When it comes to developed nations Canada is a laggard on the environmental rights front. Legally speaking, Canadians don’t enjoy the right to a healthy environment like the citizens of 93 per cent of UN member countries do.

But that could all change in light of a new set of recommendations delivered to Ottawa by a standing committee tasked with reviewing the federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Among those recommendations were instituting legal minimums for air and water quality standards, annual reporting on the state of Canada’s environment, new rules around disclosure of toxic substances in consumer goods and the creation of special protections for Canada’s vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, First Nations and poor communities most likely to be affected by poor environmental health.

“We’re celebrating this as a first step,” Kaitlyn Mitchell, Ecojustice lawyer, told DeSmog Canada.

Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation have been fighting for the right to a healthy environment in Canada since the launch of the Blue Dot campaign in 2014.

“Although it’s a new concept in Canada, what we’ve seen around the world is the right to healthy environment has spread faster than any other human right in last 50 years,” Mitchell said.

“What a right to a healthy environment means practically speaking is not a right to a pristine environment that’s free from all pollution, but it does mean a right to environmental quality that is conducive to health and wellbeing.”

The committee also recommended empowering citizens to bring legal action against government found negligent or in violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

“It means the government can’t act in a way that will pollute your environment so much that it will put your health at risk,” Mitchell said.

Peter Wood, environmental rights campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation, said the language in the committee’s report could be a “game changer” for Canadians.

“Even though the individual acronyms sound boring, this is about protecting vulnerable populations, First Nations, children and the elderly in particular.”

Enshrining a fundamental right to a healthy environment means having protections that are enforceable, Wood said.

“Think about a time prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Wood said. “There are some things we take right now for granted, gender equity and racial non-discrimination. Could you imagine if those were left to some sort of consultation? Or were less than absolute? That’s what we’re talking about here with air and water quality standards."

The right to a healthy environment could make a big difference for pollution hot spots in Canada, such as Ontario’s chemical valley in Sarnia.

An analysis performed by Ecojustice found the right to a healthy environment has helped similar hot spots in countries like Brazil, but are not available to Canadian cities like Sarnia.

“Canada is very far behind other countries,” Mitchell said. “Ultimately what we want to see is a standalone law that all can have the right to a healthy environment.”

“That would apply across the board, to communities living near major industrial facilities like mines, and small First Nations communities living near Sarnia’s chemical valley.”

Wood added the recommendations are far from law.

“There is some political sausage-making left, “ Wood said. “It’s not a done deal.”

The recommendations will go from the standing committee to Cabinet before heading for a legal review with the Justice Department. The recommendations will then be debated in Parliament.  

“We know the last time this sort of strong protection for environmental rights was proposed, the chemical industry, powerful lobby groups, pushed back. Government will be under pressure to weaken it.”

“We know we have to get the public interested in it to make sure this sees the light of day.”

Image: Crystal Water Guest Ranch trail ride in B.C.'s Cariboo, Chilcoltin region. Photo: Ranch Seeker via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The B.C. government passed legislation that changes the boundaries of Finn Creek Provincial Park last Thursday, to make way for the expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline even though the province has yet to give its approval to the controversial project.

In its pipeline expansion allocation Kinder Morgan requested the province redraw the boundaries of four provincial parks to facilitate pipeline construction.

Last week B.C. changed the boundaries of Finn Creek Provincial Park to make way for the pipeline that is currently undergoing review with the federal National Energy Board. The NEB’s final recommendation is expected by May 20.

“This pipeline project clearly threatens the values that this park was established to protect,” Peter Wood with the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), said. “It should never have been allowed to proceed this far, let alone be approved. Allowing industrial activity in an ecologically sensitive area like Finn Creek Park runs counter to the government’s mandate of protecting these places.”

Finn Creek Provincial Park is located along the North Thompson River, an area BC Parks says is rich in ecological diversity, with local grizzly and moose populations, and provides spawning habitat for bull trout, Coho and Chinook salmon.

The province appears to be making way for the pipeline even though the B.C. Ministry of Environment found the project did not meet conditions set out by the province in 2012. The B.C. Ministry of Environment did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Update: The B.C. Ministry of Environment released a statement to DeSmog Canada saying, "this proposed boundary adjustment would not be brought into force unless and until the project is approved by the National Energy Board, the Province is satisfied its five conditions have been met, and the Province has issued an environmental assessment certificate. Until such time, this boundary adjustment does not permit any form of construction of the proposed pipeline."

Wood asked, "why would they proactively legislate changes to open the park to the pipeline before the NEB has even arrived at a decision?" Even though the proposed changes would only affect a small portion of the park, roughly 2.43 hectares according to the Ministry of Environment, "in principle, it doesn't make sense," Wood said.

"My understanding is that the park protects wild salmon, grizzly bears and moose. I haven't seen the documents related to how these values will be affected," Wood said. "But I think the bigger concern is that this major change was buried in a 'miscellaneous statutes' omnibus bill."

"If it's no big deal, why not be transparent and tell the public that they are changing the park to accommodate the Kinder Morgan pipeline?" 

In August 2015 over 30 groups and individuals, including CPAWS, publicly withdrew from the Kinder Morgan review process, citing a lack of transparency, balance and accountability in the proceedings.

Wood said the government’s decision to redraw provincial parkland boundaries in favour of the pipeline is concerning.

“Why is the B.C. Government proceeding as if this pipeline project is a done deal?” he said.

“It’s inappropriate for the province to be allocating resources to opening up our parks for a pipeline, let alone one that may never be approved.”

“This is particularly shocking given the high levels of opposition from First Nations and the general public.”

Kinder Morgan’s submission to the province requests parkland boundaries also be altered in the North Thomson River Provincial Park, Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area and Bridal Veil Falls Provincial Park.

This article was updated May 17, 2016 to include comment from the Ministry of Environment and additional comment from Peter Wood.

Image: Yoho National Park in B.C. via Pigeonsgross/Instagram

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A little-known Bill, the Park Amendment Act, that will drastically alter the management of B.C. parks is set to become law today, creating controversy among the province’s most prominent environmental and conservation organizations. The passage of Bill 4 will make way for industrial incursions into provincial parklands including energy extraction, construction of pipelines and industry-led research.

The Bill, quietly introduced in mid-February, has already met significant resistance in B.C. where the Minister of Environment received “thousands of letters” of opposition, according to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Peter Wood. “There has been absolutely zero public consultation, and the pace at which this was pushed through suggests this was never a consideration,” he said in a press release.

“This Bill undermines the very definition of what a ‘park’ is,” Gwen Barlee from the Wilderness Committee said in the same statement, “given that our protected areas will now be open to industrial activity.”

“This is a black day for B.C. Parks – the provincial government is ensuring that none of our parks are now safe from industrial development,” she said.

According to staff lawyer Andrew Gage with the West Coast Environmental Law the bill is “difficult to square” with the sentiments underlying the B.C. Parks Service, which claims provincial parks and conservancies are a “public trust” for the “protection of natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public.”

In an overview piece, Gage wrote “Bill 4 allows for industry (and others) to carry out ‘research’ in provincial parks related to pipelines, transmission lines, roads and other industrial activities that might require park land. It also reduces legal protection for smaller parks.”

He noted that preliminary ‘research’ carried out by mining company Taseko in preparation for an environmental assessment of the controversial Prosperity Mine included the drilling of 59 test pits, eight drill holes 50 to 75 metres in depth, and ten holes roughly 250 metres in depth to collect metallurgical samples. The tests also required the creation of 23.5 kilometres of exploratory trails.

Bill 4 claims permits for ‘research’ will only be considered after a “thorough review of protected area values,” yet, Gage writes, “this requirement is nowhere to be found in Bill 4.”

This amounts to a “’trust, us, we’re government’ approach,” writes Gage.

Previously park use permits were only granted to those able to demonstrate the proposed activity was “necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.” Bill 4 rids the Park Act of this safeguard.

“The government has sent a clear signal that it is open to having pipelines cut through our globally renowned protected areas,” said Al Martin of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. “The Act will now allow industrial expansion in some of B.C.’s most beloved parks, placing them at risk.”

Critics are also concerned the changes will open pristine landscapes to environmentally destructive oil and gas extraction processes.

“This legislation opens the door to pipelines, oil and gas drilling and industrial activities that are counter to the values that created our parks system,” said Darryl Walker from the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union. “If Bill 4 passes, 2014 will be the year that B.C. Parks changed forever,” he said.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and a group of other environmental NGOs have already collected nearly 10,000 signatures and letters in an effort to stop the implementation of the bill.

These groups are claiming the total lack of public consultation left local communities, park users and conservation groups out of the decision making process. 

Image Credit: Garth Lenz, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.