a further witness before the Energy Committee on Bill C-226, Mr. Les Dysart, spoke in his briefing note about the extensive damage done by Manitoba Hydro to his community of South Indian Lake. This included permanent flooding of 837 square kilometres, which raised the level of Southern Indian Lake by an average of 3 metres, which is almost 10 feet. Mr. Dysart also wrote about:

Disastrous flushes of water down the Lower Churchill at high water times (these sudden inundations of up to 50 percent more water than the highest flows recorded in the 15 years prior to Diversion—often during spring ice break-up—scour the riverbed, batter shorelines, flood cabins, inundate riparian habitat, and temporarily raise levels of lakes on the river system by as much as 5.8 m (19 feet)) . . .

Mr. Dysart wrote about the wide-ranging and harrowing impacts that environmental racism from hydro activity had on his community. These included effects on fish and wildlife, including the near extinction of a distinct and culturally vital species of sturgeon; a rise in fish mercury to levels not fit for human consumption; and the decimation of the most productive inland northern fishery — Southern Indian Lake was home to the third-largest lake whitefish fishery in North America. In the decade prior to the diversion, the annual catch averaged about 400,000 kilograms. In the past decade, it was less than a tenth of that.

The effects also include the killing of beaver and muskrat by flooding and unpredictable fluctuations; the disappearance of hundreds of islands due to flooding and erosion on Southern Indian Lake; an increase in wood debris from collapsing shorelines getting caught in nets and creating half-submerged deadhead hazards for boaters; and the forced relocation of the community of South Indian Lake and the imposed burning of the old village. When they were removed from their old village, they were only allowed to take a suitcase. Finally, it caused the inundation of hundreds of documented, culturally significant sites — including graves — on Southern Indian Lake.

In his briefing note, Mr. Dysart writes:

We never wanted Churchill River Diversion. It should not exist. The water should still be free to flow as it is meant to flow. The fish should still be free to spawn where they are meant to spawn. Our beloved homelands should not be sacrificed. But we are not demanding that Churchill River Diversion be dismantled; only that damages be addressed and that we have a meaningful say in how the Diversion is operated.

Honourable senators, another witness before the Senate Energy Committee, Sarah Wiebe from the University of Victoria, recommended the enacting of Bill C-226; creating an office of environmental justice that adheres to our collaborative, multi-jurisdictional governance model; and adopting an intersectional planetary health lens to guide future environmental justice regulatory developments and administrative programming.

In a briefing note she presented to the committee, Dr. Wiebe wrote, “Environmental and human health are inseparable, but they are often treated in silos. . . .”

She continued, writing:

An intersectional planetary health lens acknowledges the need to be accountable to human and more-than-human beings. Following Dr. Waldron, a multi-pronged strategy must unapologetically centre race and “how it intersects with class, gender, and other social identities to shape the experiences of communities disproportionately impacted by a web of inequalities and environmentally hazardous industries; environmental policy that acknowledges and addresses structural and environmental determinants of health and culturally relevant participatory democracy approaches; partnerships between white led environmental justice organizations and Indigenous and Black communities; and alliances and solidarities between Indigenous and Black communities.” This lens is central to the flourishing of entire ecologies – waterways, plants, animals and atmospheres – alongside human health.

Colleagues, these environmental warriors do not give up. There has been, and continues to be, a mobilization of communities, allies and activists as they fight against the companies, laws, policies and other forces that threaten to fragment, displace, assimilate or drive impacted communities and peoples toward cultural and community disintegration. It is time we join them and support their work toward justice.

Looking through the lens of environmental injustice over the six years I have been on the Energy Committee, I have heard and seen first-hand some of the Canadian experiences and subsequent claims for justice — claims that identified how their lives and communities were negatively impacted by this specific type of racism. These claims went beyond environmental inequity or the siting of toxic sites in marginalized communities. These claims were embedded in broader struggles that included institutional racism and oppression, cultural and spiritual genocide, land dispossession, protection from contamination, equal participation, self-determination, ethical and sustainable land use, a healthy community and work environment, food insecurity, upholding of treaties, human rights and civil rights breaches, interjurisdictional gaps and unsustainable practices of resource extraction. The list goes on. That’s why it’s very difficult to define of “environmental racism” — it is so broad.

In their article entitled Indigenous Struggles, Environmental Justice, and Community Capabilities, authors David Schlosberg and David Carruthers quote Bunyan Bryant, who offers a definition that incorporates numerous conceptions of justice and illustrates the potential of environmental justice to revitalize and reconstruct functioning communities.

In Bryant’s formulation, environmental justice:

refers to those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities, where people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing the “isms.” Environmental justice is supported by decent paying and safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. These are communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered and where distributed justice prevails.

Bryant offers a broad, integrated notion of environmental justice that goes beyond mere distributional equity. The different affected groups across Canada experience environmental racism in different ways; hence, their respective definitions will be reflected in the insight and information that will be forthcoming.

Honourable senators, 17 principles of environmental justice were adopted by the self-termed People of Color at their leadership summit held from October 24 to 27, 1991 — that is how long people have been fighting — in Washington, D.C. In the same article mentioned above, authors Schlosberg and Carruthers quote Dr. Dorceta Taylor, a professor of environmental justice at Yale. Dr. Taylor had examined these 17 principles of environmental justice and identified 25 different issues for consideration. Included in those were protection from contamination and polluting industries; environmental policy based on mutual respect; and demands for equal participation, self-determination, ethical and sustainable land use. Note that equity was only one among many concerns in these attempts to operationalize environmental justice.

Colleagues, in the recently released 2024 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s Report 1 entitled Contaminated Sites in the North that was released last week states:

Contaminated sites represent significant environmental and human health risks and cost Canadians billions of dollars. . . . Although work was undertaken to remediate contaminated sites, the total financial liability for federal contaminated sites is now over $10 billion.

. . . [T]he [Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan] did not appropriately support custodians by including climate change and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in remediation efforts, which are key priorities related to the management of contaminated sites.

The report further states, “There were more than 24,000 contaminated sites across Canada, . . . .”

The lack of reporting and meaningful information on contaminated sites, including large abandoned mines, means that the Government of Canada, decision makers, and Canadians do not have a clear picture of the environmental and financial effects of these contaminated sites.

Colleagues, there are many ways that environmental racism manifests itself in very specific sites. The article entitled Environmental Racism and First Nations: A Call for Socially Just Public Policy Development by Christina Dhillon and Michael Young states:

While the US environmental justice movement has developed at an exponential rate, Canadian efforts have been far less effective, resulting in uneven attention to and action regarding environmental justice . . . . Canadian legislation that deals directly with the inequalities created by environmental injustice is for the most part non-existent. . . . current public policy regarding environmental justice for First Nations people is needed to ensure equal rights to a safe environment for all Canadians, regardless of race and/or economic status. Failure to commit to such change is tantamount to endorsing the continuance of racist practices, a far cry from the goal of a just society.

Honourable senators, members of the Energy Committee heard first-hand from witnesses their own realities of how environmental racism, because of capital colonialism, has severely disrupted their communities, families, governance, lives, health, self-determination, culture and so on. That is why social justice for First Nations involves relationship-based respect; upholding First Nations knowledge systems and world views, identity and culture; and understanding what colonization did to our people.

In Taiaiake Alfred’s book entitled It’s All About the Land, he states:

Removing us from our land has been the project from the beginning. . . . where the Native opposes the development of the land for exploitative purposes: that Native is defined out of existence or pushed out of existence. For us to defer to this notion of Aboriginal and try to structure ourselves and conceptualize our processes and goals accordingly is the end game of colonization.

Colleagues, it is time to confront the environmental racism that systematically constructs inequities by conferring advantages upon one group at the expense of others. Power and privilege are distributed unevenly, enabling industry and governments to allow private control of extractive systems where, in the quest for profit and land, certain groups are exposed to known disproportionate risks and effects with no protective or preventive action taken.

Today, as extractive industries such as oil, mining, hydro, gas and lumber continue to cause widespread destruction of land, air and water through unsustainable practices of resource extraction, First Nations communities are needing to work harder to protect and mitigate damage to the land that had been theirs for centuries. As one witness said, as fast as they are mitigating the effect of oil on their waters and food supply, the resource companies are damaging other sites already.

It is a sustained action of not only taking, but taking without giving back. It is taking as if there are no limits to what can be withdrawn, no limits to what Brown and Black bodies can take, no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what Mother Earth can take. These unsustainable practices serve to deplete our clean waters, negatively impacting our non-human relatives, destroy our life-giving forests and cause instability of the climate itself. The impact of this reality on human health cannot be overstated. Here we look at premature morbidity and mortality, sexual violence and the perpetration of the painful history that brought us to this juncture today.

Honourable senators, we must acknowledge that this type of racism has long been enabled due to a persistent valuing of economy over health and life. In the article entitled The Environment as Freedom: A Decolonial Reimaging, author Malini Ranganathan quotes Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute at a gathering of climate change deniers in London in early 2017 as saying, “The environmental movement is, in my view, the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world.”

The author continues:

Donald Trump, who had earlier recruited Ebell to head his Environmental Protection Agency transition team, echoed this view by declaring in his May 2017 commencement speech: “I’ve loosened up the strangling environmental chains wrapped around our country and our economy.” According to this narrative . . . protecting the environment is freedom-robbing. Only by unshackling ourselves from the concerns of the environment can we “free” ourselves and our society.

Placing the societal dynamic that enables this reality into perspective, the noted critic of fascism, Theodor Adorno, lamented in mid-20th century Europe that:

People have so manipulated the concept of freedom that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they still have.

Honourable senators, the appetite for change, a change that would be brought about through this bill, is being called for — not just within this chamber and its committee. Rather, the groundswell of support externally must also be respected. The David Suzuki Foundation currently has an active petition calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-226. This petition has been signed by over 10,000 individuals who are advocating for the improvements that they know this bill will create in the lives of countless Canadians.

In a brief submitted to the Energy Committee by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, or CAPE, CAPE board member Dr. Ojistoh Horn articulates that:

Environmental racism is supported by upstream systemic factors — societal values and beliefs conforming to a capitalist economy, that humans do not have a right to a healthy environment in practice, legislation that does not fairly protect BIPOC and Indigenous communities, institutions whose siloed and competing mandates do not protect these communities and are not uniformly held accountable to the laws already in place, and programs that have been designed without input from all stakeholders.

Further, in their briefing note, CAPE also notes that:

In Akwesasne on the ON, QC and US borders the people of the . . . (Mohawk) First Nation, are subjected to toxic exposures including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — which have been found to be related to thyroid dysfunction, reproductive health harms, cancers, autoimmune diseases, mental health disorders, and more. The exposures are not fixed, but change over time, as PCBs degenerate and lose chlorine, making them lighter and then volatile.

In Northern BC, fracking operations are connected to childhood leukemia, cardiovascular diseases, neurological effects and respiratory illnesses. . . . Fracking also contributes significantly to methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, undermining efforts to address climate change.

CAPE also notes that the exposure of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation to mine-waste contaminated oil sludge tailings ponds in Alberta and the Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine toxic tailings ponds leak into the Peace-Athabasca river system has significantly impacted the communities’ ability to practise inherent and treaty rights, while also leading to physical and mental health issues arising therein.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada, NWAC, in their briefing note to the Energy Committee on Bill C-226, state that:

Environmental racism is not new. In Canada, Indigenous communities have fought against colonial law and policies to protect the air, land, water, species, and cultural connections to the land. Environmental racism is a form of systemic racism, which is the result of institutional policies and practices. Systemic racism is embedded in the laws, policies and institutions that govern our lives — and has been since European settlers first colonized these lands.

NWAC goes on to state that:

Indigenous Women experience gender-specific harms associated with systemic environmental racism. Changes in domestic and familial roles, perceptions of gender and identity, child-rearing and parenting norms, spiritual life, work and social activities impede their right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions. Disproportionate numbers of Indigenous Women experience violence, abuse, loss of culture, traditions and language, unemployment, poverty, lower levels of educational attainment, and reduced access to resources.

Colleagues, in a briefing note sent to the Energy Committee, Women’s Healthy Environments Network, WHEN, wrote:

The notion of environmental racism in Bill C-226 comes from the fact that environmentally hazardous sites (including landfills and polluting industries) are established in areas inhabited by members of an Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized community. Environmental justice expert Robert Doyle Bullard summarizes environmental racism as:

The disproportionate location and greater exposure of Indigenous and racialized communities to contamination and pollution from polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities;

The lack of political power these communities have for resisting the placement of industrial polluters in their communities;

The implementation of policies that sanction the harmful and, in many cases, life-threatening presence of poisons in these communities;

The disproportionate negative impacts of environmental policies that result in differential rates of cleanup of environmental contaminants in these communities; and

The history of excluding Indigenous and racialized communities from mainstream environmental groups, decision-making boards, commissions and regulatory bodies.

In closing, honourable senators, I want to share some final thoughts. We are here, with the bill before us, to determine our future as a nation. Our first obligation, then, is to understand and acknowledge the true story of environmental racism in this country.

The history of environmental racism is a little-known dimension of Canadian history. It is not taught in our schools. It is not commemorated anywhere in our country or the nation’s capital. The long history of environmental racism has not been made a part of our national memory. It has been ignored or, worse, dismissed.

What is known to most Canadians is the present legacy: that Indigenous peoples and marginalized peoples in Canada do not have the same standard of life that is enjoyed by mainstream Canada. Canadians easily fall into the trap of blaming people who have been marginalized for the conditions in which they live and for failing to address their problems adequately.

That blaming leads inevitably to disrespect. That disrespect, however, also flows from the many generations of public policy founded on the view that people of colour were somehow inferior. This long-overdue conversation on environmental racism would inquire why, in a land of bounty, we have Third World poverty. It is because, “there is no real poverty in this country; there is simply excessive greed.”

So gently I offer my hand and ask,

Let me find my talk

So I can teach you about me.

That was a quote from Rita Joe, in 1988.

So, I’m appealing to you to listen and to read more about environmental racism. I want to thank you for listening and taking the time to be here. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Colleagues, I will be as brief as I can.

I rise to support Bill C-226 at third reading. This bill, which seeks to assess and prevent environmental racism, was sponsored in this chamber by Senator McCallum.

This bill has the potential to change things, provided there is enough goodwill. It will all depend on the decision makers in charge, since Bill C-226 is not prescriptive.

Proposed subsection 3(2) states the following: “In developing the strategy, the Minister must consult or cooperate with any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities . . . .” This kind of wording gives the powers that be a great deal of freedom to decide what type of consultation they will carry out. This is what Madeleine Redfern, an inspiring Inuit jurist and technology expert, explained to us in committee. In her testimony, she said, and I quote:

For it to be meaningful, consultation must mean you are listening, learning and what you are proposing is being adopted as a result of that engagement. Too often, in my experience, a consultation is just an information session. “Thank you. We are here. We have listened to you but we are still going to do what we are going to do.” It is rote. It is a tick-box exercise.

For example, in proposed paragraph 3(3)(b) of the bill, the measures to be taken to assess and prevent environmental racism are suggestions, not obligations. Examples include compensation for individuals and communities and the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making.

So why is a bill designed to develop a strategy generating so much hope and virtually unanimous support among the Indigenous groups and experts we have heard from? It’s because, for the first time, the hitherto little-known concept of environmental racism is being identified by name in legislation. The term is not defined in the bill — presumably out of caution, since it may evolve — but we are finally putting a name to what many Indigenous people and other racialized minorities have instinctively known about for decades. Naming something is the first step in raising broader awareness.

I have always been aware of the presence of factories, polluting refineries and waste dumps in poorer neighbourhoods, far from the more opulent homes. Yes, I heard some talk in Quebec a long time ago about fish being contaminated with mercury, which was preventing Indigenous people from fishing and putting food on their tables, but truth be told, I was not very well informed of the scope of the problem. It was only recently that I realized that residents of Sarnia, Ontario were not the only victims of what is known as Canada’s “Chemical Valley.” The Aamjiwnaang First Nation, located in that same area, was literally sacrificed to the petrochemical sector starting as early as the 1940s. Twenty-five hundred human beings were affected, including 900 children. These families, which were already vulnerable and marginalized, were kept in the dark for decades about accidents, spills, leaks and fires happening around the plants. Indigenous people were getting sick, but the evidence was considered anecdotal until the community itself mobilized. Studies found that this toxic industrial pollution was affecting the rate of miscarriages, childhood asthma and cancer.

Chief Chris Plain explained in committee that his people could no longer hunt or fish because of the accumulation of chemicals in the animals and fish. He said that pollution was causing the air to smell like rotten eggs and inducing dizziness and nausea. Indigenous Chief Chris Plain defines environmental racism as follows, and I quote:

 . . . the deliberate or intentional siting of hazardous waste sites, landfills, incinerators and polluting industries in communities inhabited by minorities and/or the poor.

In Quebec, a much more recent case made headlines, and some people interpret it as a form of environmental racism because it is taking federal and provincial authorities so long to intervene. A recycling centre in Kanesatake Mohawk territory north of Montreal does not have a water recovery and treatment system that meets the applicable standards, despite multiple warnings. Thousands of litres of contaminated water have been flowing into Lake of Two Mountains illegally since 2016. The Mohawk community is also afraid of the illegal site’s owners, Robert and Gary Gabriel, who obtained a permit to operate a construction materials sorting facility despite their criminal past.

Those are just two examples.

At second reading, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard talked about the open-pit dump that deprived the Africville neighbourhood in Halifax, Nova Scotia, of clean drinking water.

As stated in the preamble, this bill will affect not only Indigenous communities, but also racialized and other marginalized and disadvantaged communities. The scope of this strategy may therefore be quite broad. For example, does the absence of vegetation and trees in densely populated underprivileged neighbourhoods constitute environmental racism?

André-Anne Parent, a professor at the Université de Montréal’s School of Social Work, has calculated that green space covers less than 4% of the Montréal-Nord neighbourhood, compared with more than 11% of the city as a whole. Almost half of Montréal-Nord’s residents belong to a visible minority, and one in five has a low income. Heat islands, a lack of trees and a shortage of gardens all affect physical and mental health, according to Professor Parent.

Inuit jurist Madeleine Redfern and others would have liked to see a few amendments to strengthen the bill. She said that the scope of Bill C-226 is limited, but that it’s a basis on which to begin documenting the extent of the problem, particularly by identifying all Canadian sites where environmental racism exists and the other laws that need to be amended to prevent it. At this point, however, the consensus we heard is to pass this legislation as is, in order to move forward.

Again, I quote Ms. Redfern:

Anyone who says that environmental racism doesn’t exist clearly lives in a bubble — one that is very privileged, very urban, probably very White, middle-class and upper-middle-class. I’m going to call it out. If you’re coming from there, you’re not talking to anyone who is either living in rural, remote, northern or Indigenous parts of Canada or from a minority group.

In closing, I hope that the criticism will be followed by collaboration to eliminate and prevent environmental racism.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to take the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Martin.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?