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
Interested in learning more? Read the full report here!
Stay connected and informed through our social media! Check out WHEN, SUTE, and FES.
Share this blog post to spread the word!
References
Waldron, I. There’s Something in the Water. Fernwood Publishing; 2018.
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
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
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).
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
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).
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
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