Student Column: Perspectives on the Environment and the Law | Opening Conversations at the Heart of Environmental Law
In this post, Ruby Pyke, JD Law Student of the University of Calgary, shares what she took away from the first day of our 2025 Annual Conference on Environment and Law, combining personal reflections with key moments from the discussions.
Day 1 of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice’s 49th annual conference on Environment and the Law started with a number of presentations on the state of environmental law, different mechanisms to address issues in environmental law and enforcement, and some particular issues with climate change and the law.
Karen Campbell first spoke of some developments in environmental law, as well as challenges in relation to them. She spoke of how environmental law faces continual pressure from different interests and actors – something I have been made very aware of as I’ve moved through my law school education. This reflects the overall theme of the conference: to develop or to protect. This tension is becoming increasingly more pronounced as economic anxieties rise amongst many Canadians, potentially driving environmental concerns to the background.
In response to this, Karen spoke about the increasing importance of the courts in environmental debate. I reflected upon how, as environmental issues become more politically divisive (think of the proposed pipeline between Alberta and BC, as well as federal and provincial laws that ‘streamline’, or speed up, approvals of major projects), the courts play an increasingly important role in safeguarding the public interest. However, it was also mentioned that perhaps the adversarial process of the courts is not the optimal way to address environmental issues that are inherently complex and multi-faceted. As was spoken about later in the conference, one of the main issues with environmental law is its tendency to silo issues into discrete categories. For example, species at risk are dealt with separately from contaminated sites and greenhouse gas pollution, although they all are likely connected and may be part of the same problem. So while courts are playing an increasingly important role in environmental law, they can’t be the only solution.
This segways nicely into one of the other speakers of the day, Aaron Bruce, who spoke about the growth of Indigenous-led environmental assessments. These are distinct from federal or provincial processes in that they are led by the Indigenous nation in question, according to their own laws or protocols. These assessments could be more effective than federal or provincial regimes as they may be more rigorous or comprehensive (perhaps considering impacts not considered otherwise), have greater input from community members who may be potentially impacted by a project, and concurrently contribute to Indigenous resurgence and reconciliation. The integration of Indigenous laws within the Canadian legal framework was a theme that came up frequently in the conference, and hearing about Aaron’s experience with the Squamish Wood Fibre project, as well as other Indigenous-led assessments, was inspiring, as it was a tangible, real-world example of a positive development in environmental law.
Another interesting and emerging solution to some of the problems of environmental law was presented by Darryl Robinson. I can attest that the audience was as intrigued as I was when he spoke about the use of criminal law to improve compliance and enforcement with environmental laws. He specifically spoke about introducing the term ‘ecocide’ into the Criminal Code, and how this could influence people’s perceptions about how destructive and serious environmental crimes are – how they should be held to the same standard as other heinous crimes such as theft or murder. Currently, most environmental crimes are “regulatory offences”, which bear a smaller penalty than other crimes. He cautioned, however, that this is only part of the solution, as criminal law doesn’t truly address the root of the problem.
There was a panel about climate change, which shed light on some of the particular challenges that face this environmental problem. Climate change is inherently complex, exerting a number of symptoms that can’t effectively be addressed separately. One of the panelists, Gemma Boag, spoke of the many effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems. In addressing climate change, the panelists emphasized the need to address the problem using an integrative approach. But as environmental law is primarily equipped to deal with discrete issues, as mentioned above, this poses a huge challenge to addressing climate change.
Lastly, we had a panel speak of international solutions to domestic environmental issues. I found it particularly interesting to learn about the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an intergovernmental organization between Canada, the USA and Mexico to implement the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. I had never heard of this organization. One of their functions is to investigate complaints related to governments failing to fulfill their commitments under existing domestic laws. This could be a powerful tool to address government shortcomings when it comes to implementing existing environmental laws; however, it is not a tool that can be used if governments are simply not doing what they should do, either morally or under international obligations.
This reminded me of the discussion earlier that day on climate litigation in Canada. The successful lawsuits seem to be those that target governments that are not fulfilling their legislative obligations (such as what happened in Mathur et al. v His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario), rather than those that fail to take effective steps to address climate change (such as in La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen). This mirrors the court’s general reluctance to recognize positive rights (i.e., those that oblige the government to do something), and its tendency to only enforce negative rights (i.e., step in when the government withholds certain rights from a group of people). This is one example of the shortcomings prevalent in environmental law and the long journey that Canada has to substantively address the looming threat of environmental issues.
About the author
Ruby Pyke
Ruby Pyke détient un baccalauréat ès sciences en systèmes mondiaux de ressources ainsi qu’une maîtrise ès sciences en microbiologie environnementale. Elle a mené des recherches sur le terrain concernant des espèces en péril, travaillé dans une ferme biologique et, plus récemment, occupé un poste d’étudiante d’été chez Lawson Lundell LLP. Sa passion pour l’environnement l’a incitée à entreprendre des études en droit, où elle espère mettre à profit sa formation scientifique afin de renforcer les lois environnementales du Canada.