Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, sponsored by Senator McCallum.

The objective of the bill is as follows, and I quote:

 . . . to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to address the harm caused by environmental racism.

That is a major problem affecting marginalized communities, particularly low-income, Indigenous, and Black and racialized communities. This bill is a necessary step in addressing this problem and guaranteeing all Canadians access to clean, safe environments.

Environmental racism has a long and painful history in Canada. For decades, certain communities have been disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards, such as pollution, toxic waste and other environmental hazards. These communities are often marginalized, and lack political and economic power to protect themselves from environmental harm.

I want to start by saying that my prayers and thoughts are with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation community. This year has been particularly difficult on them. We must show solidarity and do more to stop what the evidence shows is a flagrant case of environmental racism. On June 2, Chief Allan Adam urged the evacuation of more than 1,000 people as wildfires raged in northern Alberta — just months after he received reports regarding a leak of toxic waste water at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oil sands mine affecting his community’s land and water. For the last 10 months, four tailings ponds at the facility have been leaking toxic sludge into the surrounding environment.

The Alberta Energy Regulator and Imperial Oil failed to inform Indigenous communities downstream, despite regularly discussing the disaster behind closed doors. It took another incident — which released an additional 5.3 million litres in late February — for the communities and the public to be notified.

The impacts of industrial development on Indigenous lands and waters have been devastating, causing harm to people, animals, wildlife and the environment. Another example of this is the Grassy Narrows First Nation community in Ontario, which has been dealing with the effects of mercury poisoning from industrial activity for more than 50 years. The impacts of this pollution are still being felt today — 90% of the population in Grassy Narrows has neurological problems, such as numbness in fingers and toes, or seizures and cognitive delays, caused by mercury that entered the food chain decades ago.

Environmental racism is not limited to Indigenous communities. Racialized communities in urban areas across Canada also face disproportionate exposure to pollution, hazardous waste and many other environmental hazards. Dr. Ingrid Waldron, one of Canada’s leading experts on environmental justice, has documented, at length, cases of environmental racism in Canada. Her book entitled There’s Something in the Water, which was later adapted as a documentary, exposes the dire conditions of the Black community outside of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, due to well water contamination, and illustrates how colonialism has led to systemic environmental racism.

The Black community of Africville, Nova Scotia, for example, was greatly underserved by the City of Halifax, and was a dumping ground for many undesirable and dangerous developments that threatened the health of the community. It was later demolished in the 1960s, without meaningful consultation, to make way for industrial development, expropriating all residents from their tight-knit community. This is not how we should treat our fellow Canadians, and yet this kind of problem persists today.

Indeed, scientists and Indigenous people agree and highlight the inability of typical environmental laws to protect the environment. In their view, this inability is because the line drawn by environmental law is so far removed from the line drawn by the laws of nature that the phenomena of global environmental degradation, which endanger all forms of life on Earth, have not been stopped or prevented, thus greatly penalizing already vulnerable populations.

Instead of designing, implementing and enforcing laws that protect people, we have been relying on companies that cause pollution to set their own rules for pollution prevention. This system bakes in a conflict of interest — with companies prioritizing cost minimization over pollution prevention.

Colleagues, we all know that toxic tailings ponds in Canada are a ticking time bomb. This should be more evident now, especially after we heard about the wildfires in northern Alberta closing thousands of gas wells. These ponds are massive reservoirs of toxic waste that leak into groundwater and release toxins into the air, leading to high rates of cancers and respiratory diseases among Indigenous communities who live downstream. The failure to manage these ponds has led to catastrophic environmental damage, which can take centuries to clean up.

To address this issue, we need to move away from the current approach of asking polluters to set rules for pollution prevention, and instead implement scientifically rigorous plans for the cleanup of tailings ponds. Companies must be held financially responsible for the costs of cleanup rather than passing them on to taxpayers and future generations.

In the short term, we need to work in partnership with Indigenous governments to ensure that they’re never again kept in the dark about environmental disasters that threaten their communities. Indigenous people have a deep connection to the land; their knowledge and expertise must be taken seriously in environmental decision making.

Environmental racism is the result of systemic discrimination, the lack of community representation at the decision table and the absence of meaningful community engagement in decision-making processes. These factors have contributed to a situation in which certain communities are more likely to live near pollution sources and face higher rates of exposure to environmental hazards.

To address environmental racism in a meaningful way, we need a comprehensive strategy at the national level that recognizes the unique experiences of different communities and provides a framework for action.

It is time for Canada, as well as its provinces, territories and regulators, to act by designing, implementing and enforcing laws that really protect people and the environment.

Bill C-226 proposes such a comprehensive strategy. This strategy must be developed with meaningful community consultation, and must address various aspects of environmental racism, such as identifying the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk; mapping areas with high levels of pollution; improving access to environmental information; and looking for feasible solutions.

One key aspect of the bill is the recognition of Indigenous people’s rights and perspectives in the development of the strategy. This recognition is critical in acknowledging and addressing the historical and ongoing impacts of environmental racism on Indigenous communities.

This bill is a necessary step toward addressing environmental racism in Canada. By establishing a comprehensive strategy and ensuring meaningful community engagement, we can work toward a more equitable and sustainable future for all Canadians.

The passage of Bill C-226 would have several important benefits for all Canadians: First and foremost, it would lead to an improvement in the health outcomes for marginalized communities that have historically been impacted by environmental racism. By identifying areas with high levels of pollution and other environmental hazards, we can take action to reduce exposure and mitigate the impacts of these hazards.

Additionally, the establishment of a national strategy would create opportunities for accountability for polluters, and ensure there is oversight of environmental policies and regulations. This will help prevent future instances of environmental racism.

The bill also aligns with Canada’s commitments to human rights, environmental sustainability and, of course, reconciliation with Indigenous people. By doing so in the development of the strategy, we can work toward a more just and equitable society.

I tried to answer a similar question the other day, and I was shut down. We don’t want to hear some things. There are two issues. There is the technical issue — the content — which, of course, your bill is trying to address and is essential and important. We cannot move any further with reconciliation and call it an inclusive society if we don’t take care of this discriminated group of people. At the same time, there are these procedural things in the rules; some rules are very clear and others are less clear. There is opacity in how decisions are made. I’m sorry that this bill is taking time to be sent to committee. I have tried to seek the answers to why some decisions are made in a confidential way and not open to the public, because every decision that we take in this chamber should be public because 100% of our activity is public affairs. I hope that answers your question. Thank you.