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/