Expect to Pay for Steven Guilbeault's Secret Environmental Rights Plan
July 25th 2023
Without fleshing out what it actually means, a new “environmental rights” regime received royal assent this week. It’s clumsy lawmaking at its finest — but that probably matters less to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault than the applause he received.
Bill S-5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The law allows Guilbeault and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos to introduce an entirely new environmental rights framework for Canadians. We don’t know what that framework will entail, because it was deliberately left out of the bill.
Despite months of parliamentary debates and committee meetings going back to February 2022, parliamentarians have no idea what exactly they passed into law. All they know is that there are now “environmental rights” that will draw from a few predetermined principles, and the details will be decided by Guilbeault and Duclos within the next two years.
There is some good to the bill: it beefs up Canada’s approach to dealing with toxic chemicals, for example. But appended to these modifications to the regulatory framework for harmful substances is the promise of a vague new right that is supposed to protect Canadians. Cleverly, the Liberal government is able to evade criticism for the framework by writing it into law before it’s even been designed.
Parliament only provided four requirements for this environmental rights framework, and they don’t tell us much. The framework will need to be informed by the principles of “environmental justice,” the avoidance of disproportionate harm to vulnerable populations, the principle of “non-regression” and the principle of “intergenerational equity.”
These terms aren’t defined, but Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation told a parliamentary committee back in November that non-regression means that protections can’t be rolled back, while intergenerational equity “requires fairness among generations in the use and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources.”
The act also stipulates that “reasonable limits” be set out for the new “right to a healthy environment,” as well as mechanisms to ensure the right is met. Translation: we’re not sure where this right begins and ends, but the minister has to conduct studies on it and construct a government apparatus to make sure the right is being fulfilled.
We already have a tool to deal with harm caused by big polluters: lawsuits. Presumably, this new federal mechanism would find another way outside the courts to require compensation to be paid. It sounds nice, but it very well could lead to greater cost and less certainty for the parties involved.
Vagueness is a key characteristic of the environmental right: Parliament designated “vulnerable populations” as having extra protection and consideration under the law, but these people were never defined in any real sense.
The statutory definition that was written is circular: “vulnerable population means a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances.” Vulnerable populations thus might refer to homeless people, or those with low incomes — or anyone who isn’t a white, able-bodied male.
It’s hard to say how this environmental rights framework will operate when it’s finally up and running. Some committee witnesses predicted it would mean that the federal government would need to guarantee certain environmental standards, and downplayed the risk of government being on the hook for billions of dollars in damages. Others suggested it could lead to reparations for “communities impacted by long-lasting systemic racism.”
Parliamentarians should have tried to figure out how to balance the right to a healthy environment with the need for a vibrant economy, yet there seemed to be little discussion of this in committee. Conservative MP Ed Fast tried to get environmental law Prof. Dayna Scott to think about how best to balance industry and personal health, but got nowhere.
“I guess I don’t have a perfect answer for that. I think it’s this committee’s job to put the priority on protecting public health and the environment,” Scott told him.
Parliament should have done a better job finding that balance. Much human development can be said to be bad for the environment: having children, cultivating food and practically every other part of our daily lives creates some kind of environmental impact.
Sure, capping oil drilling and mining could be said to improve the environment, but it would come at a massive cost to the economy — on a human level, more of us would become poor. Given the immense economic benefits and relatively minor environmental impact of Canadian oil production, more consideration should have been given to establishing reasonable limits to environmental rights.
Tight environmental standards have turned out to be a hindrance in Europe, to the point where the European Union is now in the process of reducing permitting requirements for renewable energy projects. Last year, Europe’s energy crisis was so bad that people were turning to inefficient wood burning for heat, and some countries even loosened their logging laws.
Pakistan plans to quadruple its coal use because it can’t afford cleaner-burning natural gas. The balance between protection and prosperity is a delicate one that can lead to unforeseen consequences, and it should have been achieved through discussion, rather than behind Guilbeault’s office doors.
Environmental protection is important. And at its core, it’s not a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn’t be. The problem here is that the scope and meaning of this new right bestowed upon Canadians, as well as its limits, are not being set out through parliamentary consensus. We’re in the hands of Guilbeault and Duclos for this one, and neither have proven to be competent leaders who practice restraint.
Credits to National Post, Jamie Sarkonak
nationalpost.com
Bill S-5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The law allows Guilbeault and Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos to introduce an entirely new environmental rights framework for Canadians. We don’t know what that framework will entail, because it was deliberately left out of the bill.
Despite months of parliamentary debates and committee meetings going back to February 2022, parliamentarians have no idea what exactly they passed into law. All they know is that there are now “environmental rights” that will draw from a few predetermined principles, and the details will be decided by Guilbeault and Duclos within the next two years.
There is some good to the bill: it beefs up Canada’s approach to dealing with toxic chemicals, for example. But appended to these modifications to the regulatory framework for harmful substances is the promise of a vague new right that is supposed to protect Canadians. Cleverly, the Liberal government is able to evade criticism for the framework by writing it into law before it’s even been designed.
Parliament only provided four requirements for this environmental rights framework, and they don’t tell us much. The framework will need to be informed by the principles of “environmental justice,” the avoidance of disproportionate harm to vulnerable populations, the principle of “non-regression” and the principle of “intergenerational equity.”
These terms aren’t defined, but Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation told a parliamentary committee back in November that non-regression means that protections can’t be rolled back, while intergenerational equity “requires fairness among generations in the use and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources.”
The act also stipulates that “reasonable limits” be set out for the new “right to a healthy environment,” as well as mechanisms to ensure the right is met. Translation: we’re not sure where this right begins and ends, but the minister has to conduct studies on it and construct a government apparatus to make sure the right is being fulfilled.
We already have a tool to deal with harm caused by big polluters: lawsuits. Presumably, this new federal mechanism would find another way outside the courts to require compensation to be paid. It sounds nice, but it very well could lead to greater cost and less certainty for the parties involved.
Vagueness is a key characteristic of the environmental right: Parliament designated “vulnerable populations” as having extra protection and consideration under the law, but these people were never defined in any real sense.
The statutory definition that was written is circular: “vulnerable population means a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances.” Vulnerable populations thus might refer to homeless people, or those with low incomes — or anyone who isn’t a white, able-bodied male.
It’s hard to say how this environmental rights framework will operate when it’s finally up and running. Some committee witnesses predicted it would mean that the federal government would need to guarantee certain environmental standards, and downplayed the risk of government being on the hook for billions of dollars in damages. Others suggested it could lead to reparations for “communities impacted by long-lasting systemic racism.”
Parliamentarians should have tried to figure out how to balance the right to a healthy environment with the need for a vibrant economy, yet there seemed to be little discussion of this in committee. Conservative MP Ed Fast tried to get environmental law Prof. Dayna Scott to think about how best to balance industry and personal health, but got nowhere.
“I guess I don’t have a perfect answer for that. I think it’s this committee’s job to put the priority on protecting public health and the environment,” Scott told him.
Parliament should have done a better job finding that balance. Much human development can be said to be bad for the environment: having children, cultivating food and practically every other part of our daily lives creates some kind of environmental impact.
Sure, capping oil drilling and mining could be said to improve the environment, but it would come at a massive cost to the economy — on a human level, more of us would become poor. Given the immense economic benefits and relatively minor environmental impact of Canadian oil production, more consideration should have been given to establishing reasonable limits to environmental rights.
Tight environmental standards have turned out to be a hindrance in Europe, to the point where the European Union is now in the process of reducing permitting requirements for renewable energy projects. Last year, Europe’s energy crisis was so bad that people were turning to inefficient wood burning for heat, and some countries even loosened their logging laws.
Pakistan plans to quadruple its coal use because it can’t afford cleaner-burning natural gas. The balance between protection and prosperity is a delicate one that can lead to unforeseen consequences, and it should have been achieved through discussion, rather than behind Guilbeault’s office doors.
Environmental protection is important. And at its core, it’s not a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn’t be. The problem here is that the scope and meaning of this new right bestowed upon Canadians, as well as its limits, are not being set out through parliamentary consensus. We’re in the hands of Guilbeault and Duclos for this one, and neither have proven to be competent leaders who practice restraint.
Credits to National Post, Jamie Sarkonak
nationalpost.com
Click to close