As Ontario updates its green bill of rights, the province’s Environment Minister says he is “interested” in an amendment to Canada’s constitution that would legally entitle citizens to clean air and water.

That’s something Canada’s most famous environmentalist, David Suzuki, was at Queen’s Park Tuesday to talk about, along with suggested changes to Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, a 23-year-old document that enshrines in law the public’s right to be informed and consulted on green matters. The Ontario government has begun a public review of the bill of rights, which was created by Bob Rae's NDP government in 1993, the same year the Toronto Blue Jays won their last World Series.

Suzuki, along with Ecojustice and other environmental groups, has been pushing smaller communities to back environmental rights, which they say is included in the constitutions of 95 countries, but not Canada's. Their goal is to increase pressure on provincial and federal lawmakers to eventually add the legal right to a healthy environment to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alongside the freedom of conscience, religion and others.

Suzuki sat down for about 10 minutes in the Queen’s Park media studio to discuss the Environmental Bill of Rights, but before leaving said Ontario should “absolutely” lobby its fellow provinces and the federal government for an environmentally friendly amendment to the constitution. Ontario launched a review of its Environmental Bill of Rights over the summer, and has been seeking public comment on the document, which Suzuki said was a good jumping off point.

“We have an opportunity in Ontario to begin that assessment with the look at the environmental laws that were passed in [1993],” Suzuki said. “It’s time to upgrade this on our way to a federal constitutional amendment.”

Suzuki said legally ensuring the right to a healthy environment in the charter was necessary “because it takes us past all of the political posturing that comes and goes over time.”

Ontario Environment Minister Glen Murray said he was definitely “interested” in the constitutional amendment and that it had been “broached informally” among his fellow environment ministers at their meetings. Any amendment to the charter would require the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces with at least 50 per cent of Canada's population.

“I always think, if you ask the question in reverse, do we not have a right to healthy, clean air?” said Murray. “We’re embracing that conversation as part of the [Environmental Bill of Rights] review, and I have raised it to all of my federal counterparts and will continue to.”

While Canada’s environment ministers recently met in Montreal, Murray said he hoped the amendment issue would be on their agenda at the next meeting.

Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights actually says in its preamble that "The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment." But there are questions about the right to a healthy environment contained in a discussion guide to the bill of rights review. The paper notes that 137 communities (now 143, Suzuki says) have passed declarations supporting that right.

“Is there a need to enhance a right to a healthy environment?” the paper asks. “What additional rights should be protected? Where should these rights be enshrined – at which level of government?”

Ontario's green bill of rights created the Environmental Registry, which lets the public look up proposals and comment on them, and also created the environmental commissioner’s office. Murray said the reason for the review was because the government thinks the Environmental Bill of Rights is “out of date.”

“1993 was a long time ago,” said Murray. “But the observation that this isn’t written into our laws is important. To have the public have as much of a role in determining the framework in which we make environmental decisions as the courts is also critically important.”

Ian Miron, a lawyer with Ecojustice, said Ontario’s environmental rights have fallen behind those embraced in other jurisdictions. As one example, he said policies like the precautionary principle – that someone who wants to use some untested process or product must first prove it won’t do harm – must be written into the “purpose” section of the bill of rights.

“Those rights are in serious need of an update,” said Miron at Queen’s Park. “Most obviously, the Environmental Bill of Rights doesn’t actually guarantee Ontarians any right to clean air, to safe food and water, or to a stable climate. And in 2016, that’s just not good enough.”

Likewise, Lisa Kohler, executive director of the Halton Environmental Network – a consortium of non-profit environmental entities from that eastern GTA region – said communities are strongly supporting updates to the document.

“The Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights needs improvement,” Kohler said.

The review period for the bill of rights closes on Nov. 8.

To contact the reporter on this story:
gzochodne@qpbriefing.com
416-212-5913
Twitter: @geoffzochodne

Ontario environment minister ‘interested’ in green amendment to Canada’s constitution

Read this for free.