2025 Federal Election: Tracking Environmental Commitments

2025 Federal Election: Tracking Environmental Commitments

This webpage provides a brief overview of the environmental platforms of Canadian federal parties for the 2025 election to help inform voters and encourage bold climate commitments. It will be updated twice a week leading up to the vote on April 28. For a more in-depth summary and analysis of each party’s climate commitments, read WHEN’s full report here. 

This blog post was written by Lily Farinaccio, WHEN’s Policy Analyst.

---

The Canadian federal election is here, and political parties are already making promises about what they’ll deliver to Canadians. But what about their climate commitments, specifically? Why do they matter – and, are they enough? 

This webpage provides an overview of the key environmental promises from four main federal parties: the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, and Greens. The commitments are organized based on five factors: carbon neutrality and net-zero, sustainable development, adaptation strategies and emergency preparedness, environmental justice and Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+), and commitment to reconciliation and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples. 

Want to learn more about the importance of this election? Click here. 

Want more information on where, when, and how to vote? Click here. 

CARBON NEUTRALITY 

Definition: 

Carbon neutrality refers to having a balance between emitting carbon and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere in carbon sinks (forests, oceans, wetlands, etc.). Net zero is similar but refers to balancing the emissions of all greenhouse gases (GHGs), including methane and nitrous oxide. 

Importance: 

Human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, have led to global warming and our current climate crisis. Urgent emission cuts and government action are needed to prevent catastrophic climate impacts and secure a sustainable future. 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Definition: 

Sustainable development promotes harmony between economic growth, environmental protection, and human rights, ensuring current needs are met without compromising future generations. 

Importance: 

Unsustainable development has led to global crises, including climate change, environmental destruction, conflict, and inequality. To secure a livable future, governments must prioritize long-term environmental and social well-being over short-term profit. 

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 

Definition: 

Adaptation strategies are strategies implemented by governments to adapt to extreme weather events and changes resulting from climate change, such as heat waves, forest fires, droughts, and floods, in an attempt to make the country less vulnerable to these events.

Importance: 

As climate impacts intensify, adaptation is vital to protect communities as these impacts affect the very foundations of our lives – our homes, communities, health, food systems, and the natural environment that we depend on. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND GBA+ 

Definition: 

Environmental justice promotes fair access to environmental benefits and decision-making, especially for marginalized communities. GBA+ ensures governments identify and address impacts policies and initiatives may have on different communities, such as Indigenous, racialized, woman-identifying, and low-income groups.

Importance: 

While environmental stressors, including rising temperatures and extreme weather events, affect everyone, marginalized groups are disproportionately affected. Government initiatives must address these unequal impacts to ensure a just and inclusive response to the climate crisis. 

COMMITMENT TO RECONCILIATION AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Definition: 

Reconciliation involves restoring and establishing respectful relationships with Indigenous peoples. 

Importance: 

Canada’s colonial history continues to harm Indigenous communities through systemic injustices. True reconciliation requires meaningful, structural government action that respects Indigenous rights and addresses ongoing inequities. 

GET INVOLVED

1. Register to vote – Advanced polls are open from April 18th-21st! Election day is April 28th! 

2. Follow @whenonlinex to stay updated and informed. 

3. Share this blog post to amplify the message. 
   
   
   
   
   

What is the Real Price We Pay for Cheap Clothing?: Environmental Impacts of Fast Fashion Toxins

This blog post was written by Lyndsay Amat, Kaitlyn De Sousa, and Gwen Merry.

WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ shall refer to those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to the impacts of fast fashion.

Fast fashion has revolutionized how we consume clothing, offering new styles at unbelievable prices and record speeds. It has also created a culture of overconsumption that is not only wasteful, but is also devastating the planet. In Canada, it can be difficult to see the direct impacts of the fast fashion industry as a significant amount of the country’s waste is shipped to the Global South in the name of “donations.” However, these “donations” only become a burden, forcing countries that lack the necessary infrastructure to deal with textile waste and its toxic environmental and human health effects. 

Most fast fashion is produced in developing nations, where poor working conditions and weak environmental conditions allow for mass production at a devastating cost. As humans who both depend on and influence the environment, it is important to understand how the fast fashion industry and our consumption choices impact the world around us.  

If you’re in or around Toronto and want to learn more about the fast fashion industry while revamping your closet, look no further! WHEN is co-hosting, a Third Anniversary Clothing Swap and #WannaBeToxicFree Panel event with The Good Swaps on March 30th from 12:00-4:00 pm. The event will start off with an engaging panel discussion on the environmental and human health impacts of fast fashion. Afterwards, you’ll have the chance to participate in our clothing swap from 1:00-3:00 pm. This event is the perfect chance to consume sustainably and socialize – sign up here!  

Clothing dump in Atacama Desert, Chile

Photo by Jason Mayne / People Dispatch Twitter

Contaminated Waters

Clothing production - including growing natural fibres, manufacturing synthetic fibres, and washing and dyeing textiles - requires staggering amounts of water. It’s estimated that the fashion industry uses around 4 percent of all freshwater extraction globally, which is set to double by 2030. According to the World Resources Institute, it takes 2,700 liters of water to make one cotton shirt, which is enough water for one person to drink for 2 and a half years. 

Beyond extreme water use, fast fashion also pollutes and contaminates water through the textile production process. Dyeing and producing textiles is estimated to be responsible for 20% of clean water pollution. The byproducts of commercial dyes, such as oily froth, make the water cloudy and foul-smelling. Oily froth also accumulates in waterways and forms a layer on the surface that blocks sunlight, making it harder for organisms to photosynthesize and produce the energy they need to survive.  

In the end, this reduced photosynthesis leads to lower oxygen levels in the water, which threatens aquatic plants and animals’ survival. Not only do these chemicals disrupt local ecosystems, but they contaminate drinking water sources and expose communities to harmful substances. To learn more about the health impacts of toxins in our waterways from fast fashion, keep an eye out for our upcoming blog post.

The majority of textiles produced in fast fashion are made from synthetic fabrics, which are derived from plastics and petrochemicals. In fact, over 60% of textile fibres, such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic, are made this way. These materials are not biodegradable, meaning that they don’t break down naturally and can take up to 200+ years to decompose in a landfill.They also release harmful toxins, including microplastics and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

Even washing clothes in a washing machine can cause a large amount of microplastics to be released. A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that around 35% of all microplastics in the ocean are the result of washing synthetic textiles like polyester. 

Toxic Foam in the Yamuna River

Photo by Salman Ali/Hindustan Times/Getty Images

Degraded Dirt

Fast fashion isn’t just polluting water, it’s also contaminating the very soil we rely on for food and healthy ecosystems. During the production stages of textiles, factories release waste, synthetic dyes, pesticides, and heavy metals, exposing the soil to harmful chemicals. 

Over time, these chemicals seep into the ground and build up, changing the structure of the soil by increasing its toxicity. These changes reduce the quality of the soil, which harms plants, reduces biodiversity, and affects crops and wildlife. As the soil becomes more polluted from these toxins, entire ecosystems suffer, showing how much of an impact fast fashion can have on the natural world around us.

Dye plant in Zhejiang, China

Lu Guang/GreenPeace

Polluted Skies

In addition to its effects on land and water, fast fashion negatively impacts our atmosphere, fuelling climate change. On a household scale, the main source of microplastics in the air inside is from textiles such as clothing.

Worldwide, fast fashion produces enough greenhouse gasses (GHGs) for textile production to be responsible for around 10% of all global emissions, and is ranked the 5th largest contributor of GHG emissions among households in the European Union (EU). Despite this statistic, over 75% of emissions related to the production of clothes for the EU are released outside of the EU. 

When clothes are thrown away, they often end up in landfills or open dumps. Landfills act as contained sites for garbage and are typically found in developed countries. On the other hand, open dumps are typically found in countries in the Global South where there is a lack of waste management. In these unmanaged dumps, garbage, including clothing, is often burned, releasing harmful chemicals into the environment. Synthetic fabrics take hundreds of years to decompose, meaning that they continue to release these toxins over time. As they break down or are burned, strong greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane are released into the air, forming aerosols and ozone. This can cause serious health problems and accumulate in the food chain. 

Burning polyester releases cancer-causing chemicals, such as dioxins, furans, and heavy metals. All of these substances are considered persistent toxins and bioaccumulate in the food chain, posing a risk to general wildlife, including humans. While there are many efforts to promote best practices for textile waste disposal, addressing waste prevention leads to cleaner, healthier air for everyone. To learn more about the health impacts of toxins in our air from fast fashion, keep an eye out for our upcoming blog post.

Unraveling Ecosystems

Fast fashion has a significant effect on our ecosystems. Fabrics such as polyester introduce microplastics to the environment. Microplastics can be ingested by marine organisms and then enter the food chain, ultimately being consumed by humans. Organisms that ingest microplastics may experience delayed growth, abnormal behavior, or reduced food intake. For women, microplastics that have accumulated in the food chain can cause allergic reactions, endocrine disruption, and decreased reproductive health.

When plastic particles degrade, they change their physical and chemical properties, heightening the risk of toxic effects on organisms. The chance of toxic effects increases with the number of species and ecological functions that could potentially be affected. Chemical impacts are particularly concerning during the degradation phase.

Chemicals like phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA) escape from plastic particles. These chemicals are known to affect hormones, disrupting the hormone systems of contaminated animals. The nano-sized particles can cause inflammation, cross cellular barriers, and even penetrate special membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta. Inside cells, they alter gene expression and biochemical reactions, among other effects. To learn more about the impact on human health, keep an eye out for our final segment on fast fashion toxins.

As we look closely at fast fashion’s effect on the environment, it’s important to consider not just synthetic materials, but also the hidden costs of natural fibers. Cotton is one of the most widely used materials worldwide due to its versatility and easy care. Despite only occupying 2.4% of the world’s cropland, cotton uses significant amounts of pesticides and is responsible for roughly one-fifth of global insecticide use. This results in widespread harm to various ecosystems beyond the targeted pests. Species that come in contact with the contaminated water or consume plants are at risk.  

What can be done?

As consumers, we can make choices in our clothing consumption that can drive positive change and make a fashion statement of sustainability. 

We can: 

• Support brands with sustainable and environmental certifications, including the B Corp logo, Ecologo, and the Green Seal; 

• Thrift! Thrifting and purchasing second hand reduces the need for new production, eliminating the issues caused by textile production. 

• Participate in community clothing swaps! Exchanging clothing extends the lifespan of each piece, delaying its journey to the landfill.

• Only buy what we truly need! We can’t break the cycle of overproduction and ecological harm solely by conscious consumption. 

CRUNCH-TIME FOR CANADA: A CLIMATE ACTION CAMPAIGN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

CRUNCH-TIME FOR CANADA: A CLIMATE ACTION CAMPAIGN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

This blog post was written by Lily Farinaccio, WHEN’s Policy Analyst.

The Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN), a youth-led organization, is launching a climate action campaign to push all federal parties to commit to bold climate action. With Canada among the world’s highest per capita greenhouse gas emitters and climate concerns far down on the political agenda, this campaign will raise awareness, analyze party policies, and encourage action – because the fight for a livable future cannot wait.  

THE STATE OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS

Human activities, mainly through the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, have led to global warming and the current climate crisis. We are already seeing the effects of extreme weather and climate events in every part of the world, causing widespread harm, losses, and damage to both nature and people. In Canada specifically, weather-related disasters, such as floods, storms, and wildfires, are happening more often and becoming more intense. These effects are also unequally and differentially experienced by Indigenous, Black, and other marginalized communities across the country. 

With every increment of global warming, the likelihood of sudden and/or irreversible changes increases. According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.” The message is clear: we need bold action now. 

CANADA’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS

Canada’s contributions to climate change have been and continue to be significant. In 2021, our per capita GHG emissions (the average amount of emissions an individual person produces) were the second highest among the top 10 emitting countries in the world. At 17.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person, Canada’s per capita emissions were equal to the amount of GHGs released by someone driving around the world in a gasoline-powered car twice a year (about 73,436 km). The same year, despite our relatively small population, Canada also ranked 12th in the world in total emissions. 

Due to systemic inequities, the communities and countries who contribute the least to climate change are disproportionately impacted. This places an increased responsibility on Canada, and all Global North countries, to take action to mitigate climate change. 

CANADA’S 2025 FEDERAL ELECTION 

Given the urgency of the climate crisis, one might expect it to be a main concern heading into this year’s federal election. Instead, Trump’s tariffs, inflation, healthcare, rising food costs, and a lack of affordable housing are dominating the polls. If federal parties fail to take a stronger stance on climate issues, youth and future generations will be in an even more vulnerable position than they already are.

DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS: CANADIAN YOUTH

The mental, physical, and emotional impacts of the climate crisis are not distributed equally among the Canadian population. Compared to previous generations, young people are, and will continue to be, more exposed to climate change-related problems, and the burdens of coping with and solving them. These impacts can also be exacerbated by identity factors, such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Today’s youth are in a unique position: while they’ve contributed the least to the crisis, they are disproportionately impacted and have few opportunities to influence actions.

A recent study surveyed 1,000 young people from the ages of 16-25 across Canada. Among the findings: 

• 56% of respondents reported feeling afraid, sad, anxious, and powerless about the climate crisis;

• 78% indicated that climate change impacts their overall mental health; 

• 37% said that their feelings about climate change negatively affect daily functioning;

• 73% reported thinking that the future is frightening; 

• And 76% disclosed feeling that people have failed to take care of the planet.

Interestingly, respondents also viewed governmental response to climate change negatively and expressed more feelings of betrayal than reassurance. 

Clearly, the impacts of climate change on today’s young people are severe, affecting numerous aspects of their daily lives. Youth should not be forced to struggle with this crisis alone. 

LET’S WORK TOGETHER!: OUR CAMPAIGN FOR CLIMATE ACTION

Given the impacts of climate change, the importance of the upcoming Canadian federal election, and the struggles young people face today, the Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN), a youth-led organization, is launching a climate action campaign for future generations.  

In this campaign, we will encourage all federal political parties to adopt the strongest possible climate action plans going forward, demanding firm commitments that prioritize people, the planet, and future generations. 

In the coming months, we will release a detailed analysis report of political party climate policies. This analysis will summarize and objectively assess climate action plans for all federal parties (Liberals, Conservatives, Greens, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois) based on several factors, including carbon neutrality, climate adaptation strategies, and equity/GBA+ considerations. It will be updated continuously as policy platforms are released. 

The report will be accompanied by a social media campaign that will translate our policy analysis to the public in a clear and accessible manner. Finally, WHEN plans to host a panel discussion where climate activists will share their insights on climate change, disproportionate impacts, and intergenerational activism.  

Let’s work together to ensure a livable, sustainable Canada for all and act together now. To stay informed and connected, follow @whenonlinex. More information is coming soon.

GET INVOLVED

1. Register to vote – share your voice and exercise your democratic rights this election! 

2. Follow @whenonlinex to stay updated and informed. 

3. Share this blog post to amplify the message. 

---

The Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) is a non-partisan, charitable organization. All our policy efforts are solely focused on advancing our mission and promoting positive change without political bias.

What is the Real Price We Pay for Cheap Clothing?

This blog post was written by Lyndsay Amat, Kaitlyn De Sousa, Gwen Merry, and Annika Zworth.

WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ shall refer to those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to the impacts of fast fashion.

We live in a fast world with even faster fashion trends. While the allure of affordable and stylish clothing is hard to resist, a troubling reality lies beneath this throw-away culture: the widespread use of toxic chemicals in garment production. To maximize profits, clothing companies from the Global North outsource production largely to countries within the Global South.

In garment factories, women from developing countries comprise 85% of the workforce. “Fast fashion is a feminist issue as it disproportionately disempowers women” says Teen Vogue’s Yasmin Ahram and Slow Factory Foundation. Not only are marginalized women exploited for their labour, but fast fashion also acts within existing patriarchal systems to capitalize on gender. According to Tully 2019, societal factors such as poverty and gender roles push women specifically into garment factories, thus exposing them to more health hazards, abuse, sexual harassment, unsafe work conditions and low wages. Factory owners take advantage of the unequal societal positions designated to women and use them to pay them less, demand more work, ignore their rights, and get away with physical and verbal abuse. Workers in the fashion industry face a disproportionate amount of health problems because of direct contact with chemicals used and indirect exposure from waste entering the environment. 

Furthermore, these chemicals also impact the consumers who wear them. In what follows we will explore how common toxic substances that are used in the production of these garments, such as PFAS, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), not only pose significant health risks to consumers and factory workers but also wreak havoc on the environment.   

Table 1.1 - Each (x) is a link to a source. The links can be accessed through the PDF file attached at the bottom of this page.

Health Impacts Explored

As demonstrated by Table 1.1 above, PFAS, VOCs and heavy metals have a variety of serious health impacts. All three can cause oxidative stress which can lead to cell and tissue damage. Long-term oxidative stress can contribute to cancer and other diseases. The impacts these chemicals have on neurotoxicity can manifest as dizziness and other cognitive impairments. 

Exposure to these chemicals causes serious reproductive health issues. According to Hesperian Health Guides, acetone used in producing synthetic fibres has been linked to miscarriages, while lead and toluene, common in textile factories, are associated with impaired fetal cognitive function and an increased risk of birth defects. An estimated 80% of global workers in the garment industry are women, however the toxins workers are exposed to have particular effects on women. Heavy metals such as cadmium and lead are known to cause breast cancer. Furthermore, exposure to lead, mercury, manganese, and cadmium has been linked to infertility or indirectly causes infertility through another condition and unregulated hormonal changes. The main concern for women would be chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors (EDCs). Potential conditions and diseases caused by EDCs may include breast cancer, infertility, early puberty, miscarriage, premature birth, pre-eclampsia, menstrual irregularities, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, shortened lactation, and early menopause. 

Additionally, PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” are toxic throughout their lifecycle, from polluting the air workers breathe to contaminating water near factories. The pervasive use of these chemicals underscores the urgent need for safer, more sustainable practices in the clothing industry.  Obtaining gender disaggregated data regarding chemical hotspots is uncommon. However, many studies show that there is a strong link between several diseases such as breast cancer and living near POPs and pesticide hot spots. Women are risking their health to produce large volumes of clothing for pennies. The most concerning aspect is that a significant portion of this clothing will be discarded as waste directly from the manufacturing process due to the insidious nature of consumerist trends supplying an assumed and immaterial demand. To learn more, keep an eye out for our piece on the impact fast fashion toxins have on health.

The Environmental Impact of Toxins in Fast Fashion

The presence of hazardous chemicals throughout the fast fashion supply chain also has a profound and damaging impact on the environment, its resources, and ecosystems. The unnecessary overproduction of clothing is a leading cause of climate change since it contributes to high levels of waste and resource depletion, and accounts for 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions. 

Ded Mityay/Open Access Government

Throughout the manufacturing process, harmful substances such as lead and PFAS are used, which are non bio-degradable. The improper disposal of dyed textile waste and untreated wastewater contaminates water systems and bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms. Wastewater treatment plants cannot effectively remove these chemicals from industrial textile production wastewater. Crops grown in contaminated soil absorb these toxins, and these toxins make their way through the food chain, affecting the health of nearby communities.

The exposure of the environment to these toxins poisons the communities residing beyond factory walls, the majority of which are in low-income and marginalized regions. Water sources relied on for drinking, cooking, bathing, and growing crops are contaminated with chemicals that disrupt human health. It is estimated by Ecowatch that in China, which is the world’s largest producer of fast fashion, 70% of rivers and lakes are contaminated by wastewater produced by the textile industry. Even regions that do not produce fast fashion, but are impacted at the end of the fast fashion life cycle, deal with the negative impacts of textile waste in landfills. Landfills are overflowing with clothing that continue to leach chemicals and microplastics into the groundwater and soil, disproportionately affecting racialized and Indigenous communities who are more likely to live near waste sites due to environmental racism, which leaves these communities more exposed to environmental hazards. Women and children living near these sights suffer from chronic skin conditions and reproductive health issues, further perpetuating generational health disparities. Environmental racism can severely harm the health of the community, who already face many barriers to healthcare access, economic stability, safe housing, and political representation, further deepening systemic inequalities. The communities who are burdened with the toxic impact and waste from fast fashion are predominantly those who do not create the demand for it. To learn more, stay posted for our upcoming piece on the impact fast fashion toxins have on the environment.

What Can We Do?

The manufacturing and disposal of contaminated fast fashion garments exacerbates environmental and human health challenges. Shifting to sustainable practices is essential to protect ecosystems and our health, and ensure the responsible use of resources.

As Dayna Scott highlights, there is a difference between individual responsibility and corporate accountability in addressing the environmental damage that fast fashion creates. Corporations shift the burden onto consumers to avoid making systemic changes. While individual mindful choices are crucial, corporations have the power to drive meaningful, large-scale change.

Advocacy plays a crucial role in pushing corporations to adopt greater transparency and more sustainable practices, holding them accountable for their environmental and social impacts. As consumers, searching for sustainably produced slow, regulated clothing can be difficult due to the systemic lack of transparency around production or the comparably higher costs. Look for certain certifications such as OEKO-TEX®  or bluesign® which indicate that the product has complied with product safety, ensuring limited substance use according to progressive regulations.

Recycling is an alternative, however, the low recycling rates do not negate the overwhelming production practices. Only 1% of discarded clothing is properly recycled, highlighting the urgent need for change. After all, the most sustainable place to shop is your own closet.

Shaping the Right to a Healthy Environment: Feedback on Canada’s Draft Framework

Shaping the Right to a Healthy Environment: Feedback on Canada’s Draft Framework 

This blog post was written by Lily Farinaccio, WHEN’s Policy Analyst.

In June 2023, the “Right to a Healthy Environment” (the Right) was added to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the main piece of federal law dedicated to protecting environmental and human health. Under section 5.1 of CEPA, the federal government is required to create an Implementation Framework (the Framework) for the Right by June 2025. This framework will define the Right and describe how it will be considered in decision-making under CEPA. 

One of the first steps in the Framework’s creation was the release of a discussion document in February 2024. This was followed by a period for public commentary, during which WHEN submitted recommendations (we encourage you to read our submission and the accompanying blog post). Then, in October 2024, the federal government released the Draft Implementation Framework for the Right to a Healthy Environment. A 60-day public comment period followed, once again allowing the public to share feedback. 

In collaboration with two other youth-led environmental groups, Shake Up The Establishment (SUTE) and Finance, Engage, Sustain (FES), the Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) took part in this public consultation. On December 4th, our collective submitted a technical feedback report with pointed recommendations. By the end of January 2025, we will also submit a community-based feedback report, which includes input gathered from six public consultation events and a survey that we hosted across the country. 

To learn more about the Right, the implementation process, and our collective’s collaboration and consultations, check out this youtube video. Keep reading to learn more about our technical report and recommendations.

Two elements were central to our technical report submission

Advocating for those most vulnerable to environmental harm 

Marginalized groups, particularly women, gender-diverse, Indigenous, poor and racialized communities, are more likely to experience environmental harm from polluting industries and toxins (1,2). For example, women-identifying people and people with ovaries, specifically people of colour, are at greater risk of being harmed by toxic chemicals found in personal care products that have reproductive and cancerous effects due to sex and gender-specific differences (3). As the Right is a significant addition to CEPA, it must be implemented in a way that considers the disproportionate environmental impacts faced by equity-deserving communities. Simply put, the Framework should protect everyone’s right to a healthy environment. Taking an intersectional feminist lens, our collective’s submission called for specific changes to the Framework to better protect those most vulnerable to environmental harm. 

Amplifying youth voices

Today, youth often experience disproportionate burdens when it comes to coping with pollution, exposure to toxic chemicals, and the climate crisis. A recent study surveyed 10,000 young people from the ages of 16 to 25 across the globe. A total of 59% said they were very or extremely worried about climate change, and more than 45% said their feelings about climate change affected their daily living (4). Despite these challenges, youth are often excluded from policy-making decisions that directly impact their futures. As youth-led organizations (with all members of our teams being under 35), we were proud to submit feedback that highlighted the perspectives of diverse young people – perspectives that are essential in shaping future environmental policies. 

Summary of Our Recommendations 

Strengthening definitions and principles

 The Framework uses many terms, including “sustainable climate,” “accessibility,” and “participation,” that are vague or unclear. Our collective found this lack of clarity concerning because it could lead to unfocused action or, at worst, inaction. To address this, many of our recommendations focused on specifying and strengthening language in the Framework to make it more appropriate and effective. For example, we asked the government to define what a “sustainable climate” means in the Right’s definition and to explain the specific actions that will be taken under CEPA to promote a sustainable climate, such as reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

We also called on the government to strengthen the definition of intergenerational equity: “[meeting] the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (5, p. 18). We found this definition lacked specificity and relevance. So we encouraged the government to address its shortcomings, including specifying what ‘future generations” refers to – does it mean young people today, young people 20-30 years from now, the next seven generations, or all of these groups? 

Enhancing enforceability and accountability

While the introduction of the Right in Canada is a significant step forward, as it stands, the Right is limited in its scope and enforceability. While it’s included in CEPA’s preamble and will help guide actions taken under CEPA, there are currently no new legal tools that can be used to hold the federal government accountable if the Right is violated. Further, it only applies to activities under CEPA’s jurisdiction, and doesn’t apply across other federal, provincial, or territorial laws, even if those laws affect human and environmental health. In addition to its limited scope, the Right is further restricted by “reasonable limits,” which, according to the federal government, should be based on a “thorough, reasoned, rational, and fair consideration of [scientific, economic, health, environmental, and social] factors” (5, p.23).  

Given these limitations, many of our recommendations focused on making the Right more enforceable, ensuring it leads to meaningful action. For example, we suggested that, when making decisions under CEPA, the federal government be required to publicly share a plain language summary of how their decision upholds the Right. We also proposed adding new accountability measures, such as requiring all federal government employees to complete training on the Right. This training would help government employees understand how one’s environment impacts their health and how different policies can either support or harm the Right. 

Advancing equity and supporting Indigenous sovereignty 

The Framework does mention the “meaningful involvement” of communities most vulnerable to environmental harm and makes reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls-to-Action. However, we’re concerned that these references might be performative and lack concrete government action. Accordingly, we encouraged the government to prioritize equity-deserving communities and take meaningful steps to support Indigenous sovereignty. For instance, we recommended creating an Indigenous Advisory Committee for the Right, to ensure diverse Indigenous perspectives, knowledges, and expertise are incorporated into environmental policies, programs, and decision-making. 

Prioritizing human and environmental health

By adding the Right to CEPA, the federal government recognized the importance of accessing a healthy environment – a key factor in determining overall well-being, as pollution and poor environmental conditions can lead to serious health issues such as cancer, heart disease, and mental health disorders, including depression and anxiety (6,7,8). Given this, our collective’s feedback focused on making sure the Framework continuously puts human and environmental health first. For example, we recommended that the government be open about its relationships with industry and ensure that protecting “confidential business information” never takes priority over human and environmental health.

What’s Next? 

Currently, the government is in the process of reviewing the public’s feedback and creating the Final Framework which will be officially released in June 2025. WHEN, SUTE, and FES will submit our second report in January 2025 which will also help inform the Framework’s creation, so stay tuned!

If you’re interested in staying up-to-date on future environmental policies and similar participation opportunities, you can register to be notified through enviroequity.ca. 

Get InvolveD

1. Interested in learning more? Read the full report here! 

2. Stay connected and informed through our social media! Check out WHEN, SUTE, and FES. 

3. Share this blog post to spread the word!

References 

1. Waldron, I. There’s Something in the Water. Fernwood Publishing; 2018.

2. Lewis S, Scott D. Regulating Toxics: Sex and Gender in Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series [Internet]. 2014;40. Available from: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/40

3. Zota AR, Shamasunder B. The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology [Internet]. 2017 Oct;217(4):418.e1–6. Available from: https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(17)30862-1/fulltext

4. Hickman C, Marks E, Pihkala P, Clayton S, Lewandowski RE, Mayall EE, et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2021 Dec;5(12).

5. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Draft Implementation Framework for the Right to a Healthy Environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [Internet]. Government of Canada ; 2024 Oct. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-environmental-protection-act-registry/publications/implementation-framework.html 

6. Carré J, Gatimel N, Moreau J, Parinaud J, Léandri R. Does Air Pollution Play a Role in infertility?: a Systematic Review. Environmental Health. 2017 Jul 28;16(1). ‌

7. Turner MC, Andersen ZJ, Baccarelli A, Diver WR, Gapstur SM, Pope CA, et al. Outdoor air pollution and cancer: An overview of the current evidence and public health recommendations. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians [Internet]. 2020 Aug 25;70(6). Available from: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21632 

8. Bhui, K, Newbury J, Latham R, Ucci M, et al. Air Quality and Mental Health: Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions. BJPsych Open. 2023; 9(4). Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/air-quality-and-mental-health-evidence-challenges-and-future-directions/FF3A143292CD1783BA7DC7B744573C5C