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.