SoVote

Apr/26/22 4:48:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the measures put in place by the Liberal government are brown measures disguised as green measures. The Conservatives see the green, and we see the brown. The reality is that they are only half measures. The Commissioner of the Environment confirmed it once again today. My colleague is boasting about his infrastructure bank, which barely worked. My loyalty does not lie with Brampton, but with the Bloc Québécois. When my colleague from Winnipeg North has travelled one kilometre on a high-speed train in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, he can ask me his question again.

101 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/26/22 4:48:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was encouraging to hear the member talk about how oil production is going up in this country. I think one of the greatest solutions to the challenges we face in energy would be to support the development of liquefied natural gas products in Quebec. I think once those products were on stream, we would see the Bloc supporting the energy sector. There are some hopeful opportunities maybe in the future. I want to ask the member a question about subsidies because he went on about alleged subsidies. It seems to me that people looking for reasons to oppose the energy sector call any kind of incentive, any kind of tax break, a “subsidy”. They use such an expansive definition of the term. There are no real subsidies to the oil and gas sector, but the Bloc tries to redefine the term “subsidy” to be so expansive that it includes almost anything. Would he be supportive of applying the same definition of “subsidy” to industries that are important in his province and ending subsidies to those industries as well?

187 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/26/22 4:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have it so easy. Their problem is that they never have enough oil, so their solution is to have more oil. There are times I would love to be in their position. We are talking about investment credits. When an oil company invests $1 but ultimately pays less than $1 because the government makes up the difference, that is an economic subsidy. I do not need any lectures from my colleague on equalization or transfers. It is like a dog chasing its tail. The Conservatives blame us for equalization and use that as an excuse to produce even more. When they produce even more and the fiscal gap gets even bigger, they will blame us even more. The Conservatives are creating their own problems and their own solutions. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be in their head.

145 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/26/22 4:50:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opened his comments with concern for seniors and the lack of action for seniors. One of the things the NDP would really like to see is for the government to adopt my colleague's bill on the guaranteed livable income. That would support seniors and, of course, many others as well who are living in poverty. Would the Bloc support such a bill?

67 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/26/22 4:51:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are debating the ways and means motion. We have the opportunity to do something now for seniors, to increase their pensions. However, the NDP, which decided to sign an agreement with the Liberals and will therefore support the budget, is being sanctimonious here. We will see how we vote on their bill. However, the NDP will soon vote on a budget that has ignored our seniors, and we need to hold the NDP to account.

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/26/22 4:51:38 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Employment; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Housing.

60 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/26/22 4:52:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. I am pleased to weigh in on the budget. It will become clear quite quickly that I am going to talk about agriculture. I have a certain bent in that direction. Many people are disappointed because there is not much in the budget for the farming community. We are hearing announcements about the obvious things, among others, as well as things that are already under way. Specifically, we are being told that negotiations will continue for the Canadian agricultural partnership. Those negotiations are under way but have stalled because some western provinces refuse to improve the AgriStability program. The Bloc Québécois has long suggested—and this is the position of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec, by the way—that the federal government proceed with the improvement it had proposed, that is, a compensation rate of 80% of the reference margin, with the provinces that are ready to move forward. I am reiterating that proposal today. I think it is important that we improve the performance of our insurance programs, because our farmers are the ones who feed us. These programs are supposed to make our supply chain more stable. There is a lot of talk these days about the supply chain not doing well, and so on. However, we can take steps that are going to be permanent and effective time and again. Of course, it is not as fun for the party in power, because it cannot simply come along and suddenly announce that it is going to give such a gift or create such a program, as it is doing at the moment in the health care sector. My colleague from Mirabel just demonstrated this very eloquently. Many have spoken about the $28 billion that we need in health care, but the government announces $2 billion and expects us to be satisfied with that. This is similar to what the government is doing with the agricultural programs. We need to act quickly on this. The next really disappointing aspect is that we are also told that an announcement is coming about compensation for supply-managed producers in the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. I am trying to stay calm. Enough is enough. Does the government believe in our supply management system? Does it believe in our producers and does it have any respect for them? The answer is no. In the budget, the government boasts that, thanks to international agreements, Canada has access to all the other G7 countries, but this has come at a cost. It has cost our producers a share of the market. Our producers are efficiently organized, they protect the environment on a daily basis, they control the quantity produced and the price, they give us extremely high quality products, and yet they are constantly scorned. I am fed up. That is what I wanted to say today. Our producers should not have to beg for four or five years to get compensation for CUSMA. They have scrapes on their knees from dragging themselves through the muck. It looks like the government is trying to keep them civil, by saying that it will give them something soon and that they should behave. Enough is enough. Can we resolve this, please? It is extremely disappointing. We know that the negotiations are over and that the amounts have been established. The money needs to be paid so that we can move on to something else. Over time, the government is neglecting producers in supply-managed industries. I suspect this is not the first time I am saying this in the House, but I will say it again today. I feel like this government is being sneaky by chipping away at our supply-managed industry markets, letting time go by, allowing unfair competition from outside that undermines our system, and delaying compensation to harm that system so that it disappears through no fault of the government. My message to the government is that if its intention is to get rid of supply management, it needs to say so and own that politically. The Bloc Québécois has the solution. We are going to introduce another law to protect it. We are going to ask the government to pay compensation right away. As usual, I can see that I will not have enough time to say even one-tenth of the things I wanted to say. Let us talk about the next generation of farmers. In the previous Parliament, my esteemed colleague from Brandon—Souris introduced a bill that he asked me to co-sponsor, which I was happy to do. We had an excellent working relationship with the NDP folks at the time, and we succeeded in passing a bill that made it no less financially attractive to transfer the family business to one's own child as to a stranger. At present, the situation is the same as it was before the bill was passed. It is utter nonsense for a government that claims to understand the importance of business succession, agriculture and the need to feed people. It is appalling and disgusting. I am about to say something unparliamentary, so I will stop here. What is even more surprising is that this legislation was passed. If the government wanted to make changes to it and question it, then it could have done so in the last Parliament, which it actually did in committee and in the House. The bill was then debated in the Senate and the matter was settled. When legislation is passed in the Senate, it has to come into force. Well, to my great surprise, last year, the Minister of Finance held a press conference the next day to announce that her government would wait six months before enacting this legislation, claiming that she was not happy with it. What does that mean? Where is the democracy? Parliament passed the bill by a majority vote because the majority of its elected members respect farmers and want to ensure their future. Can the government take action? Obviously we put pressure on the government and the government people backed off. They agreed to enforce this legislation, but very shortly afterward, they announced that they would make changes. I am talking about it here because there are still no numbers or anything in the budget. However, it is noted that a change will be made to this legislation because “the exception [in the legislation] may unintentionally permit surplus stripping without requiring that a genuine intergenerational business transfer takes place.” Putting it in my own words, that means “we will delay the enforcement of this legislation because we suspect our small farmers of being a bunch of fraudsters”. At the same time, the government is doing nothing about tax havens, as has been the case for many years. It is estimated that we lose at least $7 billion a year to tax havens in dozens of countries. Everyone is aware of this. It is perfectly legal and completely ironic, and I do not understand why people are not more outraged. However, when farmers want to sell their farms to a son or a daughter, they are told that they may well be fraudsters and the process is delayed by getting tough and closing any loopholes. This is going to have consequences. According to the government's official line, the law is in force and transactions can go ahead. However, in reality, according to what I have been told, financial advisors, accountants and notaries are all telling our farmers that they do not know what the government is going to do with the legislation and that they are taking a very big risk if they go ahead with their transactions at this time. They are therefore suggesting to farmers that they delay selling, which will again result in sales to strangers. However, selling to a stranger has the same effect as killing supply management. This is about land use. If a farmer sells the land to a neighbour instead of selling it to a son, there will be only two farms left in a zone that used to have 20, and the residents will complain that the town school is empty, which is obvious. This is all part of a whole. When production is stable, it keeps our economy going. To conclude, I will say that the Bloc Québécois has done what it usually does, which is to work constructively. Last night, the House voted on our amendment to the amendment. If something is not to our liking, we do not say that everything is bad and that we should vote against it; we propose changes. However, the House voted against our amendment to the amendment. The NDP-Liberal coalition refused to increase old age security starting at age 65. I want people to remember that when they flock to hear the brilliant speeches about how they claim to be working for everyone.

1524 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/26/22 5:02:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for the first part of his speech, the member talked a great deal about supply management and tried to plant the seed of doubt in terms of where this government stands on supply management. Virtually from day one, going back to 2015, the Minister of Agriculture has been very clear that we support supply management. In fact, it was a Liberal administration many years ago that created supply management. The difference is that the government understands that Canada is a trading nation, and we continue to negotiate the trade agreements that provide the types of jobs that are so important to our middle class and for growing our economy. Does the member not recognize the benefits of having these trade agreements and understand and appreciate that there is no hidden agenda here? We created supply management. We will continue to protect the need for supply management for the fine work that it does.

155 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Apr/26/22 5:03:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has always been resolutely in favour of free trade. We have never questioned the benefits of international agreements. Here, we believe that we can do two things at the same time: protect our system under supply management and enter into good trade agreements. If the member really supports supply management, I would ask him to explain how it is that we have had to sell it out three times when signing international agreements. Can we stop chipping away at it if we believe in it? At some point, when it hits 18% in the milk market, supply management will no longer work.

111 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Apr/26/22 5:03:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for the passion that he brings to his work in this chamber and at committee. I would ask him to clarify some of his comments regarding the AgriStability program. If I heard him correctly, he is suggesting that improvements can be made, which I would support, with provinces that agree to move ahead. Is he suggesting that the Canadian government should treat all farmers in the provinces equally and increase funding to 85% under AgriStability in all provinces, or just the provinces that agree? Should a federal government not treat all farmers in Canada equally?

106 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Apr/26/22 5:04:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, for his question Yes, absolutely. All farmers and all provinces must be treated equally. However, when a majority of the provinces want to move forward to improve the program and make sure it works properly, all provinces should be able to choose whether to implement it. Those who want to can do so, but everyone has the same opportunity. I do not want to be misinterpreted.

78 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Apr/26/22 5:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, whom I serve on the agriculture committee with. When I look at the agricultural section of the budget, it is nice to finally see a reference to climate change when speaking to agriculture. He will know that our committee is currently studying agriculture's contributions to climate change. I am wondering, based on the witness testimony he has heard at committee, what kind of recommendations he hopes to see eventually in our report that may serve as a firm basis for recommendations we can make for government policy in the future.

98 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Apr/26/22 5:05:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question about a part of my speech that I did not have a chance to get to because I was so emotional in the first part. We are working on it. I think that agriculture can play a huge role in the environment. I think it is important to provide direct compensation for positive actions. I would say that the one positive in what was announced is the on-farm climate action fund. It is not enough money, but it is a step forward, and we will keep an eye on what is happening. I would like to work with the government to move things forward. It is very important that this money be decentralized, that positive actions be compensated and that this money be available to our agricultural entrepreneurs, because they are the only ones who know when to invest in their business.

153 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/26/22 5:06:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about budget 2022. I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for sharing his time with me. Budget 2022 is, ostensibly, “a plan to grow our economy and make life more affordable”. I doubt anyone will be surprised to hear me heave a sigh of exasperation. As I will show in my speech, there are still far too many who are not getting any help to make life more affordable. Only one of our five unconditional demands was met: housing for indigenous communities. The government is planning to invest $4 billion over seven years starting in 2022-23 through Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to accelerate work on housing. I applaud this initiative because I know it is essential to put an end to violence against indigenous women and girls. I was just at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we discussed this issue. There is no way we will be able to extricate these women from the cycle of poverty without providing them with adequate, affordable housing. That said, the government does not understand that Canadians gave it a minority mandate, that they did not want to give it a blank cheque, and that they did not want to let it scatter money willy-nilly and in areas of jurisdiction that are none of its business. I am forced to see the glass as half empty today and criticize what is not in the budget. In particular, I want to talk about seniors, our health care system, and economic development in areas still affected by the pandemic and recovering from the crisis. As the critic for seniors, I will begin by highlighting the complete lack of help for seniors. We had made help for seniors one of the five prerequisites for passing this budget. To add insult to injury, in addition to not announcing anything new, they included a chart to tell seniors that they do not need any additional help. The government should tell them that while looking them straight in the eye and trying to explain why they are still being discriminated against based on their age. For the rest of this part, I will let our seniors speak. Here are the words of those I have met over the past few weeks who are not happy: “Why do the Liberals insist on dividing us?” “I may get sick before I'm 75”; “My car will soon give out on me and I won't be able to get around. How will I maintain my independence?” Take Michel and his wife Josée, or even France, for example. These three retirees feel penalized by the lack of federal government assistance for people between the ages of 65 and 75. They tell us that they want to enjoy life, that they have needs and that they want to help restart local economies. An organization in my riding, SOS Dépannage, told me that there has been a sharp rise in the number of seniors relying on food assistance. Do we really want to reduce seniors to standing in line for food hampers? Contrary to what the NDP-Liberal alliance is saying, it is not dental insurance that seniors want to talk to me about. Besides, this dental plan comes without any transfers to Quebec and it would not cover seniors until 2023. Seniors need more money in their pockets now. It is not to invest in tax havens; rather, it is simply to be able to age with dignity. It is nice to have great teeth, but that means nothing if you cannot afford groceries at the end of the month. It is not a year from now that seniors will be hungry. They are going hungry now. As I said, poverty does not wait until people reach the age of 75. In fact, a petition is currently being circulated calling on the government to reverse its decision to increase the pension of those aged 75 and over, known as older seniors, by 10%. Instead, petitioners are asking for an increase of $110 per month in the old age security pension beginning at age 65. People lined up at the Tim Hortons restaurant across from my office in Granby last week. People do not want this unfair two-tier senior system. I also had some nice conversations with seniors in Drummond. The meeting was organized by the Centre‑du‑Québec branch of the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées. That was also where I heard many of these first-hand accounts. Many people feel passionate about signing this petition, which I am sponsoring and which was initiated by Samuel Lévesque. Petition e‑3820, which can be found on the House of Commons website, aims to support the the Bloc Québécois's demand for a permanent and lasting increase in old age security benefits for everyone 65 years of age and older. The FADOQ also said that the government broke its own election promises. There is no additional credit for home support, no tax credit for experienced workers, nothing at all. There is no increase in the old age security pension for seniors 65 and older in the budget. In fact, there is nothing. The government instead proposes the creation of a panel tasked with studying the idea of an allocation for seniors wishing to grow old at home. Once again, if the Liberals truly wanted to help seniors stay in their homes, they would have increased health transfers. In the second part of my speech, I will talk about another major omission in this budget: health transfers. There is no increase in transfers to 35% of costs as requested by Quebec and the provinces. “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes for Canadians”. That does not mean anything. There is no commitment to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers to 35%. This request also has the support of many seniors groups. Quebec and the provinces do not need to be told what to do by know-it-all Ottawa. There is nothing on the increase to health transfers yet the government keeps repeating and boasting about the same points. In the third part of my speech I want to talk to my colleagues about the recovery for some sectors that are still very much affected, because the government missed some perfect opportunities. I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé cares a great deal about the agricultural sector, because this sector is also very important to Shefford's economy. There is not much in the budget for this sector, however. When I travel around my beautiful riding of Shefford, people often bring up the agricultural sector. People wanted to see some innovative and bold measures. At the very least, the government should have considered improvements to existing programs like AgriStability and AgriInvest. My colleague has already spoken extensively about that. The agricultural sector also wants something like the agri-green program, which would help producers and processors improve their operations and compensate them for good environmental practices. Aside from the second investment, the government is proposing other types of investments, but it is not going far enough. The Bloc Québécois is therefore disappointed with this announcement, on which it had pinned much hope. We will see what producers and processors have to say about it. For the time being, compensation is a long time coming. The government wrote that compensation for CUSMA will be included in the fall 2022 update. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé stated, it seems that there are further delays for those hard hit by the repercussions of the last three trade agreements signed by Canada. The situation is dragging on. I was told about this recently at the Agristars gala. The young people I met spoke to me about farm transfers and controversial Bill C-208, which would facilitate intergenerational transfers. The government is satisfied once again with conducting consultations and creating delays. It is a major step backwards for farm transfers, even though the bill was passed in the final days of the previous Parliament, after the Liberals dithered. Now, the government is delaying its coming into force. The Bloc Québécois co-sponsored Bill C-208. It is a an extremely important issue for farm succession.

1469 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/26/22 5:15:09 p.m.
Watch

Order. I must interrupt the member at this point because we are running out of time. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

113 words

Hon. Ed Fast

Apr/26/22 5:16:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/26/22 5:16:30 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/26/22 6:01:08 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment defeated. It being 6:01 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

30 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/26/22 6:03:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-226

moved that Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here this evening because this is a very important private member's bill. I am very honoured to stand here to present Bill C-226 in the first hour of second reading. I want to begin with a very heartfelt meegwetch and a recognition that we stand on the territory of the Algonquin nation. It is their land. I want to take a moment to describe how we got to where we are today, because it is rare for a private member's bill entering its first hour of second reading to have already had any parliamentary history at all, and this has a lot of parliamentary history. I will start by saying that this bill received wide support under a different mover in the last Parliament, as Bill C-230. It was moved by the magnificent former member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann. Lenore was elected as a Liberal member of Parliament here, but she is quite a non-partisan individual. She also served with distinction in the legislature of Nova Scotia as a New Democrat MLA and has carried with her a concern for environmental racism for a long time. She did me the great honour of making this a non-partisan bill, and I am very honoured to have the hon. chair of the environment committee as the seconder of this bill now. We wanted to make this a non-partisan effort from its very inception as Bill C-230. Bill C-230, with the same title, was an act to address and assess environmental racism and move forward to environmental justice. It received support at second reading and actually got to committee. Amendments were made at the environment committee, and I adopted those amendments in Bill C-226 at first reading. What we have in front of us therefore represents work already done by Parliament. It is my deep hope and desire that all of us here, regardless of party, will find it in our hearts sometime in the near future to give this bill unanimous consent so that it can skip through stages that were already done and be sent to the other place. It would then become law, and we can start working proactively to advance environmental justice. That is the hope with which I speak to members tonight. I am grateful for the non-partisan support the bill already has, and members will hear that in the speeches that are coming up. We also know from a question that I put to the Prime Minister in question period that the government's position is to support this bill. We feel optimistic that it will become law, but we would rather it was sooner than later. I will now turn to the history. This is not a recent issue, and we are late to act. However, before I start on that, I need to dedicate this bill to the memory of a friend of mine: Clotilda Coward Douglas Yakimchuk. She was a magnificent woman and a hero in the community. Her parents came from Barbados in the earlier part of the last century to work in the Sydney steel mill. Clotilda was a proud Black woman. She was the first community activist with whom I ever worked on the issue of environmental racism. Clotilda Yakimchuk died just about a year ago on April 15, 2021. She died of COVID. She was the first Black person to receive a nursing degree at nursing school in Nova Scotia. She was the first Black woman to be the president of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Nova Scotia. She was aware of and fought against the pollution of the coke ovens of the Sydney steel mill and the steel mill itself, which led to high cancer rates in the community of Whitney Pier. When this bill becomes law, I hope people will remember that it is dedicated to the memory of Clotilda Yakimchuk. One of the things I know from cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds with Clotilda is that we can recognize as a reality that toxic chemicals do not discriminate. They do not pay attention to the colour of our skin when they lodge in our body, when they pass through placenta to children, when they cause cancer and when they cause birth defects. They do not care about the colour of our skin. However, the public policy that puts indigenous peoples and communities of colour far more frequently at risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals does notice skin colour. It does notice whether we are marginalized or not. It does notice whether we have money or not. Therefore, this is absolutely the case in this country, with all of the evidence that we have of racism that cannot be denied. I know this bill makes people uncomfortable. Is there racism in Canada? Yes, there is. We just had a report today about the racism that repulses people as new recruits out of our military. Every institution in our country experiences racism. Environmental racism is not something new. Let me go through some of the history we have of that in this country. I am going to turn to books for a moment. The first book that really focused on this problem was in 1977, by one of Canada's great journalists, Warner Troyer. The book is No Safe Place, and it is the story of the contamination by the Dryden paper mill of the indigenous community at Grassy Narrows. We are still dealing with that mercury contamination. Another book on the same topic of the mercury contamination of Grassy Narrows is A Poison Stronger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojibwa Community, by Anastasia Shkilnyk. She was one of my constituents and, also in her memory, I bring this bill forward today. In 2000, actually, I co-authored with Maude Barlow, who was then the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, the book Frederick Street: Life and death on Canada's Love Canal, dealing with the issue that I mentioned, and I referenced it. That is where Clotilda Yakimchuk and I first became friends. The contamination of the Sydney tar ponds led to the highest cancer rates in Canada. They were in industrial Cape Breton. The place that became the tar ponds was an estuary where the Mi’kmaq community had traditionally had summer fishing camps. The land was stolen, of course, and then became the worst pollution zone in Canada with the pollution from the coke ovens and the steel mill. In between was a community called Whitney Pier, which was virtually entirely immigrant Canadians, including a lot of people from Ukraine. I mentioned Clotilda's last name was Yakimchuk. Her husband, Dan Yakimchuk, was a steelworker from Ukraine. Whitney Pier is a melting-pot community. It is a fantastic place, but the cancer rates are through the roof. The land was stolen from the Mi’kmaq. They got the contamination too. So did the only Black community in Cape Breton. As Clotilda described it to me, and I recorded it in the book, it was impossible to find housing anywhere but in that community, so the racism was enforced. We did not have Jim Crow laws in Nova Scotia in the 1970s, but we might as well have, because an experienced nurse who was Black, having moved back from Grenada with her children after her first husband passed away, could not get housing anywhere except in the most contaminated neighbourhoods. That is called environmental racism. That is what it is. Therefore, we have a history here. Looking at books, the most important, without a doubt, is the 2018 publication of Dr. Ingrid Waldron's book There’s Something In The Water: Environmental Racism in Indigenous & Black Communities. It has changed the conversation in Canada. That was fortified a year later, when Dr. Waldron co-produced the film, with the brilliant Nova Scotia actor Elliot Page. They introduced people to this concept. That is part of the history. Let us look at where else people have done anything on environmental racism. I have been a bit shocked and perturbed, as has been my friend Lenore Zann, by some of the social media reaction to us tabling this legislation, as if we are kind of weird lefties and we made it up because we just want to make racism a thing. No, this is empirically established. We know this is true. In 1994, the U.S. government took action because it was clear on the evidence that if people lived in a community of colour or an indigenous community, they were far more likely to be exposed to levels of toxic contamination that imperilled their health and the health of their children, their family, their neighbourhood, their community and also other people who were not of colour but who were marginalized. Therefore, it has to do with a bunch of different issues. If people have power and money and they live in Shaughnessy or in Westmount, nobody opens a toxic waste dump in their backyard. That is the reality. In Canada, as in the U.S., if people are marginalized, without economic power, if they are people of colour or indigenous, they might be much more likely to be exposed to toxic contamination. The U.S. recognized this and, since 1994, the U.S. government, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has had a program that is well resourced for environmental justice. What does that justice look like? It looks like putting tools in the hands of marginalized people to fight for their own health, making sure there are resources for epidemiologists, making sure there are resources for toxicologists and making sure that governments spend the money to clean up the mess. We are late in Canada. The U.S. took action. Again, I ask that members hear me: the U.S. took action 28 years ago. This is not a new issue. We are late, so we need to get this bill passed. We need to see environmental justice being championed in this country with a well-resourced program in environmental justice where we take our blinders off and say, yes, there is a thing called environmental racism. We are not going to water it down and ignore it, because it is still happening. It is happening today when they try to reopen the Pictou mill and reopen the contamination that has so affected the people of Pictou Landing. By the way, I see the minister of immigration in the room, so I am just going to give a shout-out to him for being the first federal member of Parliament from that area, Central Nova, who was prepared to say that this mill should close because the jobs were not worth the damage that had been done to Boat Harbour, the indigenous community of Pictou Landing and the neighbourhoods in Pictou. For him just to say that was brave. They are still trying to open it again. It is seen in Kanesatake, where there is still illegal dumping of toxic chemicals in and around that Mohawk community. That should not be allowed. It would not happen in other communities. We are looking still at Grassy Narrows and Sarnia, at the first nation of Aamjiwnaang. I invite colleagues from any party to go to Sarnia and visit the enclaves surrounded by petrochemical plants, where the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Cemetery is. They are completely surrounded, and the industry just got a two-year extension to clean up the sulphur dioxide from that refinery. That affects settler-culture Canadians too, but in that community those toxic contaminants completely encircle Aamjiwnaang's centre. Look at the Lubicon, and the oil sands that have contaminated the communities of Lubicon first nation now for long enough that we wrote about it in 2000, in Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada's Love Canal. We do not need to look far. We do not need to look back at deep history, but we do need to be honest about the fact that this is a pressing issue and requires action. I am sorry to say this: Liberal colleagues are supporting this bill, so I say it without malice, but it is a terrible shame that the election was called when it was because this bill, having gotten a lot of support, died on the Order Paper, so we are starting again. I, and my friend Lenore Zann, who is here in Ottawa today as a former member of Parliament and the original sponsor of the bill, would really love to see the bill go to second reading for the second time. We would really love it. I am sure other members of every party in this place would appreciate that we do not need to take it to committee again and study it again. We cannot make the same amendments, because this bill includes the amendments the committee made last time. Let us do something for environmental justice. Let us stand up and say there is a better way to deal with a right to a healthy environment that we actually do not have in this country. There is a way to make it real to have the right to a healthy environment for every citizen, regardless of the colour of their skin or their economic status. In the case of indigenous peoples, there is the double horror of having their land stolen and then filled with toxic chemicals. This is not something that any parliamentarian should feel comfortable allowing to continue, so I really beg this of all my colleagues, regardless of party. I understand that this is an especially difficult issue because it is about racism and inequality, and it is a matter of words. I urge everyone to support this private member's bill. I have, I think, 35 seconds left, so I just want to say again that this bill will be from all of us. This is not Green Party legislation. I mean, I am completely supported by my colleague for Kitchener Centre, but we do not want to own this. Collectively, all of our hands are on this baby. This bill will matter. It matters for environmental justice. It matters for our future. It matters for who we are.

2443 words

All Topics

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Apr/26/22 6:18:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-226

Madam Speaker, my thanks to my hon. colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands for retabling this bill. She is right: The government supports this bill. I also want to thank her for her many years and decades of activism on environmental racism because it is a thing, despite what some people, unfortunately even in the House, think. My question to the member is this. She touched on it, but can she elaborate a little bit on the science supporting the very fact and the very existence of environmental racism?

89 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 58