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 15th out of 17 countries with regards to the comprehensive index of environmental performance indicators. Finally, Boyd provides insight to the successes of Norway, ranked 2nd 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.
Hi Juniper30,
You raise some very intriguing concerns with Emmett Macfarlane’s arguments in this blog post. Particularly, I enjoyed your thoughts on the idea of compromise regarding environmental health. There are many instances where human health is put aside or largely ignored to benefit a given industry. For example, many mining operations dump their effluent into the surrounding rivers and lakes, polluting the area and biocontaminating the fish and other wildlife. For the people that depend on those fish for food on a daily basis, this is a major problem. Yet, their health is disregarded since the mining operation is flourishing.
Additionally, I’d like to add that I’d be inclined to agree that petitions and similar methods of attempting to enact environmental protection legislation would simply not cut it. Industry and furthering our development seem to normally take precedence over such matters. I gather that this is particularly because of its economic benefits. An industry may be negatively impacting its surrounding natural environment, but be bringing a good amount of money into the given area. It would seem, in this case, it would be considerably more difficult to close them down or get them to pay money to protect the ecosystem.
– Leah
This is a good post that presents different aspects of the issue. You did a good job in presenting both David Boyd’s and Emmett Macfarlane’s arguments and then stating your own opinion. The logic is very clear. Also, you effectively present your own opinion and point out what you think is wrong with Emmett Macfarlane’s opinion. It is a convincing post to reveal different aspects of the problem. Both arguments and counterarguments are considered well in this post. With a good structure, readers can immediately grasp your opinion and understand this issue from a comprehensive perspective. You also state your own argument to oppose Emmett Macfarlane’s opinion. However, I have some suggestions that can make this post better. First, it is better if you can use citations in your post to support your opinion. As you mentioned both David Boyd’s and Emmett Macfarlane’s arguments, you can use citations in proper parts to show how you understand the source and use it effectively to support your argument. Second, I think it is better if you can state your opinion first in the first paragraph. You don’t have to prove your opinion in the first paragraph. You can simply present which side of the argument you agree with. It can help readers understand your opinion first and then see how you support your opinion in a reasonable way.
-Kaize