Discussion of Macfarlane and Boyd’s View on Bill C-438

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.

print

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *