Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) which was passed in 1993, and came into effect in February 1994, has been a significant addition to environmental legislature. It has recognized that people within Ontario have a common goal to protect our natural environment and feel that this needs to be represented as a right to a clean environment. It thus calls upon the provincial government to have the primary responsibility in protecting, conserving, and restoring the natural environment (ECO, 2010). It also sees the need for public participation in order to hold the government accountable for its decisions. Thus the main objectives of the EBR are ensuring environmental protection, the enhancing of governmental accountability, and the facilitation of public participation in environmental decision-making. The EBR, however, still has room for improvement. This essay will be looking at the three main objectives of the EBR in order to review; what has worked, what hasn’t worked, and how it can be improved.
We would like to begin by discussing the evolution of what will become known as the EBR. The first idea of having a statute that would provide people with environmental rights can be traced back to American law. The first of such laws was the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) of 1970 which was seen as a “lean, mean, green, right to sue” (Lindgren, 2010). It was the work of the then University of Michigan law professor Joseph Sax (Emond, 1994). He had previously thought up the idea for an environmental rights act in his book, Defending the Environment (Emond, 1994). The idea was quickly taken up by environmentalists in Canada, especially by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) (Emond, 1994). Soon...
... middle of paper ...
...ntario's Environmental Bill of Rights and You. http://www.conservationhamilton.ca/Asset/iu_files/EBR.pdf. Toronto: Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.
Emond, P. (1994). An Environmental Bill of Rights - Ontario Style. Government Information in Canada , 2 (3), 1.
Environmental Bill of Rights 1993. (1993).
Government of Ontario. (2010). About the Registry. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from Environmental Registry: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca
Lindgren, R. (2010, March 12). Lafarge.
McRobert, D. (2008, November 21). An Overview of Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights. Peterborough, Ontario.
Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights. (2003).
Turgano, R. (2009, November 5). Ecojustice Applauds Proposed Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from The Green Pages: http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/ca/2009/11/ecojustice_applauds_proposed_c.html
Department of Justice (2010): Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I. (Last retrieved: December 7th, 2010).
"Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2nd ed. 1982. N. pag. Print.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
US Enviromental Protection Agency. (2010, December 13). Retrieved January 20, 2011, from US EPA Human Health: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByChapter&ch=49
Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable. GLRPPR, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Web.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has fundamentally shaped Canadian society since its inception through the Constitution Act of 1982. Promising egalitarian, linguistic, religious as well as other basic rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the primary doctrines in which Canadian law is founded upon. Many have argued that the advent of the Charter has transformed Canadian society into one that is preoccupied with that of rights. The rise in social movements, specifically in areas of women’s rights, indigenous rights and homosexual rights, are indicative of this. The Charter has created a divide amongst those who believe that this rise in a “rights culture” is ultimately beneficial if not necessary for Canadian society, especially in preserving the voices of the marginalized citizenry who until recently remained invisible in the eyes of parliament, and those who believe that Canada as nation has become preoccupied with preserving the right of gays, lesbians, women and other minority groups that it has sacrificed its majoritarian values. The word preoccupation, especially used in this context, holds a negative connotation suggesting some sort of obsession, and to describe Canada as a nation “preoccupied” with rights is an overstatement. Canada’s recent Charter revolution has often been seen as a means by which minority groups enact their own changes which may or may not be seen as desirable by a majority of people. However, because the Charter is important in preserving the rights of marginalized or minority groups, this can ultimately be beneficial for those whose world views have historically been persecuted. The subsequent paragraphs will further discuss how Canada’s recent Charter revolution has transformed Canada...
At the beginning of the semester, I thought that environmental justice was justice for the environment, which is true to a point, but I now know that it is justice for the people. Only when there is a people that have been wronged, usually using the environment as the the method of delivery, does it become an environmental justice case. Environmental justice ensures that all people, regardless of income level or race, have a say in the development and enforcement of environmental laws. It acts on the philosophy that anyone living on and in the land should have a say on how it is treated and used. Sometimes when developing legislature, the populations in mind are not all affected equally, and if said population
According to Gordon Walker there are three concepts of justice: Distributive, which conceives justice in terms of the distribution or sharing out of goods (resources) and bads (harm and risk), Procedural, which conceives justice in terms of the way in which decisions are made, who is involved and has influence, and finally justice as recognition, which conceives justice in terms of who is given respect and who is and isn’t valued (Walker, 10-11). In this particular case study I believe that all aspects of justice need to be discussed in order to fully obtain overall environmental justice for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. For there is not one aspect of justice that is actively being represented in this case study. The three concepts of justice for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will be approached through
Our Congress created the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 in order to establish an environmental foundation for mankind. This policy endorses harmony between humans and the vast ecosystems surrounding them. To obtain this goal and provide our future with resources as well, NEPA is separated into two titles. The first title declares the policy in detail while the second title focuses on the Council on Environmental Quality. The CEQ oversees the effectiveness of current methods, the reactions of the environment to those methods, and implements revisions as necessary.
...i. "Environmental Pathways Of Potential Impacts To Human Health From Oil And Gas Development In Northeast British Columbia, Canada." Environmental Reviews 20.2 (2012): 122-134. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010) chapter 8 p 368-418
...nces of habitual ecological legal principles. This is mostly so because environmental law itself is of moderately recent vintage, and as a result there has been little time for dependable state perform to enlarge, either in rejoinder to solemn declarations by IGOs or from side to side the all-purpose reception of norms set out in many-sided treaties. On the other hand, the processes described above have in additional areas, and in exacting that of human rights, been particularly creative in the formation of customary law, and there is consequently every cause to wait for that the similar will apply in admiration of ecological principles. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu25ee/uu25ee0a.htm References http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/international.html http://indylaw.indiana.edu/library/InternatlLaw1.htm http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu25ee/uu25ee0a.htm
"Eco-Friendly State Laws and Green Mandates." Black News, Opinion, Politics and Culture - The Root. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. .