(uniquement en anglais)
par: Lily Farinaccio
In a 2020 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights highlighted “a pattern in Canada where 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 elsewhere in Canada.”1 Environmental racism is a form of inequality whereby racialized communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries, toxins, and associated health conditions.2 There are numerous instances of environmental racism in Canada, ranging from mercury dumping in the Grassy Narrows First Nation to landfill developments in proximity to Black communities in Lincolnville, Nova Scotia.3
Bill C-226, the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, officially adopted into Canadian law on June 13, 2024, offers a possible means to address and prevent the unequal environmental exposures and harms that racialized individuals currently face. It requires the Government of Canada to analyze links between race, socioeconomic status, and environmental risk, and develop a national strategy to address environmental racism; the federal government must develop and release that strategy by June 2026.
In the following essay, I explore the potential of Bill C-226, with regard to a particular instance of environmental racism in Canada: the disproportionate exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” among Indigenous peoples. I ask: How might Bill C-226 help address the disproportionate exposure to PFAS faced by Indigenous peoples, specifically Indigenous women, in Canada? To answer this question, I conduct a literature review on PFAS and the distinct impacts forever chemicals have on Indigenous women. Further, I offer an analysis of Bill C-226’s strengths and weaknesses in effectively responding to this injustice. Overall, I argue that, while this piece of legislation might not have the potential to redress decades of PFAS contamination in Indigenous communities, it offers a promising start to tackling this environmental injustice.
This paper proceeds in eight parts. First, I situate myself within my work, reflecting on my positionality as a settler. Next, I provide a review of the existing literature on PFAS, their properties, exposure pathways, health effects, and regulations. I then examine how Indigenous peoples in Canada face an elevated risk of exposure. Following this, I discuss the differential impacts these chemicals have on Indigenous women. In the fifth section, I offer a description of Bill C-226. I then investigate the legislation’s strengths. Subsequently, I analyze the bill’s weaknesses. In my final section, I conclude by presenting recommendations for the implementation of Bill C-226 to support its success.
Throughout this paper, I use the term “women” to refer to individuals with ovarian reproductive systems. I emphasize that this is not to marginalize bodies that identify as women and do not possess such reproductive systems. Rather, it is intended to highlight the ways in which these chemicals differentially interact with certain bodies, creating sex-specific consequences for women. Dayna Nadine Scott writes, “… women’s unique biologies may create specific vulnerabilities during critical periods, such as during puberty, lactation, and menopause, completely apart from the burdens women experience related to the possibility that they may pass on harms from chemical exposure to their future children.”4
Positionality: Contextualizing My Perspective
Throughout my research process, I have been aware of my positionality and what it means to write about Indigenous injustices from my position as a settler. My grandparents immigrated from Italy and settled in the country of “Canada” that was stolen through a process of colonization. Therefore, I am a settler, raised on the land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, studying on the land of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and the Mississaugas of the Credit. As a settler, I was initially hesitant to engage with Indigenous issues. I feared my work and potential ignorance might further contribute to a colonial legacy of misappropriation and the imposition of colonial knowledge on Indigenous peoples. I also was aware some might argue it is not my place to write about such issues because I do not belong to this community. As Bell Hooks states, “When we write about the experiences of a group to which we do not belong, we should think about the ethics of our action, considering whether or not our work will be used to reinforce and perpetuate domination.”5 I approached my research with this in mind, as well as with compassion, humility, and the sense that I am not and will never be an expert on these topics. I dove into Indigenous literature on environmental injustice and the related history of colonialism in our “Canadian” society.
What struck me most was the extent to which I was not aware of the horrifying impacts colonization has and continues to have on Indigenous peoples. Within this ignorance lies my power and privilege: I did not have to be aware of such things because they do not directly affect me. Through my engagement with Indigenous scholars and Indigenous history, I learned about the historical harms perpetrated by the Canadian government, the most disheartening of which was the Residential School System – the genocide of an entire people’s culture.6 I learned that Indigenous peoples continue to be disregarded and overlooked in our country; their agency and sovereignty continues to be denied by the Canadian government.7 I learned that, due to the legacy of colonialism, Indigenous peoples are at a disproportionate risk of numerous harms that transcend the environmental realm, including increased rates of suicide, substance abuse, and domestic violence.8,9 I learned about Indigenous resistance to colonial oppression through mobilization efforts such as the Idle No More movement.10 I learned that despite these issues persisting for centuries, we are still at a place where a significant amount of work needs to be done.
This knowledge influences the way I approach this topic. First, understanding the historical mistreatment of Indigenous peoples by the Canadian government shapes the manner in which I engage with Bill C-226 in that I critically interrogate the legislation. I remain skeptical of the government’s efforts to adequately address the environmental racism experienced by Indigenous communities and its approach to Indigenous involvement in environmental decision-making processes. Second, after confronting my ignorance on the severity of Indigenous issues in Canada, I was frustrated by my hesitancy and near avoidance of engaging with such topics. This type of avoidance further contributes to the problem. Regan stipulates that decolonization cannot be a project solely for Indigenous peoples, as this essentially asks these communities to assume full responsibility for healing themselves from the effects of colonialism. She further asserts that non-Indigenous individuals are in a suitable position to challenge their own colonial processes and, when working in alignment with Indigenous communities, can be allies in overcoming systemic barriers and disrupting the status quo.11 Indeed, Indigenous peoples alone should not face the burden of addressing the effects of colonization imposed by settlers. Therefore, I approach this work as a settler committed to working towards justice for all communities, doing so with compassion, humility, and the understanding that there is still a lot for me to learn.
Beyond my position as a settler, I approach this topic as a woman. In studying Canada’s history of colonization, I have also learned about the disruption of Indigenous gender relations resulting from colonialism and its imposition of the patriarchy.12 For instance, by solely allowing men to be chiefs and councillors, the Indian Act stripped Indigenous women of their political powers, solidifying inequalities between Indigenous women and men, and establishing the negative perception and treatment of Indigenous women.13 I approach this topic as a woman dedicated to the liberation of women who endure patriarchal oppression just like me, while remaining cognizant of the ways in which my gender and race provide me with simultaneous oppression and privilege. I feel a personal duty to advocate for and protect other women who face injustices and threats to their rights, health, security, and livelihoods, which includes raising awareness of the disproportionate harms Indigenous women in Canada face through exposure to PFAS and advocating for legislation that can help address such harms.
Forever Chemicals: Properties, Exposure Pathways, Health Effects, and Regulations
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals with grease, heat, and water-resistant properties.14 They are used in various industrial applications and consumer products, including non-stick cookware, carpeting, apparel, upholstery, food packaging, firefighting foams, and even personal care products.15,16 From an environmental health perspective, PFAS are strikingly troublesome; they resist natural processes of degradation and are incredibly persistent in the environment and the human body, earning the name “forever chemicals.”17
All Canadians are routinely exposed to PFAS through the food we eat, the air we breathe, our household dust, consumer products, and food packaging.18 When items containing PFAS are dumped into landfills, these chemicals travel through the air and water around disposal sites.19 They are highly mobile, migrating easily through the soil into surface and groundwater.20 Further, their reach crosses national borders, contaminating bodies through industrial emissions and global systems of trade and consumption.21 Forever chemicals have also been found to bioaccumulate; building up indefinitely in animals such as fish, and in humans, they mark “an uncertain future of potentially ‘reverberating crises.’”22
PFAS’ anti-degradation properties are not the only characteristics that make them uniquely troublesome. Even at extremely low levels they are associated with a wide range of health effects, including thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, decreased vaccine response, and developmental issues.23 Studies have also shown a correlation between PFAS and liver damage, asthma, and decreased fertility, as well as endocrine, liver, and immunological effects.24,25 Moreover, well-studied PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), have been found to cause tumours in animals at high doses.26 Undoubtedly, these chemicals are not innocuous. Their effects are expansive and often severe.
Since the early 2000s, the Canadian government has instituted regulations in an effort to control these substances.27 Currently, the manufacture, use, sale, and offer for sale or import of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), their salts and precursors, is prohibited in Canada, with minimal exceptions.28 Canada is also a party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which has included PFOS, its salts, and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (PFOSF) for restriction, as well as PFOA, its salts, and PFOA-related substances for elimination.29
Despite such efforts, the unique properties of forever chemicals and their continued commercial use make them “an inescapable fact of contemporary life.”30 Both past and current uses of products containing PFAS, in such things as firefighting foams, and the dispersion of these chemicals from long-range transport, continue to contribute to environmental levels of PFAS in Canada.31 Moreover, the regulatory process of managing these chemicals is arduous and unwieldy. The exploding numbers of forever chemicals make these substances nearly intractable.32 Regulators are limited by the parameters of existing frameworks as they try to control thousands of related but unique PFAS and also face the laborious task of identifying each consumer product affected by them.33 In short, regulating forever chemicals is complex. This complexity is compounded by the fact that certain populations are disproportionately affected by PFAS.
A Toxic Instance of Environmental Racism: PFAS and Indigenous Populations
Evidence of Elevated PFAS Concentrations in Indigenous Communities
Forever chemicals affect everyone; however, exposure is not equal. While these toxics have been found in blood samples from the general Canadian population, elevated levels have been observed in various Indigenous communities. According to a 2019 study, PFAS levels among Anishinaabe participants in Québec aged 12 to 19 years old were three times higher than those of the same age group in the general Canadian population.34 Another study on First Nations communities in Québec also revealed higher PFAS concentrations relative to the general Canadian population.35 Specifically, it was found that serum concentrations of perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) were seven to 21 times higher in these First Nations communities.36 Research conducted by Aker et al. on PFAS concentrations in Nunavik (the northern area of the province of Québec) similarly discovered that exposure to PFAS was twice as high among Inuit adults in comparison to the general Canadian population.37 Further, research on seven subarctic and arctic First Nations in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon found relatively high concentrations of PFAS when compared to the general Canadian population.38 Similar findings were observed in a study of Northern Inuit communities, where it was uncovered that PFAS concentrations among pregnant Inuit women were two times higher than those recorded among pregnant women in the Canadian Health Measures Survey.39 Evidently, Indigenous communities face disproportionate PFAS exposure – a troubling example of the ways in which environmental harms discriminate along racialized lines.
Reasons for Disproportionate Contamination
There are a number of potential reasons for the elevated levels of forever chemicals among Indigenous peoples, including socioeconomic status, proximity to PFAS manufacturing or wastewater treatment facilities, and elevated marine food consumption.40 Throughout the literature, the consumption of traditional foods was most emphasized as a primary exposure pathway, due to PFAS’ ability to bioaccumulate in marine and terrestrial food webs.41
Numerous studies have explored the ways in which Indigenous populations are at an increased risk of environmental contamination due to their close connection to the land.42 Research conducted by Byrne et al. found that increased concentrations of forever chemicals among Native communities in Alaska were associated with marine food consumption.43 A study by Caron-Beaudoin et al. produced similar findings, noting an association between marine food consumption and higher exposure to forever chemicals in Northern Inuit communities.44 Additionally, Dubeau et al.’s findings draw attention to the consumption of traditional foods as a significant exposure pathway: among Innu participants, wild fish and berry consumption was associated with increased PFNA exposures, and among Anishinaabe participants wild meat consumption was associated with increased PFOA exposures.45 Finally, research among First Nations communities in Nunavik uncovered that PFAS concentrations were higher among participants who took part in hunting, a signifier of seafood and marine mammal consumption.46 The consumption of traditional foods as a primary PFAS exposure pathway for Indigenous communities is significant given the importance of these foods to the maintenance of Indigenous culture and well-being.47
Environmental Injustice and the Legacy of Colonialism
The disproportionate PFAS exposure observed among Indigenous communities in Canada has its roots in the country’s colonial past. Canada constitutes a settler colony. It was and continues to be colonized through the process of settler colonialism, which can be described as “a form of colonial formation and governance involving the invasion of foreigners for the purposes of assimilating, depopulating, or erasing Indigenous populations.”48 Colonization has imposed physical environments onto Indigenous communities that are detrimental to both their health and well-being.49 Due to colonialism, capitalism, and industrialization, Indigenous peoples’ formerly healthy relationship with the natural world has been significantly tarnished, fostering dispossession and disempowerment. The contamination of wildlife, vegetation, and even water has further separated Indigenous peoples from the natural environments that they + n+have relied on for community prosperity for centuries.50
According to Pearson and Renfrew, “With PFAS, the past colonizes a forever unfolding present with chemicals that don’t break down, are pervasive in the environment and continue to be widely used.”51 Forever chemicals encompass an extension of settler colonialism. These chemicals are polluting traditional food sources that are integral to many Indigenous cultures. The consumption of traditional foods has been documented as one of the strongest links between the health of Indigenous communities and their environments.52 For example, fish is critical for both the health of fetuses and young children.53 Nonetheless, the contemporary toxicity of traditional food sources burdens Indigenous communities with the unreasonable task of weighing the harms associated with giving up part of their culture to the health complications linked to consuming these foods.54
Some might argue that Indigenous individuals could simply abstain from consuming traditional foods; however, this perspective is over-simplistic. It denies the importance of these foods for Indigenous health and well-being, and simultaneously ignores the colonial relations implicated in this case of pollution. Forever chemicals entered the environment without the consent of Indigenous peoples and are now forcing these communities to make trade-offs between their culture and health. This is a blatant injustice and the site of an ongoing colonial relation. PFAS are not only harming Indigenous bodies but also forcing Indigenous peoples further from their culture. Moreover, they are putting Indigenous women at great risk of developing health complications.
An Intersectional Feminist Lens: Differential Impacts on Indigenous Women
Scott articulates that while everyone is frequently exposed to chemicals throughout their daily lives, “the effects of [such] exposures (and the burden of managing them) appear to rest disproportionately on the shoulders of women.”55 By creating risk of developing various health complications, and introducing the task of managing the generational harm associated with toxic transmission, forever chemicals exert differential impacts on Indigenous women.
Biological Interactions: Forever Chemicals’ Effects on Women
Notably, many studies point to higher PFAS concentration levels among Indigenous men when compared to Indigenous women.56,57 The lower levels observed within the female population are likely due to sex-specific elimination processes, such as menstruation and breastfeeding.58 Another explanation for these differing concentrations is that traditional food consumption is generally higher among Indigenous men.59 Despite such findings, the effects of PFAS on Indigenous women’s bodies are unique and alarming. Forever chemicals are associated with various health conditions in women, ranging from impacts on fertility to the development of cancers.
PFAS have been identified as endocrine disruptors which can be understood as an array of chemicals that can affect different bodily systems by disrupting hormone regulation or natural functioning.60,61 As endocrine disruptors, forever chemicals are associated with fertility impacts. A study conducted by Lum et al. found that the probability of pregnancy decreased in women with higher serum concentrations of PFOA and PFNA.62 Similarly, in research by Kim et al. certain PFAS were linked to fertility complications in women, including endometriosis, PCOS, and genital tract infections.63 The fertility impacts associated with forever chemicals are of significant concern for Indigenous women as they are at a disproportionate risk of exposure.
In addition to effects on fertility, PFAS’ hormone-disruptive qualities make them a potential factor for increasing the odds of women’s development of hormone-related cancers.64 A recent study found that women with a previous diagnosis of melanoma had higher concentrations of forever chemicals in their blood, suggesting PFAS pose a potential environmental risk for the development of melanoma in women.65 Interestingly, this study found no association between the presence of PFAS and melanoma in men, highlighting the specific effects such chemicals have on the female body.66 Evidence also links PFAS to an increased risk of breast cancer. In research by Omoike et al., heightened levels of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFDA were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.67 Similar findings were observed in a study by Mancini et al., which discovered an association between levels of PFOS and PFOA and breast tumours.68 Finally, in a study on PFAS exposure and breast cancer risk among Taiwanese women aged 50 years or older, researchers found a positive association between PFOS and PFHxS exposure and risk of breast tumour development.69 The link between PFAS and cancer development in women demands attention, as melanoma and breast cancer account for 1.2% and 14% of cancer deaths in Canadian women respectively.70,71 Given the fact that Indigenous peoples in Canada face an increased risk of exposure to forever chemicals, Indigenous women are at even higher risk of suffering the severe and potentially lethal consequences linked to PFAS’ interactions with women’s bodies.
Managing Toxic Transmission: Prenatal PFAS Exposures and the Effects on Infants
Not only do Indigenous women face distinct risks and health complications associated with exposure to PFAS, they also must grapple with the associated possibility of passing the harms from such exposure to their future children. Women play a unique role in the transmission of toxics. Studies show that mothers can transfer approximately 40% or more of their PFAS body burdens to their infants by way of placental transfer with each subsequent pregnancy.72 Mothers additionally transmit PFAS to their children during breastfeeding.73
The presence and transmission of forever chemicals during pregnancy and infancy has been associated with various severe health complications in children. First, prenatal exposure to PFAS has been linked to the modification of thyroid hormone levels in adults (including pregnant people) and children, children’s suppressed immune responses during childhood, and neurotoxic outcomes, such as decreased executive function and lower verbal IQ.74 Forever chemicals have additionally been found to be associated with adverse birth outcomes. Research conducted by Lau et al. uncovered that exposure to PFOA in rodents increased litter resorptions (the disintegration and assimilation of a fetus in the uterus), fetal mortality, fetal growth deficits, and decreased fetal birth weights.75 Human studies additionally demonstrate a link between exposure to PFOA and low birth weight in infants.76 Finally, studies have demonstrated that PFAS exposure can impact the quality of breast milk, leading to adverse infant health, including slowed growth and heightened intestinal inflammation.77 Evidently, there are a wide variety of impacts resulting from exposure to PFAS both prenatally and during infancy. Considering the ways in which Indigenous peoples in Canada face an increased risk of exposure to forever chemicals, the task of managing such toxic transmission and the associated generational harm are responsibilities that disproportionately fall on the shoulders of Indigenous women.
As demonstrated in the sections above, the disproportionate exposure to forever chemicals faced by Indigenous communities in Canada constitutes a stark case of environmental racism that inflicts devastating impacts, particularly on Indigenous women. In the subsequent sections, I analyze Bill C-226’s potential to address this instance of environmental racism. By highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the legislation, I contend that, while it may not have the capacity to fully remedy long-standing PFAS contamination in Indigenous communities, Bill C-226 is an encouraging step towards addressing this environmental injustice.
Description of Bill C-226: The National Strategy on Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act
Bill C-226, the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, received royal assent and was enacted as of June 2024. Under the Act, the federal government is required to create a national strategy to address environmental racism and advance environmental justice in Canada by June 2026. This strategy must include a study investigating the links between race, socioeconomic status, and environmental risk, as well as information and statistics detailing the location of environmental hazards.78 In addition, it must incorporate possible measures to both prevent and address environmental racism, such as “amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, the involvement of community groups in environmental policy making, compensation for individuals or communities, and the collection of information and statistics relating to health outcomes in communities located in proximity to environmental hazards.”79
Moreover, per Bill C-226 features a section on consultation which emphasizes that, in developing the national strategy, the Minister of the Environment ought to consult with interested peoples, bodies, organizations, or communities, including representatives of Canadian governments and Indigenous communities, and that such involvement must be consistent with the Government of Canada’s framework for the recognition and implementation of the rights of Indigenous peoples.80
Strengths: How Might Bill C-226 Be Effective in Addressing PFAS Exposure in Indigenous Communities?
Through my analysis of Bill C-226 in relation to the elevated PFAS exposure risk faced by Indigenous communities in Canada, I draw attention to three primary strengths: the incorporation of Indigenous peoples in the development of the national strategy, the allocation of the burden of proof, and the targeted focus on environmental racism.
Indigenous Involvement in the Development of the National Strategy
The first strength I highlight is the formal mandating of Indigenous involvement in the enactment of Bill C-226. In the preamble, there is specific acknowledgement of the importance of marginalized communities’ participation in environmental decision-making, as “racial discrimination in the development of environmental policy would constitute environmental racism.”81 Indeed, the exclusion of racialized communities in the creation of the national strategy would further perpetuate the inequalities that Bill C-226 seeks to solve.
With particular consideration given to my case-study of Indigenous communities’ disproportionate exposure to PFAS, this strength is particularly significant. Historically, many Canadian government actions overlooked Indigenous communities or made decisions on their behalf, which ultimately failed to respect both Indigenous rights and sovereignty.82 A qualitative study of meaningful Indigenous engagement in health policy making discovered that formal written agreements in which Indigenous involvement in decision-making processes is mandated are crucial: they hold governments accountable to incorporate Indigenous peoples, and thus ensure Indigenous voices are heard.83 Determining appropriate actions to address PFAS contamination among Indigenous peoples without the incorporation of Indigenous voices would fail to respect the rights of these communities, and further perpetuate an unethical, colonial past in which the Canadian government imposes their knowledge and ways of being onto Indigenous bodies.
Moreover, the incorporation of Indigenous voices enables Bill C-226 to be made in a way that aligns with the local and regional needs of Indigenous communities. These communities hold an understanding of the practices that best serve their well-being and sustenance, as well as the prosperity of the environment.84 By incorporating Indigenous voices, the national strategy will have greater potential to effectively address the disproportionate exposure to PFAS Indigenous peoples face. Ultimately, the measures created will be better suited to the communities they seek to help.
While I recognize the clause on consultation and Indigenous involvement as a strength of Bill C-226, I simultaneously remain skeptical. It is well documented that previous instances of Indigenous participation in policy have tended to be performative or unsuccessful due to unequal power relations between Canadian governments and Indigenous peoples.85 Additionally, it has been argued that simply fulfilling the minimal requirements of a duty to consult with Indigenous communities fails to adequately empower Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes.86 Given this, I offer suggestions for appropriate and meaningful Indigenous engagement in the implementation of Bill C-226 later in my recommendations section.
The Onus and the Burden of Proof
The allocation of the burden of proof in Bill C-226 is another one of the proposed legislation’s strengths. Within the legal sphere under the burden of proof, while proof denotes the observation of facts and conclusions drawn according to such facts, the burden constitutes the party that must come forward with proof and relatedly establish certain conclusions of fact.87 Because the bill requires the Minister of Environment to devise the national strategy, the onus of proving environmental harm lies with the Canadian government.
Typically, with respect to instances of addressing environmental harm, the burden of proof lies with the victims enduring the damage rather than the parties responsible for creating it. This unfairly positions victims, who often possess minimal financial resources and knowledge, against large corporations with significant financial and intellectual capital.88 By shifting the onus away from the victims of environmental racism, Bill C-226’s approach is in line with many legal scholars who argue that, in cases where environmental interests are in question, the burden should be transferred to those who typically possess more knowledge and control of the substances that are released into the environment, and who have the most access to the relevant facts (in this case, the government), than the plaintiffs who are most impacted by these substances.89,90
This shifted onus is especially important in relation to the disproportionate PFAS exposure faced by Indigenous communities in Canada. Waldron highlights that structural inequalities among Indigenous peoples, including low educational attainment, unemployment, income insecurity, and poverty, not only render these communities more vulnerable to environmental illness but also hinder their capacity to combat environmental racism.91 In shifting the burden away from victims facing structural barriers, Bill C-226 appropriately places the onus on the party that is better equipped to address this problem: the Government of Canada. Furthermore, forever chemicals pose a unique concern as they are ubiquitous but also intangible. Individuals routinely encounter them in their everyday lives, often unknowingly, because they cannot be seen, felt, or touched.92 Therefore, because PFAS are not easily recognized or widely known, placing the burden on the federal government to manage this instance of environmental racism is significant, as the government possesses both the knowledge and financial resources to address the problem.
Proponents of an alternative stance might argue this is a misallocation of the burden of proof, claiming a more comprehensive case would be brought by the victims themselves, as they have a greater incentive to advance an informative case than polluters or governments who stand to benefit from the continuation of polluting practices. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge the significant discrepancy in both financial resources and knowledge between victims and polluters or governments. Therefore, the allocation of the burden of proof on the federal government in Bill C-226 is more productive in the pursuit of justice.
Targeted Focus on Environmental Racism
The final strength I emphasize is Bill C-226’s targeted focus on environmental racism. While there are other pieces of legislation in Canada that deal with environmental pollution and injustice, none specifically mentions environmental racism. Ultimately, this provides limited means for Canadian environmental policy to attend to the unique ways in which Indigenous and racialized peoples experience environmental harms.
This phenomenon is exemplified with Bill S-5, which amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) in June of 2023 to include the right to a healthy environment. Marginalized populations are mentioned in this new amendment, suggesting that, when the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health assess the effects of a substance and its toxicity, they ought to “consider available information on whether there is a vulnerable population in relation to the substance and on the cumulative effects that may result from exposure to the substance in combination with exposure to other substances.”93 However, there is skepticism over Bill S-5’s capacity to protect these vulnerable communities effectively, as the legislation states the ministers may consider such populations, leaving it to the ministers’ discretion rather than making it obligatory.94 By failing to mandate the consideration of the ways in which identity factors such as race affect individuals’ susceptibility to environmental health risks and effects, Bill S-5 is just one example of how Canada’s environmental policy neglects the intersections between race and environmental harm. Therefore, the race-specific lens built into Bill C-226 is important, as it recognizes the intersections between race and environmental harm, and will illuminate the structural and systemic factors that produce environmental injustices.
With respect to forever chemical exposure, because environmental racism is the primary focus of Bill C-226, the impacts of racism and colonialism on the disproportionate PFAS exposure experienced by Indigenous peoples will not be circumvented. Analyzing the links between race and toxic exposure will be a mandated requirement, not a discretionary consideration, thus opening the door for true reparations. This race-specific lens is indeed a strength of this legislation.
To summarize, the involvement of Indigenous communities in the creation of the national strategy, the shift in onus to the Canadian government, and the deliberate attention given to environmental racism collectively represent strengths of Bill C-226, making this legislation a promising start to tackling the case of the disproportionate PFAS exposure among Indigenous communities. Despite these strengths, the bill simultaneously possesses weaknesses that must be considered as Canada pursues efforts to address environmental racism.
Limitations: How Might Bill C-226 Be Ineffective in Responding to this Instance of Environmental Racism?
In examining the proposed legislation, with respect to PFAS contamination among Indigenous communities, I uncovered three notable weaknesses: a possible lack of accountability between levels of government, an incapacity to fully address long-standing systemic environmental racism, and an inability to work retroactively.
Accountability Between Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Governments
Bill C-226’s interaction with Canadian federalism might create tension between levels of government or subdue accountability, thus limiting its capacity to address, prevent, and compensate for environmental injustices. It has been well documented that due to the ways in which environmental problems exist beyond political boundaries, they have posed a problem to Canadian federalism.95 Because of the jurisdictional overlap inherent to environmental policy making, the activities of each level of government, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, inevitably affect other levels of government, creating complications with implementation and enforcement.96
Bill C-226 is a federal bill and requires the federal government to take action to address issues of environmental racism. In the clause on consultation, the legislation indicates that, in developing the national strategy, the Minister of Environment is to consult or cooperate with relevant bodies, including representatives of governments in Canada.97 Undoubtedly, this would include the respective provincial and municipal governments. Such consultation with other governments might produce limitations to Bill C-226’s efficacy. Hawke argues the greatest problem within Canadian environmental policy is the absence of transparency within implementation and enforcement, particularly highlighting the lack of transparency between levels of government. He states the constitutional structure creates problems with regards to implementation at local or provincial levels, as “opportunities may occur for ‘fudging’ [implementation] and, in turn, enforcement.”98 A lack of accountability between the various levels of governments might create complications in relation to actions taken to address environmental racism under Bill C-226.
Exploring the case of PFAS contamination in Indigenous communities, introducing harsher regulations on PFAS can be done federally. However, if the government is looking to provide more direct regional interventions, such as attempts to purify water supplies in proximity to Indigenous communities of PFAS, provincial and municipal governments would need to be involved. Considering the dynamics highlighted above, there is a possibility this could inhibit the enforcement of Bill C-226. In order to ensure the bill’s efficacy, this limitation ought to be considered in the development and implementation of Bill C-226.
Inability to Address Centuries of Environmental Injustice
Beyond the jurisdictional challenges with implementation, there is the legacy of environmental injustice. This issue of environmental racism in our country is not a recent phenomenon; it is a systemic issue that has existed for centuries. Waldron describes environmental racism as a form of state-sanctioned violence stemming from colonialism and white supremacy. She writes, “I agree with Deborah M. Robinson’s assertion that environmental racism is ‘old wine in a new bottle’ – another manifestation of historical racial oppression that produces, reproduces, and sustains racial and other social inequalities by disproportionately affecting already-vulnerable communities in the present day.”99 Given the systemic nature of environmental racism, though the development of a national strategy under Bill C-226 is a promising start, it will take more than this to achieve justice.
In relation to PFAS contamination among Indigenous peoples, the dynamics that render these communities vulnerable to disproportionate exposure to forever chemicals have their roots in a colonial past in which policies and efforts by the Canadian government sought to eradicate or assimilate Indigenous bodies.100 Therefore, simply amalgamating data and proposing measures to address PFAS contamination under the national strategy will not have the capacity to counteract this injustice entirely. That is not to say Bill C-226 should be dismissed. Rather, I highlight this limitation to emphasize that this legislation is merely an initial step towards addressing environmental racism.
Incapacity to Work Retroactively
Often in cases of environmental damage, the harm in question has already been created and is potentially irreversible.101 Given this, Bill C-226’s incapacity to work retroactively also poses limitations. This constraint is particularly relevant to PFAS contamination in Indigenous communities. The task of eliminating PFAS presents significant challenges due to their anti-degradation properties.102 While research has shown a decline in levels of forever chemicals that are regulated in Canada, elevated levels of these PFAS are still detected in humans. For example, in a 2020 study on PFAS concentrations among pregnant women in Nunavik, Caron-Beaudoin et al. discovered that, since first measured in 2004 and 2007, blood serum concentrations of regulated PFOS and PFOA decreased significantly: by 66% and 22%, respectively. Despite this decline, these forms of PFAS were still detected in blood serum concentrations of these Indigenous women.103 Thus, while regulations aimed at controlling PFAS decrease their presence, forever chemicals’ unique properties allow them to persist along with the associated health complications. With respect to Indigenous peoples’ exposure to PFAS, Bill C-226 does have the potential to partially address the prevalence of these chemicals in our environment – by introducing harsher regulations, for example. However, it is unlikely it can fully eliminate the problem, as forever chemicals are already ubiquitous.
Overall, this limitation speaks to the greater need to implement a precautionary approach in environmental decision-making more broadly, and toxic substance management more specifically. This can be accomplished with the appropriate application of the precautionary principle. This principle requires that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible harm, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to protect the environment and human health.104,105 It acknowledges that “the consequences of ignorance can be dramatic.”106 The consequences of ignorance certainly are dramatic, as evidenced by the case of PFAS exposure among Indigenous communities across Canada. Although Bill C-226 is limited in its ability to retroactively address this instance of environmental racism, it presents a promising opportunity to address it in the present and future.
While there are limitations, Bill C-226’s drawbacks do not diminish the significance of this legislation. As demonstrated in the previous section, the legislation simultaneously possesses notable strengths that position it as an encouraging step towards addressing cases of environmental racism, including PFAS exposure within Indigenous communities in Canada. Given both the strengths and weaknesses, moving forward it is critical to consider appropriate strategies to support the Bill C-226’s implementation to ensure this bill ultimately accomplishes what it intends.
Looking Forward: Recommendations for Implementation
In the following section, I highlight two important recommendations for the creation and implementation of the national strategy, under Bill C-226 to ensure it adequately addresses instances of environmental racism, including forever chemical exposure among Indigenous communities: practicing meaningful Indigenous involvement in decision-making processes, and considering how various identity factors, such as sex, intersect with experiences of environmental racism.
Meaningful Indigenous Involvement
For Bill C-226 to be effective, the involvement of Indigenous communities cannot simply be a performative measure or a mere formality. Beetson argues there needs to be a move beyond the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in policy that does more than stipulate they must be “consulted”: “As long as policy developers continue to write about Indigenous ‘perspectives,’ we know that it is all wrong… A perspective just makes us incidental to a dominant theme – and we know which theme that is.”107 Inadequate inclusion of Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes leads to externally imposed solutions that fail to consider Indigenous knowledge and community contexts and are thus inappropriate for and unwelcomed by the community.108 Therefore, the federal government must practice meaningful involvement of Indigenous peoples under Bill C-226. In the following paragraphs, I explore three avenues to foster meaningful engagement of Indigenous peoples: attuning to the power dynamics inherent to policy making, moving beyond tokenism, and incorporating traditional knowledge.
There is an inherent power differential in decision-making processes between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian government, as Indigenous-government relationships are dominated by Eurocentric systems.109 In a qualitative study on meaningful Indigenous involvement in health policy making, many Indigenous participants reported this power imbalance as an obstacle to participation. They stated that the structure of the decision-making processes, such as the absence of opportunities for reflection, contradicted their nature and thus made it difficult to participate.110 Moreover, participants reported that their presence as the only or one of the only Indigenous individuals in the room impeded their ability to contribute.111 Given the presence of these dynamics at decision-making tables, there is a need to attenuate the power imbalances between the Canadian government and Indigenous communities in the implementation of Bill C-226.
Meaningful involvement of Indigenous peoples in the implementation of Bill C-226 also requires the avoidance of tokenistic engagement. In the same study, researchers noted a tendency for Indigenous peoples to be involved in the policy process in tokenizing ways.112 They emphasized that for Indigenous communities to be appropriately included in decision-making processes, their involvement must not be confined to cultural participation, such as an Elder providing an opening prayer at a meeting.113 Instead, efforts ought to focus on supporting a process that is led by Indigenous community members, particularly those who are familiar with relevant issues and represent a community perspective.114 When implementing Bill C-226, the involvement of Indigenous peoples must move beyond tokenism. This can be accomplished by fostering engagement that is Indigenous-led.
Finally, incorporating traditional knowledge in the implementation of the Strategy can help assure the meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities. Traditional knowledge has been broadly understood as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes, and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and their environment.”115 This type of knowledge stands in contrast with scientifically-based, Western knowledge: while the latter is premised upon hypotheses, experimentation, and is communicated using written records, the former is based on examples and anecdotes from daily interactions and is communicated using oral narratives.116 Research by Black and McBean highlights the ways in which the inclusion of traditional knowledge in policy development and implementation allows for the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to be acknowledged, ensures these communities are able to fully participate in decisions that directly affect them, and enables the transition to self-determination.117 Importantly, the authors highlight that the incorporation of such knowledge must involve its rightful owners. When developing the national strategy under Bill C-226, in addition to the collection of statistics, the Minister of Environment should incorporate traditional knowledge to both provide a more comprehensive picture of environmental racism and enable the meaningful involvement of Indigenous peoples.
In short, by attuning to the power differential in policy making, avoiding tokenistic engagement, and including traditional knowledge, the Canadian government can ensure meaningful Indigenous involvement in the implementation of Bill C-226. This kind of involvement is one essential element if Bill C-226 is to succeed.
Considering Intersecting Identity Factors: Gender-Based Analysis Plus
To ensure its efficacy, Bill C-226 must also take into consideration the impacts of various identity factors, such as sex and gender, as these factors intersect with experiences of environmental racism. This is clearly demonstrated with the case of PFAS exposure among Indigenous peoples: as outlined above, the sex-specific impacts of forever chemicals create differential health implications for Indigenous women. A singular approach to addressing environmental racism would neglect the disproportionate harm experienced by certain bodies, such as Indigenous women, thus limiting Bill C-226’s capacity to fully address the problem.
The application of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) would aid in Bill C-226’s ability to account for the ways in which various identity factors intersect with environmental racism. GBA+ is a framework used by the Canadian government to understand the potential impacts of a government initiative on a diverse range of individuals by taking sex, gender, age, disability, education, ethnicity, economic status, geography, language, race, religion, and sexual orientation into account.118,119 According to the Government of Canada, “Without GBA+, we risk missing or misreading the experiences of a significant portion of the Canadian population and, as a consequence, risk developing policies and initiatives that can inadvertently increase inequalities.”120 Applying GBA+ in the implementation of Bill C-226 will ensure the national strategy does not neglect the important role identity factors such as sex play in experiences of environmental racism. Ultimately, this will allow for the legislation to better address and prevent instances of environmental harm.
To summarize, it is imperative to prioritize the meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities and to carefully examine the ways in which various identity factors intersect with environmental racism in the implementation of Bill C-226. Given the potential of the proposed legislation in beginning to address environmental racism, it is incumbent upon the federal government to carefully consider how these strategies can be adopted to ensure the bill’s success.
Conclusion
By analyzing Bill C-226 in relation to the disproportionate exposure to PFAS faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada, I have emphasized that, although this legislation may not have the potential to redress decades of PFAS contamination in Indigenous communities, it is an encouraging step towards addressing this environmental injustice. Through examination of the literature, I described forever chemicals’ properties, exposure pathways, health effects, and regulations. I discussed the ways in which Indigenous communities in Canada are at an elevated risk of exposure. Further, I highlighted how these chemicals exert differential impacts on Indigenous women. In my analysis, I investigated the strengths of Bill C-226, including mandated Indigenous involvement in the national strategy, the allocation of the burden of proof on the federal government, and its specific focus on environmental racism. I also explored its weaknesses, including the potential impacts of the lack of transparency that often exists between levels of government as this type of legislation is implemented, the bill’s incapacity to fully redress centuries of systemic environmental racism, and the inability for the bill to work retroactively. Finally, I provided recommendations to be applied as the legislation is implemented, such as ensuring the meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities, and considering the impacts of various identity factors in addition to race.
As research on PFAS and Indigenous communities continues to evolve and Bill C-226 continues to advance through the legislative process, there are areas warranting inquiry and exploration that were beyond the scope of this paper. First, while I took a sex-specific lens in my analysis of the differential effects PFAS exposure has on Indigenous women, future inquiries can examine how gender roles further complicate risk of exposure. Second, with respect to Bill C-226, while I emphasized the importance of the burden of proof resting with the federal government, future work should consider what constitutes proof under this legislation and what amount of harm is sufficient to warrant action. Finally, further research should investigate appropriate strategies to address the lack of transparency and accountability between the various levels of government in environmental policy, as highlighted in the section on Bill C-226’s weaknesses.
Bill C-226 is a significant piece of legislation. It marks an important step towards addressing environmental injustices that cause severe harm among racialized communities across Canada, such as the elevated PFAS exposure faced by Indigenous peoples and Indigenous women. Moving forward, it is imperative we advocate for its appropriate implementation.