“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):
Hi Melissa,
Your blog post offers some very important insight and statements regarding the consideration of a right to the environment in Canada. Your first paragraph definitely grabs the reader’s attention and brings the environmental rights debate to the forefront of readers’ thoughts. I also think the comparison of the Canadian and Dutch governments was a good addition; as both governments are in charge of first world countries and logically, connections should exist between their policies given their similar status. I’d personally agree with you that the right to a healthy environment should be a basic need. However, I believe there is room for further clarification and debate on your view that “the right to a healthy environment should be placed above the importance of the economy”. Specifically, I’d argue that rather than considering these rights to be above the importance of the economy, government and people alike should consider them as equal considerations in any decision-making process. Placing environmental rights above the value of the economy would lead to decisions that undervalue the importance of economic stability for environmental access, which would cause long-term implications and consequences. For example, if we were to undervalue oil and gas extraction in Alberta for environmental safety resulting in the closure of the oil sands. Many people would experience job loss and the quality of life in Alberta would plummet. Instead, it would be safer to invest in innovation and technology to sustain oil and gas extraction while decreasing the impact it has on the environment. The eventual goal being the development of funding and research into sustainable resource projects to disassociate the Alberta economy from oil and gas. Now, when the value of both sectors is valued equally, it’s more likely that drastic change will occur long term; which will inevitably benefit the environment and our access to it. Nevertheless, your point on the avaricious nature of current government agencies and policies is a reality that we face and is definitely something that must be overcome before any meaningful change can be created.