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]