The time is coming for Parliament to come to terms with environmental racism in Canada.  Bill C-230, also known as the National Strategy to Redress Environmental Racism Act, is slated for its second reading in the House of Commons and could signal a reconciliatory shift in federal environmental policy going into 2021. 

If adopted, Bill C-230 would seek to address the disproportionate number of racialized people living in communities exposed to hazardously-polluted areas. To do this, a nationwide strategy would be developed to identify and redress those affected by environmental racism. The bill states that the Minister of the Environment, Jonathan Wilkinson, would have to consult with a wide range of actors to design the strategy, including “representatives of provincial and municipal governments, of Indigenous communities and of other affected communities, as well as with any other affected persons and bodies”.

Bill C-230 was first proposed in February by Liberal MP Lenore Zann and seconded by then-Green Party leader Elizabeth May. Bill C-230 is a private member’s bill, which means that it is being presented to the House by a Member of Parliament who is not a minister; the scope of these bills usually focuses on social and ethical issues. Private member’s bills such as Zann’s often have to compete for discussion time in the House, and precedence is determined by draw. These constraints mean they are rarely passed. However, Zann has demonstrated a fierce dedication to her cause, having previously proposed a near-identical provincial bill in Nova Scotia’s legislature in 2017. Whilst this bill did not pass, it garnered a lot of local interest, especially among local African Nova Scotians and First Nations peoples. If Bill C-230 enjoys similar support on a national level, it may have an increased chance of success or at least generate nation-level parliamentary discussion on this important topic.

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM?

Environmental racism, first coined by Civil Rights leader Benjamin Chavis, refers to “discrimination in environmental policymaking. It is racial discrimination in the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presences and poisons and pollutants in communities of colour,” as well as a history of excluding Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC) from environmental decision-making boards and regulatory bodies. An example of this is seen in policies that place a disproportionate number of  toxic waste sources such as mines, landfills, or chemical plants in close proximity to BIPOC communities. Moreover, environmental racism is intersectional in nature; it not only impacts the health of affected groups, but exacerbates socio-economic issues as well. As a product of institutional policies and practices, environmental racism is described as a systemic problem that requires change at the federal level. It is closely tied to environmental justice, which mandates the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people [...] with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”. With both the environmental justice and environmental racism movements calling for more equitable decision-making processes, it is clear that it is time for everyone to have a seat at the table when it comes to environmental policymaking. 

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR CANADA TO REDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM?

The climate marches, the Black Lives Matter movement, and a global pandemic have brought a multitude of health, economic, and social issues to the public's attention, and governments are experiencing a moment of reckoning. Polls show that Canadian attitudes are changing—60% of Canadians view racism as a serious issue in the country (up 13% from last year) and 82% of them want the government to do more against plastic pollution. However, it is no secret that Canada has a disappointing history with visible minorities, especially Indigenous peoples. 

Canadian examples of environmental racism include the Aamjiwnaang First Nation’s strikingly high cancer risks as a result of their situation near dozens of petrochemical facilities in Sarnia’s ‘Chemical Valley’; the Nova Scotian government’s environmental degradation of Boat Harbour, a fertile hunting and fishing ground near Pictou Landing First Nation; and the targeted 1965 destruction of Africville, the African Nova Scotian community.

These historical and contemporary examples of environmental racism point towards a strong need for reconciliatory policy in Canada such as Bill C-230, which may enjoy increased support due to the shifting mindsets of Canadians. 

Ingrid Waldron of Dalhousie University and author of There’s something in the water: Environmental Racism in Indigenous and Black Communities, helped Zann conceptualize the bill. Waldron argues that in Canada, the environmental justice struggle is premised on “communicating demands for [Indigenous] self-determination, and challenging the enduring impacts of historical and present-day inequalities in every sector of society”. She identifies Indigenous-led environmental assessments, anti-racism training, and partnerships with national, provincial, and territorial organizations as key tools against environmental racism and to develop environmental legislation. Waldron posits that Canada must incorporate these tools into a multi-pronged strategy to properly confront environmental racism. Thus, Bill C-230’s consultative requirements would mean a step in the right direction.

HOW COULD BILL C-230 BE IMPROVED?

Passing Bill C-230 would align federal policy with several of the United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, such as reduced inequality and responsible consumption and production. If adopted, Bill C-230 would represent a reconciliatory shift in environmental policy, reflective of rising concerns regarding racism and climate change.

But, would Bill C-230 be enough? Environmental activist David Suzuki argues that redressive policy such as Bill C-230 is extremely beneficial to fighting inequality, but has the potential to be improved upon with the addition of preventive measures. Bill C-230 improves upon Canada’s main pollution-prevention law, the Canadian Environmental Act, which lacks any acknowledgement of environmental justice. This is in spite of the fact that “in urban areas, 25% of the lowest socio-economic status neighbourhoods are within a kilometre of a major polluting industrial factory [compared to 7% of the wealthiest]”. In spite of the remedial value that Bill C-230 would add to current policy, Suzuki has a suggestion; future policy such as this must place more emphasis on preventing environmental racism from the get-go, not only redressing it.  

With Parliament back in session, it’s likely that Bill C-230 will have its second reading before the end of 2020. Each proposed bill must be read three times before the House elects to adopt it or not. Even though the odds are stacked against it as a private member’s bill, Bill C-230 represents hope for victims of environmental racism and could open the door for more progressive policy in the future. Furthermore, it has the potential to fuel further discussion on environmental racism in the public sphere. Waldron has high hopes for Bill C-230, stating that “if this bill becomes law, it will have a massive impact on communities of colour everywhere”. 

A transcript of Bill C-230’s first reading in the House of Commons can be found here.