Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- I. Methodology, Terminology and Context -- II. Outline of the Book -- Part I: The Environmental Emergency -- 1. The Concept of the Environmental Emergency -- I. The Environmental Emergency -- II. Failing Schmitt's Challenge -- III. The Formal Conception of the Rule of Law -- IV. Conclusion -- 2. Environmental Reform: The Problem of Discretion in Environmental Law -- I. The Environmental Reform Position -- II. Black and Grey Holes in Canadian Environmental Law -- III. Impoverished Environmental Reform Solutions -- IV. Conclusion -- 3. Environmental Governance: The Problem of Law in Environmental Law -- I. Old and New Governance -- II. Three Examples of Environmental Governance -- III. Reclaiming the Rule of Law -- IV. Conclusion -- Part II: Responding to the Environmental Emergency 4. The Requirement of Public Justification -- I. Responding to Schmitt's Challenge -- II. Public Justification: A Democratic Conception of the Rule of Law -- III. Conclusion -- 5. Institutional Design: Reforming Forest Practices -- I. The Institutional Dimensions of Public Justification -- II. The Forest Practices Board and the Mountain Pine Beetle Response -- III. The Forest Practices Board and Its Governance Response -- IV. Conclusion -- 6. Pipelines and Principles: Reasonableness and Fairness in Environmental Law -- I. The Pipelines, the NEB and Their Problems -- II. In Defence of Environmental Principles -- III. Publicly Justifying the Pipelines 7 -- IV. Conclusion -- 7. Reasoning Adequately: Wind Turbine Risks and Benefits -- I. The Confluence of Environmental Factors in Wind Turbine Development -- II. The Method and Purpose of Reasonableness -- III. Reasoning Adequately about Wind Turbine Approvals -- IV. Conclusion -- 8. The Rule of Law and the Right to a Healthy Environment -- I. The Case for a Charter Right to a Healthy Environment -- II. Environmental Protection and Section 7 Adjudication -- III. Common Law Constitutional Rights Adjudication -- IV. Conclusion

Environmental assessment (EA) is a cornerstone of environmental law. It provides a legal framework for public decision-making about major development projects with implications for environmental protection and the rights and title of Indigenous Peoples. Despite significant literature supporting deliberation as the preferred mode of engagement with those affected by EA decisions, the specific legal demands of EA legislation remain undeveloped. This article suggests a legal foundation for deliberative environmental assessment. It argues that modern EA can be understood through three public law frames: procedural fairness, public inquiry, and the framework for the duty to consult and accommodate. It further argues that these three public law frames share features of deliberative decision-making that can and should inform the implementation and interpretation of new design features in British Columbia and Canada's reformed EA legislation. L'évaluation environnementale est une pierre angulaire du droit de l'environnement. Elle fournit un cadre juridique pour la prise de décisions par les instances publiques relatives aux grands projets de développement ayant des conséquences pour la protection de l'environnement et les droits et titres des peuples autochtones. Malgré l'existence d'une importante littérature soutenant que la consultation et la délibération constituent le mode d'engagement privilégié avec les personnes visées par les décisions touchant les évaluations environnementales, les exigences juridiques spécifiques de la législation en matière d'évaluation environnementale restent peu développées. Le présent article propose un fondement juridique pour l'évaluation environnementale délibérative. Il fait valoir que l'évaluation environnementale moderne peut être comprise à la lumière de trois cadres de droit public : l'équité procédurale, l'enquête publique et l'obligation de consulter et d'accommoder. Il fait également valoir que ces trois cadres de droit public partagent des caractéristiques de la prise de décision délibérative qui peuvent et doivent éclairer la mise en œuvre et l'interprétation des nouvelles caractéristiques de la législation sur l'évaluation environnementale en Colombie-Britannique et au Canada.

Major projects, such as mines, dams, and pipelines impose disproportionate social and environmental harms on marginalized communities. Environmental impact assessment, a central legal framework for approving these projects, has historically failed to identify and address these impacts, thus perpetuating environmental injustice across the country. Changes to the federal impact assessment legislation in 2019 appear to offer a partial response. The new legislation mandates gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) as part of the assessment for major projects. This article considers the potential for mandatory GBA+ to encode intersectionality in impact assessment and begin to address the systemic discrimination carried out through impact assessment laws. It finds that, while the new requirement will make it more challenging for proponents and decision-makers to ignore the allocation of disproportionate burdens and harms, the current framing and implementation of GBA+ represents an additive or check-box approach to addressing discrimination and thus falls short of its intersectional aim.