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

Are women under 50 the new face of mesothelioma?

Are women under 50 the new face of mesothelioma?

By Kanisha Acharya-Patel & Anna-Liza Badaloo | Opinion | July 25th 2024

See original publication at: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/07/25/opinion/are-women-under-50-new-face-mesothelioma

---

For the purposes of this article, we use the term ‘women’ to include people with ovaries and people who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect vulnerability to asbestos-related illness.

Mesothelioma has long been considered an “old man’s disease” because people working in high-risk industries — like construction, mining and firefighting — were most likely to be diagnosed with the rare, aggressive cancer caused by asbestos exposure decades later. But a new face of mesothelioma is emerging: women under the age of 50 with no known asbestos exposures.

Take Sheila Colla, a 41-year-old racialized woman, associate professor, and mother of two young children. Last fall, Colla was diagnosed with biphasic pleural mesothelioma, which affects the lining of the lungs.

Sheila Colla sharing her experience with the WHEN community

“I grew up in the city of Toronto, I lived in North York and Scarborough. We rented most of our lives, so I never lived through renovations of houses. I just went to really old schools and old community centers here,” Colla explains. “I've been exposed to asbestos somewhere in the city. And I don't know how it happened.”

The truth about asbestos

Asbestos is a mineral that, a generation ago, was commonly used in building materials to make them long-lasting and fire-resistant. Inhaling asbestos fibres can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and scar the lungs (asbestosis). Mesothelioma typically develops 15-40 years after asbestos exposure. This, coupled with multiple possible sources of non-occupational exposure to asbestos (including environmental exposures), makes it almost impossible to pinpoint the “where” and “when.”

Asbestos can be found in older car parts, in our roads, and in the building materials of our homes, schools and workplaces (especially buildings constructed before 1990). Asbestos has also been found in Canadians’ drinking water, because the asbestos cement pipes that carry our drinking water are deteriorating. Ingesting asbestos via drinking water may cause mesothelioma in the lining of the abdominal organs (peritoneal mesothelioma); the evidence of potential harm is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers asbestos to likely be a human carcinogen when ingested.

Talc (the main ingredient in baby powder, also found in cosmetics such as blush, bronzer, and eye make-up) is an often-overlooked source of asbestos exposure. Talc is a natural mineral that often forms in close proximity to asbestos, thus raising the risk of asbestos contamination. In fact, exposure through asbestos-contaminated talc explains many cases of mesothelioma once deemed idiopathic (i.e. no known cause), especially among women.

Regular use of baby powder is common amongst racialized women — but this isn’t a coincidence. Baby powder was initially marketed to mothers for diaper changes. But when studies in the 1950s revealed the health risks of breathing in talc, Johnson & Johnson shifted their advertising focus to young women as a “simple, feminine way to smell clean and fresh” — perpetuating the misogynistic myth that vaginas are dirty — and to Black and Hispanic women, capitalizing on the racist stereotype that women of colour are inherently unclean.

In 2019, the United States Food and Drug Administration ordered a recall of certain Johnson & Johnson baby powder products after testing showed trace levels of asbestos. Johnson & Johnson has been criticized for continuing to sell talc-based products despite knowing about potential asbestos contamination.

“They knew that they had asbestos in their product, and they still sold it,” Sheila Colla explains. “We had baby powder in our house for 12 years — maybe I was exposed that way.” Now, Colla is considering joining others pursuing legal action against the company.

With so many potential asbestos exposure sources, how can we avoid it?

The short answer is, we can’t. The responsibility of avoiding exposure cannot fall on the individual; it is our governments’ responsibility, and they’re not doing enough.

Health Canada introduced regulations in 2018 that prohibit the manufacture, import, sale and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. But this ban does nothing about the structures and products that already contained asbestos before 2018, and has some dangerous exemptions that will continue to expose workers and nearby communities. The ban also doesn’t impact the occupational exposure limit for asbestos, even though there is no safe level of exposure and Canada’s limit is 10 times higher than that of the European Union.

Health Canada claims that asbestos in building materials is not dangerous if left undisturbed, and suggests that anyone doing renovations or activities that may disturb the asbestos should hire asbestos testing and removal professionals. But how will that prevent everyday asbestos exposures like walking past (or living and working near) active construction sites?

Despite growing concerns and calls for action, Health Canada refuses to investigate water as a source of asbestos exposure or establish drinking water guidelines. This is because it has determined “there is no consistent, convincing evidence that asbestos ingested through water is harmful to your health,” even if pipe deterioration increases levels of asbestos in drinking water. Health Canada claims that this conclusion is supported by the World Health Organization, but fails to mention WHO’s acknowledgement that lack of data should not stop countries from taking action to reduce asbestos exposure through drinking water, including by replacing asbestos-cement pipes.

Alarmingly, Health Canada does not have to approve consumer products and cosmetics like baby powder before they are sold. Given that Health Canada permits trace levels of asbestos in consumer products, doesn’t regularly test cosmetics for toxic substances (and finds high rates of non-compliance when it does), it is quite possible that asbestos-contaminated talc products are on Canadian shelves as we speak.

Asbestos exposure is an environmental justice issue

Thanks to targeted marketing and eurocentric beauty standards, women (racialized women in particular) are more likely to be exposed to asbestos in talc-containing personal care products. Low-income and racialized communities in the US and Canada are more likely to live in older homes with deteriorating building materials, less able to cover asbestos testing and removal costs, and are often located closer to environmental hazards such as former asbestos mines and landfills containing asbestos-containing materials.

This is environmental racism, a major issue that our federal government has committed to addressing under Bill C-226 (The National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act). This law requires data collection on the link between environmental risk, race and socioeconomic status, and presents a vital opportunity for the government to identify populations that are disproportionately impacted by asbestos exposure and address these health inequities. For example, layering a map of asbestos mines over a map of First Nation reserves could help identify communities facing greater asbestos exposure.

Health Canada needs to take concrete action now to get asbestos out of our buildings, drinking water, roads, and personal care products, as well as expand mesothelioma research to include younger people and women.

Colla is currently undergoing immunotherapy at Princess Margaret hospital, and is doing much better than last fall. But her future is far from certain.

“Mesothelioma has a pretty bad prognosis. If the numbers are right, I probably won't be here in a year. I hope they're wrong, because the numbers are based on 70-plus year-old males,” says Colla.

“I was a newly tenured professor at the height of my career. I have two small kids who are very worried about me. I can’t plan more than three weeks in advance. From day to day, I don’t know how I’m going to feel, if I’ll be able to get out of bed or not.”

You can donate to Sheila Colla’s GoFundMe campaign here.

By Kanisha Acharya-Patel & Anna-Liza Badaloo | Opinion | July 25th 2024

UPDATE: New Talc Restrictions!

UPDATE: NEW TALC RESTRICTIONS!

This blog post was written by Kanisha Acharya-Patel, WHEN’s Law Reform Specialist, and the views expressed are not intended as legal advice.

Earlier this year, we published a blog post regarding the mismanagement of Talc under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Talc is a toxic substance contained in thousands of  personal care products (including baby powder, genital wipes and bath bombs) that is known to cause damage to the lungs (from inhalation) and ovarian cancer (from genital exposure to talc). Compared to the general population, people with ovaries are more susceptible to developing ovarian cancer from genital exposure to talc. Further, people with ovaries who identify as women may face greater genital exposure to talc than the general population. This is because of gendered beauty norms that result in personal care products - and specifically “feminine hygiene” products - being disproportionately marketed towards and used by people who identify as women. 

So what’s the issue?

Despite talc being listed as a toxic substance in 2018 because of its potential to harm human health, talc-containing products that may be exposed to the genital area of people with ovaries were not banned or even required to include a cautionary statement regarding ovarian cancer. This interferes with one’s ability to make informed purchases and has no doubt resulted in many preventable genital exposures to talc. 

Many organizations, including WHEN, have been advocating for the ban of talc in personal care products and, at the very least, a requirement that talc-containing products that may be exposed to the genital area of people with ovaries have a cautionary statement regarding the link between genital exposure to talc and ovarian cancer. 

FINALLY - NEW RESTRICTIONS!

In May 2024, Health Canada decided to update the restrictions and labelling requirements for talc under the Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist (a tool Health Canada uses to communicate to product manufacturers that certain substances, when present in a cosmetic, are prohibited or restricted for use). While this is unfortunately not a ban on talc entirely, these new restrictions are a big step forward in protecting the health of people with ovaries.

The new restrictions include: 

• Talc is "Not permitted in products intended solely for use in the genital area of those who have ovaries" 

• "Products that could come in contact with the genital area (for example, diapering products, body powder, bath products)" must include the following cautionary statement: "Do not use in the genital area of those who have ovaries"

At first glance, these restrictions sound great. But, if you really read them, Health Canada is keeping loopholes open - for example, talc could still be contained in body powders that are used in the genital area because the product is not intended solely for use in the genital area. Also, the cautionary statement does not specify why you should not use talc-containing products in the genital area (i.e. that it causes ovarian cancer). Whether intentional or unintentional, Health Canada’s decision means that consumers won’t have all of the necessary information to make an informed choice of whether to buy or use a talc-containing product on their genital area. Personally, I would take a warning more seriously if I knew that there was risk of cancer. Wouldn’t you? 

It remains unclear exactly when these new rules will come into effect, and how they can be enforced, especially for products that are already on the shelves. So, we reached out to Health Canada with the following questions, and received a lengthy response a couple of weeks later.

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

The restrictions are in writing and technically required, which is great, but it’s unclear whether all companies even know about the new restrictions, and public awareness is lacking. There is no real enforcement for these restrictions unless people file complaints and Health Canada chooses to investigate, which puts way too much responsibility on individual consumers. We need Health Canada to do more!

Here’s what Health Canada said:

1. Will the Natural Health Products Ingredients Database (database of ingredient information) be updated to include "Do not use in the genital area of those who have ovaries" as a required risk statement for talc-containing products that could come in contact with the genital area? Yes, these changes are now reflected in the NHPID.

2. Why has Health Canada chosen not to include the reason for the cautionary statement (i.e. because genital exposure to talc is linked to ovarian cancer)? The Cosmetics Regulations only require the label to include directions for safe use, and the reason for the cautionary statement is not considered a direction.

3. Why is the cautionary statement not required for "Products in loose powder form that may be used for diapering", "Other products in loose powder form intended for use on the face or body", "Other products in loose powder form (for example, dry shampoo, foot powder)" and "Other cosmetics", despite the fact that these products could come in contact with the genital area? It is required - all products that could come in contact with the genital area must include the cautionary statement. Products that could come into contact with the genital area that are in loose powder form have additional requirements related to risks of inhalation.

4. Do these requirements only apply to talc-containing products that have not entered the market? What about products that are already being sold? Health Canada expects industry to take appropriate steps to ensure all products meet the new requirements. So, the requirements technically apply to products that are currently on the shelves but there’s no oversight (which makes us question whether industry will actually do anything).

5. What actions are being taken to ensure that the new restrictions for talc are followed? Sellers and manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the requirements are met. This is quite concerning, because without enforcement, what is really incentivizing companies to make these changes? Health Canada will only take enforcement action after complaints are received. Information on how to make a complaint can be found here.

6. When will these new restrictions come into force? Health Canada did not provide a specific timeline.

7. How will Health Canada be communicating these new restrictions to consumers in order to increase public awareness? Health Canada says they have engaged in public outreach activities about the risks of talc, but did not specify any new outreach activities regarding the new restrictions. Health Canada sent a notification to subscribers to the Cosmetics Mailing List (WHEN just signed up, and we encourage you to as well!). Health Canada says “efforts are being made to contact companies” that sell products containing talc. This is concerning - why aren’t all companies with products containing talc automatically notified?

8. Given the rise in cases of mesothelioma (an aggressive form of cancer that usually occurs in the tissue that lines the lungs or the abdomen) due to the use of talc-containing products that have been contaminated with asbestos (a known carcinogen), such as Johnson & Johnson baby powder, will Health Canada be adding a cautionary statement to that effect? No. Health Canada maintains that cosmetic talc is not contaminated with asbestos.

9. Has the Consumer Product Safety Program (CPSP - branch of Health Canada responsible for identifying, assessing, managing and communicating health and safety risks associated with consumer products and cosmetics) conducted any compliance verification projects (i.e. checking industry’s compliance) for talc-containing personal care products to test whether these products are contaminated with asbestos? If not, is there a way for a member of the public to request that the CPSP conduct this testing? Because this issue relates to asbestos, it is a different government body (i.e. Environment and Climate Change Canada) that is in charge of compliance verification. In 2021, ECCC did testing on 100 samples of talc-based facial cosmetic products and found no asbestos. But we need more routine testing on more than just facial products! Apparently, enforcement officers will “act in accordance with the Compliance and Enforcement Policy”. Suspected violations can be reported to the Enforcement Branch by email at enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca.

SO WHAT NOW?

• Keep raising awareness about the risks of talc

• Avoid talc-containing personal care products

• If you come across a talc-containing personal care product that could come in contact with the genital area of people with ovaries and doesn’t have the hazard label, file a complaint

• If you’re worried your personal care products, like eye shadow and bronzer, may be contaminated with asbestos, report it to enviroino@ec.gc.ca

Indigenous Communities' Disproportionate Exposure to "Forever Chemicals"

ADDRESSING TOXIC RACISM: BILL C-226 AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES’ DISPROPORTIONATE EXPOSURE TO “FOREVER CHEMICALS”

This blog was written by Lily Farinaccio as part of the Community Research Partnerships in Ethics (TRN407Y1) between Trinity College at the University of Toronto and WHEN under the supervision of Professor Nicole Spiegelaar. For the purposes of this blog post, the term “women” is used to describe those with ovarian reproductive systems. This is not to marginalize bodies that identify as women and do not possess these reproductive systems. Rather, it is intended to highlight how these chemicals differentially interact with certain bodies, creating sex-specific consequences.

---

Indigenous communities – particularly Indigenous women – face a disproportionate risk of exposure to “forever chemicals” and their health effects. Proposed Bill C-226 offers an important start to tackling cases of environmental racism such as this, but what is needed for its effective implementation?

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM?

Environmental racism is a form of inequality whereby racialized communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries, toxins, and associated health conditions (Waldron, 2018). There are many instances of environmental racism in Canada. One example is the disproportionate exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or forever chemicals, faced by Indigenous peoples. 

WHAT ARE PFAS?

PFAS are a group of thousands of synthetic chemicals with grease, heat, and water-resistant properties (Park et al., 2019). They’re used in various industrial applications and consumer products, including non-stick cookware, carpeting, apparel, upholstery, food packaging, firefighting foams, and personal care products (Park et al., 2019; Person and Renfrew, 2024). 

From an environmental health perspective, PFAS are strikingly troublesome. They resist natural processes of degradation and are persistent in the environment and the human body, earning the name forever chemicals (Garcia-Barrios, 2021). They’re also associated with a wide range of health effects, including: 

• Endocrine, liver, and immunological effects 

• Thyroid disease

• Cancers

• Developmental issues

• Decreased fertility 

• Asthma 

• Decreased vaccine response 

• Pregnancy-induced hypertension

• Hypercholesterolemia 

• (CELA, 2021; Pearson and Renfrew, 2024)

HOW ARE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED? 

While all Canadians are routinely exposed to PFAS, several studies have found elevated levels among Indigenous communities (Aker et al., 2023; Caron-Beaudoin et al., 2020; Caron-Beaudoin et al., 2019; Dubeau et al., 2022; Garcia-Barrios et al., 2021). For example, a recent study on First Nations communities in Québec found that concentrations of the forever chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFNA), were 21 times higher than levels in the general Canadian population (Dubeau et al., 2022).

There are a number of potential reasons for these increased PFAS levels. Notably, the consumption of traditional foods such as fish and caribou has been highlighted as a primary exposure pathway for Indigenous communities. This is due to forever chemicals’ ability to bioaccumulate in marine and terrestrial food webs (Aker et al., 2023). 

Given that the consumption of traditional foods has been described as one of the strongest links between Indigenous culture, health, and their environments, the presence of PFAS in traditional food sources is significant: it forces Indigenous communities to make trade-offs between their culture and health. Not only are PFAS harming Indigenous bodies, they’re also forcing Indigenous peoples further from their culture. 

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC EFFECTS ON INDIGENOUS WOMEN? 

Forever chemicals are associated with sex-specific health effects. These include fertility complications, such as endometriosis, PCOS, and decreased fertility, as well as the development of melanoma and breast cancer (Cathey et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2020; Mancini et al., 2020; Omoike et al., 2021; Tsai et al., 2015). Given that Indigenous women are at increased risk of exposure to PFAS, they’re at even greater risk of suffering these severe and potentially lethal consequences.  

Indigenous women also bear a disproportionate burden in managing the transmission of PFAS and the related health problems. Mothers can transfer around 40% or more of their PFAS body burden to their infants. Forever chemicals can also be transmitted to children during breastfeeding (Rickard et al., 2022). What’s more, the presence and transmission of PFAS during pregnancy and infancy are associated with various health impacts in children, including suppressed immune responses during childhood, low infant birth weights, and neurotoxic outcomes, such as decreased executive function and lower verbal IQ (Caron-Beaudoin et al., 2020; Rickard et al., 2022).

WHAT IS BILL C-226? 

Bill C-226: An Act Respecting the Development of a National Strategy to Assess, Prevent, and Address Environmental Racism and to Advance Environmental Justice – introduced by Green Party MP Elizabeth May in February 2022 – is legislation targeted at addressing and preventing the unequal environmental harms racialized individuals currently face in Canada. As of October 2023, the bill completed its second reading in the Senate. Once it passes its third reading, it will require the federal government to create a national strategy to address environmental racism. The strategy would include a study investigating the links between race, socioeconomic status, and environmental risk, as well as possible measures to both prevent and address environmental racism. The bill also features a section on consultation, emphasizing that, in formulating the strategy, the Minister of Environment must consult with relevant stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples (Bill C-226). 

Bill C-226 marks an important step towards addressing environmental injustices that cause severe harm among racialized communities across Canada, such as the disproportionate PFAS exposure faced by Indigenous peoples and Indigenous women. Looking forward, it is crucial we think about how it can be implemented effectively. To learn more about WHEN’s recommendations pertaining to the National Strategy, we encourage you to review our submission to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

HOW CAN WE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT IT?

MEANINGFUL INDIGENOUS INVOLVEMENT 

To ensure Bill C-226’s efficacy, the involvement of Indigenous communities can’t be performative. When Indigenous peoples aren’t meaningfully involved in decision-making processes, it results in solutions imposed by outsiders that are both inappropriate for and unwelcomed by the community (Black and McBean, 2016). 

Three ways to foster meaningful engagement of Indigenous communities in Bill C-226’s implementation are to:

• Address the power dynamics in policy making

• In policy, there’s an inherent power differential between the Canadian government and Indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are often one of the only Indigenous individuals in the room, working within a colonial government system (Fridkin et al., 2019). When applying Bill C-226, there’s a need to address the power imbalances between the Canadian government and Indigenous communities.

• Move beyond tokenism

• Within Canadian policy making, there’s a tendency for Indigenous communities to be involved in tokenistic ways (Fridkin et al., 2019). Meaningful Indigenous involvement in the implementation of Bill C-226 requires moving beyond tokenism and fostering engagement that’s Indigenous-led.

• Incorporate traditional knowledge

• Research shows that when traditional knowledge is included in policy development and implementation, it allows for Indigenous participation in decision-making, recognizes the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples, and helps move towards self-determination (Black and McBean, 2016). Traditional knowledge can be used alongside data collection in developing the national strategy, based on what Indigenous peoples consider appropriate.  

CONSIDERING INTERSECTING IDENTITY FACTORS 

In addition to the meaningful involvement of Indigenous communities, Bill C-226 must also consider the impacts of various identity factors, such as sex and gender. These factors intersect with experiences of environmental racism, as highlighted with the case of PFAS exposure among Indigenous women. Because a singular approach doesn’t take into account the disproportionate harm faced by certain individuals, it will limit Bill C-226’s ability to fully address environmental racism.
This can be avoided by applying Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+). 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, etc. into account (Acharya-Patel, 2022; Women and Gender Equality Canada, 2022). Using GBA+ when implementing Bill C-226 will make sure the national strategy doesn’t neglect how identity factors such as sex complicate experiences of environmental racism. Given the potential of Bill C-226, these recommendations are important to consider as it advances through the legislature.

Read the full report here. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1. Sign this petition to get Bill C-226 passed: https://davidsuzuki.org/action/support-a-canadian-environmental-justice-law/

2. Sign this petition to demand a comprehensive ban on PFAS: https://act.environmentaldefence.ca/page/129061/action/1?ea.tracking.id=homepage

1. Raise awareness: Share this post and tell your friends and families about Bill C-226, environmental racism, and PFAS exposure among Indigenous communities. Knowledge is power!

---

References

Acharya-Patel. (2022). Gender-Based Analysis Plus: A Framework for Implementing CEPA

Commitments to Vulnerable Populations. Women’s Healthy Environments Network. 

Aker, Amira, et al. (2023). Plasma concentrations of perfluoroalkyl acids and their 

determinants in youth and adults from Nunavik, Canada. Chemosphere, 310. 

Bill C-226, An Act Respecting the Development of a National Strategy to Assess, Prevent,

and Address Environmental Racism and to Advance Environmental Justice, Second Reading, February 2, 2022, 44th Parliament, 1st session. Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-226.

Black, Kerry, and McBean, Edward. (2016). Increased Indigenous Participation in

Environmental Decision-Making: A Policy Analysis for the Improvement of Indigenous Health. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 7(4).

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). (2021). It’s Raining ‘Forever Chemicals’

Across the Great Lakes: Why PFAS Is Now a Public Priority for Elimination Across Canada. Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Caron-Beaudoin, Élyse, et al. (2020). Perfluoralkyl acids in pregnant women from Nunavik

(Québec, Canada): Trends in exposure and associations with country foods consumption. Environment International, 145. 

Caron-Beaudoin, Élyse, et al. (2019). Exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and

associations with thyroid parameters in First Nation children and youth from Quebec. Environmental International, 12, 13–23. 

Cathey, Amber, et al. (2023). Exploratory profiles of phenols, parabens, and per- and poly-

fluoroalkyl substances among NHANES study participants in association with previous cancer diagnoses. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 33, 687–698. 

Dubeau, Claudelle, et al. (2022). Perfluoroalkyl acid and bisphenol-A exposure via food

sources in four First Nation communities in Québec, Canada. Public Health Nutrition, 29(1), 106–121. 

Fridkin, Alycia, et al. (2019). The RIPPLES of Meaningful Involvement: A Framework for

Meaningfully Involving Indigenous Peoples in Health Policy Decision-Making. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 10(3).

Garcia-Barrios, Joshua, et al. (2021). Biomarkers of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances

(PFAS) in Sub-Arctic and Arctic communities in Canada. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 235, 1–9.  

Kim, Young Ran, et al. (2020). Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in follicular fluid

from women experiencing infertility in Australia. Environmental Research, 190. 

Mancini, Francesca, et al. (2020). Perfluorinated alkylated substances serum concentration

and breast cancer risk: Evidence from a nested case-control in the French E3N cohort. International Journal of Cancer, 146, 917–928. 

Omoike, Ogbebor, et al. (2021). A cross-sectional study of the association between

perfluorinated chemical exposure and cancers related to deregulation of estrogen receptors. Environmental Research, 196. 

Park, Kyun et al. (2019). Determinants of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in

midlife women: Evidence of racial/ethnic and geographic differences in PFAS exposure. Environmental Research, 175, 186–199. 

Pearson, Thomas, and Renfrew, Daniel. (2024). When Toxic Heritage Is Forever: 

Confronting PFAS Contamination and Toxicity as Lived Experience. In Elizabeth Kryder-Reid & Sarah May, Toxic Heritage: Legacies, Futures, and Environmental Injustice (pp. 50-61). Routledge. 

Tsai, Meng-Shen, et al. (2015). Association between perfluoroalkyl substances and

reproductive hormones in adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Environmental Health, 218(5), 437–443. 

Waldron, Ingrid. (2018). There’s Something in the Water: Environmental Racism in

Indigenous and Black Communities. Fernwood Publishing. 

Women and Gender Equality Canada. (2022). Government of Canada’s Approach on 

Gender-Based Analysis Plus. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-analysis-plus/government-approach.html.