The Right to a Healthy Environment: What Does it Mean?

The Right to a Healthy Environment: What Does it Mean?

Blog post 4: The Right to a Healthy Environment: What Does it Mean?

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

 The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), a federal law dedicated to protecting environmental and human health, was amended in 2023 and now states that everyone has the Right to a Healthy Environment (RTHE): an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable. However, the substance of this right is still unclear, which raises concerns as to its application and enforceability. The federal government has confirmed that the RTHE will not introduce any new enforcement mechanisms, and will more so be a guiding principle for decision-making under CEPA. This begs the question: if a right can’t be enforced, is it really a right?

Additionally, the RTHE is restricted to CEPA, which means that it will not apply to decisions made under other federal laws or provincial/territorial laws, even though many of those laws have direct impacts on human and environmental health (such as the federal Pest Control Products Act, which regulates pesticides). This restricts the reach of the RTHE, and we urge the government to use the Framework to clarify exactly what the RTHE applies to. 

Compared to the 110+ countries that have enshrined the RTHE in their constitution (which means that it is a fundamental, enforceable right protected by the country’s highest law), Canada’s approach is rather underwhelming. However, despite the limited scope of the RTHE, we are hopeful that its implementation will lead to strengthened decision-making under CEPA that prioritizes people and the planet over profit.

HOW WILL THE RTHE BE IMPLEMENTED?

The Minister of Health and Minister of Environment are required to develop an Implementation Framework (Framework) for the RTHE by June 2025. Because the Ministers are required to consult interested parties, grassroots organizations, non-governmental organizations and the public during the Framework development process, this presents a window of opportunity for WHEN to advocate for the RTHE to be implemented in a manner that advances environmental justice for all, including our most vulnerable populations*. 

The requirements for the Framework are set out in s. 5.1 of CEPA. In essence, the Framework must provide a definition of the RTHE, explain how the RTHE will be upheld when making decisions under CEPA (such as deciding whether a toxic substance should be allowed to enter the environment), and outline the mechanisms that will be in place to protect the RTHE (such as avenues for enforcement and studies to monitor the health of the environment). The Framework must also elaborate on how the principles that are meant to inform CEPA decision-making and are key to the RTHE will be applied. These principles include:

• Environmental justice: the avoidance of adverse health effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations

• Intergenerational equity: meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and

• Non-regression: includes the continuous improvement in environmental protection

The federal government’s preliminary discussion document on the Framework was released in February 2024 and included a public comment period until April 8 2024; we encourage you to review WHEN’s detailed comments and recommendations here.

THE RTHE MUST BE IMPLEMENTED USING AN INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH

WHEN strongly believes that the Framework must be developed using an intersectional approach, to promote environmental justice. An intersectional approach requires consideration of how the Framework may be understood and experienced by diverse populations differently because of their various intersecting identity factors, such as sex, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. 

This intersectional lens is provided by the gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) methodology, because GBA+ is a process for understanding who is impacted by the issue being addressed (i.e. environmental injustice in the form of an unhealthy environment) and how; identifying how the initiative (i.e. RTHE Framework) could be tailored to meet diverse needs of the people directly impacted (specifically vulnerable populations); and discovering, anticipating and mitigating any barriers to accessing or benefiting from the initiative [1]. 

As mentioned in Canada’s Policy on GBA+, GBA+ goes beyond sex and gender to include consideration of other identity factors (i.e. non-exhaustive list including age, disability and economic status), the context within which people live (i.e. systemic/structural factors), and how these factors can intersect and shape one’s legal, social, health and economic opportunities and barriers to accessing systems, programs or services.

Taking an intersectional approach will allow the federal government to meet their responsibility to administer CEPA in a manner that protects the health of vulnerable populations (i.e. group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances). 

As the federal government is required to use the GBA+ framework when developing or implementing government initiatives, WHEN is calling on the federal government to use GBA+ when developing Framework. In accordance with Women and Gender Equality Canada’s guidance on GBA+, the federal government must complete the seven steps required to ensure that the full impacts of the new RTHE are considered.

BILL C-226, CANADA’S NEW ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE LAW, PROVIDES IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR THE RTHE

Bill C-226, also known as the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, requires that the federal government develop a National Strategy to promote efforts across Canada to advance environmental justice and to assess, prevent and address environmental racism. 

The notion of environmental racism comes from the fact that environmentally hazardous sites (including landfills and polluting industries) are established in areas inhabited by members of an Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized community. Environmental justice expert Robert Doyle Bullard summarizes environmental racism as:

• The disproportionate location and greater exposure of Indigenous and racialized communities to contamination and pollution from polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities;

• The lack of political power these communities have for resisting the placement of industrial polluters in their communities;

• The implementation of policies that sanction the harmful and, in many cases, life-threatening presence of poisons in these communities;

• The disproportionate negative impacts of environmental policies that result in differential rates of cleanup of environmental contaminants in these communities; and

• The history of excluding Indigenous and racialized communities from mainstream environmental groups, decision-making boards, commissions and regulatory bodies [2]. 

Environmental racism therefore plays a large role in the health of one’s environment and should be a central consideration in the development of the RTHE Framework. Because the federal government has stated that input received during engagement on the development of the Framework may be used to inform the development of the National Strategy, we hope that the Framework will outline how decision-making under CEPA, in upholding the RTHE, will address the systemic injustices and structural determinants of health that perpetuate inequities against vulnerable populations. 

The inclusion of the RTHE in CEPA coupled with the mandate to develop the National Strategy under Bill C-226 show that the government recognizes that environmental health risks are not uniformly distributed, which is a step in the right direction. However, if the Framework is not developed in collaboration with affected communities or the substance and enforceability of the RTHE is not expanded upon, the RTHE risks simply being a performative amendment to CEPA that will not meaningfully advance environmental justice in Canada.

PROTECTING EVERYONE: WHAT’S NEEDED?

Above all, it is crucial that marginalized communities have a seat at the table when the Framework is being developed, and there is a responsibility for the federal government to actively facilitate and fund participation by populations rendered vulnerable, including but not limited to women*, BIPOC communities, young people, and disabled people. Consultation can only be meaningful if done with the goal of receiving feedback and meaningfully taking steps to address concerns [3]. 

WHEN has submitted detailed comments and recommendations to the government regarding the Framework. In summary, WHEN strongly believes that to better protect vulnerable populations and their RTHE, the Framework must provide:

A comprehensive description of the RTHE

Canada has defined the RTHE as the right to an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable, but has said that the substantive meaning of the right in the CEPA context will be elaborated on in the Framework. The definition must clarify what ‘clean, healthy and sustainable’ means and how it will be upheld in CEPA decision-making or enforced by the public or the courts.

An explanation of how the RTHE will improve access to justice

As said by MP Elizabeth May, “a non-enforceable [right to a healthy environment] is a bumper sticker. It is good to have in the bill, and people can point to it and say it is improvement; however, it is not a right if we cannot enforce it”. Currently, legal avenues for the public to hold the government accountable under CEPA have too many obstacles (such as lengthy and costly court procedures and unequal access to legal representation), and we hope the Framework will address these issues.

An approach to toxic substance regulation that prioritizes the prevention of harm to human and environmental health

Canada’s approach to assessing and managing the risks of a toxic substance assumes that everyone is exposed to the same amount of a toxic substance, and everyone is equally likely to face the same negative health effects from being exposed. This does not account for how physiological identity factors (such as sex and age) and social/environmental identity factors (such as gender, race, income, and physical location) can make someone more likely to be exposed to a substance or more likely to face negative health effects. 

For example, gendered beauty norms result in women using more personal care products than men and therefore being more exposed to toxic substances. Some of these substances also have sex-specific health effects, such as ovarian cancer, that make people with ovaries more likely to get sick than people without ovaries. These differences need to be accounted for. Given that the RTHE is supposed to advance environmental justice (i.e. the avoidance of adverse health effects that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations), we believe the Framework must explain how toxic substance regulation will be strengthened to better protect our health.

Effective communication strategies

Communication strategies must ensure that everyone, including our most marginalized populations, has access to information regarding what the RTHE entails, what government actions it applies to, and how it can be enforced. With the RTHE being a guiding principle for decision-making under CEPA rather than an enforceable right, we are concerned that the government will expect the public to simply trust that their decisions are informed by the RTHE. 

The “trust us, we got it right” approach has been widely critiqued for eroding government accountability, and we believe it is important for the government to be transparent by providing accessible, plain language summaries outlining the reasoning behind their decisions made under CEPA and exactly how the decisions uphold the RTHE. Communication strategies must consider the barriers that may exist for certain individuals seeking to enforce their RTHE, including literacy constraints, language barriers, financial constraints, access to the internet, and access to legal advice or representation.

GET INVOLVED

Bill C-226 is in its final stage of the legislative process and will hopefully become law in the near future; we encourage you to show your support for environmental justice by signing this petition calling on the Senate to pass Bill C-226 without delay. To learn more about WHEN’s perspective on Bill C-226, please review WHEN’s brief that was submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their consideration. 

 One of the primary organizations WHEN is collaborating with on the RTHE is Shake Up The Establishment: a non-partisan, youth-led, registered organization that aims to make credible, evidence-informed information readily available to the Canadian population to promote informed voting, advocacy practices, and political accountability surrounding human and social justice issues that are exacerbated by the climate crisis. Shake Up The Establishment has released an informative blog post regarding opportunities to engage with the federal government’s environmental justice initiatives and continues to provide updates on their website. Check it out!

We also encourage you to register with the federal government’s website on Advancing Environmental Equity, which provides background information on Canada’s initiatives and will alert you of public engagement opportunities.  

 Finally, we invite you to follow the important environmental justice-focused work being done by our colleagues at Shake Up The Establishment, the ENRICH Project, the David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defence, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Coalition for Environmental Rights and the Canadian Coalition for Environmental and Climate Justice.

---

*Note on language: 

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

For simplicity and consistency with CEPA language, WHEN uses the term ‘vulnerable population’ to refer to individuals who are at greater risk of experiencing negative health effects from exposure to environmental contaminants than the general population due to their intersecting identity factors and structural conditions. We recognize that the term ‘vulnerable’ can imply an intrinsic deficit, inferiority or inability to protect one’s own best interests, reduce perceived and actual agency of the individual or group, and result in their further stigmatization and exclusion [4]. We appreciate that Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada are exploring using the term “populations who may be disproportionately impacted” interchangeably with “vulnerable populations” to recognize that many of these populations are not inherently vulnerable but rather that their susceptibility is associated with the circumstances of their lives. However, we encourage the government to further specify the factors that make one “inherently vulnerable” as well as the circumstances that make one more susceptible, in order to increase public awareness around the structural and physiological causes of health inequities.

Statement of Solidarity with Palestine: Sharing Resources, Combating Ignorance and Working Towards Collective Liberation

Statement of Solidarity with Palestine: Sharing Resources, Combating Ignorance and Working Towards Collective Liberation

Content warning: The following statement has content on genocide, ongoing violence in Palestine and incitement of violence against Palestinian people.

Justifiably, there are many emotional responses related to this topic that include grief, fear, anger and frustration. Before you engage with this statement, we encourage you to take a moment to regulate your nervous system in any way you know works best for you (here are some suggestions). As many of us continue to struggle with compassion fatigue, burnout and vicarious trauma, we stress the importance of caring for you so you can care for others. While self-care should not be used as an excuse to tune out, we encourage you to consume media intentionally and mindfully and find your balance between staying informed and protecting your emotional wellbeing.  

WHEN’S STATEMENT

As an organization committed to advancing environmental justice and taking an anti-racist, anti-colonial and intersectional approach to environmental and human rights advocacy, it is in alignment with WHEN’s mission to speak out regarding the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. We acknowledge so-called Canada’s historical and present-day relationship with settler-colonialism that allows us to operate from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat peoples, and thus recognize our duty to stand against settler colonialism in Palestine. While we draw parallels, we also respect the distinct historical, political, and cultural contexts between Turtle Island and Palestine. 

The actions of the settler Israeli apartheid state in Palestine are breaching international humanitarian law, disproportionately impacting women and girls, and causing significant environmental damage. We stand against Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in any form, both of which continue to gain traction due to the dangerous conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. We deeply condemn the indiscriminate killing, arbitrary imprisonment, denial of access to basic human necessities, and seizure of Israeli and Palestinian civilian hostages. In denouncing ideals of settler colonialism, we recognize that this violence did not begin on October, 7th, 2023, and that it instead follows 75 years of Israeli settler-colonial dispossession. We support an immediate ceasefire, the return of all Palestinian and Israeli hostages, and an end to the siege on Gaza (by allowing the unrestricted movement of Palestinians, immediate free flow of clean water, food, medicine, fuel, internet, electricity, and humanitarian aid) and to the ongoing colonial occupation of Palestine. We call on Canada to publicly support the provisional ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ordering Israel to take immediate measures to prevent genocidal acts in Palestine (an order that has not been complied with). Canada must demand that Israel comply with the ICJ’s orders, including its most recent order for Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention and stop its attack on Rafah (a so-called safe zone).

WHEN is deeply concerned about the trend of censoring those who speak out against the ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and dehumanization of the Palestinian people, as facilitated by the Canadian government. We reject the culture of fear that is keeping individuals and organizations from taking a stance, and regret not releasing this statement sooner. 

ENDORSEMENTS

WHEN endorses the following statement by Shake Up The Establishment: 

“We are against the massacre of Palestinian and Israeli people, and against genocide in all its forms. We support an immediate ceasefire; a return of all hostages, both Palestinian and Jewish– unharmed. The ongoing genocide of the Palestinian peoples necessitates a true end to the violent colonial occupation of Palestine by the settler Israeli government (as enabled by the Canadian government – which we as an organization that supports political accountability work in what is currently Canada, have an obligation to hold accountable). Importantly, we also support carving out space to promote cross-cultural and interfaith dialogues as an antidote towards the anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that continue to polarize us– particularly during a time when we need unity to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all people. A divided people cannot effectively hold governments or power structures accountable for failing to represent them, or their values.”

WHEN also endorses Environmental Defence’s statement regarding Canada’s obligation to uphold the International Court of Justice’s ruling, and statements made by Indigenous Climate Action.

RESOURCES 

In a time of grief, polarization, and deep collective harm, we are amplifying Palestinian and Jewish voices, supporting interfaith discussions, and promoting resource sharing and learning so we can combat ignorance and work towards collective liberation. Below you will find a list of resources intended to increase understanding of what’s happening in Palestine, including links to petitions, donations, social media accounts, podcasts, and articles. 

Please note that this is a working document and we will continue to update it as information becomes available. We welcome any constructive feedback or suggestions on how to improve the comprehensiveness of our list of resources and encourage you to reach out if you come across any problematic resources or organizations. 

Take action

Show your solidarity with the Palestinian people:

• House of Commons Petitions: 

  • Petition e-4940 re: Condemning Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, and imposing immediate sanctions on the government of Israel until a permanent ceasefire is agreed to, all hostages are released, Israel lifts its siege on Gaza and the West Bank and ends its decades-long occupation of the Palestinian people (closes June 7, 2024)

  • Petition e-4842 re: Ending arms support to Israel immediately (closes July 24, 2024)

  • Petition e-4922 re: Investigating Canadian charities providing charitable tax receipts for Israeli organizations actively supporting what the International Court of Justice deems a “plausible” genocide in Gaza (closes August 8 2024) 

  Get your organization to sign on to Oxfam’s petition

• Write to your MP via LeadNow’s easy-to-use page

• Sign this petition calling on the Canadian Ministry of Education & Childcare to add the Nakba to the B.C. Curriculum

• Doctors Without Borders: Calling for an Immediate and Sustained Ceasfire

• Amnesty International: Demand a Ceasefire

• Change.org: multiple petitions 

Donate to any of the following relief organizations that are on the ground in Gaza:

• Palestinian Children's Relief Fund

• Doctors Without Borders (As well, read their statement here)

• Medical Aid for Palestinians

• UNRWA

• eSims for Gaza

• United Arab Emirates Red Crescent Food Donations

• Rotating List of Fundraisers for Gazans on the Ground

Background on the occupation of Palestine 

• Palestine/Israel: The basic facts

• 5 things you need to know about the latest violence in Palestine/Israel

• Key Phases of the Palestinian Question

• Debunking Myths Around Palestine

• History of the Question of Palestine

• Palestine 101: Crash Course on Palestine and what is currently known as Israel

• Jewish Voices for Peace: on Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Dangerous Conflations 

• A Brief History of Canada’s Role in the Colonization of Palestine

• Western Insistence on the Perfect Palestinian Victim and the Condemnation of Resistance

• Fact sheet: Israel’s history of spreading disinformation

• Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians 

• Nakba of 1948 and today are not separate events

Censorship and discrimination 

• Independent Jewish Voices Canada: "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is not hate speech 

• Human Rights Watch: Meta's systemic censorship of Palestinian content 

• CBC: 'Chilling Effect' - people expressing pro-palestinian views censured, suspended from work and school 

• Ontario government screened law students who signed pro-Palestine letter

• Ontario doctor suspended after pro-Palestine social media posts

• ‘I will not be silenced’: Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib won’t stop fighting for Palestinian rights

• A list of some people in Canada fired for pro-Palestine views 

• The pro-Palestine exception: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US 

• A Canadian politician has been sacked for calling for a cease-fire in Palestine

• Israeli government shuts down Al Jazeera offices, website and TV network in Israel, reducing Gazans’ access to information from independent journalists

Violations of international humanitarian law 

• Independent Jewish Voices Canada: Reckoning with Genocide: 75 years after the UN Convention 

• South Africa’s Proceedings Against Israel at the ICJ (legal document); for plain language summary please see Explainer: What’s the ICJ case against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine?

  • Summary of ICJ’s order of 26 January 2024 for Israel to prevent genocide

  • Summary of ICJ’s order of 28 March 2024 for Israel to provide humanitarian assistance

  • Summary of ICJ’s order of 24 May 2024 for Israel to halt military operations in Rafah

• Israel defying ICJ ruling to prevent genocide

• Israel must end its occupation of Palestine to stop fuelling apartheid and systematic human rights violations

• UN Experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people

• UN experts urge the international community to step up pressure to end crimes, uphold international law and save lives in Gaza

• How international law is getting twisted in Gaza

• Why does Israel Kill Aid Workers? 

• Israel’s right to self-defense under international law

• Israel’s war in Gaza is not a valid act of self-defense under international law

• Commission of Inquiry finds that Israeli occupation is illegal under international law

• UN Human Rights Expert: There are reasonable grounds to believe Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people

• International Criminal Court requests arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel), Yoav Gallant (Israel’s Minister of Defence) and three Hamas leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity

• Israel violates International Court of Justice’s order to halt military operations in Rafah

Disproportionate impacts on women and girls 

• “My Life Turned Upside Down” Palestinian women report on their lives amid Israel’s siege of Gaza

• Israel’s Unlawful Blockade of Gaza Sparks Women’s Rights Crisis

• Women and newborns bearing the brunt of the conflict in Gaza, UN agencies warn

• Another layer of misery: Women in Gaza struggle to find menstrual pads, running water

• The Slow Factory: Palestine is a Women’s Issue

• UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls 

• How women and girls in war-torn Gaza are coping with water, sanitation and hygiene collapse

Environmental degradation 

• The Intersectional Environmentalist’s Toolkit on Climate Justice & Palestine

• The Slow Factory: Free Palestine is a Climate Justice Issue

• The Cost of Israel’s War on Climate

• How the Israeli Military is creating conditions for ecocide and long-term famine in Gaza

• Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe

• Countering Israeli greenwashing at the People’s Climate March

• Gaza: Any sustainable solution means ending the Occupation, with Palestine controlling its own resources

• How Israel's blockade of Gaza created an environmental catastrophe

• Gaza Coast mining under Israeli licenses violates international law

• Israel’s environmental apartheid in Palestine 

Instagram accounts to follow

Palestinian Voices

• In Canada

  • @callmejaberi

  • @jagpile

  • @jarrar4palestine

  • @mahmoodkouta

  • @munahawwa

  • @salimelewa

  • @saltipalestinian

  • @siram4palestine

  • @zarasarraf

•  Outside Canada

• @anat.international

• @dr.ghassan.as

• @eid_yara

• @gazangirl 

• @mohammedelkurd

• @nouraerakat

• @sbeih.jpg

Jewish voices 

• In Canada

• @ifnotnowtoronto

• @ijvtoronto

• @jewishantizionistcollectiveto

• @jewishfacultyca

• @jewssaynotogenocide

• Outside Canada

• @jewishantizionistnetwork

• @jewisheldersforpalestine

• @rabbis4ceasefire

• @sim_bookstagrams_badly

• Jewish Author Speaks Out Against the Occupation

• Latin-American Jew and Her Experience Unlearning Zionism (TikTok)

• Jewish Woman Discussing the Conflation of the Israeli Flag and Jewish Identity (TikTok)

Palestinian Journalists & perspectives on the Ground

• @anasjamal44

• @bayanpalestine

• @byplestia

• @hindkhoudary

• @hossam_shbat

• @joegaza93

• @mansourshouman7

• @moekouta

• @motaz_azaiza

• @wissam.lens

• @wizard_bisan1

Recent updates, current facts and information

• @eyes.on.palestine

• @landpalestine

• @letstalkpalestine

• @letstalkpalestine2

• @palestinianyouthmovement

• @savesheikhjarrahnow

• @theslowfactory

• @wearthepeace

Community organizers 

• @bdsnationalcommittee – Official page of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement

• @canadians4rpalestine – Canadian advocacy group against anti-Palestinian racism

• @ceasefirenowca – Ad-hoc coalition of over 200 pan-Canadian labour, faith, Arab, Jewish, and civil society organizations organizing for a permanent ceasefire. 

• @climate4palestine –Climate organizers in solidarity with Palestinians

• @labourforpalestine – pan-Canadian network of labour activists working in solidarity with Palestinian workers & people

• @pymtoronto – Organizing movements in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and Kitchener-Waterloo Regions

• @roads2liberation – Car rally chapters in Durham and Peel

• @toronto4palestine –  Organizing movements that support Palestinian access to dignity, opportunity, and freedom in Toronto

• @torontostudentsforpalestine – A coalition of organizing students at the University of Toronto in solidarity with Palestine

Organizations to follow 

Human Rights Watch 

Amnesty International 

Jewish Voices for Peace 

Independent Jewish Voices Canada 

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

WANNABE TOXIC FREE 2024: A Reflection

“The fair and its planning provided a transformative experience where we began to reimagine our connection to the environment, ourselves and each other”

Reflection by Lizramona Mwakitwange, originally published by Trinity College

Trinity College’s Integrated Sustainability Initiative hosted Women’s Healthy Environments Network (WHEN) in their largest Wannabe Toxic Free (WTF): Awareness, Agency, and Collective Action fair on January 26, 2024 at the College. Led by Honour Stahl (WHEN Executive Director and Trinity’s Ethics, Society & Law program graduate) and Professor Nicole Spiegelaar (Academic Director of the Integrated Sustainability Initiative), the fair brought together a diverse set of educators, students, activists, and local businesses to raise awareness on the intersectional effects of environmental risk on women’s health, as well as ways to address them.

In her opening remarks, Honour encouraged us to recognize the unfortunate reality that in over 25 years, the environmental health challenges highlighted by WHEN, such as a lack of concrete toxic regulation, have not been acted upon. Despite this, she encouraged us to see this “as an opportunity for us to pick up the torch and move through this challenge together.”

Having volunteered with WHEN for close to a year now, I have had the pleasure of witnessing exactly this. The WTF event marked a culmination of efforts by WHEN’s dedicated staff, volunteers and friends, many of whom are students involved with Trinity’s Integrated Sustainability Initiative and the School of the Environment. The fair and its planning provided a transformative experience where we began to reimagine our connection to the environment, ourselves and each other – not as separate experiences, but as fundamentally connected pursuits of community and holistic health that are informed by intersectional feminist thinking.

These sentiments were especially evident through the panel discussion as well as the unique student art pieces performed and displayed throughout the hall, which invited participants to think about the manifestation of environmental injustice in the lives of our diverse community. These did not serve as merely academic, aesthetic and acoustic achievements, but unapologetic windows into deeply personal interpretations of what it means to truly respect nature: not as a source of material wealth, but as an entity that speaks to our responsibility to care and practice empathy and solidarity with the most vulnerable people in our communities, including the women and gender diverse people who are victims of environmental and social injustice.

In the words of Professor Nicole Spiegelaar: “The toxic environments we are living in are not separate from the toxic patterns of thought and practices of colonization in Canada.” Cultivating this way of thinking about environmental injustices has been an essential part of enriching my educational experience at the University of Toronto, allowing me to occupy space with intentional consideration of my feelings, recognizing the ways in which I react to my environment and how I can transform these into actions toward building a more sustainable future for myself and my community. As a racialized woman, this has been a truly empowering experience for myself, especially having lived in a world where I have witnessed far too many marginalized individuals be shamed for being “too emotional” or “irrational” in circumstances where we seek to be heard, which discredits our lived experiences.

Many of the people involved with WHEN come from diverse cultural, academic and professional backgrounds. My involvement with the organization and the WTF fair has grounded me with a deep reverence for community and leaning into spaces that support and uplift my voice, allowing me to extend this same grace within and beyond WHEN. For myself as well as Alicia Luboch and Nicole Nicola, other incredibly passionate students who I have connected with through WHEN and the Margaret MacMillan Trinity One Program, this has meant founding and leading a WHEN Student Club here at the University of Toronto. With this platform, we seek to mobilize women and gender diverse youth as catalysts for change toward toxic-free and healthier environments for all people. We are excited about the possibility of amplifying the discussions from the WTF fair and transforming these into consistent conversations within our student community.

Visit our Arts & Community Events Page to learn more about WTF.

Lizramona Mwakitwange is a WHEN Volunteer and leader of the WHEN Student Club at UofT. She is an undergraduate student at Trinity College who is double majoring in Health & Disease and Environment & Health, with a Certificate in Sustainability. Lizramona is a graduate of the Butterfield Environment & Sustainability stream of the Margaret MacMillan Trinity One program and involved with the Food Systems Lab and Trinity’s Integrated Sustainability Initiative.

Case study: the mismanagement of Talc under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

Case study: the mismanagement of Talc under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

This blog post was written by Kanisha Acharya-Patel, WHEN’s Law Reform Specialist, and Zeina Seaifan, WHEN’s Policy Engagement Researcher, and the views expressed are not intended as legal advice. WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ is used to describe those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to environmental harm.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the primary piece of federal legislation for protecting environmental and human health, including through the prevention and management of risks posed by toxic substance exposures. CEPA was recently amended for the first time since 1999, through Bill S-5, which was passed in June 2023 (see more about WHEN’s involvement in the legislative process here). This blog post explores how the regulation of talc under CEPA has failed to protect the health of women and other vulnerable populations by failing to consider how one’s identity factors, such as sex, gender, and socioeconomic status can affect one’s exposure to talc and susceptibility to adverse health effects from exposure.  

What is talc? 

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral and may be used in a variety of products in Canada including paper, plastics, paint, ceramics, putties, drugs, natural health products and cosmetics. Talc is an ingredient in approximately 6,500 cosmetic products in Canada (as of 2017) [1]. 

Is talc toxic?

Yes. In 2021, talc was added to the list of toxic substances under CEPA because the federal government concluded that talc constitutes a risk to human health. Under s. 64 of CEPA, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. 

What are the government of Canada’s conclusions for the critical health effects associated with talc?

The risk assessment of talc as a toxic substance describes its critical health effects as:

(1)  Non-cancer lung effects (ex. inflammation, impaired lung function, fibrosis) following inhalation of fine particles of talc when using loose powder products like baby powder, body powder, and loose face powder; and

(2)  Ovarian cancer due to exposure of the female perineal (genital) area to products containing talc such as body powder, diaper and rash creams, baby powder, genital antiperspirants and deodorants, body wipes, bath bombs and bubble bath.

The government of Canada’s proposed human health objective (i.e. quantitative/qualitative statements of what should be achieved to address human health concerns) is to decrease inhalation and perineal exposures from certain talc-containing self-care products to a level which is protective of human health. 

Why does Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) matter in the context of toxic substance management?

The Government of Canada’s approach to regulating talc as a toxic substance demonstrates how the current risk assessment and risk management processes do not adequately consider vulnerable populations (specifically women) and highlights the need to integrate an intersectional analysis (i.e. GBA+) into these processes. Currently, decisions surrounding the permissibility of substances to enter the environment are based on standard default estimates of exposure that are representative of the “general population”, rather than being specific to the threats facing populations that are more vulnerable than the general population [2]. Canada defines a vulnerable population as a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. One’s identity factors, such as sex, gender, race and socioeconomic status either alone or in tandem (i.e. intersectionality) can impact their susceptibility or exposure and therefore increase their vulnerability. By failing to consider the impact of intersecting identity factors when assessing and managing toxic substances (and therefore failing to apply GBA+), the government risks missing or misreading the experiences of a significant portion of the Canadian population and subsequently developing policies and initiatives that can inadvertently increase inequities [3]. By assuming that everyone is exposed to the same amount of a toxic substance and experiences adverse health effects from the same dose of talc exposure, the risk assessment and management processes do not account for how physiological and socio-environmental differences can impact exposure and susceptibility. This perpetuates health inequities against populations that are more vulnerable than the “general population”.   

Which identity factors can increase the risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to talc? 

Examining an individual’s risk of talc exposure through the lens of GBA+ reveals that exposure and susceptibility to adverse health effects from talc are dependent on various intersecting identity factors including sex, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. If these factors were considered in the risk assessment and risk management approaches for talc, many exposures and health harms from talc could have been prevented. 

Sex

Health Canada’s risk assessment notes there is a “consistent and statistically significant positive association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer” and concluded that this is a “potential concern for human health” [4]. This means that women/people with ovaries are inherently more susceptible to ovarian cancer from perineal exposure to talc. In addition to perineal exposure, talc particles may translocate to the ovaries following inhalation of fine talc particles [5]. This is a physiological, sex-based difference, as people with ovaries are more vulnerable to harm from talc exposure than the general population. Despite recognizing the link between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer, Health Canada’s risk assessment was restricted to “available information” and did not conduct further research or studies regarding the toxicokinetics of talc particles following perineal exposure. Toxicokinetics refers to how the body processes a chemical, including absorption (how the chemical gets absorbed into the body), distribution (where the chemical goes inside the body), metabolism (how the chemical breaks down in the body), and excretion (how the chemical leaves the body). One’s sex influences toxicokinetics [6], and given the link between perineal exposure and ovarian cancer, limiting the risk assessment to “available information” reduces its comprehensiveness. 

Gender

The distinction between gender and sex speaks to the distinction between exposure and susceptibility [7]. As mentioned above, sex-based differences (such as presence of ovaries) makes one more susceptible to experiencing adverse health effects (i.e. ovarian cancer). Gender, however, affects the presence of exposure: personal care products are disproportionately marketed towards and used by women, many of which contain toxic substances including talc. These products include face makeup, bath bombs, genital antiperspirants and hair removal products, and range in talc concentration from 1% to 100% [8]. A young woman in her teens may feel social pressure from conventional beauty norms to remove hair in her genital area. She could easily find Veet hair removal cream (contains talc) at her local drugstore or online and would not be aware of the dangers of its use because the product is not required to have a cautionary statement indicating the association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer. She may also feel pressured to purchase face makeup, which increases risk of talc inhalation and related health effects (such as reduced lung function). Further, gender norms regarding which parent is responsible for child-care can exacerbate a woman’s exposure to talc via inhalation if she applies talc-containing baby powders when diapering her children. 

Age 

Baby powder products can contain up to 100% talc and are used in the perineal region of infants during diapering, and talc is permitted as a medicinal ingredient in diaper rash products at concentrations from 45% to 100% [9]. This means that infants and children are at greater risk of exposure to talc, both through inhalation and perineal exposure, and experiencing related adverse health effects. For infants assigned female at birth, this also inherently increases their risk of ovarian cancer, because talc use during diapering can result in talc particles in the ovaries [10]. Infants and children are further embedded in positions of vulnerability by the fact that they do not have their own agency to decide what products they are exposed to. Health Canada acknowledged that inhalation of talc can negatively affect lung health, even after a single exposure event, as reported in a 10-year-old child who was exposed one time at 2 years of age and a 7-year-old child who developed asthma and reduced lung function [11]. Vulnerability to adverse health effects from inhalation or perineal exposure to talc can be compounded if exposure occurs during a critical window of vulnerability, such as infancy, puberty, pregnancy, lactation, and menopause [12]. This demonstrates the importance of considering the intersection of identity factors: a pubescent girl (or person with ovaries) using a hair removal cream on her perineal area (due to gender norms) is even more vulnerable to harm due to her age, sex and gender. 

Socioeconomic status 

Low socioeconomic status can severely impede one’s ability to purchase and use high-quality talc-free products. Cheaper products may fail to use cosmetic-grade talc and instead, their products may carry additional impurities such as asbestos contamination. Canada’s risk assessment of talc only focused on inhalation and perineal exposure to self-care products containing cosmetic or pharmaceutical-grade talc (i.e. pure talc) [13], which fails to consider potential additional impurities such as asbestos (a known carcinogen) which is found naturally near talc. As many talc-containing cosmetic products have tested positive for asbestos including compact powders, eye shadows, contour palettes, and even children’s makeup [14], underestimating the possible contamination of talc undermines the strength and effectiveness of the risk assessment process. 

How does Canada’s approach to talc risk management neglect these considerations?

The risk management actions for talc are measures to help reduce exposures to talc from certain cosmetics, natural health products and non-prescription drugs which may be inhaled or which may result in perineal exposure [15]. Measures to achieve these objectives include reading product labels and follow all safety warnings and directions, avoid inhaling loose talc powder, avoid female genital exposure to talc, and choose a talc-free alternative, all of which emphasize individual responsibility and place the burden of reducing talc exposure on consumers. Additionally, many talc-containing products lack any form of hazard labelling or cautionary statements, making it more difficult to make informed purchases. This is especially true for people with ovaries, as the risk management approach requires powder-based products to include cautionary statements (i.e."Keep out of reach of children" and "Keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation which can cause breathing problems" [16,17]), but does not require cautionary statements regarding the risk of ovarian cancer. It is unclear why, despite concluding that perineal exposure to talc can cause ovarian cancer, Health Canada decided that hazard labelling regarding this serious health risk was not required. This may change, however, as Health Canada updated talc restrictions in May 2024: talc is “no longer permitted in products intended solely for use in the genital area of those who have ovaries” and “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". These new restrictions are a step in the right direction, but they are far from perfect and it’s still unclear when they will come into effect or how they will be enforced, so we are cautious with our optimism. 

Individualizing responsibility can further entrench people in positions of vulnerability as people widely vary in their capacity to engage in precautionary talc consumption due to a variety of identity factors, including education, access to information, language barriers and/or literacy constraints. Failure to develop adequate risk mitigation measures, including hazard labelling specific to ovarian cancer, has likely resulted in many preventable talc exposures. Further, the draft risk management approach for talc identified a third risk management action (“communications to the public to help avoid inhalation and perineal exposure to talc”) but this action was not included in the final risk management approach. Given this action’s emphasis on increasing public awareness, its exclusion from the final risk management approach is problematic and sends the message that it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to scour Health Canada’s publications to learn of the adverse health effects of talc.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1. Help us get talc out of our personal care products!

   We continue to urge the federal government to ban talc (specifically in products that can be inhaled or used in the perineal area) or at the very least, require transparent communication of the health risks through hazard labelling. Support our advocacy by signing this petition! 

2. Look out for talc

   or magnesium silicate – on the ingredient list of your personal care products, especially products that can be inhaled or used in the perineal area such as body/facial powders, bath bombs, genital antiperspirants and hair removal creams. Avoid these products if you can! 

3. Use talc alternatives

   when possible, such as cornstarch or arrowroot powder; many companies have released products that use these safer alternatives. 

4. Raise awareness

   Share this post and tell your friends and families about the negative health effects of talc.

   Knowledge is power! 

Can Canada be held accountable for their GBA+ commitments?

Can Canada be held accountable for their GBA+ commitments?

This blog post was written by Kanisha Acharya-Patel, WHEN’s Law Reform Specialist, and the views expressed are not intended as legal advice. WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ is used to describe those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to environmental harm.

Need a refresher on Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+)?

Please check out our Explainer on GBA+! In short, GBA+ is an essential analytical tool for developing effective and equitable policies, programs and legislation for diverse populations by identifying direct or indirect impacts of federal government initiatives on different sub-populations and subsequently taking steps to mitigate the negative impacts. The ‘plus’ in GBA+ acknowledges that the analysis incorporates a range of intersecting identity factors beyond sex and gender (namely ethnicity, race, religion, age, disability, geography, culture, income, sexual orientation, education, and language) which form and uphold overlapping and interdependent systems of privilege, discrimination and inequality [1]. The government of Canada is currently considering rebranding GBA+ as Gender and Diversity Analysis to reinforce the intersectional purpose of the tool [2,3]. In the context of toxic substance management under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (the primary piece of federal legislation for protecting environmental and human health, including through the prevention and management of risks posed by toxic substance exposures), GBA+ allows us to identify and address inequities faced by women and other vulnerable populations due to their intersecting identity factors.

What are Canada’s GBA+ commitments?

In 1981, the federal government of Canada signed onto the United Nations (“UN”) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. At the 4th UN World Conference on Women (1995), Canada signed the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and committed to conducting GBA on all future legislation, policies, and programs. GBA has since been expanded to GBA+ to require the consideration of diverse and intersecting identity factors (i.e. not just sex and gender) [4]. Canada’s commitments are outlined in its Policy on GBA+, which makes it clear that GBA+ must be integrated throughout the development of a federal initiative, and during the implementation and monitoring phase, to ensure GBA+ outcomes are achieved. For more information and a timeline on Canada’s GBA+ commitments, please see the following:

• Timeline: WAGE Milestones

• Summary of Government of Canada and Justice Canada GBA+ Commitments

• History of GBA+ 

• GBA+ Roles and Responsibilities

Who is responsible?

Women and Gender Equality Canada (federal department) is the “centre for expertise for advancing gender equality and supporting the application of GBA+ across government decision-making processes” [5]. That being said, all federal departments share the responsibility of implementing GBA+ and GBA+ must be conducted for all federal government initiatives; even if there is no obvious connection between the initiative and identity factors such as sex, gender or race, it is important to conduct GBA+ regardless because there may be unexpected impacts on vulnerable populations [6]. It’s important to note that these commitments do not extend to the provincial or territorial governments, which means that many decisions impacting Canadians are not required to be analyzed through the GBA+ lens. 

Are the commitments legally binding? 

Many of Canada’s GBA+ commitments are stated in policy documents, which are not legally binding and therefore not enforceable [7]. Canada’s international GBA+ commitments (i.e. the commitments made by signing onto the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) are only enforceable if they are codified in a domestic legal instrument, such as a federal law. For example, GBA+ is a required consideration for decision-making under key federal legislation, including the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Accessible Canada Act, but these obligations fall outside the scope of this blog post. GBA+ is not currently a required consideration for decision-making under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which means that an intersectional approach is not legally required when the federal government is assessing and managing the risks associated with toxic substances. 

There are also a few legally binding GBA+ requirements that the federal government must comply with when developing legislation, policies and programs. Specifically, federal departments and agencies are required to integrate GBA+ into all budget proposals, regulations, Treasury Board (TB) submissions and Memoranda to Cabinet (MC). These documents are used to seek approval from various government oversight bodies when developing and implementing proposed laws, policies and programs, and are tangible documents that can prove whether the government is following through on their GBA+ commitments.

Can Canada be held accountable for the legally binding commitments? 

On paper, all federal departments are required to “apply GBA+ in the decisions [they] make and consider public policies through an intersectional lens in order to address systemic inequities” [8]. However, in practice, government decision-making is often shielded from public scrutiny and there are limited avenues for the public to attempt to hold Canada accountable. Even where the requirement to conduct GBA+ is stated in a federal law and thus legally binding, enforcement by members of the public is difficult because of the many obstacles inherent in our legal processes, such as the cost of hiring legal representation, and the fact that decision-makers are granted a level of discretion in their decision-making. Decision-makers have been criticized for treating GBA+ as an afterthought or “box-checking exercise” [9], but checking the box is sufficient for the decision-maker to technically meet their legal obligations. Performative GBA+ does not accomplish its purpose in “ensuring that none of the diverse people encountering Canadian federal policies and programs are unintentionally harmed by them or excluded from them” [10], but is often sufficient to protect decision-makers from accountability. 

Members of the public are also limited in their ability to hold decision-makers accountable because of the difficulties associated with accessing information (ex. documents that show how GBA+ was conducted). Under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, you have the legal right to obtain information that is under the control of a government institution. The purpose of these acts is to make government more open and transparent, and make sure citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and that decision-makers remain accountable to the public [11]. However, accessing government documents through these acts is a long and tedious process, and many documents are inaccessible due to a concept called Cabinet Confidentiality. 

The idea behind Cabinet Confidentiality is that all Cabinet Ministers (i.e. people appointed by the Prime Minister to manage a specific government department) are collectively responsible for actions taken by the Cabinet (i.e. political forum in which ministers meet to establish consensus on government action) and must publicly support all Cabinet decisions. To reach final decisions, Ministers must be able to express their views freely and know that these discussions will be protected, and allowing these views and opinions to be disclosed publicly would result in the erosion of the collective responsibility of ministers (i.e. would disrupt the image of a united front) [12]. Documents protected by Cabinet Confidentiality are called Cabinet Confidences. MCs and TB submissions are two examples of Cabinet Confidences [13], meaning that the public does not have the right to obtain access to them and therefore can generally not use them to assess the government’s compliance with its GBA+ commitments. There are ways for the government to be more transparent about their application of GBA+ while respecting Cabinet Confidentiality, such as publishing GBA+ analysis after the decision on the proposed initiative has been made [14], and we encourage the federal government to explore these options.