Greening the Constitution ?

[Michael Hardner]

Should we protect environmental rights into the constitution ?

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/11/29/a-plan-to-enshrine-the-environment-into-canadas-constitution/

Listening to the arguments on CBC's The Current, I took the 'nay' side's argument to be, basically, "it wouldn't matter much". I think it could have positive ramifications for Canadians to have these enshrined, especially when you consider that national sovereignty over the environment is being lost to extranational trade deals.

What think you ?

[TimG]

Should we protect environmental rights into the constitution ?

Gawd no. Of all of the hare brained ideas this has to be one of the worst because the question of what is "bad for the environment" is really a subjective judgment call. This is clearly an attempt by the wannabe despots within the environmental movement (i.e. people who admire china's dictatorship because it "gets things done") to do an end run around democracy. Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

IF that forces the multinational companies to literally clean up their act, then I'd be for it. The 'nays' are being the realiss, because with how little these corps are held accountable for their actions I cannot see this making much of a difference.

One bit that is interesting

And according to pollster Angus Reid, 83-percent of Canadians think that protecting the environment should be part of the national legal fabric, and that environmental rights should be elevated to the same level as human rights.

That might mean an outright restriction or ban on human activity of any kind in some areas. In the most extreme of cases though.

[eyeball]

I think it's long past time we did this. If we'd started going down this road 25 years ago I might still have a fishing industry to pass on to my kids.

What's been particularly missing is any sort of adjacency principle that that gives local people and communities a greater say in the management of the natural resources they rely on that surround them through 'better balancing of environmental, economic and social considerations in decision-making'.

Constitutional recognition could help decentralize a lot of the decision making currently run out of Ottawa to a more regionally based management structure.

[GostHacked]

Eyeball .. when anyone talks about sustainability, I take it meaning that they need to bring the stock back to levels where they can be maintained. Conservation did not work, sustainability will fail as well.

[eyeball]

Gawd no. Of all of the hare brained ideas this has to be one of the worst because the question of what is "bad for the environment" is really a subjective judgment call. This is clearly an attempt by the wannabe despots within the environmental movement( i.e. people who admire china's dictatorship because it "gets things done") to undermine democracy.

Nonsense. We live in a state of dictatorship now where decisions that affect the ecosystems and dependent communities are made thousands of miles away from them by people who have little or no connection to the region.

Edited November 29, 2013 by eyeball

[TimG]

Nonsense. We live in a state of dictatorship now where decisions that affect the ecosystems and dependent communities are made thousands of miles away from them by people who have little or connection to the region.

No we don't. We live in a democracy where the majority are going to elect governments which overrule the minority in the name of the greater good. There are times where decision making should be devolved to lower levels of government but environmental regulations are not one of those since it makes Canada a much more difficult place to do business if every community can set its own rules. Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

The term "green" has been misused so much as to be basically irrelevant, except when it comes to justification for higher prices and taxes. Everything has an impact, and despite the best intentions, this cannot be avoided.

A good example is the LEED program for Building Construction. It is so full of contradictions, it would be laughable if not for the fact that it increases the cost of construction of a new building by 40-60%. FSC certified wood will give you LEED points, sure, but the only certified suppliers are in the states. Costs quite a bit and it's pretty hard on the environment to bring non-local building materials in. And the LEED requirement for reflective roofing is great if you're in California, but basically useless in Canada. We would be better off with black roofs since they are covered in snow for over half the year. Hard to justify the extra 40% increase in material and installation for a negative environmental return.

Bringing similar policies and strategies and enshrining them into our constitution would not be wise.

[eyeball]

delete

Edited November 29, 2013 by eyeball

[Spiderfish]

Eyeball .. when anyone talks about sustainability, I take it meaning that they need to bring the stock back to levels where they can be maintained. Conservation did not work, sustainability will fail as well.

Conservation may have a chance if the rules are applied to everyone. If there are exemptions, it cannot be managed efficiently or successfully.

I happened to be talking to a Conservation Officer last week after being served a subpoena by him to testify as a witness on a matter that occurred in a Provincial Park. I asked him about moose populations in this park, as it is hunting season. He said they basically have no moose in the park, which surprised the heck out of me since it is prime moose habitat. He said too many animals have been harvested and the population has basically collapsed. I asked him why it wasn't managed better, and he told me that they are managing what they can, and even have no hunting in much of the area. However there are several native reserves nearby and hunting parties come in to hunt for food and basically take anything that moves (his words). He told me that he personally has come into some of these camps and seen 40 animals hanging, they process them right there and even package it all up and then go home. He said it's frustrating, the government is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. They get blamed for mismanagement when the stock collapses, and if they try and take any action, they are blamed for violating treaty rights.

[Guest]

The term "green" has been misused so much as to be basically irrelevant, except when it comes to justification for higher prices and taxes. Everything has an impact, and despite the best intentions, this cannot be avoided.

A good example is the LEED program for Building Construction. It is so full of contradictions, it would be laughable if not for the fact that it increases the cost of construction of a new building by 40-60%. FSC certified wood will give you LEED points, sure, but the only certified suppliers are in the states. Costs quite a bit and it's pretty hard on the environment to bring non-local building materials in. And the LEED requirement for reflective roofing is great if you're in California, but basically useless in Canada. We would be better off with black roofs since they are covered in snow for over half the year. Hard to justify the extra 40% increase in material and installation for a negative environmental return.

Bringing similar policies and strategies and enshrining them into our constitution would not be wise.

Another example is the one I read recently about hydrogen buses in Whistler. The hydrogen fuel had to be trucked in from Quebec. The buses were so prone to mechanical failure that the costs of maintenance were (approximately) twice that of other vehicles, and they were not designed to withstand a Canadian winter. Now the whole fleet is in danger of being retired with Whistler going back to diesel. An idea that was there for the optics alone.

[Michael Hardner]

Gawd no. Of all of the hare brained ideas this has to be one of the worst because the question of what is "bad for the environment" is really a subjective judgment call.

Yes, the legal expert said this as well but how is it more so than, say, reasonable accommodation of religious rights ?

There are certainly some areas in which the question/answer pairing is black and white.

[Spiderfish]

Yes, the legal expert said this as well but how is it more so than, say, reasonable accommodation of religious rights ?

There are certainly some areas in which the question/answer pairing is black and white.

The Quebec Government may disagree with you on that point.

[TimG]

Yes, the legal expert said this as well but how is it more so than, say, reasonable accommodation of religious rights ?

Because religious choices usually only affect the people making the choices. When it comes to religious choices that affect others (banning abortion, genital mutilation) we quite emphatically reject "accommodation". Any kind of environmental charter would allow one group to impose their views on others with constitutional impunity. There is a reason why collective rights are absent from the constitution (except as justifiable exceptions to individual rights) - collective rights are simply too open to abuse. Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[PIK]

We have seen enough of the damage the greeners have done. This will only be abused by the eco freaks, to take out anybody they don't like or agree with.

[GostHacked]

Conservation may have a chance if the rules are applied to everyone. If there are exemptions, it cannot be managed efficiently or successfully.

I happened to be talking to a Conservation Officer last week...... They get blamed for mismanagement when the stock collapses, and if they try and take any action, they are blamed for violating treaty rights.

It's an issue I agree, but let's look at the large scale commercial markets. Mass fishing for example. The native population who hunts the local animals has nothing on large scale commercial food enterprises.

[Michael Hardner]

1. Because religious choices usually only affect the people making the choices.

2. Any kind of environmental charter would allow one group to impose their views on others with constitutional impunity.

3. There is a reason why collective rights are absent from the constitution (except as justifiable exceptions to individual rights) - collective rights are simply too open to abuse.

1. You might think that were true ... if you never read a post on MLW complaining about accommodating religious rights. They don't want to allow people to choose Immams to resolve disputes, for example.

2. There's still a legal framework there. I think that the laws already on the books would be supported by Canadian values.

3. I just think that I have an individual right to a clean environment, just as I do human rights.

[Michael Hardner]

This will only be abused by the eco freaks, to take out anybody they don't like or agree with.

I think the proper term for such people is 'eco assassins'.

[Spiderfish]

Mass fishing for example. The native population who hunts the local animals has nothing on large scale commercial food enterprises.

I disagree, I just gave an example of a resource that is basically gone, in large part as a result of over hunting by native population. Check out the state of commercial fishing on Lake Manitoba for another example. Thousands of pounds of walleye are harvested by natives every year, not for food, but for sale. I've seen it personally, and I've seen the product. Much of the fish they sell are so undersized it takes half a dozen fish or more to make a pound for sale (they sell by the pound). Commercial fishing has been steadily declining on the lake despite strict resource management, nothing there to fish within the management size limits and quotas which commercial operations have to follow.

If we want to talk management and sustainability, we have to look at it ALL, not be selective.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Spiderfish

[TimG]

I just think that I have an individual right to a clean environment, just as I do human rights.

No you don't. What you think you deserve is a right to only dirty the environment when it provides personal benefit to you (i.e. it is a purely hypocritical and self serving desire).

Society could not function if we did not accept some level of environmental damage. We need to have political discussions about the various trade-offs. What we don't need is a constitutional club that short circuits the political process and puts control in the hands of unelected judges (this is why I say such a clause undermines democracy).

Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No you don't. What you think you deserve is a right to only dirty the environment when it provides personal benefit to you (i.e. it is a purely hypocritical and self serving desire).

I don't want to dirty the environment to the point where I make it impossible to do anything with it.

We need to have political discussions about the various trade-offs. What we don't need is a constitutional club that short circuits the political process and puts control in the hands of unelected judges (this is why I say such a clause undermines democracy).

I get what you're saying, but we do actually take some items away from the people to choose if they're important. I wasn't really in favour of this idea until I heard the argument of the guest on The Current.

[TimG]

I don't want to dirty the environment to the point where I make it impossible to do anything with it.

Nobody does. But most environmental issues today are about accepting risks rather than actual pollution. Put it into the constitution and the people will no longer have any say over how priorities should be balanced when it comes to accepting and managing risks. This is wrong. Such power needs to be in the hands of elected officials.

I get what you're saying, but we do actually take some items away from the people to choose if they're important.

So? Complicated problems need a political discussion. Trying to take these discussions out of the political realm is a shameless power grab on the part of environmental activists that must be uncategorically opposed. Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Put it into the constitution and the people will no longer have any say over how priorities should be balanced when it comes to accepting and managing risks. This is wrong. Such power needs to be in the hands of elected officials.

I think you should read what you wrote there. I think if things are that important, more of an arm's length might be a better way to manage it, with provisions for open review.

So? Complicated problems need a political discussion.

Here's the thing: we do not have a public capable of assessing risk in that way. For that matter, I feel like having this law in place may be better for business in some respects in that you won't have political overreactions to isolated incidents.

Lo and behold, I'm back at my for having a "new public".

[TimG]

I think you should read what you wrote there. I think if things are that important, more of an arm's length might be a better way to manage it, with provisions for open review.

You can have an arm's length body that is still accountable to politicians. What would be a disaster is a constitutionally mandated body that is accountable to no one. If people don't like a law they should be able to elect politicians that have the power to change it.

Here's the thing: we do not have a public capable of assessing risk in that way. For that matter, I feel like having this law in place may be better for business in some respects in that you won't have political overreactions to isolated incidents.

These rules would be constantly challenged as people seek to have the rules defined in ways that suit them. Over time case law would create a rigid mess that could not be changed because and thereby take away power from the voter. The example of native rights should show you that ill-defined constitutional rights are extremely bad for business.

The constitutionally enshrined rights should be the minimum required to protect the individual from an over reaching government. They should not be used to mandate stripping rights away from people the name of some poorly defined (and purely subjective) concept.

As a thought exercise: you are supporting this because you assume you will like the language that gets written in. But what happens if the language is not to your liking? What if you realize that the language is a potential nightmare but you are powerless to stop it because the 'uninformed' public likes the fuzzy feeling of a 'right to a clean environment'?

Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

No we don't. We live in a democracy where the majority are going to elect governments which overrule the minority in the name of the greater good.

You misrepresent our "democracy":

Putting a ballot in a box every 4 years is not the full scope of our democratic rights. We do not have to submit without protest to the elected government's every whim. That's a bizarre idea, as you are fully aware. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't advocate that misrepresentation if you hadn't voted for, didn't support and didn't agree with the ellected government's policies.

There are times where decision making should be devolved to lower levels of government but environmental regulations are not one of those since it makes Canada a much more difficult place to do business if every community can set its own rules.

OK, well there's natural gas under your house. Fracking starts today.

You good with that?

No?

TooBadSoSad.

"Business" must go on.

Only profit matters.

You don't matter.

Your family doesn't matter.

Your community doesn't matter.

Is that your position?

Your pronouncements are too narrowly focused on profit, even forgetting your own potential human interests.

And btw, resource development/extraction is provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

.