Environmental Law and the Citizen

• Author: Jamie Benidickson
• Pages: 331-346

331

CH AP TER 15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

AND THE CITIZEN

The importance of individual commitment to environmental protection

cannot by overemphasized. A s Mr. Justice Gonthier of the Supreme Court

of Canada remarked, “[e]veryone is aware that individually and collect-

ively, we are responsible for preserving the natural env ironment,”1 and

legislation is replete with such obser vations as “all persons should be

responsible for the consequences to the environment of their actions,”2

or with references to “the shared responsibility of all . . . citizens for

ensuring the protection, enh ancement and wise use of the environ-

ment through i ndividual actions.”3 The foundat ion for these respon-

sibilities is more than exhortation, for responsibilitie s are conceptually

integrate d with env ironmental right s:

Since the correlat ive of right s is responsibility, if we have these r ights

we also have the re sponsibility to re spect those r ights in others a nd

must be prepared for constra ints on our own conduct. So there is a no-

tion of duty or responsibil ity, in addition to the notion of entitlement.4

How, apart from liability under pollution laws and other general

environmental legisl ation, law promotes and facilitates envi ronment-

ally responsible indiv idual action is considered in this chapter prima rily

1 R v Canadian Pacif‌ic Ltd , [1995] 2 SCR 1028 at 1075.

2 Environment Act, SY 1991, c 5, s 5(2)(e).

3 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, SA 1992, c E-13.3, s 2(f) [AEPEA].

4 EL Hughes & D Iyalomhe, “Subst antive Environmenta l Rights in Canada”

(1998–99) 30 Ottawa L Rev 240.

ENVIRONMENTAL L AW

332

with reference to the automobile, household waste, and energy eff‌iciency,

and the Environmental Choice program for consumers.

A. TH E AUT OMOBILE

In 1994 at least one member of almost two-thirds of Ca nadian house-

holds commuted to work; for nearly 80 percent of these households,

the motor vehicle was the preferred mode of travel, and the overall

situation was very much the same in 20 06.5 Many and varied environ-

mental effects of the automobile demonstrate linkages between individ-

ual behaviour and env ironmental quality. The equally varied responses

demonstrate the complexity and the persi stence of the challenge of re-

ducing the environmental impact of a way of life.

In terms of impact, now intim ately associated with greenhouse gas

emissions, automobile traff‌ic makes continuing demands on land-use

priorities, leading to t he destruction of agricultural and other rural

lands and in general undermining environment al amenities.

In responding to the environmental issues raised by automobile

use, Canadian governments utilize an array of instr uments and incen-

tives. Attempts to address t he problem of automobile traff‌ic volume

have included improved public-transit services, dedicated lanes to fa-

vour multipassenger vehicles, and, on occasion, ta x measures designed

to promote alternative forms of transport such as bicycles. However, in

the early 1990s the only province to see an i ncrease in public-transit

use by commuters was British Columbia, where the l ight-rail transit

system was expanded on t he lower mainland.6 In some settings we are

now seeing toll charges on designated routes or surcharges for travel

during rush hour. Although planning and urban-design principles are

gradually being reassessed w ith a view to reducing actual needs for

transport, courts have emphasized the conventional utility of highway

corridors. Thus, in St. Pierre v Ontario (Minister of Transportation &

Communications), when plaintiffs, rural landowners whose retirement

residence was adversely affected by the const ruction of a highway near-

by, brought a nuisance claim, McIntyre J. remarked:

5 Households and the Environm ent, 1994 (Ottawa: Statistics Ca nada, 1995) at 14–15

[Households, 1994]; Household s and the Environment, 2006 (Ottawa: Stat istics

Canada, 20 07) at 26 [Household s, 2006].

6 Households, 1994, above note 5 at 15.