LibGuides: CMNS 137 Technical Communication for Water Engineering Technology: Environmental Governance in Canada

Section 91 and 92 of the Canada Constitution Act 1867

"The omission of environmental provisions from Canada’s original constitution, the British North America Act, 1867, should come as no surprise since ecological concerns were far less pressing in the nineteenth century."

Boyd, D. R. (2012). The Right to a Healthy Environment : Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution. UBC Press.

The creation and enforcement of Environmental Laws and Regulations in Canada can be very confusing. The responsibility for the environment in Canada is constitutionally divided between the federal and provincial governments, which is not easy to understand. Jurisdiction over certain aspects often overlap or are not agreed upon. In other situations, one level of government may have delegated its responsibilities to another by agreement.

A good example of how this relationship worked can be found in Drinking Water Legislation, Regulations and Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Constitution Act, 1867 (former known as the British North America Act) and the Constitution Act 1982
Read Sections 91 and 92.

Section 91 and 92 - Watertight Compartments

Watertight compartments: Getting back to the constitutional division of powers.
This article offers a fresh examination of the constitutional division of powers. The author argues that sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establish exclusive jurisdictional spheres -- what the Privy Council once termed "watertight compartments." This mutual exclusivity is emphasized and reinforced throughout these sections and leaves very little room for legitimate overlap. While some degree of overlap is permissible under this scheme -- particularly incidental effects, genuine double aspects, and limited ancillary powers -- overlap must be constrained in a principled fashion to comply with the exclusivity principle. The modern trend toward flexibility and freer overlap is contrary to the constitutional text. The author argues that while some deviation from the text is inevitable due to the presumption of constitutionality and stare decisis, the Supreme Court should return to a more exclusivist footing in accordance with the text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who's Got the Power

Should the Right to Safe Environment be Enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The Right to a Healthy Environment by David R. Boyd
Call Number: E-Book
ISBN: 9780774824125
Publication Date: 2012-10-03
Canada has abundant natural wealth, beautiful landscapes, vast forests, and thousands of rivers and lakes. The land defines Canadians as a people, yet the country has one of the industrialized world's worst environmental records. Building on his previous book, The Environmental Rights Revolution (2012), David R. Boyd describes how recognizing the constitutional right to a healthy environment could have a transformative impact by empowering citizens, holding governments and industry accountable, and improving Canada's green record. This important and provocative book provides a road map to protect human health, the well-being of the planet, and the interests of future generations.

La Rose v. Canada

15 Canadian Youths' Climate Change Lawsuit Against Canada rejected by Federal Court of Canada
A group of youth attempting to take the federal government to court over its role in climate change had their case struck down in the Federal Court of Canada. The Plaintiffs allege that the Impugned Conduct has unjustifiably infringed their rights (and the rights of all children and youth in Canada, present and future, due to an asserted public interest standing) under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants have failed to discharge their public trust obligations with respect to identified public resources, arguing a breach of obligations they claim fall under the “public trust doctrine”.
Youths' lawsuit demands courts press Ottawa for more action on climate
Globa and Mail Article from October 1, 2020, on the Court Case.