Published November 28, 2011
by iris_author
The following is a joint IRIS/ELS blog. Learn more about the Environmental Law Society at York.
First is the provincial private members bill put forward by Peter Julian, NDP - Bill C-323. This Bill amends the Federal Courts Act to permit anyone in the world to bring an action against anyone or any body else for breaches (occurring anywhere in the world) of international human rights or international treaties to which Canada is a signatory, including actions for "wanton destruction of the environment." The Bill provides that there is no limitation period for such actions and prohibits success on forum non conveniens motions where it is clear that the relevant non-Canadian judicial system will not produce a just result.
This Bill is hailed by many as the legislation that would help individuals in other countries to sue Canadian (and other) companies for labour, human rights, environmental, health, and other injuries and abuses. This is particularly relevant in the mining area because Canadian mining companies have a bad worldwide reputation for being engaged in such abuses and injuries. As matters currently stand, it is very difficult for non-Canadians to pursue Canadian companies for abuses caused by the companies outside of Canada, which is something we have recently seen in Ramirez v. TSX. Klippensteins, a firm representing the plaintiffs in Ramirez, is involved in other cases against Canadian mining companies including those for the murder of a plaintiff's husband by a local security force hired by a subsidiary of a Canadian mining company, HudBay (yes, Hudson Bay is indirectly engaged in mining projects). For more information on Bill C-323 and mining see http://this.org/blog/2011/11/01/corporate-accountability-bill-c-323/. For more information on mining injustice, visit MISN or ProtestBarrick.
Bill C-323 is only being introduced into the first reading and its status can be monitored here.
Secondly, Bill C-469, a private members bill put forward by Linda Duncan, NDP from Edmonton, Alberta, is a proposal to create an Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Unlike the less teethy Ontario EBR, the Canadian EBR is far more nuanced, complex, and enforceable. For a highly recommended thorough look at the Canadian EBR, see the Alberta Environmental Law Centre's article. The limit of the bill, of course, given the constitutional divide of environmental law into federal and provincial spheres of jurisdiction, is that it applies only to Federal lands, agencies, and governments. It will not permit any action against provincial governments.
The Bill has passed the second reading and has moved through the committee period. It will now go into third reading. To monitor the status of the bill, go to the Parliament website. As with Bill C-323, similar private members bills have been put forward in the past without success. There appears to be some hope for this important Bill, given that it's now going into third reading. If it is passed, it may prompt provincial governments (through grassroots or hierarchal pressure for consistency) to adopt similar measures or amend current measures to be consistent with the Federal Act.
Thirdly, perhaps with a more focused goal, Bill C-305, also a private members bill put forth by Olivia Chow, NDP of Toronto is an Act to establish a National Public Transit Strategy. The bill requires that the Federal Minister of Transportation consult with the provincial ministers in charge of public transit, aboriginal communities, municipalities, as well as other stakeholders to develop a national strategy on public transportation, including funding and implementation of same. At the end of the consultations, the Minister is required to report back to Parliament.
What this bill does is look very similar to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act which was passed under a conservative government: it involves (1) ordering the executive government to follow the direction by the legislative opposition; and (2) requiring that the executive report back to the Parliament rather than do something more concrete. In effect, it has no teeth. The only enforcement of this act appears to be a judicial review if the Minister decides not to do what the Act says. Such a judicial review was unsuccessful in the context of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Therefore, even if this Bill is enacted, its usefulness is limited. However, media attention to this Bill certainly helps to put this issue in front of the politicians.
The bill has just been introduced and has to go through the first reading. Its status can be monitored here.
Apart from monitoring, these Bills require our attention and effort to become law. All of these Bills are very important in advancing social justice. It is imperative that we all take steps to ensure that they are afforded sufficient attention and, ultimately, become law. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), the only way to affect political decisions is to engage in political process and discourse. However you decide to engage, you will have to do so by affecting your local MP (easy-to-use find-your-MP-info is provided by Elections Canada) and/or affecting the media which, in turn, hopefully leads people to affect their MP. So write, call, petition, leaflet, and spam (e-mail persistently) your MP until they hear you. As a law student/professor/legal professional, we have a duty to further social justice. Although this is a more political process, we, as individuals who understand the intricacies and effects of the current and proposed laws should engage in the political process in furtherance of social justice.
Marie Sydney
Ex-ELS Co-Chair, now articling student
Posted in: Blogs | Students Speak
