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

The Right to a Healthy Environment: Get Informed, Get Involved, Have Your Say

The Right to a Healthy Environment: Get Informed, Get Involved, Have Your Say

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

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the primary piece of federal legislation dedicated to protecting both environmental and human health. It was updated for the first time in 20 years in June 2023. As part of this update, it now recognizes that everyone in Canada has the “Right to a Healthy Environment” as provided under the Act (2). CEPA defines a healthy environment as one that is clean, healthy, and sustainable, but what does that really mean for Canadians (1)? 

The Government of Canada has recently developed a  “Draft Implementation Framework” aimed at describing how the government can uphold everyone’s right to a healthy environment under CEPA. Currently, the federal government is seeking feedback from the public on this framework by Dec 4th, 2024 to inform the creation of the Final Implementation Framework, set to be released in June 2025. 

Call-to-Action

This fall, in collaboration with Shake Up The Establishment (SUTE) and Finance, Engage, Sustain (FES), the Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) is looking to influence the Right to a Healthy Environment Implementation Framework by amplifying the diverse perspectives of equity-deserving youth. While the Implementation Framework affects us all, it is especially important that young people, particularly those from underserved, marginalized and minoritized communities, have the opportunity for their voices to be heard — as they often bear the greatest burdens with respect to experiencing disproportionately higher environmental harms alongside coping with impacts of the climate crisis (4,5). 

Our collective will be hosting six public consultations (one virtual and five in-person), and we have also created an online survey for accessible, asynchronous participation. Our consultations will help create a safe space for youth, who require no prior knowledge about this topic, to learn about CEPA, share their views on what a healthy environment means to them, and to provide feedback informing how the Implementation Framework should be designed to ensure that every individual in Canada benefits from the right to a healthy environment. 

Apply to Participate in One of Our Consultation Events

We are hosting events in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. You can apply up to 2 days before the listed event date and time for your application to be considered. All participants will be provided $100 in honoraria for in-person events, and $75 for the virtual event, as well as food and drinks throughout. We also have an accessibility fund intended to be used to reduce barriers towards your participation. Successful applicants will be contacted via email to confirm their participation and will be provided information on next steps. 

Participate in Our Short Survey

Have your voice be heard! If you can’t participate in one of our events, be sure to weigh in through our short survey by November 20th, 2024. We will incorporate all of the answers we  receive as a part of our community-based feedback report being shared with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada after the consultation period. 

how is the framework being developeD?

The right to a healthy environment was officially recognized as a part of CEPA in June 2023 (2). Under section 5.1 of CEPA, the federal government is required to develop an Implementation Framework for the right to a healthy environment by June 2025. The Implementation Framework must define the right and set out how it will be considered in decision-making under CEPA (2). The process of developing the Implementation Framework includes the following stages:  

STAGE 1 - Summer/Fall 2023: Period of public engagement and information sharing prior to the release of a discussion document. 

STAGE 2 - February 2024: Release of a discussion document followed by a period for public commentary and engagement. 

• WHEN responded during the commentary period, providing recommendations and feedback. We encourage you to read both our submission and the accompanying blog post, and the submission from our colleagues at Shake Up The Establishment (SUTE). 

STAGE 3 - Fall 2024 - we are currently at this stage!: Release of the Draft Implementation Framework, elaborating on the substantive meaning of the right to a healthy environment in the context of CEPA, followed by public consultation and feedback. 

STAGE 4 - June 2025: Release of Final Implementation Framework. 

Image by the Government of Canada 

What Does the Right to a Healthy Environment Mean in the Canadian Context?

According to the Draft Implementation Framework, the right to a healthy environment is the right to live in an environment that is protected from harmful substances, pollutants and waste, and where measures taken under CEPA promote a sustainable climate, clean and healthy air and water, and healthy ecosystems and biodiversity (3). Other elements include access to information and effective remedies, participation in decision-making, and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples (3). 

To better understand the right at its present state, there are three central elements to note: guiding principles, scope and reasonable limits, and enforceability. 

Guiding Principles 

The Implementation Framework will describe how the integration of three principles into CEPA processes will help fulfil the federal government’s duty to protect the right to a healthy environment: environmental justice, non-regression, and intergenerational equity (3). These principles are intended to ensure that the right protects those disproportionately impacted by environmental harms, prevents any backwards steps in regulations, and takes into account future populations and the future state of the environment. 

Scope and Reasonable Limits 

While the right to a healthy environment sounds great on paper, it has a limited scope, applying only to activities within CEPA’s jurisdiction. This means that the right will not apply to decisions made under other federal, provincial, territorial, or municipal laws, regardless of their impact on environmental and human health. For example, the Pest Control Products Act, which regulates pesticides, will not be required to consider the right to a healthy environment when determining whether to approve the use of potentially harmful pesticides.

The right is not absolute and is further restricted by “reasonable limits.” Decision-makers will look at scientific, environmental, health, social, and economic factors when making decisions under CEPA (3). These reasonable limits have the potential to undermine the value of the right if the federal government prioritizes them over the right itself.

Enforceability 

The right to a healthy environment is not a directly enforceable right. While it’s included in CEPA’s preamble, and it will inform CEPA processes, there are currently no new legal avenues to hold the federal government accountable for violating one’s right to a healthy environment. 

To increase accountability, there will be an online portal with a dedicated email address where the public can submit questions and feedback related to the protection of the right (3). However, it is not specified that the government is mandated to act on this feedback. 

What’s Next?  

As previously mentioned, WHEN is collaborating with SUTE and FES to provide comments on the Draft Implementation Framework. Our collective’s feedback will consist of a technical report, as well as a community-based feedback report which will include feedback from youth across the nation, collected via our online survey and public consultation sessions.

We want to hear from you! The Right to a Healthy Environment Implementation Framework under CEPA has great potential, but it is vital that perspectives of youth and other systemically oppressed communities are heard throughout the consultation period and submitted to the federal government, to ensure the Implementation Framework is adequately protecting EVERYONE’s right to a healthy environment. 

Get Involved

1. Interested in sharing your perspectives on the right to a healthy environment framework? Participate in our online survey, and share it with your friends. Submit your survey answers by November 20th, 2024!

2. Are you a young person who wants to help shape how the right to a healthy environment is upheld in Canada? Apply to participate in one of our consultation sessions! 

3. You can also submit your own feedback on the Draft Implementation Framework, submitting it by email to HealthyEnv-EnvSain@ec.gc.ca by December 4th, 2024. Visit enviroequity.ca to register and stay updated. 

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

5. Share this blog post to spread the word!

References

1. Canadian Environmental Protection Act [Internet]. 1999. Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.31/  

2. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Discussion Document on the Implementation Framework for a Right to a Healthy Environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 [Internet]. Government of Canada ; 2024 Feb. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-environmental-protection-act-registry/publications/right-healthy-environment-cepa.html 

3. ‌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 

4. Sanson A, Bellemo M. Children and Youth in the Climate Crisis. BJPsych Bulletin. 2021 Apr 21;45(4): 205–9.

5. Venkataraman M, Grzybowski S, Sanderson D, Fischer J, Cherian A. Environmental Racism in Canada. Canadian Family Physician [Internet]. 2022 Aug 1;68(8): 567–9. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/68/8/567#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20environmental

Environmental Health Disparities & the Financial Inaccessibility of Healthy Living for Vulnerable Communities