Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Martin, for your excellent speech. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate our colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne for the passage of her legislation into law.

I want to thank you for drawing our attention to governance because governance and, as we know, misgovernance have a serious impact on reconciliation, in this case.

You pointed out that the transition team and the first board are necessarily political because they will be appointed through a political process. I can’t disagree with you. What is the solution, or do you think this whole matter of independent governance should be something for the committee to study?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would the senator agree to answer a question?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 4:19 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)

[Translation]

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 3, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 2 p.m.

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

(On motion of Senator Audette, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.)

Hon. David Richards: Honourable senators, I waited until Mental Health Week to read this. I’m rising today in support of Senator Brazeau’s Bill S-254, first because I am obligated to do so, for I’ve been down the same road, have seen the same results and been witness to the same outcomes. I am also speaking in support of the bill because, although some warning label will not solve the problem of alcoholism or all harm related to and because of alcohol, it might well in some way aid those who will take heed and may mitigate the suffering that many go through daily because of alcohol abuse — the shame and degradation alcohol can cause not only to the one afflicted but to his or her family, the loss of jobs, income and self-respect and the illnesses apart from all else alcohol consumption can foster.

So I, too, would like to see a label attached to alcohol being sold that indicates the serious health risk, fetal development and the link to disease that may arise from overconsumption. I would be the last to say “preach” but the first to say “inform.” The label should inform us that excess drinking could well be hazardous to our well-being and to the well-being of our family. Just as true is the retardation of fetal development and the devastating affliction of fetal alcohol syndrome.

I know this has been seen but it can be a horror if experienced in your own family. I will not go into any long story here, but I have seen much destruction because of alcohol and I doubt there are many in this chamber who haven’t seen that.

The warning label attached could be a good thing. I know it won’t be a cure-all, for youngsters are youngsters and rebellion is key to a youngster’s growth. And this, too, has to do with drink. I also believe that personal individual responsibility is tantamount to an individual’s life.

Without getting into a great deal about my own story, I began to drink when I was 14, and by 20 I was a daily drinker. It is useless to go into. Nor will I ever parade my afflictions onto others in this chamber.

Will these warning labels help? I cannot say. But I know they won’t hurt. I know this is a bill crafted out of experience and personal struggle, and I commend Senator Brazeau for this.

I will tell you one story. Years ago, a friend of mine wanted me to go drinking with him. He was my brother’s best friend. We hunted and drank together. He was a Mi’kmaw kid and one of those so close to us that he could enter our house without knocking. We would turn around and there he would be in our kitchen smiling at us. He pleaded with me to go out that night. I told him I had to finish the book I was working on. It was six months overdue and the publisher was waiting for it. Besides, I said, “Every time you and I go drinking together we seem to get into trouble.” “That’s what makes it fun,” he said. Those were the last words he ever spoke to me. An hour later he was dead in a car accident that ruined my brother’s legs. I often thought that going back home, determined to work on my book, kept me alive, so I dedicated the book to him. It was called, strangely enough, Lives of Short Duration. He was one of the 17 kids I grew up with who did not reach adulthood.

For him and for the dozens of others I knew and know; for those kids I grew up with, filled with love and charity as much as anyone, dead by car accidents or suicides or by someone else’s hand; and to others who, through alcohol, have lost their health and their way, I support Senator Brazeau and I support this bill and I ask you to allow it to go to committee. Thank you very much.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Will the senator take a question?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-226, a bill sponsored by Senator McCallum. The legislation proposes a requirement for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to create a national strategy to help promote efforts to address the harm caused by environmental racism. This is Parliament’s second attempt at passing this legislation after its predecessor Bill C-230 died on the Order Paper at the conclusion of the Forty-third Parliament. I hope that together we can get this version of the bill across the finish line.

I support this bill because environmental racism is an issue that successive governments have failed to address, and because efforts to address this issue are overdue and it’s time to come to terms with this problem. Bill C-226 is an important component of reconciliation, not just with Indigenous peoples but with all people who have had their lands or waters poisoned, their air quality worsened and their lives harmed because of this type of discrimination — a form of high-handedness, if you will.

There’s no universally accepted definition of “environmental racism.” As we know from Senator McCallum’s speech, one definition refers to it broadly as discrimination in environmental policy-making. To that I add, “or lack thereof.” This can mean making decisions without due care and attention in spite of impacting an overrepresentation of racialized or marginalized communities for waste facilities and related infrastructure, by allowing life-threatening pollutants to exist at high levels in communities mainly populated by minority groups or by excluding minority voices from leadership positions in the environmental movement. While exact definitions will differ, the problem is straightforward.

While racism is widely recognized and understood, the concept of environmental racism is sometimes questioned. So what are we talking about?

For generations, governments and civil societies have made decisions on the environment that had disproportionately negative effects on racialized and marginalized communities. Oftentimes, those decisions were made without input or consultation from the affected communities. One only need look at Canada’s record on environmental policy to conclude that environmental racism is undeniable. I’ll share some examples in a few moments.

Perhaps senators may have heard another phrase that can be confusing: that climate change has a racial aspect. However, this is common sense when we consider that Western industrialized countries have built-up their economies by disproportionately burning fossil fuels, which at the same time has caused disproportionate harms to less developed regions of the world. Indeed, at COP26, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, leaders from Africa argued that the continent would require $1.3 trillion in funding over the next two decades to provide for climate adaptation and mitigation.

The effects are already being seen. A report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies noted that climate-related disasters and extreme weather events were responsible for the deaths of more than 410,000 people, mostly in lower-income countries.

One of the biggest challenges when discussing environmental racism stems from the fact that the conversation tends to be closely associated with jobs and economic development. When we discuss environmental racism, we tend to think about things like paper mills, manufacturing plants, waste treatment plants and mining operations, all examples of businesses that can have a large environmental impact and that are usually located away from the typical suburban downtown. These facilities often employ many people, and they support significant economic activity across Canada. Often, the jobs found in these types of facilities pay good salaries, offer benefits and allow people to plan for retirement. We cannot, and should not, discount any of those things.

Yet, when we call upon the government to address environmental racism, that often means asking government to have difficult conversations with the companies which employ our friends, family and neighbours. It’s no easy task for elected officials to decide to close a local mill or to tell a large employer it must do more to address environmental concerns. It’s even more difficult to tell those companies that their actions have disproportionately affected racialized peoples. Often, those companies will fight back and governments will back down, preferring to let the status quo remain rather than fight for what’s right.

That’s why I support this bill because it will help the federal government make a positive change — at the very least, make a change going forward, even when that may be difficult to do.

Allow me to share some examples of what environmental racism looks like in Canada. I’ll begin with a story from my home province. As we all know, rural Canada is dotted with small towns and settlements. Northern Saskatchewan is no different. It’s a large space with few people but plenty of natural beauty. Many who live in northern Saskatchewan are Indigenous and their connection to the land is sacred. However, northern Saskatchewan is also well-known for uranium mining. In fact, northern Saskatchewan is home to the largest high-grade uranium deposits in the world. As with most resource extraction industries, uranium mining can have an impact on the environment. Sadly, this impact seems to have fallen disproportionately on the Indigenous peoples who have lived on those lands since time immemorial.

One such example is Uranium City. It’s a small settlement located just below the border that divides Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories on the traditional territory of the Chipewyan Dene people. As Uranium City’s name would suggest, the town was once a hot spot for uranium mining and its population exploded into the 1950s. For a short time, the town and others like it boomed as the mines carried out their operations. Today, the city as it was known, Uranium City, a small settlement, no longer exists other than stranded remnants.

While uranium mines were profitable, the Dene and other Indigenous peoples were often not able to share in the economic prosperity the mines created. Not only were they subject to racism and discriminatory hiring practices, but they were subjected to dangerous radioactive dust and tailings that were created by mining activity. Many Indigenous workers were not told about the dangers associated with working at the mining sites, and many would later die of cancer or experience other health issues.

The mining operations near Uranium City closed in the 1980s. Sadly, little was done initially to remediate the land. Cleaning up former mining sites has taken decades and has been mired in legal disputes and jurisdictional challenges. Meanwhile, those who worked in and around mines like these often suffered from high rates of lung cancer and other health issues years after their employment ended.

The voice of the local Dene people wasn’t heard when the mines were being built. Their voices weren’t heard when their health began to fail. And their voices weren’t heard when governments and corporations alike left the land to decay after the mines closed.

Sadly, the uranium mines of Northern Canada are not the only example of environmental racism in our country. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that today these mines are very mindful of environmental, social and governance issues and corporate responsibility. Let’s face it, most of these mines, mills, cement plants and the like can’t simply pick up their power lines, gas lines and deposits, and then move elsewhere and leave a stranded community behind.

Nonetheless, we’ve heard similar examples of environmental racism in places like Boat Harbour, Nova Scotia, where effluent has been dumped into the waterways that Pictou Landing First Nation has relied on for decades. Another example can also be found here in Ontario on the lands of Grassy Narrows First Nation. Theirs is a story of poisoned water and the impact it has had on generations of families.

For generations, there has been a paper mill in Dryden, Ontario. A mill is still in operation to this day. Yet, its history is stained. In the 1960s and 1970s, the mill’s chemical plant dumped 9,000 kilograms of mercury into the English-Wabigoon River. The mercury poisoned the river, which the people of Grassy Narrows depended on to catch fish. Health problems related to mercury poisoning have persisted in the community ever since. At first, neither the company nor the provincial government would accept responsibility for what had happened. It would be years before a legal settlement was reached, but by then it was far too late.

For a final example, I turn to Nova Scotia. It’s a story about a community from the past whose legacy lives on. Decades ago, in what is known today as North End Halifax, there existed a community called Africville. It was a small, predominantly Black community, and former residents have called it a happy place with vibrant community connections and a sense of family. Yet the community was treated poorly by the City of Halifax. The city neglected to provide Africville with services it had given to other neighbourhoods over the years, such as street lights, garbage pickup and even indoor plumbing. To make matters worse, the city would often use Africville and the surrounding area as a dumping ground for services that would never have been well received in other communities, such as a fertilizer plant, a prison, a slaughterhouse and, yes, a dump — all located inside or in close proximity to a community of 400 people, people whose voices were ignored.

When we think about environmental racism, I don’t think we should think about things like paper mills or uranium mines, nor should we think about the economic activity those facilities can generate. When we think about environmental racism, we should think about the Dene men who worked in those mines and who died of cancer. We should think about grandmothers living in Grassy Narrows First Nation who are worried that the mercury poisoning that destroyed their health will one day affect their granddaughter’s health too. We should think about a small Black community, ignored by its city and used as a dumping ground. That’s what environmental racism looks like, and they are who we should be thinking about when considering Bill C-226.

A national strategy will help in very specific ways. First, we need to ensure that the marginalized communities are consulted and their voices are heard and included in decision-making processes related to their environment. These communities should have a say in what happens in their neighbourhoods. With a national strategy, we can learn from past mistakes and move forward in a more inclusive way. Also, a national strategy will help to determine what future steps and targeted investments are necessary for sustainable development in marginalized communities and, I will add to that, with much resilience.

A national strategy is an important first step toward planning for a better tomorrow and for ending environmental racism.

Personally, I find little in this bill that can be objected to. I was surprised to learn that the bill had not been agreed to unanimously in the other place, so I’d like to address some of the concerns that were raised during the debate.

Issues were raised regarding the effectiveness of creating another national strategy. To me, hard or easy has got nothing to do with it. And others stressed the importance of recognizing regional differences and provincial jurisdiction. Let’s “step forward.” Let’s “step up.” I appreciate those criticisms, but I believe that a legislative tool like a national strategy is required to address the challenges faced by those who are experiencing environmental racism.

While I appreciate the concern that this is yet another national strategy and that it adds one more piece to Canada’s complicated environmental policy regime, the evidence is clear that such a strategy is needed to address issues being experienced by racialized peoples. They have as much of a right to a healthy environment as other Canadians and, as of 2023, they’re being denied that right.

When we vote on this bill, I hope that senators will think about the communities most impacted by environmental racism. These communities can’t wait any longer, and this is an issue we can no longer ignore. I hope that senators will lend their support to Bill C-226 so we can move it to committee and take one more step on the path towards making Canada a more equitable place for all people. Thank you. Hiy kitatamîhin.

(On motion of Senator Audette, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boniface, calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Boniface’s inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario. I thank Senator Boniface for introducing this important inquiry and for asking me to reflect specifically on the epidemiology around this particular group of women who live in rural and remote regions of Canada and are affected by intimate partner violence.

In this case, I take it to mean “from the population health vantage,” that is, the attempt to understand determinants or causation, specifically social determinants of their health outcomes. Social determinants are sometimes called the causes of the causes of health outcomes. They are very upstream from the outcomes; thus, true causation is challenging to establish.

An explanation put forward by the World Health Organization and often cited by other population health agencies explains that social determinants of health are:

. . . the non-medical factors that influence health outcomes. They are the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life. These forces and systems include economic policies and systems, development agendas, social norms, social policies and political systems.

The Public Health Agency of Canada identifies 12 social determinants of health: income and social status; employment and working conditions; education and literacy; childhood experiences; physical environments; social supports and coping skills; healthy behaviours; access to health services; biology and genetic endowment; gender; culture; and race/racism.

As Mandana Mardare Amini writes in a 2022 report for Statistics Canada entitled Statistical Portrait of Women and Girls by the Relative Remoteness of their Communities, Series 3: Health and Well-being:

Living in a rural area remains a significant determinant of health disparities for women, both worldwide and in Canada . . . .

While rural locations themselves do not necessarily lead to poor health . . . living in a rural setting may not only limit access to health services, but also influence other socioeconomic, environmental and occupational health determinants . . . .

The report indicates that women and girls who live in very remote areas self-report the lowest perceived health, the lowest activity level, the highest proportion of women and girls without a regular health care provider, poorer mental health and significantly higher all-cause mortality and suicide-related mortality.

The report also found that suicide or intentional self-harm was a leading cause of death in very remote communities only and that health inequalities were more pronounced for Indigenous women and girls in both rural and urban areas. This 2022 Statistics Canada report indicates that the risk of poor health outcomes increases with more remote living conditions.

In Epidemiology: Principles and Methods, Brian MacMahon and Dimitrios Trichopoulos explain:

. . . the existence of an exposure-response relationship, that is, an association in which the frequency of the effect increases or decreases as the exposure to the putative cause increases, is usually thought to favour a causal relationship.

However, extensive efforts must be made to validate associations thought to be causal, and in the absence of direct experiment, the interpretation of the evidence is complex. Thus, from these Canadian statistics, we might suspect a causal relationship between the remoteness of one’s community and one’s health outcomes.

Although criminology is not my area of expertise, I note a similar trend in the data on spousal and intimate partner homicide. In the past 10 years, a higher proportion of spousal and intimate partner homicides in Canada have occurred in rural communities compared with urban areas.

In a report entitled Homicide in Canada, 2021, Jean-Denis David and Brianna Jaffray from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics found that homicides involving a spousal or intimate partner relationship between the victim and the accused accounted for 23% of homicides in rural areas, compared to 17% of homicides in urban areas. So we can suspect that there may be a relationship between intimate partner violence and residence in rural and remote areas of Canada. Unfortunately, much more data is needed.

As Eve Valera, an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, told The Globe and Mail in December, “Women in general . . . have been understudied in lots of scientific endeavours.”

For example, the Globe article reported on work being done at the Canadian Concussion Centre in Toronto. That facility has over 100 athlete brains that scientists can study to find out more about the impact of repeated concussions, but it has only one brain of a victim of domestic violence. This is a problem.

As the article notes, researchers estimate that approximately one in eight Canadian women is likely to suffer from an unrecognized brain injury related to domestic violence, but we know little about the impact of these injuries.

In a June 2021 JAMA Network Open article entitled “Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020,” Dr. Jecca Steinberg and her colleagues describe the historical under‑representation of women in clinical research:

Medical research has historically focused on male health. Female individuals were often excluded from clinical trials, supposedly to ensure homogeneity of treatment effect and reduce potential maternal-fetal liability. Sex bias persisted, even after research reported sex differences in diagnostic test results, disease progression, treatment response, drug metabolism, and surgical outcomes. Studies have associated this lack of female inclusion with suboptimal health care and adverse medical outcomes.

Steinberg and her colleagues found that female participants are still under-represented in oncology, neurology, immunology, urology, cardiology and hematology relative to their disease burden. Yet, male enrollees are under-represented compared with their disease burden in eight disease categories, including mental health and trauma research. Therefore, sex bias in clinical trials may have negative implications for both sexes.

In her speech, Senator Boniface reminded us of another inquest that happened after an intimate partner femicide in Ontario, the May-Iles inquest of 1998. Senator Boniface asked, “. . . how do we find ourselves in a similar position 24 years later?” Perhaps the answer to her question is that a lack of data and bias in the data likely contributes to this ongoing challenge.

A June 2021 study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women entitled Challenges faced by women living in rural, remote and northern communities in Canada found that a lack of transportation services; difficulty accessing services for women survivors of violence; a lack of reliable, affordable and adequate internet services; a lack of access to education options locally; difficulty finding stable employment; and difficulty accessing or a lack of local services, including child care, mental health and counselling services, were intersecting factors that affect the safety, economic security and well-being of women living in rural, remote and northern communities. Thus, research to better understand and investments to address health challenges for rural and remote women may also help us understand and address violence against these women.

In this regard, Canada is taking steps in the right direction. In recognition that “Geographic proximity to service centres and population centres is an important determinant of socio-economic and health outcomes,” and that, “Consequently, it is a relevant dimension in the analysis and delivery of policies and programs,” in April 2020, Statistics Canada released its Index of Remoteness dataset. This new tool has already facilitated important research, including the Statistics Canada report by Mandana Mardare Amini, which I cited earlier.

Further, the federal government has recognized that:

. . . our health system has not always understood the factors which influence the health status of women, trans women, girls, and gender-diverse communities . . .

In October of last year, it launched the National Women’s Health Research Initiative. As a first step, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Women and Gender Equality Canada will partner to invest in a Pan-Canadian Women’s Health Coalition. I hope that this investment will lead to tangible improvements in health research and delivery for women.

We must continue to address the historical under-representation of women in research so that we can better understand and ultimately improve outcomes for women in rural and remote communities and women in general. Women’s lives depend upon it. Thank you.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of May 3, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada be extended from September 29, 2023 to December 29, 2023.