Environment and Climate Change Canada
December 10, 2025
Re: Advancing Environmental Justice consultation
To whom it may concern,
I am pleased to submit feedback on the development of the national strategy to advance environmental justice and to address environmental racism. Bill C-226 was my private member’s bill. I appreciated government support and pleased the bill received Royal Assent before adjournment in June 2024. This Bill was the result of decades of advocacy from the environmental community. In particular, I want to recognise the efforts of former MP Lenore Zann, Senator Mary Jane McCallum and Dr. Ingrid Waldron. Grassroots advocacy by community members from Pictou Landing and Shelburne, Nova Scotia; Kanehsatà:ke; Grassy Narrows, Ontario; and Aamjiwnaang First Nation was also critical.
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice involves the equitable distribution of environmental harms and benefits, recognising that vulnerable communities already bear the brunt of costs. We have a duty to correct this injustice for present and future generations.
The amended 2023 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) ensures that every individual in Canada has the right to a healthy environment. At the moment, the right to a healthy environment has not yet been implemented. A right that cannot be enforced is not a right. Bill C-224, if properly implemented, can make this concept of a right an actual right.
CEPA is built on a foundation of environmental justice, intergenerational equity and non-regression. Relevant to this consultation is the substantive element that guarantees the right to live in an environment that is protected from harmful substances, pollutants and waste. Procedural elements such as access to information and participation in decision-making are also important.
CEPA recognises everyone’s right to a healthy environment: clean air, water and food for all Canadians. However, it is evident that not everyone has been advantaged equally by the natural environment. Canada is not a level playing field: vulnerable communities already face major deficits. These grievous environmental injustices need to be remedied first.
The federal government’s strategy should be guided by meaningful consultation and inclusion of affected communities, evidence-based decision making, the precautionary principle and a strong commitment to fairness and reparation. This is an essential opportunity to address past harms caused to marginalised communities (in particular, Indigenous, racialised and low-income communities) and to ensure a climate-safe and healthy future for all.
Environmental Racism
For generations, Indigenous communities have been denied fundamental rights to access the environment. The Douglas Treaty enshrines Coast Salish people of southern Vancouver Island’s right to hunt and fish on their territories. However, this is rarely respected. In 1997, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans instituted a blanket ban on shellfish in Coles Bay in North Saanich, severely impacting the members of the Pauquachin First Nation, who rely on clams as part of their traditional diet. The closure was caused by E. coli pollution from poorly regulated neighbouring septic systems. Though the municipality of North Saanich had known of the issue for decades, it failed to act. Closing off access to shellfish has had significant negative impacts on the community, which relied on the harvest not just for food, but also as an economic, cultural, and educational site. Similarly, the Tstartlip and Tsawout and Tsecum nations have also been impacted, with shellfish harvesting prohibited for decades without any testing for contamination.
We need to honour Indigenous wisdom, taking the lead from Indigenous communities that have been responsible stewards of our natural environment since time immemorial. The government has an obligation to take preventative measures and conduct studies before infringing on treaty rights to hunt and fish.
Moreover, Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted by pollution and hazardous waste contamination. Industries and governments make a deliberate decision to site these dangerous operations on and near Indigenous land. I think especially of the First Nations communities of Grassy Narrows, Kanehsatà:ke and Aamjiwnaang. These communities face mercury poisoning, high levels of cancer and other adverse health impacts due to the ongoing and cumulative result of proximity to toxic waste and petrochemical manufacturing sites.
The excellent work of advocacy groups such as Prevent Cancer Now and BRATS in the Battlefield brings attention to the persistent issue of chemical contamination on military bases. Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and Gagetown, New Brunswick are two of the most egregious examples. The health impacts of contaminants on employees and surrounding communities such as autoimmune diseases, thyroid diseases and cancer are well documented.
Now, the pressing concern is the Department of National Defense “gifting” contaminated land to municipalities to build low-income housing. These include Wateridge Village, Ottawa; Arbo Downsview, Toronto; and Naawi Oodena, Winnipeg. This issue has not been adequately studied and could have disastrous health impacts on these already-vulnerable communities.
Historically, regulations around hazardous chemicals have protected industries over people’s health. Adequate care and testing measures (e.g., long term epidemiological studies) have not been taken. We must adopt the precautionary principle as a screen when making decisions on chemical use that affects Black, Indigenous, racialised and low-income communities. We must not sacrifice due process for speed. This is essential for achieving equity and upholding the right to a healthy environment.
Achieving True Progress Towards Environmental Justice
In 2020, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur released a report on the implications of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes on human rights in Canada. The report states that
The prevalence of discrimination in Canadian laws and policies regarding the application of regulations on hazardous substances and wastes is clear. There exists a pattern in Canada whereby marginalized groups, and indigenous peoples in particular, find themselves on the wrong side of a toxic divide, subject to conditions that would not be acceptable in respect of other groups in Canada.
A natural environment conducive to the highest attainable standard of health is not treated as a right; unfortunately, for many in Canada today, it is an elusive privilege. Canada has obligations regarding the rights to information, participation, access to justice and remedies, and specific obligations regarding vulnerable groups.
Elements of an effective strategy to confront environmental racism and build environment justice must include full transparency and access to information about pollutants on and near Indigenous territories and in areas near communities of colour and or marginalised communities. Economically disadvantaged, Indigenous and racialised communities must have access to experts, such as epidemiologists, toxicologists as well as legal assistance through federal funding sources to support environmental justice. Such funding must ensure they stand on equal footing confronting the well funded polluters. Lastly, an environmental justice programme must include mechanisms for government to claim damages from polluters to assist in financing the environmental justice funding programmes.
A national strategy to address environmental justice and environmental racism is long overdue. I look forward to the tabling of the new strategy by June 2026. Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.