Environmental Rights

AuthorJamie Benidickson
Pages52-69
52
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL
R IGHT S
A. HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The attraction of human rights or constitutional safeguards for en-
vironmental interests lies in the improved position of environment in
the legal hierarchy in both practical and symbolic ways. Proponents
envisage environmenta l rights as a philosophical and practical advance
that would not only acknowledge the fundamental importance of en-
vironmental quality as a public value, but also facilitate enforceability
by helping to overcome existing obstacles to environmental protection.
These obstacles include constraints on opportunities for participation
in judicial and administrative decision making, broad delegations of
discretion conferred upon government off‌icials, and the signif‌icant
weight or priority accorded to property or similar competing interests
in cases of conf‌lict with other values of the community.
While discussion of environmental rights has not been prominent
in Canada, the subject has certainly not been ignored. In the words of
the Law Reform Commission of Canada, for example, “a fundamental
and widely shared value is indeed seriously contravened by some en-
vironmental pollution, a value which we will refer to as the right to a
safe environment.”1 Recently, in discussing a provision of Quebec’s En-
1 Law Reform Comm ission of Canada, Crimes Against the Environme nt (Otta wa:
The Commission, 1985) at 8.
Environment al Rights53
vironment Quality Act dealing with a statutory entitlement to a healthy
environment and to which we will shortly refer, the Supreme Court of
Canada stated:
To ensure that this right may be effectively exercised, and that the
duties created to give effect to it are executed, the Act provides for a
variety of mechanisms for taking action. Various schemes are estab-
lished for authorizing and monitoring activities that could threaten
the environment. Others prohibit or restrict the emission of contam-
inants a nd impose obligations to decontaminate.2
Environmental rights are sometimes further classif‌ied on the basis
of a distinction between procedural and substantive rights. The for-
mer encompass safeguards for effective participation in environmental
decision making while the latter imply some acknowledged change in
priorities and therefore in the expected outcome of environmentally
signif‌icant decisions. The distinction is aptly summarized in an early
Canadian commentary on environmental rights:
Those who search for a right to environmental quality hope it will
confer more than a right to participate or some requirement of due
process or natural justice before environmentally harmful decisions
are taken. They want a right which will dictate a decision in favour
of environmental protection in diff‌icult cases. They hope this right
will be equivalent to a civil liberty, on the one hand, constraining
government actions harmful to the environment, and, on the other,
equivalent to a property r ight, restraining the u se of private property
in ways that are incompatible with sound ecological m anagement.3
A more recent synthesis of the continuing debate pulls together some
of the uncertain ingredients of environmental rights while it also iden-
tif‌ies direct linkages between environmental rights and the essentials
of ecological management. With regard to matters of scope and design
associated wit h environmental rights, questions along thes e lines arise:
Is such a right individual or collective? Is it a positive or a negative
right? Can we conceptualize such rights as anthropocentric (i.e., hu-
man rights to environmental quality) or ecocentric (animal rights,
species’ right s or rights for nature)? Do these rights extend to future
generations? Are there duties t hat accompany the rights . . . ?4
2 Imperial Oil Lt d v Quebec (Minister of the Environment), [2003] 2 SCR 624 at 640.
3 J Swaigen & RE Woods, “A Substantive R ight to Environmental Q uality” in J Swai-
gen, ed, Environmental Rights in Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981) 195 at 200.
4 E Hughes & D Iyalomhe, “Subst antive Environmental R ights in Canada” (1998–

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT