Institutions

1. Institutions

2. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE (columns 2-4) • Democratic, parliamentary, federal (Westminster model of parliamentary democracy) BNA Act (1867) repatriated as ConstitutionAct (1982) • U.S. balances executive, legislatures, judiciary powers: checks & balances • U.K. One major government-centralized • Canada: Constitution determines who is responsible and can make policy decisions • Both federal and provincial have sovereign power • Legislative + executive merged-lack accountability • Feds often control legislative agenda; publicize decisions in parliament if majority government • Environment, water, pollution not mentioned

3. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE: Federal 1 s. 91: Heads of legislative powers affecting environment • 92(1a), 91(3) Spending-lending powers to anyone (column 4): controls & prerequisites [column • 4] • 91(10) Navigable waters: floating logs/canoes • Prov. dams, bridges, flood control must comply • 91(12) Seacoast and Inland fisheries • Anadromous fish and oceans [aquaculture prov.] Nonanadromous fish provincial Recreational fisheries shared • Feds control most aspects: seasons, methods, pollution, public fishing rights, developments near spawning beds and stream buffers

4. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE: Federal 2 s. 91(27): Criminal Law Power • Peace, order, security, health, morality • To use, must define action as a crime; remedial measure to prohibit certain conduct s. 91 [residual powers not assigned to provinces] • Peace, order, good government • Power to sign, implement treaties, agreements Other federal powers: interprovincial matters, agriculture, First Nations • N of 60o, military, parks, uranium production, offshore oil-gas (St Georgia) • Territorial sea • Treaty obligations, trade, commerce, taxation, interprovincial trade, railways, highways • Interprovincial matters: navigation (ferries), transportation, communications • Defense

5. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE: Federal 3 s.92(12): Feds control fish • Anadromous fish and oceans [aquaculture prov.] • Recreational fisheries shared • Nonanadromous fish provincial

6. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE • (feds capture resource taxation) • Interprovincial exports not affected as long as no discrimination in price, or quantity, exported to other provinces [also applies to next item] • Provinces can tax nonrenewable resources, electrical energy and facilities • No discrimination between intra and interprovincial exports • Constitutional talks have not increased fed. powers over environment; feds unsuccessful in use of Fisheries Act to control water quality; did succeed in enforcing environmental assessments on provinces [efforts to harmonize efforts] • Result: patch work of controls by feds-provinces • Intergovernmental agreements most successful

7. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE: Provincial 92-92a s.92-92a: Provincial legislative powers • 92(10) Local works and undertakings • 92(13) & 16) Property, civil rights, local/private matters in provinces • 92(a) Nonrenewable natural resources, forestry, electrical energy • Provinces have exclusive rights to govern exploration, developments, conservation, mgmt of sites & facilities. • Create laws to control export & taxation Provincial & Federal Interactions • Most projects attract a web of fed-provincial interests • Old Man: NavWatersProtAct=fisheries, First Nations, socioeconomic impacts • Environmental concerns more conflict than clarity

8. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE • Courts developed the present regime of strong federal controls and interventions • Provinces retaliated by collaborating • CCREM; Canadian Council of Forest Ministers • Limited cooperation between the feds/provinces • blame each other when problems • Feds have a lock on most taxation in Canada • Provinces starved for $$, especially cities where most Canadians live • Need new constitutional arrangements with national equity, checks & balances federally-provincially, transparency, responsibility for sustainability • Not possible within the Constitution Act given demands of PEI, Maritimes, Quebec

9. Weaknesses In Federal Environmental Law Canada has no national: (Boyd 2003: 229) • Enforceable air quality standards • Safe drinking water standards • Law requiring clean-up of contaminated sites • Law to protect wilderness outside national parks • Law to protect wild and scenic rivers • Law guaranteeing citizens access to information about all types/sources of toxic pollution • Law to protect whales and other marine mammals • Law to protect wetlands • National hazardous waste law • Law requiring sustainable fishing practices • Invasive species/forest management

10. FIRST NATIONS JURISDICTION • Received explicit constitutional status binding Canadian governments after 1982 • FNs at negotiating table on constitution in 1970s--threat of Quebec succession • Promised aboriginal round failed in 1987 but FN demands on political-constitutional agenda • Use courts to extend control over land/resources [Calder decision 1973; PQ] • Led to current round of land claims discussions throughout Canada • Self government demands unfulfilled • Normally complete fed.control over reserves • Can’t alienate reserves easily; feds control $

11. FIRST NATIONS JURISDICTION • Successful in fisheries but controversial • New agreements cover education, political, social, cultural life, economy, environment • Zoned agreements: exclusive control; specific interest areas: minerals, oil, gas, hunting, trapping; PQ hydroelectricity • Now taking FN rights more seriously • But FN have little control in nontreaty lands • High unemployment, low educational skills, addiction, prostitution, suicide • Feds ignored fiduciary obligations • Demands now enormous • What is fair???

12. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (Mathias Wackernagel and Bill Rees) http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ • How Much Nature Do They Use? • How Much Nature Do They Have? • Sustainability requires decent and equitable living within the means of nature. Not living within our ecological means will lead to the destruction of humanity's only home. Having insufficient natural resources, not living decently and equitably will cause conflict and degrade our social fabric.

13. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT • Is people's quality of life improving over time? . . .we need to monitor whether we are living within our ecological means or at what rate humanity is depleting the biosphere. "How much nature does humanity, our country, or our household use to sustain itself?" • People are part of nature, and depend on its steady supply of the basic requirements: energy, wood, fibers for clothes, quality food, and water for healthy living, ecological sinks for waste absorption, and many life-support services for securing living conditions. • This use of nature is measured in this report, nation by nation

14. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT HOW IS THIS MEASURED? • Account for resources consumed & wastes produced by nation, province, region, city • Convert these to the biologically productive area needed to produce these functions • Area considered is global • Account for fossil energy land, arable land, pasture, forest, settlements & roads, the sea • Current land use per capita is 1.7 ha/ person • With 10 billion population,there will be a need to drastically reduce our global footprint