Environmental rights cause more and more attention in many countries nowadays. Same with Canada, people desire to live in a state where the environment is guaranteed, at least, it makes people feel safe. In fact, the ethics contained in environmental rights are not difficult to understand. The so-called environmental rights mean that people live in clean air, the air quality meets standards, and the drinking water is not polluted. And our food, meat, and vegetables, etc., are not contaminated and can be eaten with confidence. This is caring about everyone’s most basic living conditions. However, the population covered is also very wide. Environmental rights include not only the environmental quality of modern humans but also our descendants. However, since the rapid development of industrialization and rapid economic development, people have often sacrificed the natural environment to meet the interests of economic development. People have begun to use large amounts of coal, fossil fuels, etc., and emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases regardless of the consequence, thus, causing global warming and climate change. In addition, the pollutants discharged in the water have gradually reduced the area of ​​water available for people to drink and caused a large number of aquatic life to die or become extinct. Isn’t this a very disappointing thing?

In fact, I am deeply impressed by this matter. In China, the city where I live has a severe haze every winter. Haze has now become a catastrophic weather phenomenon and often appears in weather forecasts. The main cause is the burning of coal for heating in winter, as well as automobile exhaust, industrial emissions, construction dust, garbage incineration, and many other acts that harm air quality. For a long time, people can only wear masks, and homes install air purifiers to protect the most basic air quality. This has also caused many elderly and young children to suffer from cardiovascular or respiratory diseases in winter. Therefore, many people have been deprived of their environmental rights, even though this is our reluctance. Because the environment is a public resource, no one has the right to deliberately manipulate it, and everyone should have a fair environmental right. So I think it is necessary to protect Canadians’ environmental rights through the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And I also agree with David Suzuki’s point of view that ensuring the people’s environmental rights is not to restrict the development of industry and cause economic retreat, but to ensure that the government always regards the people’s health and well-being as the original intention of all actions, and also to make the government and many companies operating in Canada are always moving to maintain the highest standards. Moreover, action to ensure environmental rights have indirectly inspired many Canadian companies to innovate or adopt green technology and advocate other corporate transformations, which is conducive to the further optimization of the social structure and the upgrading of the industrial chain. On the other hand, by protecting the environmental rights of human beings, the medical pressure caused by the Canadian medical system in response to environmental problems can be reduced, and the people will become healthier and healthier. Therefore,  to ensure people’s environmental rights become legal, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

work cited:

Baike.”Fog and haze.” (2020). Retrieved from https://baike.baidu.com/item/fogandhaze/731704?fr=aladdin

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” Huffington Post. Nov. 5, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment

The push for federal recognition for environmental rights is gaining traction. And this traction is much needed. In 5 provinces and territories, there is already some form of legislature protecting environmental rights (Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). In 2011, the Canadian parliament came close to passing Bill C-469, the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, which would have been a tremendous breakthrough in that aspect. With the existence of local and provincial legislature and calls for federal legislature concerning environmental rights, it is necessary to look at the reasons why we need federal legislation on environmental rights and protections. We also need to look at another country that is doing well in this area to see what would be protected and the ethical issues surrounding a charter right to a healthy environment.

According to David Boyd, there are six reasons why Canada should modernize its constitution to include the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Two of these reasons stood out to me the most, the fact that ‘Canada’s poor environmental record inflicts a high cost on human health and wellbeing’ and also that ‘environmental rights and responsibilities have been a cornerstone of Aboriginal legal systems for millennia’(Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). I found the first reason I mentioned interesting because it highlights the fact that Canada’s poor track record in environmental issues has had adverse effects on the quality of life that its residents are living. Even though this reason is pretty anthropocentric, it drives home the consequences of inaction concerning environmental rights. The second reason is interesting to be because it rightfully acknowledges the fact that Indigenous communities have recognized the need to care for and protect the environment. Boyd is conscious of the fact that Indigenous communities have always recognized the fact that ‘the earth’s sentience creates corresponding rights and obligations for both humans and nature’ (Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). This knowledge from indigenous communities embraces a more holistic and ecocentric view when compared to the previously mentioned reason.

In response to Boyd, Emmett Macfarlane talks about the issues involved in allowing the courts to be the ones who make decisions concerning environmental issues as this is what a charter right would do. Macfarlane is a proponent for policy changes as opposed to what Boyd is suggesting. Macfarlane references Boyd, who calls for the constitutionalizing of environmental rights which would force governments to do the right thing as it relates to policy. Macfarlane is critical of this as he notes that other positive rights such as welfare and housing that other countries have entrenched in their constitution have been far from successful. Concerning this point, I agree with Boyd. While it is necessary to acknowledge the failures of governments in addressing issues that are enshrined as rights in their constitutions, it is also necessary to recognize countries that have been successful at this and understand why they have been successful. I am aware that leaving decisions like this to the courts and judges would be difficult as we would still be giving humans control over what is considered important and worthy of value and moral consideration and what isn’t. However, effective policy changes in conjunction with a constitutional amendment would be the way to go.

Norway is a good example of a country that is getting it right. Norway, like Canada, is a wealthy country with a major oil and gas industry. However, unlike Canada, Norway has strong environmental laws and is one of the leading countries in environmental performance indicators. Norway has been successful at this due to a combination of legislature and policy, and this is what I believe Canada should try to emulate.

Boyd and Macfarlane both bring up important points concerning environmental rights. As I mentioned earlier, my views are more in line with Boyd as I believe that a constitutional amendment would be a first step in environmental reform. That said, it would not be sufficient as solid policy reform would be necessary to ensure that proper action is taken.

 

–      Oseyi

 

References:

Boyd, D. R., & Macfarlane, E. (2014). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Retrieved December 02, 2020, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/

Along with people’s increasing awareness of environmental protection, more and more nations take action in improving their environment with policies, rules, and laws. However, Canada seems to hold a hesitant attitude to legalize people’s rights to a healthy stable environment. This paper aims to prove why Canadians should have a charter right to a healthy environment and support the decision of using civil laws to protect people’s rights and the environment. Canadians should have a charter right to a healthy environment because of the serious impact of the environment on people’s health, examples or warnings set from other nations, and the fundamental basis of the Canadian Constitution.

First, Canadians have a moral right to live in a healthy environment because the pollution can directly influence their living situations and cause diseases like cancers. Boyd argues that “widespread alarm about the dire effects of pollution had spawned an environmental movement that considered the protection of clean air, clean water and a healthy environment not just a desire, but a fundamental right” (Boyd and Macfarlane “Should”). Without clean water and air, people can easily become sick. The serious pollution can even increase the risk of cancers. Thus, people have the moral right to protect their own health by demanding a healthy living environment.

Second, examples of other nations have proven the necessity of protecting the environment and the effectiveness of using laws, which pushes Canada to make more effort in order to catch up with the global context. As is talked in the video, “more than 100 nations around the world recognize their citizens’ human right to the healthy environment” (“A Tale” 1:47). There has been a consensus reached in the global range in relation to the importance of a healthy environment for human rights. In order to protect citizens’ rights to a healthy environment, the most effective strategy is strong environmental laws. Norway is the positive example of how laws can help solve environmental issues and protect people’s rights. Brazil is a negative example of how neglecting the risk of pollution will damage people’s health. Canada should learn from other nations. So far, Canada only ranked 24^th out of 25 nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which indicates that the nation falls behind other developed nations in environmental protection (Boyd and Macfarlane “Should”). Canada doesn’t have a special situation that discourages it from learning from nations like Norway to benefit citizens by protecting the environment with laws.

Third, even though there might be opposition to the legitimacy due to concerns about political instability and the damage in the industrialization, this right echoes with the basis of the Canadian Constitution that benefits citizens and protects their rights. Suzuki argues that “It’s not about hindering industry; it’s about ensuring that companies operating in Canada as well as our governments, maintain the highest standards and that human health and well-being are always the priority” (“Canada”). There might be an opposition that doesn’t believe that people’s right to live in a healthy environment should be protected by laws. However, the fundamental basis of the Canadian Constitution is to protect citizens’ benefits and interests. According to Bill C-438, “Canadians have an individual and collective responsibility to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations” (“Bill”). There is nothing wrong or contradictory to legalize this right because it matches the Constitution well. The purpose is to legalize people’s right to a healthy environment in the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that the government has to protect the environment and people’s health according to the law.

Thus, people’s right to live in a healthy stable environment should be protected by civil law. It is the most effective way to protect people’s interests and health. Various examples from other nations have proven the effectiveness of using civil laws to protect this moral right. Canada should learn from other nations and make more effort in the environmental protection with a firm attitude.

 

-Kaize

References:

“A Tale of Two Valleys.” Class Video.

“Bill C-438.” Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Parliament of Canada.

Boyd, David, and Emmett Macfarlane. “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” Policy Opinions. Mar. 3, 2014.

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” HuffPost Canada. Nov. 5, 2014.

With the ongoing climate crisis, there is much talk about formalizing environmental rights for citizens. About 110 countries have legal documentation to guarantee the right to a healthy environment for its citizens. Canada, however, has not yet done such an action.  Hence, the question is asked: should Canada guarantee environmental rights to Canadians? If so, why? In this short blog post, I will support the right of living in a healthy and stable environment which should be protected by civil law.

Firstly, studies have shown that countries that guarantee their citizens a right to a healthy environment are quick to reduce their greenhouse gases and air pollution. Moreover, they provide better and quicker access to safe drinking water and sanitation.  As a country that is increasing its greenhouse gas emissions and has Indigenous communities that still don’t have access to clean drinking water, we need a swifter response on tackling these issues. The climate crisis is real, and its effects are no longer just seen in developing nations. Additionally, protecting the environment by setting higher industry standards is ultimately protecting not only human health but also the economy. Robust environmental protection inspires innovation and reduces health care costs for citizens and governments. Hence, there are multiple benefits in establishing environmental legislation.

Second, failing to establish the right to a healthy environment is a major injustice against Indigenous populations. This is not just because their communities have limited to no access to clean drinking water. Rather, it is mainly because many Indigenous communities have a religious connection to the land and water. Hence, deteriorated environments affect the mental and physical health of Indigenous peoples, but it also infringes upon their religious right to uphold their religious duties. Additionally, in order to proceed with reconciliation, this religious right should be protected by consulting Indigenous populations to incorporate Indigenous law into the legal system. One of my professors was from New Zealand and he states that the Māori people of New Zealand played a vital role in academic, political, and social systems. This is a sign of respect and humanity. Canada has continued to ignore Indigenous issues but does have aims to advance reconciliation. Protecting the right to a healthy environment will surely achieve this advancement.

An argument one can bring forward against the right to a healthy environment is that Canadian provinces such as the Yukon or Ontario already have environmental legislations present. Do we still need to have this right embedded in our constitution? The answer is still affirmative. The laws established by the provinces are weak politically and symbolically. Hence, we need to have a stronger legislative force to establish this right such as the federal government. We can see this example when the United Conservative Party came into power in Alberta and removed the New Democratic Party’s carbon tax. However, the Trudeau government slapped it back on to Alberta when issuing the federal carbon tax. Additionally, besides the strength behind constitutional power,  the constitution of a country reflects its citizens cherished ideals and morals. Hence, it is not only politically important but also symbolically. Having this right in our constitution gives Canadians the full power to hold governments and industries responsible if they ever infringe upon our right to a healthy and clean environment.

In the article “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement,” David Suzuki holds the opinion that Canada should join the environmental rights movement and establishes a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights in Parliament to make the federal government protect the environment for its citizens’ health. Throughout the article, he emphasizes the possibility of making such a law, the benefit of launching this movement, and the challenge that Canada faces about the environmental issue. This paper agrees with David Suzuki’s opinion that Canada should make laws to force the government to protect citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment.

It is ethical to protect people’s health by protecting their living environment. If the environment deteriorates, people’s health will be influenced directly. Suzuki argues that “we can’t live and be well without clean air and water, nutritious food and the numerous services that diverse and vibrant natural environments provide” (“Canada”). To some degree, environmental pollution can be regarded as a chronic poison to kill people. In a polluted environment, people are easier to become sick and get diseases like cancers. Thus, people have the right to protect their health by demanding a safe and healthy living environment. From the moral aspect, the government has the responsibility for protecting the environment for peoples’ health as long as the environment can influence people’s health.

Besides, this legalization should be supported because Canada also faces a serious environmental threat like most of the other nations in the world. Suzuki points out that the environmental issue in Canada has been serious enough as there are more than 1,000 effective drinking-water advisories, and half of the population “lives in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity” (Suzuki “Canada”). These alerts cannot be ignored. Before the problem has been too serious about being solved, the government should take action in time to control the pollution. The law is used to make the government pay enough attention to their inherent responsibility. Even without the law, the government still has the responsibility to protect the environment and benefit citizens’ health. The law is simply used to make the government pay enough attention and make it easy for citizens to maintain their rights and monitor the government’s behaviours.

However, some people might oppose that environmental protection means a discouragement of industrialization development, which will hinder economic development. However, environmental issues are crucial to people’s health and well-being, which should be prioritized to their economic status. People’s lives are much more valuable than money. Environmental protection doesn’t mean to protect people’s health in the current society. It also means to protect the health of future generations. If people in the current era seriously pollute the environment, then future generations have to suffer equal health threats. The long-term benefit of environmental protection is more significant than the purely economic value. Besides, environmental protection can also help boost economic development as “evidence shows strong environmental protection can benefit the economy by spurring innovation and competitiveness and reducing health-care costs” (Suzuki “Canada”). In essence, environmental protection is not contradictory to the development of industrialization. Moreover, this law can help industrialization develop on a sustainable and environment-friendly basis.

Therefore, I personally think Canada should take immediate action to join the environmental rights movement for its citizens’ health and rights. It is a moral responsibility that the Canadian government should shoulder. Faced with current environmental threats, Canada should learn from other nations to use effective laws to protect people’s health and create a system that supports people’s right to live in a safe and healthy environment.

-Linfeng Xie

Works Cited

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” Huffington Post. Nov. 5, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment

Many countries have begun to introduce a variety of laws to include the right to a healthy environment, but will these laws be successful in protecting their citizens against climate change and global pollutant? It’s widely known that ecosystems have no boundaries, rivers flow across countries, air circulates globally, and organisms travel across borders. Pollutants, similar to ecosystems, have no regard for state boundaries, and as such, should be considered at a global scale. It is essential to consider how a state could protect its citizen’s right to a healthy environment if environmental degradation is occurring outside of its boundaries? This blog will be applying the Canada’s lack of a right to a healthy environment to the discourse surrounding why it is crucial for an internationally accepted protection of a healthy environment.

Canada is one of the few countries that lack a right to a healthy environment in the charter of freedoms (Suzuki 2014). Despite the lack of a right to a healthy environment, Canadians continue to face health repercussions caused by various pollutants (Brinker 2017). With many drinking advisories and continued health concerns caused by poor environmental quality, why hasn’t Canada introduced a right to a healthy environment? Canada is not the only country lacking in the right to a healthy environment; there are dozens of states that have so far failed to protect its citizens.

Why does it matter if another country introduces the legal right to a healthy environment? Pollutants travel globally, and the repercussions of environmental degradation occur both locally, regionally, and globally. An anthropogenic forest fire at a local scale causes ecological degradation, but the smoke from the fire can spread throughout many countries causing increased health concerns at larger scales. How can a state protect its citizen’s right to a healthy environment if environmental degradation and pollution are occurring outside state boundaries? The answer is an internationally accepted right to a healthy environment. Countries must come together to determine what a healthy environment consists of and how to protect it. This is especially important in developing countries that are often disproportionately affected by the repercussions of environmental degradation (Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change 2019). Within Canada, minority groups are also disproportionately impacted by the consequences of environmental degradation; many indigenous communities experience health concerns related to pollutants at increased rates (Brinker 2017).

The need for an international right to healthy living is further supported by various ethical theories. To an ecocentrist, the ecosystem and every abiotic and biotic organism found within are morally significant (Rolston 1985). From this perspective, the right to a healthy environment is ethically essential in the duty of protecting both humans and the environment. Similarly, biocentrism argues that every living being is morally considerable, and as such, there is a moral imperative to protect not only humans from environmental degradation but all biotic organisms (Taylor 2011). Introducing the right to a healthy environment is only the first step in protecting people and the environment.

Without international acceptance and commitment to a universal right to a healthy environment, people globally will continue to experience the negative impact caused by pollutants and environmental degradation (Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change 2019). Canada is one of a dozen countries that has failed to implement a right to a healthy environment, despite the ongoing need (Suzuki 2014). There is an ethical obligation, not only to every person but to the environment, to introduce laws protecting people’s right to a healthy environment.

 

Brinker, Coleman. “Your Right to Live in a Healthy Environment: Phantom or Reality?” Centre for Constitutional Studies. University of Alberta Faculty of Law, August 4, 2017. https://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/2017/08/your-right-to-live-in-a-healthy-environment-phantom-or-reality/.

Suzuki, David. “Canada Has to Join the Environmental Rights Movement.” HuffPost Canada. HuffPost Canada, January 5, 2015. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment.

Rolston, Holmes. “Duties to Endangered Species.” BioScience 35, no. 11 (December 1985): 718–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310053.

Taylor, Paul W. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature.” Essay. In Respect for Nature: a Theory of Environmental Ethics, 197–218. Princeton Univ Pr, 2011.

“Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases,” October 8, 2019. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3516.doc.htm.

 

The idea of creating a clean environment within Canada has been increasingly discussed in the last 3 decades. Currently, we have not assigned the right to live in a healthy environment in our constitution, even though many in our current government administration champion the idea of becoming ecologically sustainable. David Boyd and Emmett Macfarlane make separate arguments on the most effective way to achieve the goal of healthy environment for Canadians. While I agree with the arguments made by Boyd to amend the constitution to include the right to a healthy environment, Macfarlane does pose an intriguing point relevant to the ethicality of imposing such a right through a constitutional amendment rather than the democratic system of the court of law. I will be analyzing arguments made by David Boyd and Emmett Macfarlane and finally, provide my insight to this topic and which of the arguments I am more inclined to support.

David Boyd holds the stance that the right to a clean environment should be enshrined in the Canadian constitution. He argues that while a law can provide some mitigation in the environmental destruction, it is not as solid of a document as the constitution, as it is considered the strongest of all laws and the law in which all others must be consistent with. Boyd argues that current methods do not rightfully protect the environment or Canadian citizens. This is apparent because we currently do not have the right to a clean environment in the constitution and currently regulate it through weaker laws, and as a result we are currently ranked 15^th out of 17 countries with regards to the comprehensive index of environmental performance indicators. Finally, Boyd provides insight to the successes of Norway, ranked 2^nd out of 17 countries, and has the right to a clean environment enshrined in their constitution since 1992. Boyd does not believe that this would solve all our problems instantaneously, but it would provide a solid base to prioritize environmental sustainability in the eyes of Canadians.

Emmett Macfarlane disagrees with Boyd on the idea that environmental rights should be put in the constitution but shares a belief that something needs to be done regarding the state of our environment. The prominent argument made by Macfarlane is that enshrining these rights in the constitution moves the power of decision-making from politicians and the government into the eyes of the court system. Macfarlane vehemently argues against a constitutional amendment on the opinion that judges do not have the legitimacy or competency to interpret environmental policy issues. This opinion is based on the intricate nature of such issues and the various disciplines required to successfully interpret the ecological, economic, and judicial aspects of environmental issues. Once a right is enshrined in the constitution, the ability to debate and compromise is lost as well.

I am inclined to disagree with Emmett Macfarlane. Instead of discussing what points made by Boyd I agree with (all of them), I will talk about a few of the arguments made by Macfarlane that lead me to disagree. Although I am unsure of the competency of judges regarding making informed decisions on environmental issues, petitioning the government to crack down on environmental issues is not an effective way to approach a sustainable Canada. This is the world we are currently living in and it has allowed us to destroy the Canadian environment in the interest of development. Secondly, I do not believe making compromises and debating over a clean environment is needed. If a group of peoples health is being deteriorated by industrial  or environmentally destructive activities, there should be no exception made on behalf of the effected group, and all responsibility and consequences should be placed on the party at fault. If we would like the achieve the goal of a healthy environment, we cannot make exceptions and the right to a clean environment must be enshrined into our constitution.

 

Source –

Source: Boyd, D. R. & MacFarlane, E. (2014). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Policy Options.

 

Environmental rights protect the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for human beings. Over 100 countries around the world, from France to Argentina, have incorporated environmental rights into their constitution. Canada is not one of these countries. In the following essay I will outline some of the arguments for and against having environmental rights in our constitution, and argue we should consider this strategy to protect both people and nature. 

 

The first argument in favour of this debate is that environmental rights guarantee further environmental protection. As David Boyd indicates, “constitutional environmental rights and responsibilities are a catalyst for stronger environmental laws.” (1) Aside from protecting nature, these rights would also protect people. As framed by Ecojustice Canada in “A Tale of Two Valleys” (2), human well being depends on the health of the natural setting that surrounds us, whether is the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, or the soil in which we grow food. In this line of thought, the recognition of environmental rights gives individuals and communities a chance to fight on legal grounds for a safe, clean environment. Boyd’s and Ecojustice Canada’s arguments are mostly centered around safeguarding the interests of human beings, but incorporating environmental rights in the constitution could also advance the interest of animals, plants, and ecosystems.

 

On the other hand, the arguments against environmental rights point out that constitutional rights aren’t the best way to prevent the degradation of nature and human health. In “Parliament, not the courts, should decide” (1), Emmett MacFarlane argues that the court system isn’t well equipped to solve environmental problems because the climate crisis demands greater public participation and debate. In his words, “rather than mobilizing for constitutional change, environmentalists should focus their energies on convincing governments, political parties and the public to commit to the pursuit of policies that will ensure environmental protection.” MacFrarlane’s second argument is that environmental rights would add to the inflationary call for the expansion of rights such as social welfare rights, property rights and animal rights. 

 

With regards to this last argument, the case of Whanganui River in New Zealand (3) gives an interesting example of the expansion of rights to non-human entities. Here, a river was granted legal personhood after decades of conflict between settlers and indigenous communities, who recognized the river as paramount to their lives and the wellbeing of the whole ecosystem. Around the world, there are similar examples where lakes, mountain ranges, or animal species are granted legal rights. Unlike MacFarlane, I consider this to be a positive achievement, especially in a time of global ecological crisis. Granting environmental rights to human beings, or personhood rights to non-human entities recognizes that the wellbeing of people and natural ecosystems is interconnected. This understanding is rooted in ecocentrism, an ethical framework that sees ecosystems as entities deserving moral considerability. From this approach, it is evident that human societies cannot prosper without the stability of the natural environment. 

 

Currently, our economic system prioritizes profits and economic growth over social and environmental stability. In this context, environmental rights are an important step towards considering the good of ecosystems in themselves, not just as functions of anthropogenic interests. In the words of Aldo Leopold, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self interest assumes falsely that the economic parts of the biotic system will function without the uneconomic parts” (4). 

 

Taking MacFrarlane’s position into account, it is important to realize that solely incorporating environmental rights into our constitution isn’t going to provide the necessary social change to tackle the environmental crisis. However, it is a good place to start. It signals that the government does care about the interests of people and nature beyond immediate economic or political benefit. As framed in BILL C-438 of the House of Commons of Canada (5), environmental rights would provide a balanced environment for all, which means “an environment of a quality that protects human and cultural dignity and human health and well-being and in which essential ecological processes are preserved for their own sake, as well as for the benefit of present and future generations.” This holistic approach of recognizing the value of ecosystems in themselves is related to the ecocentrist ethical framework of Aldo Leopold, who sees ecosystems (the Land) as a collective organism whose integrity and stability should be preserved. 

 

In conclusion, environmental rights should be recognized in the constitution of Canada because they would guarantee greater environmental protection and give people the opportunity to demand a clean, safe environment in which to live. Granting personhood rights to non-human entities such as rivers and mountains can also improve the living conditions for humans and non-humans across the country. At the same time, it is important to keep open the channels of public debate and participation on this issue, so that the courts aren’t the only responsables of regulating environmental protection. Lastly, environmental rights (specially as framed in Bill C-438) are a good opportunity to recognize the good of ecosystems in themselves, which makes this policy favorable from both an anthropocentric and an ecocentric framework. 

 

~Monica

 

References:

1. David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
2. Ecojustice Canada (2012). “A Tale of Two Valleys”. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g1m1k8uCsa0
3. David Freid (2018) The River Is Me. MEL Films. https://vimeo.com/288119812
4. Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf
5. House of Commons of Canada (2019). Bill C-438. An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts. First Session, 42th Parliament, 64-65-66-67-68 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017-2018-2019

At the foundation of our modern legal and judicial system is the belief in Rights of Man to which all human beings are entitled. Because humans are rational, self-aware and autonomous beings, Kantians would argue, they are inherently valuable and worthy of respect to their dignity. To protect this dignity, universal human rights are adopted to outline the necessary conditions for humans to lead a dignified life. Of course, we must be alive and healthy to lead a dignified life, which is why, though some rights may vary from location to location, human health is always prioritised. Increasingly, we are coming to the realisation that the environment in which we live in is a major component of our health and is not nearly as protected as other components such as food and water. Instead, the environment is designated as public space. What follows is this space being used and polluted by some more than others and to the detriment of us all. Is it any wonder that some would argue for new and more stringent laws to protect the environment which they perceive as an extension to their health and well-being?

An article entitled, “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” features two parts. In the first, David Boyd argues for the entrenchment of our environmental rights in the Constitution to empower the courts to prosecute environmental crimes, compel citizens and corporations to behave more responsibly and more. After all, constitutional rights are harder to dismiss for the sake of expediency or convenience. However, the second part of the article is a rebuttal by Emmett Macfarlane who doubts the effectiveness of this strategy. He notes that many countries struggle to fulfill the promises of even more crucial constitutional rights, so that alone guarantees nothing. It would also shift the moral dilemmas of society from the political sphere where there can be discourse, to the judicial sphere where there is only arbitration.

Being a person largely ignorant and unfamiliar with the intricacies and subtle manoeuvring of courts and politics, I struggle to provide an informed commentary. Articles such as the one above only garner feelings of confusion and inadequacy. Like Macfarlane, I am left questioning the protections guaranteed by constitutional rights and the potential damage caused by lack of public debate to resolve moral dilemmas. At the same time, I am sceptical that the political system would consistently champion environmental causes, without it turning into just another partisan issue to rally for or against as a show of party loyalty. While constitutions tend to be more stable and longer-lived than political parties, would it still be able to safeguard environmental concerns from waxing and waning with the shifting of political tides? And on and on my questions continue with no answers to be found.

I suspect I am not the only one facing this problem. Evidence of the limits of human knowledge and attention are omnipresent and our collective ignorance has always been a barrier to make rational, informed decisions. Though we may agree that environmental concerns about important and necessary to a dignified life, we seem to disagree about most everything else. These disagreements range from the philosophical, such as whether the environment is inherently value regardless of its usefulness to humans, to the practical, such as whether an increase of 1^oC in global temperature is really that bad. While it is easy to prescribe education and information as a cure to ignorance, the reality is more complicated. Who would you say is more dangerous, a person who knows nothing or a person who knows just enough to think they know everything? If the simple answers and easy solutions were readily available, environmental issues would not be such a contentious dilemma. It seems that all I can add to this debate is a remainder to be open to new information, be sceptical of its source and try to understand the limits of your ignorance and that of others.

Keisey

Works Cited

Boyd, D. R., & Macfarlane, E. (2014, March 3). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Retrieved November 30, 2020, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/

“More than 1,000 drinking-water advisories are in effect in Canada at any time, many of them in First Nations communities. More than half of us live in areas where air quality reaches dangerous levels of toxicity. And from Grassy Narrows and Sarnia’s Chemical Valley in Ontario to Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, people are being poisoned because industrial interests and profits are prioritized over their right to live healthy lives.” (Huffington Post)

This quote, written by Senior Editor of the David Suzuki Foundation, Ian Hanington, might cause some raised eyebrows; how is it that the government of Canada let these widespread, toxic environmental situations happen in the first place? Is it not written in Section 7 of the Candian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that, “…everyone in Canada has, ‘the right to life, liberty and security of the person…'”? (Brinker) Technicially, Canadian citizens do have this right, however there is no expansion of rights that would include the right to a healthy environment specifically at the moment. (Macfarlane)

In 2011, Bill C-469 (the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights) was the closest Canada ever came to producing a right to a healthy environment with “unanimous support of the opposition party” (Boyd) but still did not get passed as a law by the Canadian Constitution. So even with the unanimous support of the opposition party, the leaders of the government of Canada still are not concerned about expanding the rights of their people that would ensure their health is protected from all the pollution that they allow within their borders. When will the government address this threat of basic well-being?

As a passionate environmentalist, I think that having a right to live in a healthy environment should be considered as one of our basic needs (such as food, water, shelter) as human beings since the environment as a whole (plants, animals, water, earth, etc) provides us with these crucial basic needs for survival. Yet we can see from the article cited above from the Huffington Post, that unessential industrial interests and profits are placed above the importance of what we need to survive on this country that is being so thoroughly damaged. Of course, it can be argued that Canada is not among the leaders that contribute the most to polluting the world, yet it should not exempt the Canadian government from protecting its citizens from pollution that might hinder their right to life, liberty, and security.

Taking examples from abroad, Coleman Brinker notes how the Dutch recognize that, “…[it] was the government’s constitutional duty to protect and improve the living environment and to maintain the country in a ‘habitable state'” in his article “Your Right to Live in a Healthy Environment: Phantom or Reality?” I find it interesting, to say the least, that the Dutch government considers themselves responsible for the living environment for their citizens and the Candian government does not; what exactly makes these two countries so different where the protection of the people and the environment are not significant enough to pass a bill that would allow all Canadians the right to a healthy environment?

I think the main concern of the government of Canada, as stated above, is industrial interests and the profits that they produce. In my opinion, the economy as a whole is very necessary and crucial to the success of our country, (such as the contribution to lowering unemployment)  however I argue that adopting the right to a healthy environment should be placed above the importance of the economy, as I mentioned that the environment provides us humans with the necessities to live. Therefore, the government should make our environment/health/rights/well-being a priority first and foremost, not their wallets.

Overall, this position that the government of Canada holds on not establishing the right to a healthy environment is not just anthropocentric (regarding humankind as the most important aspect of existence) that would disregard the environment and its non-human beings, but avaricious to the point of denying all Canadian citizens their right to life, liberty, and security.

-Melissa

Works Cited:

(Ian Hanington): https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/environmental-rights_b_6103258.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-right-to-a-healthy-environment

(Coleman Brinker): https://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/2017/08/your-right-to-live-in-a-healthy-environment-phantom-or-reality/

(David Boyd and Emmett Macfarlane):

Should environmental rights be in the constitution?

 

Bill C-438 is “an act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts” (House of Commons of Canada, p1). This act is to ensure that Canadians have both individual and collective right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. It focuses on our responsibility to protect the environment. Also, how does the ecosystem impact us and future generations’ well-being? Furthermore, this act would require public engagement to protect the environment. Thus, it suggests that every people have the right to access information about this act and participate in the decision-making process (House of Commons of Canada).

In “Enshrine our right to clean air and water in the Constitution,” Boyd argued that having a healthy and ecologically balanced environment should be our fundamental right. According to the environment could negatively impact human health. As most of the resources, such as water which is contaminated by the industries. Thus, we owe a duty to protect the environment. And it could eliminate the risk of illness and death by access to clean resources. Additionally, Boyd has put the Constitution beyond any other laws by claimed that it is the highest and strongest law. The federal government is the highest level of government proposed. So that the provincial and territorial governments will implement the law. It could operate throughout the whole nation. Then, applied to the real world, countries with green constitutions have a smaller ecological footprint. And it could reduce air pollution ten times faster than in Canada (Boyd).

Nonetheless, Macfarlane has rejected Boyd’s argument by claiming that if you cannot convince the government, political parties, and the public to commit to existing strong environmental policies. It is unlikely governments would commit to entrenching rights in the Constitution. We need their engagements to protect and take responsibility for the environment. If they cannot commit to that, it is unknown that fundamental rights would be the appropriate solution to environmental issues.  Canada faces many critical policy problems, such as an aging population and poverty (Macfarlane). And the aging population and poor people did not have their right to well-being. How can we prioritize environmental rights above all these people who suffer from the issue of aging and poverty in Canada? Besides to ensure people’s engagement to the right. We need substantial provincial consent to ensure people’s participation. However, we are uncertain that the provincial and territorial governments will follow the Constitution. The Constitution may not be the most effective tool to deal with the environmental problem. Moreover, for countries with green constitutions. It is unclear whether we have a fundamental right is meaningful as these countries have different records on the environment. No way we could compare Canada with other countries that have green constitutions until we can clarify that.

In my opinion, I would agree with Macfarlane’s opinion on we should get a commitment to existing environmental policies before we consider the human right to the environment since the court system is more complicated than political debates. And there are many political issues under the court system so, challenging for the public to engage with it. Although, Bill C-438 suggests that people would have access to the information and decision-making process. It is doubtful whether the aging population and other marginalized groups have a voice in court. I would oppose Macfarlane’s idea that there are significant policy problems other than environmental issues. So, we should consider the complexity in the system before we own the right to the environment. However, the environment did impact our lives, especially the vulnerable population in our society include the aging population. Because their immune system is not as good as young people, they are defenseless to diseases. The environmental issues would significantly impact their well-being and health. Also, poor people suffer the most under the impact of the environment. Since they lack access to resources and infrastructures, they do not have the same capacity as wealthy and powerful people to deal with the changes. Subsequently, these policy problems in Canada are interrelated to the environment.

Ruoxin

 

References

House of Commons of Canada. “BILL C-438: An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts.” 2019.

Boyd R., David and Macfarlane, Emmett. “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” 2014.

Many will agree that Canada needs to do more about our lackluster environmental laws. Boyd, in his piece ‘Enshrine our right to clear air and water in the Constitution’, points out that countries with constitutionalized environmental rights appear to have greater success in environmental protection. I agree with Boyd in that constitutional recognition of a healthy environment is something that we as Canadians must strive for. Boyd lists three possibilities for achieving this: “direct amendment of the Constitution, litigation resulting in a court decision that there is an implicit right to a healthy environment in section 7 of the Charter (which states the right to life, liberty and security of the person), or judicial reference resulting in a court decision that there is an implicit right to a healthy environment in section 7” (2014). It is my opinion that as cumbersome as a constitutional amendment may be it is more realistic than attaining a guaranteed constitutional right to a clean environment via judicial interpretation of section 7. 

As Boyd mentions, there is currently a case before the courts arguing that a refinery in their community is causing pollution which is putting their health in jeopardy (2014). This in turn, they argue, violates their section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person. This will not be successful in court. There is a reason polluting industries are not all being sued up and down town endlessly. This is because even if we were to operate under a judicial interpretation that any action that could threaten your life on any scale was unconstitutional under section 7, it would still be near impossible to prove. Even if you develop a cancer and feel it is a result of living in a polluted community from a nearby refinery it is hard to articulate in court that you developed the illness as a direct cause of industry. The sun gives cancer, how can you confirm in court that your cancer is a result of the pollution and not something else? Pollution is obviously harmful to human health, it therefore seems obvious then that it is violating our section 7 charter right, but to quote Trump: ‘sounds good, doesn’t work’. It is too much of a legal challenge to prove that a life threatening condition was caused directly and exclusively from industrial pollution. Thus legal challenges are not the answer for securing environmental rights. I believe that, as messy as it will be, we have to fight to open the constitution to change if we want to get serious about protecting our air and water.

I also find flaws in the idea that section 35 dealing with Aboriginal rights could be used to secure environmental rights. This would guarantee clean air and water but for only a fraction of the population. “The environment is a cornerstone of [Aboriginal] rights, given that the content of Aboriginal rights is intrinsically tied to the land and to traditional customs and activities like hunting and fishing” (Boyd, 2014). This line of reasoning also seems arbitrary to me. Hunting and fishing is ancestral to every culture. More, culture is fluid so I don’t see why Aboriginal culture would be seen as fixed in time, while every other peoples cultures remain fluid and ergo would not be privileged to the environmental rights being sought as an addon to section 35. I think if we are to have environmental rights it must be for all Canadians, new and old, and not just for a certain demographic, so again I believe the only course of action is to open the constitution. 

David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/

After learning about the different perspectives on anti-extinction technology last week, we will focus on Canada’s environmental rights debate this week. Although there is still academic disagreement on whether environmental rights are a basic human right or a fundamental constitutional right, an increasing number of countries are incorporating environmental rights into their constitutional texts.

There are now many voices arguing that Canada should also actively incorporate environmental rights into its constitution. David Boyd critics that Canada’s environmental problems have caused many health consequences for Canadians. Using Norway as an example, David counters voices that question whether the inclusion of environmental rights in the constitution will make a real difference. In fact, Norway has recognized the people’s right to the environment in its constitution since 1992, and the strong environmental laws based on the constitution have generated good economic and ecological benefits for the country. He pointed out that the move to constitutionalize environmental rights would not undermine national unity but rather contribute to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. 

Emmett Macfarlane holds a different opinion on this. He agreed that Canada has substantial environmental issues that need to be addressed, but enshrining environmental rights in the constitution may not be an appropriate solution at this time. He notes that “entrenching rights effectively transfers the decision-making authority to the courts.” However, it is questionable “whether judges have either the legitimacy or the competence to delve into the relevant policy issues. “It would be very challenging to add a broad right to a healthy environment to the charter because it requires substantial provincial consent. He believes that the key to solving environmental problems lies in the effective realization of governments’ political commitment to environmental policies.

As a fundamental law, the constitution provides the legal basis for the state’s activities and citizens. I believe that incorporating environmental rights into the constitution is the only way to improve the environmental legal system. In the context of the environmental crisis, environmental rights have become the premise and basis for the existence of the right to life, the right to development, and other human rights. Environmental pollution and destruction can seriously undermine or threaten existing human rights, and if environmental rights, which are the foundation of all basic human rights, are not brought into constitutional focus, other human rights will be left unprotected. Take the “Flammable water” case as an example. While there is no conclusive evidence linking groundwater contamination to hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry, even with evidence, it is difficult for victims to win lawsuits against energy giants. Without the support of environmental rights, the best possible outcome would be a large payout, but the oil industry would not stop using this technology, which can be very profitable. 

Aldo Leopold, a representative of the ecocentrists, proposed an idea with many similarities with environmental rights. Recognizing the value of the environment and the land itself and actively protecting the stability and prosperity of the environment as a whole is beneficial to human well-being and other members of the eco-community.

In conclusion, I believe that the Canadian Constitution should recognize the environmental rights of its citizens. As living creatures, humans cannot survive without clean water, atmosphere, soil, and other environmental elements. Thus, humans should see ourself as a member of the natural community, where the moral community’s scope needs to be expanded to include humans and nature itself. While the mere act of amending the constitution does not directly address environmental issues, it is an indispensable start.

-Dengnan Chen

References:

1. David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
2. Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf