Environmental Law and the Citizen

• Author: Jamie Benidickson
• Pages: 337-352

337

CHAPTER 15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

AND THE CITIZEN

The importance of individual commitment to environmental protection

cannot by overemphasized. As Gonthier J of the Supreme Court of Can-

ada remarked, “[e]veryone is aware t hat individually and collectively, we

are responsible for preserving the natural env ironment,”1 and legislat ion

is replete with such observations as “all persons should be responsible

for the consequences to the environment of their actions,”2 or with ref-

erences to “the shared responsibility of all . . . citizens for ensuring the

protection, enhancement and wise use of the environment through

individual actions.”3 The foundation for these responsibilities is more

than exhortation, for responsibilities are conceptually integrated with

environmental rights:

Since the correlat ive of rights is respon sibility, if we have these rig hts we

also have the responsibility to respect those r ights in others and must

be prepared for constra ints on our own conduct. So there is a notion of

duty or responsibil ity, in addition to the not ion of entitlement .4

How, apart from liability under pollution laws and other general

environmental legisl ation, law promotes and facilitates environmenta lly

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

2 Environment Act, RSY 2002 c 76, Preamble.

3 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, SA 1992, c E-13.3, s 2(f). See also

Environment Act, SNS 1994-95, c 1, s 2(b)(iv).

4 EL Hughes & D Iyalomhe, “Subst antive Environmental R ights in Canada”

(1998–99) 30 Ottawa Law Review 240.

ENVIRONMENTAL L AW338

responsible individual action is considered in this chapter primarily

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

and the Environmental Choice program for consumers.

A. THE AUTOMOBILE

According to the 2011 National Household Survey prepared by Statistics

Canada, roughly 15.4 million Canadian s commuted to work. Just under

three quarters (74 percent or 11.4 million people) of commuters drove

a vehicle to work while an additional 5.6 percent (867,000 people) trav-

elled to work as passengers.5 Many and varied environmental effects

of the automobile demonstrate linkages between individual behaviour

and environmental quality. The equally varied responses demonstrate

the complexity and the persistence of the challenge of reducing the

environmental impact of a way of life.

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

emissions, automobile traff‌ic also makes continuing demands on land-

use priorities, leadi ng to the destruction of agricultural and other ru ral

lands and in general undermining environmental amenities.

In responding to the envi ronmental issues raised by automobile use,

Canadian governments utilize an array of instruments and incentives.

Attempts to address the problem of automobile traff‌ic volume have

included improved public-transit services, dedicated lanes to favour

multi-passenger vehicles, and, on occasion, tax measures designed to

promote alternative forms of transport such as bicycles. In some set-

tings we are now seeing toll cha rges on desig nated routes or surch arges

for travel during rush hour. Although planning and urban-design prin-

ciples are gradually being reassessed with 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 Trans-

portation & Communications), when plaintiffs, rural landowners whose

retirement residence was adversely affected by the construction of a

highway nearby, brought a nuisance claim, McIntyre J remarked:

In the balancing process inherent in the law of nuisance, their util-

ity [highways] for the public good far outweighs the disruption and

injury which is v isited upon some adjoining lands.6

5 Statistics C anada, “Commuting to Work,” online: www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-

enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-012-x2011003_1-eng.cfm.

6 St Pierre v Ontario (Minister of Transportat ion & Communications), [1987] 1 SCR

906 at 916.