<< Back to episode page

Angie Chan (00:02):

Welcome to Gen Squeeze's Hard Truths. We bring you the untold stories about why basic life milestones like owning a home, raising a family, and living on a habitable planet are slipping outta reach for younger Canadians and how we can make this country work more fairly for all generations. I'm Angie Chan.

Megan Wilde (00:22):

I'm Megan Wilde.

Paul Kershaw (00:24):

And I'm Paul Kershaw.

Angie Chan (00:26):

The House of Commons recently passed a landmark piece of legislation recognizing the right of every individual in Canada to a healthy environment. Some of you may have thought you already had this, right? Well, you didn't, but now you do. Not only that, bill S five also tasked the federal government with upholding the principle of intergenerational equity in the Bill's implementation. Yes ma'am. That happened. It's your turn. I

Paul Kershaw (00:54):

Got distracted by the Yes ma'am.

Angie Chan (00:56):

It's a huge deal.

Paul Kershaw (00:58):

It is a huge deal. I think you just articulated the hard truth though, because we didn't have that. We didn't have that right to a healthy environment. You might have thought we already had it, we didn't have it before and now we're making incremental, if not in this case, more dramatic progress towards having that in legislation and now it's up to all of us to as citizens and as think tanks and as orgs and movements. How can we bring it about to make really meaningful change in the day-to-day lives of people. People with us now are those who are aging, our kids, our grandchildren, and those who are gonna come into the future. And I think it's just so darn exciting. Like I take today's less of a hard truth and more of like a hopeful moment like wow, we can be making legislative improvements. And when you have this right to a healthy environment and then you piggyback on top of that, this principle of upholding intergenerational equity and all that we do in Canada. Like let's take stock Canadians. We can make systemic change. We can make this country work for all generations. And I am feeling hopeful.

Angie Chan (01:55):

Yes. Yes. It's a good day. It's a good day. We don't always have these days. So let's celebrate this one. Today we've invited one of the champions of this legislation to talk a its importance with Paul and Nay. They are talking to Dr. Elaine McDonald. She is the Healthy Communities program director for Eco Justice. She's an environmental engineer who applies her expertise to work related to air quality, water pollution and toxic substances. As leader of Eco Justice's healthy communities team, she's challenging all levels of government to protect every Canadian's right to a healthy environment, especially the most vulnerable. Over to you Paul and Megan.

Paul Kershaw (02:41):

Hi, I'm Paul ubc, prof, founder of Gen Squeeze. So appreciative your time and expertise and leadership in the country and your willingness to be here. Thank you. Thank you.

Elaine MacDonald (02:47):

Thank you. Thanks Paul. I'm happy to be here.

Megan Wilde (02:52):

And I'm just Megan.

Elaine MacDonald (02:54):

Hi Megan <laugh>, not just, nobody is just <laugh>. Hi Megan. Thank you. Thanks for having.

Megan Wilde (03:00):

Welcome to Hard Truths Elaine. So we brought you on to talk about this new legal right to a healthy environment and just to kick us off, I'm wondering if you can just explain why that's so significant and how it might impact our listeners' lives eventually.

Elaine MacDonald (03:13):

Well the right to healthy environment has been recognized for the first time under federal law in Canada. Through this, the, this bill that amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there are some provinces that have the recognition in various bills of rights. So it's not a completely new concept to Canada, but it is new to the federal government and it puts the feds kind of finally catching up with kind of what is a global movement really, which started many years ago where various countries started to recognize the right to healthy the environment either through constitution or legislation. So, you know, Canada has not made any constitutional amendments. Obviously this is really just a right recognized through one piece of legislation. But it's a pretty important piece of legislation cuz it covers a lot of kind of the federal government's house in terms of how they regulate the, the environment.

So in that sense it could be a very powerful tool for stronger protection of the environment and human health as is, as it is linked to the environment. So I think the last I heard is what 160 countries, UN state countries around the world that have recognized this right. Already and Canada was not one of them. So at least we can now kind of count ourselves amongst that club. But, uh, what it will actually mean in terms of change is a little bit of a, I think a wait and see because they have two years in the bill that has just passed to come up with the implementation framework in terms of what this right to healthy environment means with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. So we hope it's going to force stronger, better decisions from a federal government on issues related to pollution, climate, all kinds of things that they regulate under CIPA plastics, the whole realm.

Um, we will be pushing them to make stronger decisions and potentially look to see if we need to challenge them if they don't. Uh, so it is a new tool in the toolbox in terms of forcing the government's hand to make better decisions as well as a new tool that we could potentially bring to court, uh, to say, you know, this VA CIPA now sets out a duty of the government to protect people's right to healthy environment. But we'll see what happens. You know, it's some of the principles that have been attached to this right in the legislation are things like environmental justice, which is really recognizing that there's this disproportionality in terms of who is most affected by pollution, who is exposed to more harms from the environment and the need to correct that disproportionality. There's also things like intergenerational equity, which I know is one of the things you wanna talk about as well. So a lot of these concepts are very high level principles. So I think that, you know, the, the telling will be in the next couple years to see how much government actually, um, kind of flexes their muscles and uses these new rights to actually bring, you know, better, better protection to Canadians or people across Canada.

Megan Wilde (06:02):

Yeah, thanks. I know the devil's always in the details with these things and the UN had about a year ago, given a, a similar right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. So I am curious why safe, clean, and sustainable might have been left out of this bill and if that's at all significant.

Elaine MacDonald (06:22):

Yeah, well <laugh>, we don't really know why the government makes the decisions they do. We did point out the UN's resolution language to the government when they were discussing Bill S five and I think Bill S five had already been tabled at that point. So it had been tabled with the similar language that it has in it now. There are some amendments that occurred through the legislative process, but not to the recognition of Right. To the environment. Hmm. Really for some reason the government didn't like the word clean <laugh> and we don't really know why. Hmm. You know, they said, well I can't guarantee clean, we don't know what clean means. So like that's kind of the response you typically get when you start to ask like, you know, to add these other words in. It's like it often comes down to whether the people in Ottawa that are responsible for legislative drafting are comfortable with particular language from a legal perspective on whether they can see how that might play out in the future.

And if they're not then they'll push back on changes. So healthy environment was something that we were, and it wasn't an easy lift to even get them to accept the recognition of a healthy environment. Right. To a healthy environment. That was something that initially we were told, no way we're gonna do this, forget it. Like go away <laugh>. So we just kept asking, kept pushing and we got that. We at least got that. But yeah. As to why they wouldn't do clean or ecological or just was kind of, you don't always understand why, but they just kinda said no we hmm. You know, healthy environments as far as they go. I'm not sure if it makes a big difference. Um, at least it's, they're both expressed as a Right. And given we have this opportunity through the implementation framework to kind of discuss with them a little bit about what it means, I think we can then use that opportunity to push for some of these additional concepts to be included like ecologically balanced, clean or the language that was included in the UN resolution.

Megan Wilde (08:14):

How did you persuade them on the term healthy?

Elaine MacDonald (08:17):

Uh, healthy has always been kind of part of the conversation. I think what they were mostly concerned about was it being expressed as a Right. That was the initial opposition. I think we, if we didn't have the word right in there, it would've been easier, but it was important to have Right. Cuz Right. Does set a different lens and framework around what this means. So that was where we got the most pushback because the things we would hear from them is like, well we can't, you know, rights are not absolute and that is true. They're not like governments can violate rights. Um, so how can we guarantee rights? Like what does it really mean and that type of thing. So I think getting them to accept right was the challenge, which they did eventually. Right. So, and I think they just realized that they were falling behind and even if they didn't fully know what it meant and how to implement it, that they needed to catch up. And maybe that's why they've now given themselves this two years to kind of figure out the details.

Paul Kershaw (09:11):

I think it is a significant deal that you did get the language of right into this legislation. Because if I think about the national housing strategy, when it was first published, there'd been a lot of call to talk about a right to housing. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and the language in the National Housing Strategy talks about understanding housing from a human rights perspective. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but that is a very different phrase than saying there's a right to housing. And so we one should not downplay the significance of the achievement to have the federal government move and adopt that Right. To a healthy environment. So kudos to you and others who've been thanks. Pushing on that from that is a really significant achievement.

Elaine MacDonald (09:49):

Hey, it really does shift the lens because the lens of CEPA before this adoption of a duty to protect, to recognize and protect people's right to healthy environment was really like pollution prevention and sustainable development. So some very kind of old concepts that really haven't fixed the problems that we need to deal with in a modern society. Like, so I hope by shifting that lens and adding or adding a lens of a human right, as you've said, Paul will, you know, really will strengthen the ability of the government to take action under CEPA. CEPA is really just framework legislation and that it sets out a process of how the government can do things, but it doesn't really force them to do anything. So they still need to have the political will to take action under cipa, but if they, you know, to regulate all kinds of different pollutants or whatever toxic chemicals.

And that's kind of also key to understand is like we have now, you know, said yeah right to health environment, Kim, low effects vulnerable populations. These are all new concepts that have been included in this, in this bill that is amending cipa. But you have to get to work looking at all of these problems and and applying these concepts to those problems and regulating these issues through cipa. Mm-hmm So that's also going to be a challenge and a push over the next couple of years to get the government busy using this framework legislation to actually take action

Paul Kershaw (11:09):

As you encourage government to use the framework to take action. How do you see it fitting into a broader package of legislation and judicial decisions? So it makes me think that Gen Squeeze led a consortium of organizations into the, the courts in Saskatchewan in Ontario and ultimately the Supreme Court along with a variety of other interveners, uh, to defend the constitutionality of putting a price on pollution. Now that case was fought over really technical terms about federalism, but it created openings for the courts to comment on, you know, a more of the substance of the issue. And so there were some interesting phrases recognizing again, you know, the need and the importance of a healthy environment, you know, in the face of these extreme weather and so on. So how do you see this legislation and Seepa most recent change now fitting into a broader package? And what connections would you encourage us and others to, to draw as we're more generally trying to make this right to a healthy environment actually become meaningful in their day-to-day lives? Like our full resources to take it from a phrase to an actuality.

Elaine MacDonald (12:11):

Yeah. We were involved in the carbon pricing case too as engineers of course. Yeah, yeah. As well. Um, and of course that's now been decided by the Supreme Court and federal government has the constitutional authority to set carbon price, which is great. Um, and I think like CEPA is a different piece of legislation than that for sure. But one of the things I think I've been telling people that work, particularly on climate, cuz I'm coming at this from someone who largely works on pollution and toxics, but cifa is the main tool the government uses to regulate greenhouse gases as well. There is a bunch of regulations under cifa related to GHGs methane regs, for example, the coal regs. There's all kinds of them. So there is an opportunity, as you've stated, Paul, to push and make those connections to climate, um, and do more to address climate change using the right to healthy the environment because we already have the opportunity before us.

The way the legislation works with CEPA is like one substances have to be listed under CEPA and then once they're listed, the government can regulate them. All the greenhouse gases are already listed under cipa. So they're good to go ahead. They don't even have to amend the legislation. They can just go ahead and implement more regulations to address various sources of greenhouse gases across Canada that haven't been addressed or even strengthen the ones they already have regulated. And they can now use the fact that they do have this duty to protect people's right to help the environment as a further, as further leverage for reasons for doing that federally. So we will push them to, to really use this tool to further their agenda to address GHGs or even strengthen their agenda to address gds.

Megan Wilde (13:48):

Um, I wanted to ask about, you have already mentioned it, that intergenerational equity was included in this bill. So what does it mean that intergenerational equity was in the bill? How did it get included and and why is it so important that it was in there?

Elaine MacDonald (14:06):

Yeah, so that's interesting how it got included cuz it wasn't in the bill initially. And um, this bill actually went to the Senate first, which is unusual. It doesn't usually work that way for a government bill cuz it's a government bill to start in the Senate. Um, and we didn't see that coming. We knew they were gonna be tabling a new bill, but we didn't see them tabling in the Senate first. And we were a little worried when that first happened cuz senators are a little unpredictable <laugh>, you know, they're not accountable to anybody really. So it's kind of, how do you lobby a senator? Really you can't. But the Senate actually did a really good job. They made some really good improvements to the bill and that was one of them. They added this idea of intergenerational equity, um, to the concept of uh, right to healthy environment, which like, and I think we'll have to see what it actually in the long term, but of course, you know, recognizing that this generation can't be stealing from future generations.

That we need to be protecting the environment for all generations, including future generations. So it really instills kind of long term thinking into government decision making. Um, and also even within existing generations, like not even even speaking about future generations, they need to be looking at when they're assessing substances or regularly cepa, they need to be thinking about all the generations that are currently here, children to elderly people. And that was actually something that we had been pushing through through a different term, which we called vulnerable populations. But not everybody likes, I must say it's a bit of a, not the greatest term, but what we were trying to get at with the term vulner population is, is recognizing that people of different ages, different backgrounds, different biologies, all have different, um, risks when it comes to exposure to pollution or toxic substances. They may live in an area which is more polluted, they may have biological susceptibilities.

So we were trying to get that kind of idea of you need to think about everyone in through that term. But then when we got intergenerational equity in there as well, it was another way to kind of get at like, you need to think about all the generations and all the ages and all those susceptibilities. So when they're assessing under S four or doing their work unders p the government, then now we'll have to have that kind of, what does this mean? If I'm gonna develop a regulation with respect to pollution, what does that mean for future generations? Or all the generations that are presently exposed to this pollutant? And how do I ensure that I am protecting them all? I think that's really what it's going to mean to them. And, and this may seem a bit academic, but the reality is they haven't been doing that. Like when, you know, I look at these assessments that come out of the Canadian Rap Tract Act quite often, and it is not uncommon for them to kind of take that average Canadian type approach and look at like, what's the risk of the typical Canadian? And if we're protecting that person, then we're okay, rather than think about the people that might be on the margins that might be at greater risk.

Megan Wilde (16:50):

Mm. That really speaks to me personally because as a mother of three young girls and uh, someone who's life has been seriously altered by endocrine disruptors in the environment, um, I really appreciate that. That is really significant.

Elaine MacDonald (17:06):

Yeah. And that is one of the examples we use often when we're talking to government is the risk of, of, you know, women of childbearing age and exposure to certain RET chemicals in particular that are often in everyday consumer products as well. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> and I think they get that. So that's promising

Megan Wilde (17:22):

As a watchdog for generational fairness, I'm curious, do you, do you anticipate that language of intergenerational equity giving us any new teeth?

Elaine MacDonald (17:30):

Well, yes, I, that's what we'll be working towards. Yes, for sure. I think, you know, the bill having just passed, we're still trying to figure out what it all means ourselves, but we definitely wanna be using all of these progressive concepts to push for greater protection for everybody to the extent we can leverage it. We will be challenging the government when we think they haven't considered intergenerational equity in a decision, um, to push them to do so. I do know that just having been talking to some people that work in Environment Canada and Health Canada, that they are working through a lot of these concepts, trying to figure out what they actually mean with respect to the various programs. Um, but yeah, it's early days, but that is certainly our hope and that is certainly what we will be, we will be aiming for and pushing for. And you know, we are an organization that litigates, so if we feel like a decision comes out that hasn't considered or incorporated, uh, those principles or fails to address the issue of intergenerational equity, then we would definitely consider challenging that.

Paul Kershaw (18:33):

Hmm. All right.

Megan Wilde (18:35):

I wanna back up …

Paul Kershaw (18:35):

…Future collaborations

Megan Wilde (18:37):

<laugh> Yeah. I wanted to back up because you, you talked about how this catches Canada up with the rest of the world and how have similar bills or or similar legislation been used in other countries ways that you might be able to emulate?

Elaine MacDonald (18:51):

Um, on a general level, not speaking of specific case examples cuz there, can't remember them all, but UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David Boyd, actually did study this question that was kind of a big part of his, kind of his thesis leading into his push for the right to healthy environment at the UN level. Um, and he, what he has seen in countries that have adopted the right to healthy environment in either legislation or the constitutions, he has seen improvements in the environmental performance overall. And particularly I think what he documents is that, um, citizens and often indigenous organizations even are able to then take governments to court and include to court more easily by citing the right to healthy environment. The other thing though is even if you look where there is a, an environmental bill of rights provincially, although they don't necessarily guarantee a substantive right to healthy environment, many of those provincial legislation, we have one in Ontario for example, there's one in Quebec, Yukon, there's various places across Canada that have it in in provincial legislation.

What they often do is provide a lot more procedural rights to people. So the right to for consultation, the right to appeal, uh, decisions that come out of the government related to the environment. That is something we have used a number of times in Ontario. We have used the Ontario environment to bill of rights many, many times to bring the government to court and challenge their decisions. Um, and citizens do that as well quite often and it guarantees consultation rights. Participation rights. So there's a procedural side to the right as well as the substantive protection of somebody's right to a healthy environment. Hmm.

Paul Kershaw (20:28):

As Megan and I were thinking about the, uh, the changes to the legislation and the great work you and others have been leading, we saw an intersection with an initiative that, uh, we lead at Gen Squeeze called Get Well Canada. And the thrust of Get Well Canada is that as important as medical care is in our lives and you know, the ways in which Canadians define ourselves as being different from our neighbors to the south, our health doesn't begin with medical care. Our health begins where we born, grow, live, work and age. And you know, so long as many Canadians can't access decent incomes, good housing, childcare, et cetera, a good medical care system will never be enough to prevent people from dying early. But in addition to those sort of financial things, uh, those, uh, socioeconomic determinants of health, we also know there's incredibly important ecological determinants of health in groups like the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment or just strong voices on how, you know, you know, you reducing climate change, addressing some of the pollutions and toxins in our environment are so critical for actually lengthening our lives and contributing to our wellbeing.

And I wonder, you know, how do you see the changes, uh, to the civil legislation, you know, contributing more and more to Canadians recognizing that our health doesn't begin with the medical care system, it actually begins with these social and ecological determinants of our health.

Elaine MacDonald (21:47):

Yes, yes. No, absolutely. We worked really closely with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment actually throughout the process of Bill S5. They were kind of part of a broader coalition that we were working with on the bill and they were such great messengers on, on that exact message. And I think that was part of being able to describe it that way to MPs and to officials about how important it is to reduce pollution and toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases in our environment to protect human health and how that leads to like prevents disease moving forward, saves money, has economic benefits, longer, stronger, healthier lives was really key. And to be able to have that message coming from doctors like through CAPE and Safe Cancer Association District of the Environment was very powerful. So we were successful in connecting that definitely with the politicians and the officials in Ottawa.

I think now you're right, we need to be talking to the broader people about like the importance of how this bill does really set, uh, set us on a path for more disease prevention, illness prevention if, if we can use these new powerful tools to reduce toxic chemicals and pollution in our everyday lives. We also worked really closely with the, uh, group in Quebec called Breast Cancer Action Quebec, which had a really strong constituency of women throughout Quebec who were able to also pass the message in one of the areas, uh, Megan that we were just talking about. That they talked a lot about his endocrine disruption and the impacts of anti construction on women's health. Um, and making those connections between how we regulate particularly toxic substances in everyday products that people are using and, uh, the connection to people's health. But also another piece we spoke quite a bit about with, with Cape in particular was, uh, air pollution.

And I would say one of the weaknesses of this bill, we pushed very hard for the government to set enforceable air quality standards nationally through Bill S five and they wouldn't do it <laugh> and they wouldn't, like we have, Canada's probably one of the few countries in the world that um, maybe it's O E C D countries in the world that doesn't have national enforceable air quality standards. We have air quality standards, but they're not enforceable. And the reason the federal government doesn't wanna do it, they say is because they see it as provincial territory. So I think I may have diverted a little bit off your, your question, sorry cuz it took me down this path about air quality. But yeah, I think what we can still push for is more regulation of air pollution, but we haven't been able to win that fight to get an actual air quality standards in Canada that can then be enforced.

Megan Wilde (24:22):

Well, no, we are almost out of time and that is also a nice segue to the last thing we wanted to talk to you about is how can we and our listeners watch for the robust implementation of this bill? What, what should we be looking for next?

Elaine MacDonald (24:36):

Well, um, we certainly going to be involved. So I hopefully, hopefully through the legal justice website you'll be able to get some information or through any of our partners websites, which includes Environmental Defense, Cape and so on that are working on this David Su foundation. Um, the government has an obligation to do quite extensive consultations now on various aspects of this bill, including the right to healthy environment framework as well as kind of the work plan for the next while in terms of what they're going to be addressing through cifa. So I would encourage people to keep an eye on the government, the Environment Canada's website, look for consultation opportunities. If they want help figuring out what they to say they can turn to eco justice, we can help them. And um, yeah, you can always talk to your mp, right. <laugh>, that's another one too. And tell them how important you think it is that they do a good job of implementing the Right to healthy environment and how, you know, congratulate them but also say they have to make it, you know, meaningful by actually using this Right. To strengthen protection in Canada

Paul Kershaw (25:39):

Because politics responds to those who organize and show up. Yes. It's a common theme. Yeah. On the Hard Truths podcast,

Elaine MacDonald (25:46):

<laugh>.

Paul Kershaw (25:47):

Well, congratulations to you and others at Eco Justice for the leadership you provided is part of a broader coalition and, uh, and doing so on behalf of all of us in Canada today and, and the generations to come.

Elaine MacDonald (25:57):

Thank you very much.

Angie Chan (26:03):

Whew guys, that was a meaty interview. I feel like I have a ton to learn like what the heck is a right, what can we actually expect when someone says, you have a right to this because it feels like, okay, it's protected now, thank goodness, but are they guaranteed lots to unpack there. Um, and uh, this is what I wrote down, we might have some implicit expectations for what we think we are entitled to, but unless the implicit is made into explicit rights, we should not take anything for granted. And we need to constantly and fight to protect these rights that we we have, that we might not have forever. She even mentioned that, you know, governments can and do violate rights sometimes. And, um, so anyway, that's, that was my take.

Paul Kershaw (27:00):

Well, I think where you started is really interesting, Angie, because this idea that we have a right to something is the more challenging kind of right to defend and create and make real and tangible in Canada. And if you think about our charter rights and freedoms, the the rights not to have something done to us tend to be better protected, like, you know, a right not to be harmed in some way. I think the legal literature often have like them being negative rights, the positive rights that were owed, something that takes real public policy and often investments like to deliver it. And so, you know, do we have a right to an adequate income in Canada? And I think that's what the, you know, the movement for a guaranteed, you know, basic income's all about. And so what does it mean to have this right to a healthy environment?

I think as Elaine was pointing out, we'll get to know that more and more about how real that is as we go forward. Sometimes that makes me think about like the early days in getting a right, you know, to gender equality. And in the early days after the, the charter came in into force, do you know who took advantage most of the rights to gender equality, who a number of the early cases were men? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So I just wanna make, you know, like, oh, that that wasn't really what we had in mind there. Yeah, yeah. Um, and so it's interesting how those with power, often unearned privilege can, you know, then take advantage of new rights before those with more vulnerability and who live under threat. And so I wonder, I wonder in some regards, how's that gonna play out in, in candid in terms of who can really take advantage of this new right to, but no matter what, there's, there's something inspiring there. Oh yeah. Like wow, that, you know, pardon me, a right to healthy environment, I should say. You know, that is exciting. This, you know, this commitments intergenerational equity in the legislation. This opens up a whole new range of incremental ways to like leave her open the door to be more bold and bold and bold and bold in terms of, um, planning for all ages.

Angie Chan (28:56):

Absolutely. I, you know, one of my other big takeaways from the interview was just how much words matter and how much work goes into determining what words actually get used. So you know, her story about, you know, what we wanted was clean environment, what ended up in there was healthy environment. That was a really big deal. And having intergenerational equity built into this act now is a massive win for all of us. And so I think that this is a really significant step forward. I also loved her response about how has this act manifested in, in change? What have the implications of acts like this been like? I think maybe within other jurisdictions, I think maybe Megan was talking about, and Elaine said that people use this as a way to challenge government. And I think, you know, every tool that, that any of us working in this space has to challenge government in more concrete ways is another big win.

So just a massively inspiring story, I think, and I, I really appreciate how, how clearly she communicated it as well. I do wonder, you know, just following up on your question, Paul, was how can this be used for good and evil is maybe like overstating it, but I think she was starting to make the, the distinction between those substantive rights and procedural rights. I am not a lawyer. Yeah. Um, so I I'm an armchair expert at best, but the right to participate, the right to consultation, the right to appeal can be used by anybody including those very well-resourced industries that might not have the health of the environment in mind, or at least not in the way that we think about it. So like you, I'm really interested to see how government uses the next two years to develop that framework and, and to see what steps are actually being taken to, to give this act some real life.

Paul Kershaw (31:07):

Yeah. Like you, I'm, I'm looking ahead and, and enthusiastic and, you know, not, not all that apprehensive. I really am, uh, you know, this is one of those moments where it gives me more hope and the fact that they were successful at getting language related to a right, to a healthy environment. I think it is a very big deal as, as I said in my conversation with Elaine that they didn't actually go that far. When they first launched the National Housing strategy, they didn't actually embrace language of a right to affordable housing or a right to housing or adequate housing. And, uh, they talked more about like a rights-based framework. And so the fact that they didn't, they didn't kind of have that wiggle room with like a, you know, um, a framework for a health right to healthy environment, but they actually talked more specifically about that Right. To a healthy environment. I think it's a big deal. And so kudos to groups like Ego Justice and others that played such a leadership role in pulling that off. And then it's up to them and the rest of us as, as think can change tanks like gen Squeeze and, you know, climate movements and citizens to take advantage of the new opportunity to hold our governments to account.

Angie Chan (32:16):

Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>.

Well thank you Paul. Thank you Megan for a great interview and for, uh, an opportunity for me to jump in and chat about it. For all of you looking for more information on Bill S five, check out gen squeeze.ca. Also check out our sub stack

Paul Kershaw (32:36):

And come back next time.