The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50833
opinion Karen Lorimer Gail J. Cohen Glenn Kauth Neal Adams Einar Rice Janet Popadiuk Mary Hatch Robert Todd, Kelly Harris, Jean Sorensen, Geoff Kirbyson, donalee Moulton Canadian Lawyer is published 11 times a year by Canadian Lawyer Magazine Inc., 240 Edward St., Aurora, Ont. L4G 3S9 (905) 841- 6480 Fax: (905) 727-0017. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reprinted without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, how- ever, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Canadian Lawyer Magazine Inc. disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Kimberlee Pascoe (905) 713-4342 kpascoe@clbmedia.ca Karen Lorimer (905) 713-4339 klorimer@clbmedia.ca Kathy Liotta (905) 713-4340 kliotta@clbmedia.ca Rose Noonan (905) 726-5444 rnoonan@clbmedia.ca Sandy Shutt (905) 713-4337 sshutt@clbmedia.ca Stuart J. Morrison 240 Edward St., Aurora, ON L4G 3S9 (905) 841-6480 canlawmag@clbmedia.ca www.canadianlawyermag.com ISSN 0703-2129 Copyright © 2008 G.S.T. Registration #R121349799 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESS TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 240 EDWARD ST., AURORA, ON L4G 3S9 RETOURNER TOUTE CORRESPONDANCE NE POUVANT ÊTRE LIVRÉE AU CANADA AU SERVICE DES PUBLICATIONS 240 EDWARD ST., AURORA, ON L4G 3S9 Kirsten Schulz-Lacey 1-888-743-3551 Ext. 4376 905-841-4357 kschulz-lacey@clbmedia.ca Subscription rates: Canada1 year print and digital $65 plus GST, 1 year digital only $55. Outside Canada 1 year print & digital $94.50 (USD), 1 year digital only $40.00(USD). Student rate 1 year print and digital $36 plus GST, 1 year digital only $20 plus GST. For all circulation inquiries and address changes send a copy of your mail- ing label or labels along with your request in writing to Canadian Lawyer 240 Edward Street, Aurora, ON, L4G 3S9 Indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index (905) 727-0017 T EDITOR ' S DE SK BY GAIL J. COHEN he environment is one of the major concerns of our day, perhaps over- whelmed recently by the economic tsunami that is sweeping the globe, but not an issue that will go away or be easily solved. The Liberals tried to tackle it in the last election but found their Green Shiſt plan difficult to explain to Canadians and suffered the political consequences. While Stéphane Dion and his party now must start rebuilding if they are to be a political force again, portions of the Green Shiſt will likely linger and perhaps even become policy in this country. I'm somewhat of an environmentalist. I do my part to save energy, eat locally, use organic and biodegradable products in my home, and so forth. But I'm by no means an expert on solving the world's environmental problems — and truthfully, I don't think anyone else is either. But in my quest to learn more, I found myself at the Ca- nadian Constitution Foundation's second annual conference. I was drawn there not by the chance to hear David Frum, George Bush's former speechwriter, or Eugene Meyer, the president of the American Federalist Society. It was a Saturday morn- ing panel on protecting the environment through private property rights. On the podium sat Albert Koehl of Ecojustice, Elizabeth Brubaker from the Energy Probe Research Foundation, and Ramani Nadarajah of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. In terms of how the law can work to help clean up the environment, the panellists had three distinct ideas. They definitely made me think, so I'll share what they had to say. Brubaker was by far the biggest proponent of individual property rights as a way to redress environmental issues. She notes that in the common law, individuals have al- ways had very strong property rights that allowed for the use and enjoyment of their property without interference. Common law rights would be a way to prohibit all kinds of pollution; protect one's own land, water, and air even. Such property rights empower individuals who are directly affected, say by the chemical company just up the river, to stand up to polluting Goliaths through court injunctions and such, says Brubaker. That would work in some cases but in others the problem, she notes, is that governments have now set up regulatory bodies and other systems that "time and again have overwritten the common law to protect polluters." So the idea of property rights does have some merit but is both expensive to litigate and, as Brubaker admits, more and more difficult to use. Koehl and Ecojustice believe that legislative changes on a national and interna- tional level are the best way to deal with environmental problems because most are on much too grand a scale to be tackled through private property rights. He points to the banning of CFCs in efforts to address the earth's depleting ozone layer. In that case pollutants came from many sources and it would be impossible to blame on individual companies or people. The high cost of changing the way you do business also means voluntary guidelines are not the way to go. The only way forward, in such a reality, is through legislation that forces industry to change, he says. Nadarajah is a believer in the regulatory model to curb polluters. Money talks and fines and penalties, or even –– gasp! –– a carbon tax, are ways to get large polluters to change their ways. Hitting them in the pocketbook is what really hurts, is her theory. Each of these three options has benefits and drawbacks but it would seem that all three legal paths used in the right circumstances will be beneficial and worth pursu- ing. Nothing should be ruled out in efforts to green up the world. www. mag.com NO VEMBER / DECEMBER 2008 3