Student Column: Perspectives on the Environment and the Law | Three Days to Rethink Environmental Law
In this post, Ignacia Méndez, an articling student at the BC Law Institute, shares what she took away from the three days of our 2025 Annual Conference on Environment and Law, combining personal reflections with key moments from the discussions.
Over the course of three days of the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice’s 49th annual conference on Environment and the Law, I had the opportunity to take part in wide ranging conversations about environmental law, climate change, Indigenous legal traditions, and what justice means in this ever evolving landscape. It was refreshing to step outside of my everyday work and listen to experts who think deeply about these issues from legal, scientific, and cultural perspectives. The sessions offered much to reflect on, particularly the ways that Indigenous knowledge may serve to reshape how we think about and respond to our environmental responsibilities.
Day 1: Setting the scene – Law, Climate, and Change
We opened with remarks from the Honourable Julie Dutil whose observations framed much of what followed: with rapidly shifting environmental realities, how might the law adapt and respond to these changes? The Honourable Leonard Marchand proposed that meaningfully adopting legal pluralism – the coexistence of Crown laws with Indigenous laws – is key in addressing this conundrum. He also pointed to the value of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) not only in advancing the rights of Indigenous people but also how this may be used as a tool to protect the natural world.
From there, the panels focused on three substantive themes:
- Important Developments in Environmental Law
Karen Campbell, executive director at the BC Law Institute, put forth that environmental laws have not advanced as far or as quickly as many once hoped. The core environmental principles, she noted, remain largely unused. Mainly due to judicial timidity and the ongoing legislative “tugs of war” between economic and environmental priorities. Campbell emphasized that now, more than ever, the courts have a crucial role to play in bringing these principles to life. Legislation alone, she argued, cannot carry the full weight of addressing today’s environmental challenges.
Professor Darryl Robinson proposed criminal law as another means to advance environmental protections. Although it cannot be the first and only solution, he highlighted the expressive function of criminal law in shaping societal views and pushed for a national recognition of ecocide.
Lawyer Aaron Bruce provided an Indigenous perspective with respect to the environmental assessment process. He noted that for Indigenous peoples, land use decision making rests on inherent rights and not simply on Crown regulatory systems. His example of the Squamish Nation-led environmental assessment process illustrated how legal pluralism can be put into action.
- The Science of Climate Change
Micaela Martinez, environmental justice officer at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, described how climate science works and the public’s scepticism, often stemming from a lack of fundamental understanding of the science. Martinez called for integrative thinking, noting that climate change does not exist in isolation, but rather intersects with biodiversity loss, pollution, and social inequities.
Gemma Boag of the Canada Water Agency added to the discussion by using water as a lens through which to discuss climate change. She reminded us that climate change accelerates the warming of freshwater ecosystems, exacerbates droughts and floods, while threatening food security. Like Martinez, Boag argued that integrative approaches are integral in formulating how we might engage the public and create an impactful national adaptation strategy.
- Integrating Domestic and International Environmental Law
In the final session of the day, Esteban Salcedo from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation discussed his organization’s work in advancing environmental justice. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is another avenue through which individuals can raise concerns about a country’s failure to enforce environmental laws, prompting independent review, accountability, and visibility across national borders. On the domestic front, lawyer Chris Roine discussed the regulatory landscape, particularly Bill C-5 and Bill 15, both of which seek to expedite major infrastructure projects. These changes in the industry landscape call into question the role of Indigenous participation and accountability.
Day 2: Indigenous Approaches to Environmental Decision-Making
The second day focused on Indigenous laws, governance, and decision making frameworks. Central to the morning was the question of how we might reconcile colonial laws and Indigenous laws. Specifically, what does Indigenous decision making look like and what might we draw from this coexisting legal system?
I found the RELAW (Revitalizing Indigenous Laws for Land, Air and Water) workshop especially meaningful. Katłıà Lafferty and Eugene Kung guided us through a process of translating Indigenous laws and stories into case briefs. The exercise underscored that Indigenous laws are not static or historical, but living systems that are as contemporary and relevant as Crown laws.
Other panels throughout the day explored how the public interest is considered in assessing major projects, particularly through environmental assessments. Lawyers Merle Alexander and Dani Bryant provided some insights into how these assessments are conducted and how legislative changes may reshape the process. Particularly with respect to Indigenous involvement and duty to consult considerations. Former forester Casey Macaulay added an on the ground perspective, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the concept of public interest. He noted that in practice, parties are often left to navigate reconciliation and regulatory expectations with limited guidance.
The day concluded with what was intended to be a debate between lawyer, Roy Millen, Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Environment and Parks, Kevin Jardine, and Celeste Haldane from the BC Treaty Commission. While drawing from different examples, the panelists shared a common view that economic growth and environmental stewardship must advance together. Despite the difficulties in reconciling these seemingly opposing interests, the panelists seemed optimistic about maintaining the delicate balance between sustainability and economic prosperity relating to resource extraction projects.
Day 3: Environmental Law and Climate Justice
On the final day, we dove deeper into questions of justice and equity. First, we heard from Micaela Martinez again on structural racism and environmental racism. She noted that we cannot talk about climate justice without recognizing that marginalized communities bear disproportionate environmental impacts.
Then, Professor Chris Russill notably discussed the proliferation of greenwashing in the Canadian oil and gas sector. Russill noted that the rampant promotion of net-zero claims by oil producers and other industries has prompted legislative action against this blatant deception. Amendments to the Competition Act targeting greenwashing offer a hopeful example of enforceable environmental protection provisions. Businesses must now substantiate any “green” claims with credible and verifiable evidence, holding them accountable for the accuracy of their sustainability messaging.
Dr. Suzanne Simard’s talk emphasized the deep, relational connection between humans and forests. She called for a reassessment of how we view forests – not just as resources to be extracted, but as vital life-supporting systems – and urged a shift towards a more symbiotic relationship with the natural world.
The final panel comprised the work of three individuals in the area of environmental law and climate change. Jay Chalke, the Ombudsperson of BC, discussed his analysis of the 2021 heat dome crisis in BC, resulting in heat-related deaths. Using this as a case study, Chalk offered recommendations to the province and called for a comprehensive strategy to respond to future environmental emergencies. Professor Catherine Choquette, on the other hand, discussed the value of environmental mediations in mitigating environmental conflicts. Lastly, lawyer Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson shared insights from her PhD research on Haida Gwaii, emphasizing the importance of advancing and sharing Indigenous knowledge in environmental governance.
Takeaways
As the conference came to a close, a few themes stayed with me. I leave aware of the scale of the work ahead, particularly in the face of evolving legislative changes that may conflict with environmental goals. Still, I remain hopeful that the challenges ahead may be met with innovative solutions and bold stances that disrupt the status quo. I left feeling energized and inspired by the value of Indigenous laws and legal pluralism as a pathway to regenerate and imbue Indigenous perspectives into existing colonial structures. The conversations I had inside and outside the conference also left me feeling optimistic about the growing ecosystem of individuals who are dedicated to addressing these challenges with creativity and collaborative efforts.
About the author
Ignacia Méndez
Ignacia is an articling student at the BC Law Institute. She completed her B.A. in Sociology and Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia, and her J.D. at Thompson Rivers University. Prior to law school, she worked at legal aid organizations assisting vulnerable migrants seeks asylum in Canada and the US. Ignacia aspires to continue to work in the public interest and advance social justice.