Policy Brief: Technical Feedback in Response to the Draft Implementation Framework for the Right to a Healthy Environment

Authors: Lily Farinaccio (she/her), Anna Huschka (she/her), Megan Devoe (she/her), Nicola Radatus-Smith (she/her), Zeina Seaifan (she/her)

Editors: Kanisha Acharya-Patel (she/her), Manvi Bhalla (she/her) 

About the Right to the Healthy Environment Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: 

2023 amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act included that “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment” (1). As a part of this, the federal government has until June 2025 to publish an Implementation Framework that they will use to guide how they will include the right in decision-making and implementation of CEPA (1). In order to shape the Implementation Framework, the federal government released a discussion document in April 2024 (you can read our feedback on it here, as well as the Women’s Healthy Environment Networks Feedback here). In October 2024, the federal government published a Draft Implementation Framework, and collected feedback from the public until December 4th, 2024, feedback that will be used to shape the final framework in June 2025.

About our Collaboration and the Technical Report:

Funded by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Trottier Family Foundation, Shake Up The Establishment collaborated with the Women’s Healthy Environments Network and Finance Engage Sustain to host six consultations events and create an online survey to collect input from youth across so-called Canada. On December 4th, 2024 we collectively submitted a technical feedback report on the federal government’s Draft Framework, and we will be sharing another report in early 2025 with the feedback we collected from the events and survey!

Our technical report was endorsed by the following community-based organizations: 

• The Canadian Coalition for Environmental and Climate Justice and the Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities & Community Health (ENRICH) Project 
• Coalition for Environmental Rights 
• Prevent Cancer Now

Our Recommendations:

SUTE, WHEN, and FES had the following recommendations on the Draft Implementation Framework: 

1. Improve language used in the Framework by: 
• Defining what a “sustainable climate” is under the RTHE and elaborating on actions that will be taken under CEPA to promote a sustainable climate, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 
• Strengthening the Framework’s enforceability by using mandatory language instead of discretionary language. 
• Elaborating upon elements of the Framework’s intended approach, such as the meaning of “actions taken under CEPA,” the principle of intergenerational equity, the principle of non-regression, as well as what “participation,” “consideration,” “access,” and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledges entail; 
• Updating language for consistency and accuracy: revising the wording of “aboriginal,” “Indigenous knowledge,” “disproportionate impacts,” and “Gender-Based Analysis Plus” (GBA+) in the Framework. 
2. Strengthen the current definition of intergenerational equity, as it is consistently viewed as insufficient by youth, due in part to:
• “Future generations” being mentioned after “present generations”, which feels inappropriate and the definition as a whole comes off as too neutral as a result, which leaves room for a lack of accountability and enforcement towards progressive actions (aligned with the principle of non-regression); and
• A lack of specificity on scale for what “future generations” means (e.g., if it means present-day youth, next 20-30 years, the next seven generations or all of the above).
3. Outline clear criteria for determining reasonable limits to avoid arbitrary decision-making and protect public perception, including:
• A definition of what “thorough, reasoned, rational, and fair consideration of the relevant factors” encompasses, following a similar format to the Oakes test established in R v Oakes and used in Charter jurisprudence;  
• A description of how reasonable limits will be determined and applied across all CEPA decision-making processes following the rule of precedent for consistency; and 
• Details regarding who is responsible for determining reasonable limits, how these determinations will be communicated to the public, and what transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place. 
4. Prioritize human and environmental health over economic factors by:
• Guaranteeing economic factors will never limit one’s RTHE, recognizing that sustainable development requires integration of social, environmental and economic interests. When economic factors are considered under the RTHE, ensuring any cost-benefit analyses conducted take into account externalities, such as pollution, and the non-monetary benefits that healthy environments provide, such as ecosystem services; and 
• Being open and transparent about the relationships between industry and government, and ensuring the protection of ‘confidential business information’ is never prioritized over human and environmental health. 
5. Introduce mechanisms to safeguard against the negative effects federalism and partisanism may have on one’s RTHE, such ambiguity, conflict, delays, and inaction. 
6. Increase accountability by: 
• Introducing a mechanism to ensure feedback received through the CEPA online portal is followed by action, including requiring decision-makers to publicly share their responses to feedback in clear language, providing explanations of how their decisions upheld the RTHE and specifically the principles of environmental justice, non-regression and intergenerational equity; 
• Mainstreaming the consideration of the RTHE, such that in every decision made under CEPA it is clearly demonstrated how the RTHE was taken into account, following a similar format to a regulatory impact analysis statement; and 
• Adding new mechanisms to increase accountability, such as requiring all federal government employees to complete a training on the RTHE, following a similar format to the GBA+ government training.
7. Provide a detailed explanation of what “meaningful involvement” under the Framework entails, including:
• Addressing power imbalances inherent in policy-making, decolonizing the policy-system itself;
• Fostering ongoing dialogue with communities, specifically those that have been historically excluded from decision-making;
• Establishing clear timelines and transparency; and 
• Ensuring representation of all relevant demographics, recognizing that certain subpopulations are more likely to experience unhealthy environments due to intersecting identity factors, such as sex, gender, race, culture and socioeconomic status.  
8. Move beyond performative measures to support Indigenous sovereignty by: 
• Outlining specific, actionable steps that work towards advancing and protecting Indigenous rights, such as allocating resources to Indigenous-led research and monitoring initiatives that focus on environmental protection and the long-term sustainability of their communities; and 
• Establishing an Indigenous Advisory Committee for the RTHE, to ensure diverse Indigenous perspectives, knowledges and expertise are systematically integrated into environmental policies, programs, and decision-making. Simultaneously, ensuring that Indigenous knowledges are safeguarded, respected, and only used with the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous knowledge-holders.
9. Articulate how changes are being made to existing CEPA activities, including the Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines, regulations on environmental emergencies, disposal at sea regulations, water quality guidelines, and the GHG reporting program, rather than simply highlighting these insufficient mechanisms. 
10. Ensure research under CEPA is community-led and equity-centred by:
• Guaranteeing that research conducted under CEPA addresses the cumulative impacts of multiple toxic substances, identifies disproportionately impacted populations using GBA+ methods, expands to include non-Western scientific models and anecdotal evidence, and is community-based in nature;
• Ensuring the government’s commitment to compliance, reporting, and enforcement in the Framework is matched by an equally strong commitment to prevention and ecosystem-based decision-making, fully adhering to the precautionary principle; and 
• Applying a reverse onus approach, guaranteeing that the responsibility with respect to the RTHE and related activities constantly lies with the government, not communities. 
11. Increase accessibility by: 
• Designing accessibility measures to address the complex systemic barriers that equity-deserving communities face; 
• Improving the accessibility and effectiveness of existing remedies under CEPA by adding policies to address three main challenges: standing to sue, economic barriers, and lack of judicial expertise in environmental matters. At minimum, promoting efforts to increase public awareness of existing remedies; and 
• Creating a website or online portal to store all reports related to the RTHE and CEPA, clearly and in plain language, for public access and knowledge translation. 
12. Clarify the intersections between the RTHE Framework and the National Environmental Justice Strategy, assuring these policies work together to ensure a whole of government approach to environmental justice.