Do Canadians have the right to a healthy environment?

by David R. Boyd

My recent book The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution (UBC Press 2012) outlines the need for and potential benefits of incorporating environmental rights and responsibilities into our supreme law.

Three things everyone should know about the implications of recognizing the constitutional right to a healthy environment in Canada:

1. Canada is among the few nations that refuses to recognize its citizens’ right to live in a healthy environment. This right is included in four major regional human rights treaties and is constitutionally protected in over 110 nations.


2. Constitutional protection of environmental rights results in stronger environmental laws, better enforcement of those laws, and greater public participation in environmental decision-making. Most importantly, countries with these constitutional rights are making faster progress in ensuring cleaner air, safer water, and healthier environments.


3. Constitutional recognition of environmental rights and responsibilities would help reduce the thousands of premature deaths, millions of preventable illnesses, and billions in unnecessary health care expenses caused by exposure to environmental hazards in Canada annually.

Three myths about amending the constitution to recognize citizens’ right to a healthy environment:

Myth #1: “Canada is an environmental leader.”

The Reality: According to the Conference Board of Canada, we rank 15^th out of 17 wealthy industrialized countries on environmental performance, while countries with constitutional environmental rights and responsibilities such as Norway, Sweden and France top the rankings.

Myth #2: “Recognizing environmental rights could cause economic doom.”

The Reality: No evidence supports this claim. Experiences of 100+ countries suggest the opposite—that stronger environmental rules promote innovation and enhance competitiveness. For example, Norway’s Constitution recognizes this right, and Norway outperforms Canada environmentally, economically, and socially.

Myth #3: “Amending Canada’s Constitution is impossible.”

The Reality: Since 1982, the Constitution has been amended 11 times including two amendments of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, courts could interpret the existing language of the Charter (e.g. right to life, liberty, and security of the person) to include an implicit right to a healthy environment, as has occurred in at least 20 other countries.

David R. Boyd is an environmental lawyer, professor, and author of The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights and the Environment (UBC Press, 2012) and The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution (UBC Press, 2012).

What is the state of sex work in Canada?

by Amee Barber

Three things everyone should know about sex work in Canada:

1. Until recently, the sale of sex was not actually illegal under the Canadian criminal code, but everything surrounding it was: living off the avails, procuring, soliciting and maintaining a bawdy house. As a result, many sex workers argue that they feel there are forced to operate ‘underground’ and are afraid to openly disclose their profession to those who can help them. Sex workers cannot legally hire bodyguards or drivers or work in public, and, in some instances, even have trouble securing child care. Moreover, despite the fact that Edmonton, like many other cities, sells licenses so a sex worker can sell her services, sex workers are considered independent contractors and therefore are not entitled to employment benefits or protections.


2. On December 21, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that current Canadian legislation against solicitation was unconstitutional after finding that they negatively impacted the security and safety of sex workers.  It was argued that if sex workers were able to establish a regular place of business and hire body guards, then they would be able to more safely practice their business. The Court has given Parliament one year to come up with a new legislative scheme before the old laws became unenforceable.


3. The sex industry is highly stratified, just like any other industry. Different occupational profiles are associated with different levels of risk and earnings. Independent escort workers are typically the highest earners, while sex workers working for an agency typically have to follow house rules and pay a percentage to their operators. Meanwhile, the lowest earners, and the most at-risk to violence and addiction, are generally street workers.

Three myths about sex work in Canada:

Myth #1: All sex workers are coerced into sex work by men and are dominated by them.

The Reality: We must understand that there are a variety of reasons that women enter into sex. It is undeniable that some of the women within the escort industry were particularly vulnerable before their entry into sex work, and physical or emotional coercion must be taken very seriously and those responsible must be punished; however, many of these women enter sex work to make their own money, to gain flexibility and autonomy, and/or to live an exotic life style. 

Myth #2: We must protect the sex worker who is incapable of giving informed or real consent.

The Reality: This view argues that the sex worker is either coerced or so psychologically damaged, or socialized by patriarchy, to the point that she is no longer responsible for her actions and is rendered incapable of providing any type of real consent; yet sex workers, like all women, are capable of informed consent. They do not want their choices invalidated by people who claim to "know better."

Myth #3: Sex work is violence against women, it is degrading and objectifying and reinforces their own oppression.

The Reality: Some view the sex worker as a victim who must be "saved" because they believe the very act of sex work is morally wrong. This view purports that men reduce women to sexual objects, which means that women are used only for their body parts. However, this view tends to equate sexuality with a sense of self, which is not a legitimate comparison. If the sale of labour is not seen as degrading and objectifying, why is the sale of sex any different? 

Amee works as a senior strategic engagement specialist for the Department of Energy, Government of Alberta. She also teaches at the University of Alberta, where is currently finishing her PhD in comparative and gender politics. She welcomes discussion on the topic and can be contacted at amee@ualberta.ca. You can also find a unique take on the issues around sex work at a recent Pecha Kucha presentation she did, here:  http://www.edmontonnextgen.ca/2014/03/pecha-kucha-night-18-live-stream/  (her presentations starts at 1:56). 

What did the Quebec Court say about Senate Reform?

by Jennifer Smith

The Context

Bill C-7 contains the Conservative government’s scheme to reform the Senate by establishing nine-year, non-renewable terms for senators and by encouraging the provinces to hold Senate elections, the winners of which would be nominated to sit in the Senate by the prime minister.  The Quebec Court of Appeal has determined that Bill C-7 is completely unconstitutional.

Three things to know about the Quebec Court’s opinion:

 1.   According to the court, since each aspect (term and consultative elections) of the Conservative government’s scheme to change the Senate affects the powers of the institution and the method of selection of senators, Parliament cannot legislate the scheme on its own. It must involve the provinces.

2.  The constitution helpfully stipulates that amendments to the powers of the Senate and the method of selection of senators require the agreement of Parliament and the provincial legislatures of two-thirds of the provinces that, taken together, include 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces.

3.  The abolition of the Senate must meet a more onerous test, namely, the agreement of Parliament and the provincial legislatures of all of the provinces.

Three misconceptions revealed by the opinion:

The court also buries some misconceptions that many people hold about the Senate and Senate reform.

Myth #1:  The Senate is an unimportant institution of federalism.

The reality:  On the contrary, as the court points out, the Senate was a condition of Confederation, a fundamental component of the federal compromise of 1867. It was put together with great care.

Myth #2:  The Senate is unimportant as a house of Parliament.

The reality:  Not so, says the court, pointing to its mandated role in the country’s legislative process as well as the function of regional representation.

Myth #3:  Abolition is a convenient solution to the problem of Senate reform – just get rid of it!

The reality:  Abolition is the unlikeliest of options precisely because, according to the court, it would require unanimity, the highest threshold of agreement imaginable.

From a layman’s perspective, the message here is that the Senate of Canada belongs to all of us. It cannot be treated simply as a pawn in the game of partisan politics. The reform of the Senate must be a national project.

Jennifer Smith is professor emeritus, Department ofPolitical Science, Dalhousie University.  She edited The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming the Canadian Senate, 2009.