West Coast Enviornmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterWest Coast Enviornmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterWest Coast Environmental Law Association is not taking a Yes or No position on the constitutional referendum. But we think it is important that protection of the environment be considered in the debate. We worked hard to inject an environmental perspective into the recent constitutional discussions. Like everyone else who participated, we see some but not all of our proposals reflected in the Charlottetown agreement. Here are some thoughts on how this agreement might affect environmental law.
One of the strongest environmental arguments in favour of ratifying the agreement is to remove constitutional amendments from the national political agenda so that solutions to environmental problems can receive the attention they deserve.
Another point in the agreement's favour is that for the first time the goal of environmental protection is specifically addressed in the Constitution. The ``social union'' includes the objective of ``protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations.'' The ``economic union'' includes the objective of ``ensuring sustainable and equitable development.'' And the Charter wasn't diluted by adding protection of private property (which would seriously inhibit governments from taking steps to protect the environment).
True, the prospects for a strong federal role in protecting the environment are somewhat diminished, but it could have been worse. Recognition of exclusive provincial jurisdiction is limited to forestry, mining, tourism, recreation, urban affairs and housing -- areas which currently are mainly provincial responsibilities anyway.
It is also true that the proposed provincially-dominated Senate could veto tax policy changes directly affecting natural resources, perhaps including a `carbon tax' to discourage emission of greenhouse gases. But such a decisive -- and overdue -- measure will require the support of most of the provinces for it to be politically possible anyway.
Formally addressing aboriginal interests is also a plus for protection of the environment. Aboriginal people have often been in the forefront of environmental protection here in B.C. And efforts to create ecologically sustainable development have been delayed by uncertainty over aboriginal issues.
A key environmental reason to vote against the agreement is that recognition of Canadians' respect for land, air and water -- a value that virtually all Canadians hold in common -- was actually taken out of the Canada clause. And the references to the environment and sustainable development in the social and economic union clauses are not enforceable. They are not the Charter rights which we advocated.
The agreement signals a weakening of federal authority -- just when major global environmental problems require stronger national responses. For example, mining is a major cause of water pollution and burning coal contributes to air pollution and global warming. Forests are an important `carbon sink.' National initiatives in urban affairs and housing could dramatically improve energy efficiency. Tourism and recreation are key components of our national responsibility to protect wilderness and biological diversity. The Senate natural resources tax veto and the proposed limitations on the federal spending power are additional indications that the agreement could weaken the federal government's ability to protect the environment.
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?"
____YES ____NOMoreover, contrary to the government's commitment to conduct an environmental assessment of major policy decisions, there has been no environmental assessment of the Charlottetown agreement.
These are some of the environmental arguments for and against the agreement. But people will also consider a wide range of other factors in deciding how on balance to vote in the referendum.
In any event, whether or not the agreement is ratified, our challenge as Canadians will soon be to put this referendum campaign behind us and to get on with solving our very real environmental -- and other -- problems.
Perhaps one of the unexpected benefits of this referendum process is that we all have had to do an unusual amount of `thinking for ourselves.' Following traditional opinions and ideologies has not provided a clear direction on the best course to take. This may have been somewhat disconcerting, but it's been great practice for future decisions on how to achieve ecologically sustainable development before it is too late! -- ba
Using Conservation Covenants to Protect Private Land in BC, written by David Loukidelis and edited by Ann Hillyer is available to the public for $10, plus $2 for postage and handling from our offices. The report, funded by the Real Estate Foundation of BC recommends that the provincial government enact legislation allowing the use of conservation covenants to help landowners and conservation organizations voluntarily protect private land. The conservation covenant is a flexible legal tool used successfully in other jurisdictions to supplement government efforts to protect land.
Thanks to the following groups and individuals who have made donations or taken out memberships in WCELRF recently: Luanne Armstrong, Paul Bailey, TH Bassett, BC Council of the CCU, Kevin Bell, Richard Buxton, Mike Chin, Greg Cranston, Ruth Ann Darnall, Galiano Conservancy Association, J Graham, Silva Ecosystem Consultants, and William Storey. Thanks for your support!
Welcome Kelly Lamorie! We are pleased to announce that Kelly Lamorie is joining our staff as our new part-time office worker beginning November 1st. Some of you may already have met Kelly -- she has been providing relief assistance in our office on and off for the last year.
by Bradford Morse and Thomas R. Berger, Resource Futures International (RFI) Inc., Ottawa, 1992. In 1991, the World Bank appointed Bradford Morse, the former head of the U.N. Development Program and Thomas Berger, who conducted the McKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry and the Alaska Native Review Commission to conduct the first ever independent review of an internationally financed development project. This book contains the findings of the review. The Sardar Samovar Projects are one of the largest water resource projects in the world, but the World Bank and the government of India failed to carry out the human and environmental assessments of the impact of these projects. About 100,00 people will have to be resettled if the project proceeds. The authors document their difficulties in assessing how to mitigate the effects of the projects on the people and the land, since so little study had been made of the potential impacts.
WCELRF Newsletter, copyright 1992, is published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. This issue was produced by Bill Andrews (editor), Morgan Ashbridge, Benita Bellrichard, Ann Hillyer, Catherine Ludgate, Linda Nowlan, and Denice Regnier. Subscription information is below. WCELRF does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. The West Coast Environmental Law Association provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The mission of WCELRF and WCELA is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of the West Coast Environmental Law Association and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Donations to WCELRF are tax creditable.