Skip to main content

Blogs

Hitting Bottom – Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol – Published in the Toronto Star

Published by

This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield's blog.

Yesterday’s announcement by federal environment minister Peter Kent of Canada’s intention to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol marks the country’s lowest point in the forty year history of modern global environmental diplomacy. The protocol, which Canada signed in 1997 and ratified in 2002, committed Canada to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent relative to their 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period.

Kent rolled out a familiar chain of justifications for Canada’s action – that Canada’s original targets were unreachable, that it was really the fault of the previous Liberal governments for failing to implement effective emission reduction strategies and that action by Canada was pointless unless the United States and rapidly developing economies like China and India were also subject to binding emission targets. The reality is that on the whole Kyoto has been far more a success than failure – most of the parties who were subject to binding emission targets under the protocol have either met or exceeded their goals. Canada is a among a relatively small number of parties, along with Australia, Norway, Spain and Ireland that failed to do so, and is alone in responding by withdrawing from the legally binding agreement.

As for Kent’s excuses, whatever the failings of the governments of Prime Ministers Chretien and Martin, the one thing that is certain is that Stepen Harper’s Conservative government has never really tried to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government has proposed a succession of strategies and plans, but the only significant action it has actually taken has been to adopt more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards. Those rules only came into being because the government’s hand was forced by the incoming Obama administration in the United States. Indeed, the federal Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development has recently concluded that the government had exaggerated the likely impact on emissions of what other measures it had proposed (but never implemented) by a factor of ten.

The Prime Minister’s antipathy towards serious action on climate change was well known before he took office, having once described the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist plot.” Until this spring the Conservative government’s hands were tied by the combination of persistently high levels of public concern for environmental issues, with a strong focus on climate change, a minority government situation, the arrival of a new administration in the United States that was apparently intent on taking some sort of serious action on climate change, and the threat of climate change legislation coming out of the US Congress that would impose penalties on US trading partners if they didn’t adopt greenhouse gas emission control regimes comparable to those put in place south of the border.

The decline in top-of-mind public concern for the environment as economic uncertainly has grown, the majority Conservative government produced by this May’s federal election, the disarray of both the federal NDP and Liberal opposition as both parties search for new leaders, and the hamstringing of the Obama administration and elimination of the threat of US climate change legislation as a result of the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives produced by the 2010 mid-term elections all combined to provide an apparently perfect window for the government to make its long dreamt of move on Canada’s international climate change commitments.

The costs of the government’s actions are still unclear. Clearly the chances of any serious effort from the federal government to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have become more remote than ever. This is despite the overwhelming environmental and economic evidence in favour of early action and with respect to the consequences of inaction presented by the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy many others.

The international reaction (Canada’s decision is being given much more prominent play in the international media than in Canada itself) has been very strongly negative from both developed and developing countries. It seems unlikely Canada will have much company in its decision to formally withdraw from the international legal framework on climate change that does exist, and it remains to be seen to what extent the consequences of Canada’s status as an environmental pariah state will spill over onto other files.

Domestically the government is operating on an assumption that its own core voters have limited concern for environmental issues and, unlike the majority of Canadians, accept the government’s consistent zero-sum framing of the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. The government’s environmental performance is an obvious potential wedge issue against the Conservatives in the hands of a new Liberal or NDP leader. If such a person can also persuade Ontario, Quebec, and BC voters that a federal government whose fundamental economic strategy is promoting fossil fuel exports from Alberta and Saskatchewan does not serve their interests well, the Conservatives could be in serious electoral trouble.

The basic elements of a cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for Canada have been well understood and articulated for some time. Carbon pricing, either through a carbon tax or cap and trade system, needs to be established; subsidies for fossil fuel development eliminated; progressively stronger energy efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, equipment and appliances adopted; better integration of land-use and transportation planning is needs in urban areas to reduce automobile dependency; the massive carbon storage capacity of Canada’s boreal forest needs to be protected; and major investments made in low-impact renewable energy technologies. A meaningful adaptation strategy to deal with the climate change that is already happening is needed as well. What is clearly missing is the political leadership to implement such a strategy and put Canada on a path towards environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.

Letter to the Editor – Globe and Mail – Green Energy Act and Auditor General’s Report

Published by

This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield's blog.

December 9, 2011

The Editors
The Globe and Mail
444 Front St.
Toronto, Ontario

Re: “Green spendthrifts” (December 9, 2011)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Ontario Auditor-General’s Report on Ontario’s Green Energy Act seems to me more a more a case of an outright hopping the fence into policy than “mission creep” (Radwanski, December 7). There are longstanding debates about how far auditor-generals should stray into matters of policy, but one thing is certain, that if you are going to go there then you need to do it well.

Unfortunately the Auditor-General’s report fails badly on that front, and in doing so does more to inflame the debate about Ontario’s Green Energy Act than inform it. Indeed, at times the report seems more a recitation of every compliant (however dubious) that has ever been made against the legislation than a meaningful analysis.

The Auditor-General’s most fundamental error is looking at the impact of the GEA in isolation – as if the costs associated with the legislation would simply disappear if it were withdrawn. In such a scenario the power that would have come from renewables as a result of the legislation would need to come from somewhere else instead. The real question that then needs to be asked is what is cost of electricity obtained through the legislation’s feed-in-tariff relative to the available alternative sources? To the extent to which any serious analysis of that question has been done – principally a study published by the Pembina Institute last July – the cost impact to consumers of renewable electricity was marginal relative to the most likely alternative – increased natural gas-fired generation. At the same time renewables obtained under the legislation’s Feed-in-Tariff program avoided a range of cost and environmental risks associated with gas-fired generation.

There are unquestionably aspects of the Green Energy Act that require careful review, but the legislation is neither the cause of nor the solution to all that ails Ontario’s electricity system.

Yours sincerely,

Mark S. Winfield, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Coordinator Joint MES/JD Program
Chair, Sustainable Energy Initiative
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University

REDD at COP17: Where is the critical perspective?

Published by

On Wednesday morning, Indigenous Peoples from Bolivia, Mexico, Kenya, US, and Canada voiced their concerns against UN's climate-change program that is going to convert their forests into carbon credits.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries has received lots of attention at COP17. The REDD initiative was first proposed at COP11 as a program that will transfer money to conserve forests in developing countries and prevent the release of about 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are said to be caused by deforestation and forest degradation in the Global South. In official negotiations, REDD has become the win-win program as it would reward 'forest stewardship' in developing countries, and it would allow developed countries to bank-in carbon credits. A number of climate finance programs have been established to push forward the development and application of REDD. Some of these initiatives include: the World Bank's Forest Investment Program (FIP), World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), Norway's Amazon Fund, Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), and Australia's International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI). These funds conveniently serve the role of transferring the money that has been promised in various UNFCCC protocols and accords to help developing countries introduce climate change measures. Additionally, this money helps in the continued development of the much-praised carbon economy, which will supposedly introduce cost-effectiveness to climate change mitigation efforts while at the same time allow private and public institutions to profit via carbon capitalism.

REDD and REDD+ works by converting a piece of forest into carbon credits that could then be used by 'developed' countries to either offset their GHG emissions or sell these carbon credits for profit. The REDD+ initiative is supposed to incorporate sustainable forest management initiatives into REDD projects. A number of REDD and REDD+ projects have resulted in Indigenous and rural people being robbed of their land and their livelihoods. As noted by the Nepali Indigenous Peoples, there are a number of problems in local communities that may arise from REDD projects such as "shifting, displacement, landlessness and poverty". When a piece of land is registered as a REDD project, legal restrictions are placed on how that land may be used; this may block Indigenous Peoples' access to their land and their livelihood. The problem is that there are no specific procedures that can guarantee on a project-by-project basis that Indigenous Peoples' rights will be respected. Inside the Durban Exhibition Centre at COP17, there is a number of booths where Indigenous People support the REDD program as a way to bring money into their communities. Their support, however, is conditional on full participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development and implementation of REDD projects on their lands.

A number of COP17 side-events have focused on improving the technicalities of the REDD initiative in order to introduce more transparency and consistency in forest commodification. COP17 is said to be the place where more guidelines will be introduced to improve REDD. That said, I have not seen any side-events that provided a critical perspective on the implications of commodifying forests in the Global South. Additionally, I was not able to find an Indigenous Peoples’ booth in the Durban Exhibition Centre that openly opposes the REDD initiative. As noted by Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network, "there is marginalization of Indigenous Peoples that oppose the REDD program". The UNFCCC needs to maintain a spotless public campaign of Indigenous Peoples' support for REDD initiatives. However, there are some well-funded NGOs, such as Greenpeace International, that have openly opposed carbon capitalism.

As voiced in the protest outside the official COP17 negotiations, there are many Indigenous Peoples that oppose the conversion of their lands for private profit. The issue here is the application of carbon capitalism to Indigenous Peoples’ land as well as natural ecosystems. Carbon capitalism is a system where capitalists can utilize climate change as an opportunity to make profit. At the Wednesday's protest, Indigenous Peoples made a strong statement that they will not allow their forests to be converted into a money-making business. Their message to the national delegates at COP 17 is "Respect the Indigenous Peoples; Respect their rights; Respect their lands". What is interesting here is that while forests in the developing world have become the centre-piece of cost-effective climate change action, little attention is paid to the economic pressure that is placed on developing countries to cut down their forests.  What if we were to limit consumerism in industrialized countries?  What if we  were to look at what is currently happening in the forested lands of the ‘developed’ world? Industrialized countries such as Canada should focus on re-evaluating their (clear-cut) logging practices and monoculture reforestation programs. Thus, the question is once again, why is it that in COP17 the emphasis remains on limiting the ability of developing countries to pursue economic development while developed countries, responsible for today’s climate crises, can continue with business-as-usual?

COP17 First Impressions – The Good and the Bad

Published by

With the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) taking place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 until December 9, the world is watching. As a member of the York University delegation for the second week of the conference, I am midway through a week of side events, interviews, information booths, and a COP-crazy Durban. This is my first time attending a Conference of the Parties. My first day of the conference was Monday, December 5. Below are some of my first impressions from my first day of COP – the good and the bad.

The Good

Overall, the conference seems rather sophisticated, with most of the action split between the Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC) and the International Conference Centre (ICC), located right next to one another in the heart of downtown Durban. Most of my time here is spent in the DEC, which is home to approximately 200 information booths set up by a variety of institutions and organizations (including the York University / Inuit Youth Delegation headquarters – booth 197). The information booths include pamphlets and other organization publications, as well as games and other giveaways, and allow for an effective use of time in between other events. The DEC contains several side event rooms with open delegate access, a media area, a computer centre with computers provided, and an area designed for bloggers to blog on their laptops.

Aside from additional side events and presentations not open for general delegate access, the ICC is also home to various information areas and transportation / travel information for delegates from out of town.

Furthermore, I have found the staff and volunteers at COP17 to be very helpful and friendly. They do a good job of keeping things running smoothly with their hard work.

The Bad

I, and several co-delegates, were perplexed by how difficult it can be to get a straight forward list of the day’s side events. There is a printed list of the day’s side events (complete with time and room) located in the DEC, but otherwise delegates are expected to get the day’s information on one of the CCTV screens located in the DEC and ICC. The screens contain a rolling list, requiring delegates to stand by and wait for the events of interest to appear so the time and room information can be recorded before it disappears. Daily programmes are printed and distributed at the publications counters in the DEC and ICC, yet these printouts include mainly a list of key international representatives and a limited side events list (inconveniently excluding the open events). Why not include the full event listing? I am at a loss. Highlighted on one of the programmes is a list containing some of the day’s open events, while omitting the times the events take place. Again I am baffled.

While not a huge impediment, I was struck by an irony regarding registration. Durban is packed with posters, banners and other advertising for COP17, from the airport to the downtown cityscape. Yet, there appeared to be very little advertising for where to register for the conference. I walked all around the demarcated conference grounds until finally coming to the registration/entrance tent.

One problem with so many side events occurring simultaneously is that neighbouring speakers are always clearly and loudly audible in any given side event room. This becomes a distraction and makes the speakers harder to fully hear and follow. Perhaps this is something that simply cannot be avoided.

Lastly, there is a significant shortage of chairs in the computer centre and blogger’s loft, as well as in eating areas. When things are especially busy, one can watch ordinary delegates degenerate (somewhat understandably) into sneaky, selfish chair seekers. Again, this is an issue perhaps not easily avoidable, given the huge number of delegates and the finite amount of conference space.

Concluding Remarks

On the whole, I am thus far impressed with COP17, aside from a few snags here and there. The conference itself (as a physical space) seems an overall success. Whether or not the conference will be a success in terms of making any progress toward any kind of climate justice is another issue – we will have a better sense of that before long. Unfortunately, few have high hopes.

Business ethics prof Andy Crane debates Alberta tar sands’ “Ethical Oil” marketing claims

Published by

My friend Andrew Crane, a leading York University business ethics professor and director of the Schulich School of Business's Centre of Excellence in Responsible Business, provided a very thoughtful and incisive counterpoint to oil industry spokesperson Kathryn Marshall on CBC Radio's The Current program on December 6, 2011. The two debated "Ethical Oil," a slick oil industry marketing campaign dressed up to look like grassroots activism. Building on right-wing commentator Ezra Levant's 2009 book of the same name, the central ploy of this campaign is to portray tar sands oil from Canada as a more ethical choice than oil from, say, Russia, the Sudan, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, because it is produced in a liberal democracy with robust protections for human rights and the rule of law.  While the Canadian oil patch may have a better human rights record than those in some repressive regimes, Andy pointed out that branding tar sands petroleum as "Ethical Oil" is unhelpful for several reasons.

Andrew Crane, George R. Gardiner Professor of Business Ethics, Schulich School of Business

 

For one thing, its narrow focus on human rights and the rule of law distracts attention from the massive environmental damage  and energy consumption involved in extraction and processing of tar sands oil. For another, the claim that tar sands operations fully respect human rights is debatable, with numerous First Nations claiming that these operations impair their rights to clean water and a healthful environment.

It is also hard to miss the xenophobic undertones of the Ethical Oil message--it is no coincidence that most of the countries targeted by the campaign are ethnically, culturally or religiously distinct from the white Canadian majority, and the dangerous "otherness" of the foreigner is a central trope of Levant's book.

Most importantly, as Andy argued forcefully, Canada cannot credibly portray itself as an energy policy leader simply by claiming that the status quo in the Alberta oil patch is preferable to the status quo in certain other oil-producing nations.

Rather, to be a real leader Canada would have to show that it is genuinely committed to progress toward a post-carbon economy and improvement of the human rights records of Canadian companies overseas. This would include holding Canadian oil companies to the same high standards wherever they do business in the world. It is disingenuous to say that oil companies in Canada are ethical leaders if those very same companies are busily pumping oil and propping up those same repressive foreign regimes that the Ethical Oil campaign vilifies.

Way to go Andy! Thanks for bringing some much needed clarity to the "Ethical Oil" campaign's effort to obfuscate the ethical issues surrounding the tar sands.

‘Equity’ and ‘right to development’ in climate change talks

Published by

As climate change talks in Durban continue to be submerged in self-interest and bureaucracy, Indian panel re-emphasizes the importance of equity and fairness for an effective climate agreement.

The continued controversial topic in COP17 is how 'developing' countries should be included in a post-Kyoto agreement. There is a number of very powerful developed countries, including the United States and Canada, that will not sign a legally binding agreement until developing countries (especially emerging economies such as India, China, and Brazil) are forced to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is supported by the argument that due to the global nature of GHGs, the actions of Annex I (developed) countries in limiting their GHG emissions will be offset by the emissions of developing countries as their economies grow. This definitely has some standing. However, the proposed as well as existing national climate change policies presented here in COP17 by developing countries show that the developing world is already taking action on climate change proportional to their political and economic realities.

Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests and Centre for Science and Environment side event at COP 17: The imperative of equity for an effective climate agreement. Monday, December 5, 2011

Developing countries want to take action on climate change, but they also want to make sure that any kind of (binding or voluntary) agreement that comes out of Durban will adequately incorporate equity and justice. The historical perspective on climate change is that 'developed' countries have contributed most to the present day crises: with less than 20% of the world's population, developed countries are responsible for 75% of global GHG emissions (UNFCCC 2009). The people most vulnerable to climate change impacts, however, are the undernourished communities in developing countries as well as climate-change refugees that will be displaced by sea-level rises and natural disasters. Yet, these people have not received the economic benefits that developed countries gained from industrial, carbon-intense development. Additionally, some developing countries were/are disadvantaged by industrial, and now, capitalistic development. In the name of climate-change action, how can we (the higher-income countries) now refuse developing countries their 'right to development'? Placing GHG emission targets on developing countries means limiting their economic growth.

A reality check for climate change negotiations is recognizing the different economic and political capacities of countries to introduce climate change mitigation measures. By allowing voluntary measures in the Cancun Agreement for both developed and developing countries, the financial burden for climate change action has shifted to developing countries. The Cancun Agreement moved away from the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' of developed and developing countries that was introduced in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The issue here is that while the developed world does not want to pay for climate change measures via GHG limits to capitalistic growth, developing countries cannot afford to pay for climate change action. Additionally, the Global South should not have to pay for something that they are not responsible for creating. If we want developing countries to economically grow in a sustainable manner, a lot of money will be required to decouple their economic growth from GHG emissions.

Reflecting on the COP17 side-events' schedule and coverage, it becomes clear that the discussion has shifted to financial-support instruments for developing countries and voluntary commitments for both the developed and the developing worlds. The idea of a second-commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol or an altogether new legally binding Durban Protocol seems to have been abandoned. But nothing is certain until the end of the negotiation talks. Presently, the side-events discussion has centered on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as well as marked-based initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). The continued discussion on the transfer of finances from the developed world is a welcomed initiative. But if we are talking about equity and justice in climate change negotiations, financial initiatives should not replace the necessary actions that developed countries should take as part of their responsibility for releasing GHG emissions.

Caravan of Hope in Durban

Published by

Global Day of Action rally on the streets of Durban bring inspiration and hope to the 17th Conference of Parties in South Africa.

Ndayiragije Diendonne

Let me introduce to you Ndayiragije Diendonne, who travelled on a bus more than seven thousands kilometres from Burundi to make his voice heard at the climate change conference in Durban. Ndayiragije is part of the Trans-African “Caravan of Hope” where 300 farmers, youth, and activists from 10 eastern and southern African countries took busses to arrive at COP17 and try to tell the world how climate change is affecting their communities. After all, COP17 is hosted on African soil. And the people here, already disadvantaged by the current economic and political system, are and will continue to be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Before Saturday’s Global Day of Action protest, important gatherings took place in parks and the KwaZulu-Natal University where people shared their stories and talked about what climate justice means to them. Unfortunately, I was at the Convention Centre listening to a United States representative give a media update of hoping to achieve a “balanced outcome”, of major economies not being prepared to sign a legally binding agreement, and of different governments taking different pathways – the same old story.  But what I can write here are some of the messages that were voiced at the protest: “our Africa, our climate, our rights”, “protect our workers and communities”, “grow food, not emissions”, “listen to the people”, “respect the earth”,  “time for climate justice”…

Ndayiragije and the Trans-African Caravan of Hope are leaving Durban today because they do not have the money to stay until the end of the week when the COP17 negotiations come to an end. Meaningful participation of people from the ‘developing’ world in future COPs means that there should be financial resources for both the official delegates as well as for people from affected communities. Climate justice is about building institutional spaces within the United Nations so that ‘people’, and not just official delegates, get to participate in the formation of international law on climate change. The distance between the official delegates in the Convention Centre and those who are protesting outside is too big.

I have asked Ndayiragije if he believed that COP17 would result in an agreement. He just smiled. “Then your seven thousand kilometers journey was a waste of time”, I responded too quickly. He looked at me and then at the protest, and said, “no, this is not a waste of time.”

Please click here for videos on the protest

 

COP17 Launches in Durban, Canada wins 1st and 2nd place fossil awards for bad faith

Published by

On November 28th, another round of climate negotiations started and so far, the prospects are bleak. Canada, has received international attention for rejecting Kyoto and refusing to sign onto another commitment period. On the first day of the negotiations, Canada earned the First Place Fossil of the Day for failing to support a Second Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol, and abandoning its current participation in Kyoto. It also took Second Place Fossil due to Environment Minister Peter Kent's open refusal to make a 'guilt payment' to poorer countries, despite the  role of Canadian tar sands oil in rising greenhouse gas pollution. The United Kingdom received Third Place for helping to move tar sands oil into Europe.

Ontario Throne Speech and Economic Statement: Good News for Green Energy; Bad News for the Environment

Published by

This blog was originally published in Professor Mark Winfield's blog. 

Last week’s Speech from the Throne and Fall Economic Statement from Dalton McGuinty’s minority government contained a mix of good and bad news for those concerned about green energy and environmental sustainability.

The Throne Speech re-iterated the government’s commitment to the Green Energy Act, noting that “Your government remains fully committed to clean energy and the 50,000 new, good jobs in one of the world’s fastest-growing economic sectors. These jobs are being created by its Green Energy Act in communities across Ontario.” That said, the review of the Green Energy Act FIT program launched on October 31st will almost certainly result in significant reductions to the FIT rates for solar projects, particularly the popular micofit program, where 99 per cent of the approved projects have been solar. The directions of other changes to the program remain to be seen. The energy sector does enjoy the advantage of being relatively insulated from the province’s overall fiscal situation, being funding through the electricity rate base rather than general revenues, but serious challenges continue. Among other things there is an ongoing debate within the government about whether the Green Energy Act helped or hurt the government’s electoral fortunes, attracting younger urban voters on one hand, or cost older rural voters upset about renewable energy projects.

The Throne Speech also made reference to the introduction of a “Great Lakes Protection Act” although what such legislation would add existing legislative authority and mandates is unclear. The Environmental Commissioner, delivering his report a week later, highlighted the government’s failures to complete negotiations with the federal government on the next Canada-Ontario Agreement on the Great Lakes Basin. The Canada-Ontario Agreements, which have been in place since 1972, provide the framework for cooperation between the federal government and the province in fulfilling Canada’s obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. On a more ominous note, the Speech continued to present mining development, specifically the ‘ring of fire’ in the fragile boreal region of the province’s far north, as the centrepiece of its northern economic development strategy.

The fall economic statement provided even more cause for concern, as the government re-emphasized its intention to protect heath care and education expenditures while reducing its $16 billion deficit, with the implication of major reductions to government spending outside of those fields. In fact, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan has been repeatedly quoted projecting “real cuts of upwards of 33 per cent in some ministries.” If implemented these would be reductions on the scale of those seen during the Harris era “common sense revolution” of the 1990s.

As I have noted before the Ministries of the Environment and Natural Resources seem likely to be in the front line for budget cuts, given their substantial operational staffs. This point was implicitly highlighted by the Environmental Commissioner in his report, who noted that despite expanding mandates, compared to budgets in the early 1990s, MNR has suffered a 22 per cent decline in its operating budget after accounting for inflation, while MOE’s operating budget has fallen by 45 per cent.

Indeed the whole situation with respect to the province’s core environmental protection and natural resource management functions is starting to bear an eerie resemblance to the events of Harris era, although with a kinder, gentler face. The Ministry of the Environment implemented the first phase of its approvals “reform” process on October 31st, effectively carrying through on the “standardized” approval process first proposed as the core of the ministry’s “regulatory reform” process of the Harris revolution in 1996. The only thing that seems to be missing is the “who does what” exercise of downloading provincial responsibilities onto municipalities – although as I have noted before, given the centrality of cities and larger towns to the Liberal government’s survival in the October election, a repeat of that exercise seems unlikely. Unfortunately, absent additional revenues the effect will be to further increase the pressures on the budgets of operational agencies of the provincial government.

The consequences of cuts to ministry operating budgets on the scale apparently being contemplated by finance minister Duncan were well documented by the Walkerton Inquiry and others. The province needs to consider other options that avoid serious long-term risks to the health, safety and environment of Ontarians in exchange for short-term fiscal gains. Forgoing the next round of corporate tax cuts, estimated to be likely to cost the province $2.4 billion per year in revenues and whose economic benefits are subject to serious question, would be a good place to start.

Three very important pieces of proposed federal environmental legislation are making or about to make their journey through the parliamentary process.

Published by

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

css.php