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]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Bellemare, would you agree to answer a question?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, a year ago, during the study of Bill C-11, you said this about my age verification amendment:

. . . The Government of Canada is looking to introduce legislation to address potential online harms with the goal of keeping all Canadians safe online, including being safe from the kind of harm that this amendment would propose. In the government’s view, this would be the most appropriate forum, in the context of that legislation, to discuss this important issue. . . .

In other words, the government said, “We’ll take care of the issue in our online safety bill.”

Today, the government finally introduced its long-awaited bill, and there’s no age verification to prevent children from accessing online porn. So my question is this: What happened to that clear commitment?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s a difficult question. I don’t think politics is a perfect science. I think we’re all trying to find the right way forward in dealing with the very difficult issue that is MAID, broadly speaking.

I think there are specific criteria for psychiatric illnesses that make irremediable consequences generally more difficult to establish than for physical illnesses. I’m not saying, Senator Kutcher, that this is absolute. I’m saying that, based on what I’ve read and on the discussions I’ve had, this is part of the difficulty.

I also think that the safeguards need to be robust. I understand that it is difficult and, as you know, our opinions on this issue differ. I understand that there are people who are waiting for this help and who are suffering, but I believe that what happened in Belgium and the Netherlands shows us that once we open MAID up to those with psychiatric problems... When 1,150 people are requesting MAID in a country that is smaller than Canada, that’s a lot of people. You often talk about people you know who have indeed had illnesses for a very long time, who have tried every treatment, but once that door is open, how will it work? Unlike you, I don’t have absolute confidence in all doctors, all medications and all treatments. I think there are abuses. The fact that there have been 16 cases of MAID in Quebec where tough questions are being asked because it appears the law was not followed shows that these questions are far from easy.

I don’t have a definite answer. I wonder, I have doubts and I think you do, too. However, we have fairly opposite points of view on this issue.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Honestly, no, I wasn’t aware of that. That was in one of the briefs submitted to Quebec’s commission on end-of-life care. They discuss the situation in Belgium and in the Netherlands. It’s a bit different. All right, then, I’ll take you at your word.

But there is certainly more than one expert who’s uncertain about the irremediability of psychiatric disorders. It’s a difficult debate. You mention evidence and the fact that it’s beyond dispute, but I think that the Council of Canadian Academies, a respected scientific organization, also reached similar findings on the issue of irremediability. These are professionals, but not physicians only. From what I understand, they are also scientists from various backgrounds. That, too, is not insignificant. It is a social debate. Yes, physicians are very important, but I think the debate is broader than that.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Perhaps I am rising on debate because I don’t think there is any more time for questions.

Listen, Senator Housakos. I heard you, and I couldn’t help but rise because I think you’re living on a planet that doesn’t exist. You have this idea that you’ve been completely muzzled and that you can’t speak. We worked on bills like Bill C-11, which took six months of study. Do you feel like we prevented you from bringing in all of the witnesses that you wanted, for weeks on end?

I am thinking of Bill C-18. I have been here for five years. The idea that the opposition is being prevented from doing its job is completely absurd to me. That is simply not the case. You referred to the House of Lords, to our British system. In England, there is a House of Lords with cross-benchers. They do exist. Such independence is not a joke.

Every day, you say that we are Liberal senators, that we don’t have any freedom and that we are kowtowing. That is absolutely shameful. I can’t take it any more. We are people with minds of our own. I certainly don’t consider myself to be under the heel of Prime Minister Trudeau.

Have you seen the number of amendments that we’re trying to get adopted? It’s nothing like it was in your day. You’re just making up a story. You’re making yourselves out to be victims. You’re saying that there is no more democracy.

Listen, we have debates here. That happens. I honestly don’t know where you got this idea about us. I can’t take it any more. It’s not true. We’re not puppets. That’s not true.

There. I think I’ve said enough.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: Absolutely.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like you, I tried to do my homework on this bill, because I hate to see inequities between the regions.

The past few days have been difficult. I became particularly interested in the refundable tax credit that the government implemented in 2021 after noticing how unfair the situation was.

Does this refundable tax credit offset a certain amount of the carbon tax? If we do the math, we see that, in Alberta, the average amount a farm spends on heating and on the carbon tax is 0.5% of all its expenditures. As for the carbon tax, the refundable tax credit offsets 0.17% of those costs. That means that, on average, farmers get a cheque that offsets about a third of their heating and carbon tax expenses.

Given that the carbon tax costs a lot less than heating costs, farmers are receiving a rather substantial amount of compensation. It is true that we are talking about an average and that the cheque is an average amount for everyone.

However, in a way, doesn’t this reward those who use less energy, while penalizing those who use more natural gas and diesel?

That is my somewhat complicated question.

[English]

Senator Wells: Now I regret saying yes to answering your question.

I will take the percentages you gave at face value. With the refundable tax credit, or the rebate, it is not targeted specifically even at farms that use propane and natural gas. It is targeted at all farms for all eligible expenses, which, again, those eligible expenses don’t have to include propane or natural gas.

The other thing I learned is that refundable tax credit is altogether about 7% to 10%. It’s a very low percentage of what the full expenses would be on natural gas and propane.

I don’t know if this fully answers your question, but while it is applied over a broader number of farms, it is not targeted at those specifically who use the fuels we are talking about, natural gas and propane.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like you, Senator Gold, I believe that the issue of medical assistance in dying is a delicate and difficult one. There are currently some serious doubts about the legislation’s implementation.

Shouldn’t there be a pause on expanding medical assistance in dying to those with mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition? There’s no consensus on the issue. Quebec has rejected the idea.

Why doesn’t the federal government apply the precautionary principle in this specific case in order to slow the momentum and prevent things from getting out of hand?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to come back to the question of hospitals in northern Gaza. I find the whole issue disturbing.

Israeli forces are demanding that they be evacuated. However, staff are refusing because it would mean certain death for many patients who need ventilators. Are the principles of international humanitarian law not at stake? Does Canada have an opinion on this situation, which is quite simply unacceptable?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, as Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times, states cannot give the impression that there is a hierarchy of human life.

This is a philosophical question, but do you believe that is a risk? If you called for a truce, could balance be restored, diplomatically speaking?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Hello and thank you for being here with us, minister.

Government procurement has reached nearly $22 billion a year. That is a lot of money. Some companies that are making efforts to incorporate recycled items and, more generally, to accelerate the transition to a circular economy are complaining that your procurement process doesn’t include incentives for this.

I know that the government has a policy on green procurement, but I gather that these criteria are not always enforced. Is that right? Is it just one criterion among hundreds of others, or is it a priority?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. I’d still like to add one thing to the question you’re going to ask: Can the law be changed?

It seems rather absurd to spend millions of dollars on hotel rooms for up to a year, I’m told, rather than to ask and fund non‑profits capable of rehousing them for less in society, and helping them. This seems like an inconsistency that needs to be corrected.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Unfortunately, Senator Gold, the Rainbow Railroad coalition is overwhelmed. As such, Nahid Modaressi, like other women in her situation, would like to apply for refugee status in Canada but does not have the means to take a plane to get to Canada because her visa was denied.

Is there a way for Ms. Modaressi to apply for refugee status in Canada from Turkey?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Deacon, would you mind answering a question?

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to support Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at second reading.

My colleague Rosemary Moodie provided a comprehensive overview of the history of child care in this country and the principles contained in Bill C-35, including provisions that enable Indigenous peoples to define and direct their own early childhood services.

I won’t repeat what Senator Moodie said so well. Instead, I want to address some of the challenges of implementing this program, in light of Quebec’s experience with $8.85-per-day child care spaces.

To begin, it is clear that this framework legislation essentially seeks to ensure that the ambitious federal child care funding initiative in the provinces and territories becomes a permanent fixture. Minister Karina Gould said so openly during the committee study in the House of Commons on March 10, and I quote:

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments . . . are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

That’s why this bill is short and simply sets out general principles, such as long-term funding. All the details are in the hundreds of pages of bilateral agreements between Ottawa and the provinces. Ontario’s agreement is 140 pages long; Quebec’s agreements are 47 pages long. The agreements include amounts, funding formulas, specific rules and accountability measures.

I would note that the agreement with Quebec is asymmetrical. It reaffirms Quebec’s exclusive jurisdiction over child care and says that Quebec will have total flexibility to spend the money it gets on improving its network and creating new spaces.

I found two segments of Bill C-35 particularly interesting. The first is in paragraph 7(1)(b), which states that federal investments should aim to “enable families of all income levels, including low incomes, to benefit . . . .”

Helping low-income families is no doubt the most difficult goal for a universal child care program to achieve. Quebec’s experience is proof of that. That was actually one of the two major goals set out in Quebec’s Educational Childcare Act, which was passed 25 years ago.

Unfortunately, the legislation has not had the desired result. The idea was to make the service free for the poorest families to encourage them to register their children in early childhood centres, which are known as CPEs in Quebec. These are high-quality, non-profit child care services. The goal was for children to benefit from early stimulation and more equal opportunities in their schooling.

The fact remains that these families still need to register and spots have to be available. We know that 36% of Quebec children under the age of four do not attend a recognized child care facility. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family, explained to the House of Commons committee that very little is known about the systemic, economic and cultural barriers that impede families’ access to child care.

The 2020-21 report of the Auditor General of Quebec gave some striking examples of such disparities. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, particularly the borough of Montreal North, there are a lot more spaces available in private daycares than in CPEs, whereas the opposite is true in the wealthy neighbourhood of Westmount. In simple terms, richer families have greater access to high-quality CPEs at $8.85 a day than low- and modest-income families, who have greater access to commercial daycares that offer lower-quality services. Children living in families with an income of $50,000 or less are less likely to get a space at a CPE. I find that deeply disturbing.

[English]

The known difference of quality between private daycares and non-profit CPEs should make the province think. The Quebec government did not have the means to meet the full demand, so it turned to the private sector to offer more spots, either by subsidizing them directly or by offering a tax credit. It is more than time to raise quality standards and to enforce them.

Quebec has gone through different stages to try to refine the data and make its waiting list system fairer. Today, there is a single, regularly updated waiting list for all CPEs across Quebec. Right now, for example, we know there are 37,260 children waiting for a spot, a figure that has jumped by 3,700 in one year despite the addition of more than 20,000 subsidized spaces over the past two years. However, even the accuracy of this list is disputed by some.

Despite significant investments, there is a lack of spots for mothers who want to return to work. The reality is that it is the less fortunate families who are worse off. The labour shortage in child care services aggravates the problem.

When I was President of the Quebec Council for the Status of Women, I spent much time thinking about this supposed universal child care model. There is no easy answer.

[Translation]

Let me share a personal anecdote. When the child care program first started 25 years ago, I secured $5-a-day child care spaces for my two children. I was very lucky. It was a daycare at my workplace at Radio-Canada, and there was always a child care educator available in the evening for employees with atypical work schedules. That applied to me because I was covering the news. I simply added my name to a waiting list at the right time. The system was purely first-come, first-served.

That child care centre gave me seven years of peace of mind. I could see that my children were learning and that their tastes were developing thanks to healthy lunches. However, even back then, there were long waiting lists, and some of my lower-income colleagues were not as lucky as I was. The Quebec model is not equitable. That is a lesson Canada should learn from.

The same problem will arise in other provinces. I believe that until there are enough spaces for all children from all walks of life and all neighbourhoods, the principle of universality is unfair if it doesn’t take income into account. I think it’s essential to give priority to less fortunate families. As it stands, the system will provide a daycare space at $8.85 a day to a doctor earning $300,000 if she registers before an orderly who earns six or seven times less than that.

In 2015, the Quebec government abolished the flat rate and charged higher rates to parents with higher incomes, but that reform was later abandoned because of an election campaign. In short, we went back to square one.

The Quebec example illustrates the challenges and the adjustments that were needed along the way, just as they will definitely be needed elsewhere in Canada. Fortunately, the Quebec government has recognized the inequity of access to reduced-contribution spaces and is working to address it. The legislation was amended two years ago to ensure that priority for subsidized child care services is given to children in precarious socio-economic circumstances.

Despite these challenges, I would remind the chamber that the Quebec model has contributed to significant advances in Quebec society, particularly for the middle class.

In 2022, 88% of Quebec women between 25 and 54 years of age were active in the workforce, compared to an average of 84% in the other provinces. Over the years, mothers of young children have been returning to the workforce faster, due in part to good‑quality, affordable daycare. In 25 years, the number of daycare spaces has climbed from 79,000 to 307,000, including 237,000 subsidized spaces. That is a huge increase.

The second thing in the bill that struck me is the annual report that the federal government will be required to prepare. The report has to contain a summary of the progress made in the provincial systems and information about the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of child care services.

The federal public servants who answered our questions at a recent briefing on Bill C-35 were unequivocal: They are depending on the provinces to provide the evidence needed to carry out a real assessment. This evidence must show not only how many spaces costing $10 or less per day were created in each province, but also how many families are still on waiting lists.

Obviously, each province already has its own waiting list system. Some don’t even have a waiting list. With this in mind, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments?

I am going to end by sharing some words from the November 2021 brief prepared by the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, which identifies the primary shortcomings that should be corrected in Quebec’s model. To meet the needs of all women, child care services must take into account mothers with variable work schedules, women with precarious immigration status, and poorer and more vulnerable women.

These are equity issues that have no doubt already been identified in other provinces and territories, but they are difficult to resolve. I hope that other provinces can benefit from Quebec’s experience and that Canadian families — especially the less fortunate ones — can fully benefit from the new program put in place by Bill C-35.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are there any more questions?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That is an excellent question, Senator Omidvar. I will answer in French, if you don’t mind, because the subject is rather technical.

I don’t think the federal government has the power to require that all those investments go toward public not-for-profit daycares. Even in Quebec, where significant amounts were spent and there was an overwhelming consensus between feminist ministers and all of civil society to implement this low-cost child care system, we were financially unable to absorb the costs and have only not-for-profit organizations, offer decent wages and, often, build child care centres.

That is why Quebec made use of private daycares. Had it not done so, the province would have been unable to meet the demand from the many women who were at home and wanted a space for their child. There were all sorts of systems. Now, there are just four or five remaining, including the non-profits and CPEs, subsidized and non-subsidized private daycares, and family daycares where a woman provides child care. Family daycares were extremely important in Quebec. Since the number of children changes from year to year, family daycares were a more flexible tool to accommodate that fluctuation. It is easier to open or close family daycares than CPEs or non-profits.

It’s remarkable that Quebec has managed to do this. The government had to keep its promises, but it didn’t have enough money to build the best not-for-profit daycares for everyone. Studies have shown that the best child care centres are not-for-profit CPEs, which have trained educators and decent budgets. These are the highest-quality child care centres.

Now, what can be done about this rather difficult situation? We need to set stricter standards for these private child care centres, whether they are subsidized or not, in order to keep our children safe.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let me see if I can coax a little more information out of you anyway. Maybe, maybe not. This man is a Canadian citizen, a graduate of the Université de Montréal and the University of Ottawa. He married a Quebecer. He has a 4-year-old daughter. I understand the need for discretion, but my request today is simple. Can you assure us that the government will not ignore this case, that it will not be forgotten?