Heather Fast: Environmental Rights as Human Rights

Stuart Murray  0:00  
This podcast was recorded on the ancestral lands, on treaty one territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Cree, Oji Cree, Dakota and the Dene peoples, and on the homeland of the Metis nation.

Amanda Logan (Voiceover)  0:20  
This is humans on rights, a podcast advocating for the education of human rights. Here's your host, Stuart Murray,

Stuart Murray  0:31  
conversations about the environment and because this is a human rights podcast, always looking through a human rights lens to understand some of the elements that take place with the environment today. And there's a lot to talk about on this show. We're going to talk a little bit about the international the IGC, which is stands for the International Court of Justice. That's kind of the International part, but we're going to bring it down locally to talk about another local issue that was in the news recently in LeMay forest. But to do that, I'm delighted to welcome my guest today, Heather fast. Heather is a PhD candidate the University of Manitoba Natural Resource Institute. She teaches environmental law, 360 I guess, 3600, to be clear, at the Faculty of Law, and she holds multiple degrees in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Law. With that said, Heather fast, welcome to humans on rights. Thanks for having me. I gave a little introduction, but let's dive into who you are. Give us a sense of introduce yourself, explain, explain what you do in a little bit more detail than I offered at the front of the program, absolutely.

Heather Fast  1:39  
So you have talked a little bit about my educational background. One piece that's missing is that I am the policy advocacy director of a local environmental Non Governmental Organization, the Manitoba eco network. So I've been able to use my legal training and then combine it with some of the fun education stuff I do at the university into a nice little policy job at the Eco network, which involves a variety of different things, and we're always kind of adjusting to whatever the community needs. So to kind of summarize me and my interests, it's very much on law and policy. My background research has really focused on meaningful public participation and access to justice, so figuring out ways for regular people to get more involved. And I'm also have been very lucky to do lots of research on environmental rights. So that's, I think, why I'm here today.

Stuart Murray  2:42  
Perfect. Yeah, for sure. Thank you for mentioning the issue that of your involvement with the Manitoba eco network. Because just backing up, that's how I how I found out about what you do. So thank you for bringing that in. My omission, my bad Heather, what got you most interested in your field? You got a degree in law, and you have a huge passion for the environment. Did one come before the other? Or how did you shape those two together to get to this area that you're discussing now?

Heather Fast  3:10  
So I get asked this question a lot, and I will say I don't have a perfect answer, but I think a lot of my inspiration came from the fact that my parents are both science teachers and also avid outdoor educators, and we just grew up camping, hiking, being outside and also being exposed to a lot of scientific information, particularly about gardening and trees and plants and Animals. So I think that probably kick started my interest. And then when I was doing my undergraduate degree, I just started learning about law and the role it can play in helping shape society. And I think that's where I kind of got interested there and ended up on an environmental law pathway. I think that's the best way I can do it. It's been a winding road. But I think those early that early love of the environment and all my good experiences just inspired me to keep walking that path.

Stuart Murray  4:09  
Oh, perfect. Did you ever, at one time when you were sort of studying law? Did you ever look and say, I wonder if I should branch into the commercial aspect of law, you know, sort of the on the more, I won't say traditional, that's a very specific area, but did you ever sort of look and think you might take that path?

Heather Fast  4:26  
I was really lucky in my legal career, and that I worked a number of different places, including an insurance company, so I was able to try different things out. I do think I felt the call of the educator a little bit, and really got interested in grad school. I think I didn't quite have the same draw towards that traditional type of law, and instead was very much interested on how do I create change. And then I really started working with the community and youth, and kind of fell in love with that. I. Think so I did enjoy the work I did. It was a very like policy and regulatory, very interesting research, and I learned a lot. But I do think at my core, I really like the public education aspect and getting to work with a very like interdisciplinary group of people. So yeah, I think that's why I ended up on a different route?

Stuart Murray  5:20  
Yeah, no, I you, I mean, you come from it, as you said at the beginning, kind of naturally with your the background, with your parents and being, you know, educators from a scientific standpoint, and kind of camping and the love of the love of of nature and being outside. Before we get into some of the specifics of our of our topic today, Heather, did you have a favorite camping spot that you loved, whether it be in Manitoba or elsewhere, then

Heather Fast  5:45  
it was really lucky to experience lots of places. But I do very fond memories of camping in Jasper, and I was very sad about the impacts of the fires, and again, the impacts of the wildfires on lots of places I grew up going, but in particular, I will say I do. I'm a prairie girl at heart, but I do love the camping in the mountains and the different viewpoint that you get, yeah, when you're in different parts of Canada.

Stuart Murray  6:12  
Yeah, no, all good. I love that. So, so Heather, we sort of chatted, and the reason I'm so delighted to have you on is that, you know, the International Court of Justice has come down with some landmark advisory opinions, particularly July, 23 of this year, so not long ago, but just before we get into the conversation, perhaps for anybody listening, what is the International Court of Justice and what role does it play, with respect to some of the elements that would come towards Canada from both an environmental and human rights perspective.

Heather Fast  6:47  
The International Court of Justice is a judicial body that originates out of the UN Charter. So it's very connected to the United Nations. The ICJ is the kind of like principal court for the United Nations, and the court actually originated in its kind of first iteration in 1946 so it's been around for a long time. It's located in the Netherlands, and its role really is to settle legal disputes that are submitted by different states so different parties to the UN charter to give advisory opinions, or it can also make actual legal decisions, depending on exactly what question was put to them. So again, there's kind of two main cases the court came here legal disputes between states. So that's called contentious cases or requests for advisory opinions, which is what we're talking about now, which are referred to it by kind of bodies of the UN so in this case, the General Assembly was the body that asked the ICJ to answer this question.

Stuart Murray  7:57  
And can I just ask Heather, without getting into too much sort of detail on it, if that's possible. What was the the question that was put towards the for the ICJ that we're referring to, that was the advisory that came out on July 23 is it? Is it a fairly straight ahead question, or is it fairly complex?

Heather Fast  8:18  
It is pretty straightforward. So it was a resolution adopted in March 2023 that actually asked the question. So the court's been thinking about this for a while. It wasn't just decided this year, but there are kind of two parts. So the first part it was, it asked the court what the obligations of the states under international law are to ensure the protection of climate systems and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions, so human originated emissions of greenhouse gasses for states, both for present and future generations. And then the second piece was they asked the court to think about the legal consequences under these different obligations if the states were to violate whatever that kind of legal obligation might be. So basically, what are the obligations, and then what are the legal consequences if they do not follow or meet those legal obligations? That's kind of the summary, I think, of. Yeah,

Stuart Murray  9:20  
perfect. Thank you so much for that. So so on with that understanding. Then Heather, when again, I understand that this landmark decision, or this advisor opinion, came out of July, 23 of this year, how does the the language that was presented by the ICJ? How would that shift a human rights conversation that may be different before and now, once this this landmark advisory opinion has been issued by the ICJ.

Heather Fast  9:46  
Do you mean generally in terms of climate change, or more specifically about, like environmental rights?

Stuart Murray  9:51  
I'm thinking more about environmental rights, please. So this

Heather Fast  9:55  
decision doesn't really add much in terms of what those of us who. Have been advocating for environmental rights of Nolan, and have been saying for a long time, which is that there are environmental rights, and environmental rights are directly connected and required for human rights. There were some previous decisions and discussions of from other bodies of the UN and so this was just a really nice confirmation of all of these previous things, and really just confirms, again, what we already know, and what the UN General Assembly recognized in 2022 in a resolution, is that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. So again, it's more of a confirmation and provides just additional kind of international evidence of something we already know. It also adds some more tools, potentially if these rights and these obligations are violated. So I would say it moves the conversation forward in that it brings more legal options to the plate. But in terms of, is this a brand new thing? No, we, we, those of us like myself, are very pleased it's confirmed what we know, it's what we wanted the court to find, because there's very good legal evidence. But yeah, it's a really nice confirmation that it is, in fact, a right. They are important, and we do need to protect environmental rights the same way we protect human

Stuart Murray  11:26  
rights. So Heather, not asking this at all from a cynical perspective, but really trying to get a sense of how I mean you you're the way you sort of answer the question. Is very clear that you understand a lot of this. There's nothing new there. This wasn't a Hooray moment. It was like a, like a earth shattering moment where the courts came down with something that has been, you know, contested ferociously on both sides. I mean, as you say, it's almost sort of an acknowledgement of things that you through your professional career, legally and also from a policy standpoint for the Manitoba eco network, you're aware of a lot of the things that were discussed at the ICJ that they came up with. I guess my question would be, you know, from your perspective, where is kind of the the strength or the ability, I'm just trying to read through think of the right word Heather that you can say, Okay, now not only can we move this from a conversation of concern, but we can move it to a point where there are legal implications for those that are not following what we have been talking about now, but now that has become law, it makes it easier to reinforce this part of the conversation.

Heather Fast  12:37  
I think maybe I can talk to answer your question. Maybe it helped to talk a little bit about the fact that this is considered a non binding decision. I know there's critiques around that, so in a situation when the ICJ is making an advisory decision, it's basically kind of a set of recommendations, it's answering the question, but it is then up to the body who asked the question to really do something with it. So we have this great decision. The court was very clear in this decision that they were addressing the kind of enforcement and legal consequences piece. So first of all, it's non binding. I'll speak to that in a little bit about why it's still awesome and very useful. But in terms of it, the actual legal tools come up, coming out of it, the ICJ was very clear that the decision really only addresses it in a general manner. The court wasn't actually asked to identify the specific legal responsibilities of any particular state or group of states. So what the decision does is gives us a list of if you're a signatory to this international law, these are your likely legal obligations. And then it talks about some like general things that could be done in terms of enforcement. The court has noted, though, that enforcement so if a state was to violate these laws down the road, and this was turned into a binding situation, the enforcement would really depend on the specific context. So which international laws the specific country is signed on to the court doesn't give us those like, like a list of provisions that could be easily added into existing international laws. It doesn't hand us that exact map, but it does lay out a general framework and some pathways forward, which, again, could be turned into some kind of binding requirement by the General Assembly. Or if it comes up in the other type of iCj decision, then it could turn into some type of binding situation. So we have general answers, so we don't know very specifically in terms of what legal tools might happen and the specific enforcement requirements. But that's okay. That's international law is often very general. So, so that's okay in terms of the fact that the the decision is non binary. Thing in environmental law, which I'm sure you know, and anyone who tracks policy things, things are always moving ridiculously fast, even in terms of how we're understanding climate impacts and the range of impacts even being experienced as a result. So physical temperature changes, environmental impacts, forest fires, that type of thing. The law is very slow, though, so our learning and understanding and the impacts we're experiencing are very quick and very changing rapidly. The law and policy are very slow. So even in situations when we have these decisions that are not necessarily binding, they feel very useless sometimes. And I think that's been the criticism. However, there is a lot of celebration about this decision, because it does confirm the importance of collaboration, the importance of global work to address climate change. The court has said these things in this very long decision. It confirms the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right, and that the protection of environment mental rights are needed to enjoy all human rights. So in terms of enforcement of the ruling, like, like I said, there's this basic description that we can now move forward with. And so we have some more ideas. There's a lot of credibility and weight that derives from the ICJ, even though it's not binding. So the fact that the question was asked by the UN General Assembly, which is like one of the top kind of bodies, and it involved interpretation of binding laws. So some of the laws they identified, if you violate this, there's consequences. Those are binding things. So there could be enforcement actions coming out of that. So even though it's non binding, this decision has significant weight internationally. It is still persuasive. It still could be brought up in Canadian courts and other policy conversations, or even just regular conversations like we're having now, because again, it does evidence some of these things that experts have been saying for a long time, and it's a very authoritative legal body. And there were a lot of different people involved. They had the most participation for this particular hearing that they've ever had before in terms of states and international organizations getting involved. And the judges involved are from a whole variety of different countries. So again, to me, it does have value. It is helpful. It does set out this pathway. It doesn't give us this kind of specific, you know, again, it doesn't hand us a bill that we could then shop around for a provincial government. But it still could be very useful moving forward, and we'll see what further interpretation comes out of the UN itself. So for example, if the UN General Assembly was to adopt this decision, so they could basically say, we agree, and we want to make this a binding situation, that's now a pathway. So we'll have to wait and see what happens. But it still remains persuasive. It does give us some ideas for moving forward, and again, is useful evidence in policy and legal conversations.

Stuart Murray  18:13  
So Heather just to try to get an understanding if the so the ICJ has basically put together a advisory opinion, which, as you say, is non binding, and pass that back to the UN General Assembly. If the UN General Assembly decides that they would like it to be binding, do they then have to go back to the ICJ and request that this become binding? Or does that body, the UN General Assembly, have the ability to say, we're taking this interpretation, which is non binding, taking it to a vote at the UN General Assembly to with the idea of make it binding. And then that then becomes a way that the courts in Canada, which is what we're concerned about, would then use that as an interpretation.

Heather Fast  19:01  
No, they wouldn't have to go back to the court. They could, they could write a resolution or make an amendment to an existing international law. Again, international law is not my particular area of expertise, so I'd have to do a bit more research into what that exact pathway is. But no, they wouldn't have to go back to the courts and ask permission. This opinion is out there now and then. You then could choose to adopt it through a resolution, or, I'm not using the right term. I found it somewhere. But there is a process for this of adopting the decisions, advisory decisions. So then what, in terms of getting into into Canadian law, the courts in Canada could still consider what the ICJ has said, it's not binding in any way, but a lawyer could still bring it up in a court case and say, here's an idea. This is what these incredibly accredited, highly respected legal minds. Have thought, and so there is legal precedent for that in Canada. I'm not going to get into it, because I'm definitely not a litigator at heart. So since the case names don't stick as well, but it still could be something that's considered by the Canadian courts and could be used to change Canadian law. So that would be up to the federal government to do the federal government could use this ruling to inspire legal change. The provincial government could do the same. So, yeah, governments in Canada don't actually have to wait for this to become binding, for them to be able to adopt new climate mitigation strategies and policies and make amendments to their law, but it definitely is helpful in terms of providing some pathways, and again, evidencing some of these kind of basic core concepts that, yeah, experts have arguing about for a long time.

Stuart Murray  20:52  
So no fair question. And again, just to be clear, this is not a legal podcast, because I wouldn't know what questions to ask, so let's just start there. So I appreciate your clarification on that, Heather, you know, more of a matter of interest when you look at when an International Court of Justice makes a ruling, you know, for somebody like you, who is, you know, an expert in this area, you teach it at the Faculty of Law, it's part of your whole background. And from a policy perspective, when a landmark advisory opinion comes out of the ICJ, do you look at the landscape in Canada to see who is commenting on it, to see, okay, this is people that are paying attention. This is good. This is starting to further the conversation in a deeper, more meaningful way about the issue about environmental rights from a human rights perspective,

Heather Fast  21:43  
I mean, part of my job, and also part of my research for my studies, and also updating course materials. I definitely track the discourse around things like this, so I've read a ton of news articles. I'm sure there'll be some good webinars and things come out, providing analysis, usually Environmental Law Centers. And I feel like in September, we're going to get some good webinars, when the law schools get going again, right? And, yeah, I tend to also really look at other environmental organizations. So I think, yeah, this definitely made an impact. We saw a lot of discourse about it. I don't know if it's necessarily changed the conversation, but I do think that it has helped evidence, again, what advocates have been saying for a long time, and does it was very interesting, because it also very much happened very close to when the federal government released their implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. So yeah, I think it's a topical thing and and it's definitely come up. I don't know if it's changed anyone's opinions, but because we do have kind of the UN resolution from 2022 so I think it's pretty well recognized, but this does provide further evidence, so I'll definitely be talking about it a lot in my classes, and the students will be interested. And again, the court said some really interesting things in their big, long decision. And so some of that commentary will be very nice to bring up in the future when, again, trying to explain to the public or policy makers, why it's important, and again, why protecting environmental human rights should be a priority when we're thinking about environmental protections and things like that.

Stuart Murray  23:30  
So would you say, Heather, that this has just, you know, kind of given you, you know, I want to be careful with choosing my words here, but it's given you more information, deeper information, an organization that clearly is international as the ICJ is to help shape a conversation or a debate around these issues, because of the nature of the magnitude of who the ICJ is, I

Heather Fast  23:57  
don't know if it necessarily has helped, like an organization like mine, we have a lot of credibility, and in Canada, environmental experts, I mean, there's a lot of support. We do have laws and policies and recognition from elected officials. What this decision is going to help is going to be advocates and policy makers and changers in other jurisdictions where they do have more trouble getting through to their elected officials, or especially countries. So in this case, there's been a lot of discussion about the kind of small emitters versus big emitters. So in this case, the countries that are very much at a disadvantage, this does highlight again, that everyone has obligations, there should be accountability for those who are creating the most emissions. So I think for those advocates in countries that are facing the worst impacts and are often the smallest emitters, definitely are experiencing a shift in the conversation. Conversation, and I think that's where a lot of the celebration is being seen is shifting that conversation and focus in that direction. So I think it's great because people keep asking me to talk about it, and I enjoy this topic, but I think the big impact will be for those organizations and in countries where they've had even more trouble getting through to policy makers than we do here in Canada.

Stuart Murray  25:24  
So Heather, when you when you think about policy, and that's so important, and you know, I have conversations with a lot of people. You know, we have these federal elections, or we have provincial elections, even civic elections, it doesn't matter. But, you know, elections are always that opportunity for somebody who might not follow politics all that closely to get engaged, to find out who they might vote for, whether it's party or individual. You know, we just went through a federal election, and of course, you know, there was a lot of conversation based on what took place south of the border in terms of that election. How do you how do you think we as Canadians or through the political system, can better start having discourse around the environment that is meaningful from a perspective, to understand where different individuals or parties stand on their belief on the environment, particularly environmental rights from a human rights perspective.

Heather Fast  26:19  
So I definitely don't think I can solve our democratic problems as a country in one answer, but in terms of wanting to facilitate more conversation or more diverse conversation, I think that's where I will always go back to my kind of meaningful public participation roots. There are so many opportunities within the environmental community to learn more, to engage more. Elected officials are always willing to chat. People think it's a bit more of a scarier situation than it is, but I just got a meeting with the minister because a staff person came and talked to me in my pajamas on my front porch the other day so and I just happened to answer the door, you know. So I would say, if you're really worried and you want to contribute to the conversation, start having the conversation. I know, in terms of being someone focused on human rights and environmental rights, we do face a lot of like rights. What about the economy or other things being like, is that really the important thing? Well, yes, it is, and we need to keep repeating that and talking about it, and every time we get new evidence and new supporting decisions, celebrating it, spreading the word. So I really think at the core a lot of it has to do with people getting involved and understanding whether it's reading the news. I mean, a lot of youth really are engaging through kind of alternative media sources, social media, you can very effectively contribute to conversations and educate people and inspire them to participate by doing things like that as well. So figuring out kind of what your perspective is, or what you would like to do, and then finding a place to do something, and you don't have to be a lawyer or an expert. I mean, the Manitoba energy Justice Coalition, for example, has been doing some amazing art based events, so art focused advocacy and so, again, if you're someone who really is passionate and looking for colleagues, there's all kinds of opportunities just to show up and yeah, have a conversation with someone, I would say that's a good starting place. And then you will on your path, find people like yourself and I who will be happy to have much more lengthy, in depth conversations. And who knows, I've seen people who have showed up in one meeting and then years later end up heading that organization, just because that's how it worked out. So that would probably be my recommendation. Is educate yourself, get involved. Talk to your family and friends. And yeah, there's lots of us out there who are continuing the conversation. And even if it doesn't seem like it's happening, there's tons of people on the ground doing work all the time, and there's a place for everyone.

Stuart Murray  29:13  
So that's one of the things that you're doing, from a policy perspective, with the Manitoba eco network, you've got a very vibrant website. There's lots of information to be gleaned on there. There's a lot of projects and programs that you talk about, and one of them was the Navigating the law to protect the environment, which I picked up from your from your website. Do you want to just talk a little bit about what that program is about?

Heather Fast  29:37  
Yeah. So the Navigating the Law Project is a project we partnered with the University of Winnipeg and the Public Interest Law Center. And so this was a project we completed in two different phases, and essentially was an education focused project where we produce a series of webinars. And so we have some great stuff up on our YouTube about different. Environmental Law topics, anything from protesting, environmental rights, some more basic kind of conversations we have, one looking at kind of youth initiated climate lawsuits. So there's some that is one place to educate yourself. There are lots of other great information and materials out there too from other organizations. So again, if you're very kind of national focused, you could look at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Can look at West Coast environmental law, and the Manitoba eco network also produces a newsletter you could sign up for, and we're often cross posting what other people are doing as well. So a place like the Eco networks, definitely a good place to start looking and, yeah, especially if you have a particular topic area, you can go on some great YouTube wormholes, or even just again. Sometimes organizations have wonderful social media videos that are super educational and very engaging to

Stuart Murray  30:59  
watch. So one of the things Heather that is interesting to me, and I have conversations with people, and I'd love to hear your perspective on, you know, being a human rights podcast is, which is what I'm have, is the notion of environmental rights, human rights, and the the sort of the understanding of how marginalized people are so negatively impacted when, when environmental rights are are not forefront in the conversation. Can you explain to somebody listening saying, I never how is it that marginalized people are more impacted from from a human rights perspective, when there are issues on environmental

Heather Fast  31:44  
rights. So I guess one way to get to that would be to talk about how protecting environmental rights protects human rights, or, I guess, how violating environmental rights violates human rights. So basically, the way that the court has phrased it, and other kind of discourse out there is basically the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is inherent and required for the enjoyment of other human rights adverse effects, so adverse environmental impacts. So for example, the adverse effects of climate change on human rights basically prevents them from being it can prevent people from experiencing their human rights. So, for example, the impacts of climate change impact the health and livelihood of individuals through things like sea level rise, drought, the creation of new deserts, natural disasters, wildfires and that can impact a range of different human rights so shelter, food, safety, peace, all of these different things when very serious environmental impacts are very being experienced. Basically results in a lot of human rights being violated or very significantly impacted. So for example, one of the terms that has come up out of climate change is the term climate refugee, where you're increasingly seeing people basically being forced out of their homes, basically because it's inhospitable because of climate change. So when you're thinking about individuals that would be considered marginalized or are disproportionately bearing the burden of these impacts, often you're thinking about people that are in rural communities, northern communities, isolated communities that also, like I'm thinking about it in a Canadian context, but that also goes for other countries. So people living in kind of extreme climates already, and so, as I was talking about earlier, unfortunately, the countries that are often experiencing and the countries, but also the groups of people that are often experiencing these most serious impacts on their human rights, which are caused from extreme environmental degradation, are often the ones that are maybe disproportionately like low income or they are indigenous, and often that just exacerbates these impacts as well. So basically, it's a situation where these marginalized communities are often located in places where they're going to experience the most significant impacts of the climate. They're also community members that often have the least access to resources and other things that could help with the mitigation of some of the climate impacts. So for example, if you're thinking about a community that's very low income versus a community that has a large amount of income, a large high income community could afford to rebuild their homes in a. Way that they could protect themselves from flooding or drought or whatever. Whereas a low income community that doesn't have those resources, a flood goes through and they lose everything, they have no capacity to rebuild. And so again, this is where you have climate refugees and just this very disproportionate experience of climate impacts.

Stuart Murray  35:20  
Yeah, it's, it's a, it's a big question for sure, because, you know, we, as we are recording this podcast, Heather, we know that I'm, I'm hopeful that it's slowing down, but you know, the wildfire is causing people to evacuate their homes. For example, you know it, it's, it's hard enough to wake up in the morning and open a door and go outside and go, Man, it smells like smoke, and it's very heavy, and that sort of thing. It's quite different from somebody saying, not only does it smell like smoke, but you have to evacuate your home. I mean, to have to leave your your your, you know, I mean, I don't know how you decide what you're going to take or if you're not given that much time. It's just, it's very it's almost incredibly inhumane. And so you realize that those issues are out there, but I would look at that and just say, from your perspective, Heather as a as somebody who understands the legal elements of environmental rights and human rights, something like wildfires, although it has a tremendous negative, harmful impact on human beings who are evacuated. Is there something that is examined there? Do you think people would be looking at the environmental rights of wildfires?

Heather Fast  36:32  
I would say environmental rights are a more kind of general solution. So for example, if there was environmental rights recognized in a jurisdiction and a wildfire was caused by someone or a government decision, having legal environmental rights could open up legal pathways to recover lost resources or have kind of an assignment of liability human rights legislation. So looking at kind of the federal approach under sepa, they've also recognized important things like the principle of environmental justice and principles of inter generational equity. So environmental rights legislation and framework can also require decision makers to think about a broader range of things. So again, in terms of wildfires, having environmental rights and a requirement to think about the impacts of future generations, could require a decision maker when planning for wildfire response in the future or resourcing for the impacts of wildfires, thinking beyond just what's happening right now, and how do we put in long term plans to protect the community? How do we make sure that it's going to protect multiple generations? How do we build on this? So it's really more of a long term thinking approach. So I think again, coming from a rights based angle, it's really a whole different way about thinking about these types of problems. So again, a lot of the discourse around wildfires tends to be around property loss, loss of income, loss of possessions. But there's also lots of like social cultural impacts, the loss of natural resources and like, like, you know, I am someone that has favorite trees and rocks and important places like the loss of these spaces. It's more than just economic. So again, I think that's where the strength of some of these right based approaches come in, and having the conversation from a right space angle, just allows us to think more about these other types of impacts. And just again, you include more voices, you listen to more people in your solutions, and are maybe not as narrowly focused or as siloed as we have been in the past. So that's to me, and again, I'm obviously a big proponent of environmental rights and like, advocate for it all the time. So I'm sure there's people that would disagree, but I like it from that kind of theoretical it just really changes the way we think about things, and requires decision makers to include more people and just think very differently than we have in the past.

Stuart Murray  39:20  
So one of the things, Thanks for the answer, Heather, one of the things I try to do is, when, when an acronym gets put out there, just to make sure people understand it. I think you said

Heather Fast  39:30  
CPAC, CPA. So the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, so it's our main federal law regulating toxic substances. And so we had, for the first time, the right to a healthy environment recognized at the federal level, and it is under that legislation. And then the government recently, and this has been a couple year process, but they've released the final implementation plan, so basically, their idea and thoughts on what the right to a healthy environment looks like in the call. Context of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I haven't fully analyzed it yet, but I will get to it. And yeah, it's another thing that is adds to the discourse, and that document, for example, would give us a few more ideas on what that application of environmental rights could look specifically in Canada. So unlike something that's coming from the ICJ, looking at something from the federal government, of course, is a lot easier to translate into Hey, at the provincial level, we could adopt this. Or what we're hoping is the federal government will adopt it more broadly, so it applies more than just within the context of the Canadian Environmental Protection

Stuart Murray  40:40  
Act, yeah. Okay. Well, thanks for that clarification. I mean, I just think a lot of times people here in Ackerman and they're just not sure what it means, but great explanation. Thank you so much for for including that. Heather. One of the things we talked about at the at the beginning of the show is kind of an international perspective, a global perspective, and something also local, talking about human rights and environmental rights and that sort of thing. And wanted to sort of get your your take on the LeMay forest project. And I know there was a lot of stories in the news on it. A lot of times there's a bit of a misunderstanding about a private developer who owns land is proceeding, and then people start to come out and protest it. And you know things that come forward is some of the issues about that to their unmarked Metis graves on there, there was a ratio orphanage that was established on that site from a legal perspective, from a human rights perspective, from an environmental rights perspective. A lot to put on your plate on this question, but how was that project handled from your perspective and and how might it have been handled in a more in a way that might have made more people sort of say we didn't have to go through all of these challenges and these emotional challenges to to end up with where we are today.

Heather Fast  41:55  
Know if I can necessarily answer that question exactly in terms of how the situation rolled out. I think there were challenges at multiple levels. I mean, one of the main problems community members had was a lack of government interest, or a lack of government wanting to be engaged. So there had been many requests to at the provincial and city level, well before the drama happened, I would say so perhaps, and again, I wasn't directly involved, so I can't speak to why or how that discourse happened or didn't happen, but I would say Definitely, if there had been more meaningful conversation with regulators early on. I mean, if the government, the provincial government, was ultimately going to make this decision, they they could have made it a lot earlier on, and maybe would have prevented some of the kind of bad blood that maybe developed between the opposing parties. What I can talk to a little bit beyond that. So basically, I'm happy with the outcome. I think it's great that we are conserving that area. It is definitely not how I would have arrived at it again. I wish we could have just negotiated a nice conservation agreement or something early on, but in terms of figuring out how we address these situations where there's private property, but then, like a bunch of public interest, but the legalities of it isn't quite clear. So there is this kind of question about, How do we balance private rights with these collective interests like environmental protection, and then also, in this case, we have cultural and heritage issues as well as impacts on the right constitutionally protected indigenous rights. So in that case, there are a lot of different kind of legal perspectives and interests. Again, I would say someone approaching this from a private property perspective would have a very different legal opinion than someone approaching it from a human rights perspective. So I think right there is the problem is people are coming at this issue from a variety of different perspectives, and when that happens, there's almost always some type of conflict. The challenge really moving forward, when we have this problem, is finding a balance. So the colonial kind of capitalist origins of Canadian society and Canadian property law in in particular, have really perpetuated problems that have kind of stuck with the the law and Canadian society since ye olde England times so again. Priorities on protecting private property, protection of private land rights, a focus on kind of economic impacts and profits. So that is kind of a historical baggage that we're carrying with us that's at the core of our law. Again, we have ways to address this, but moving forward, there is going to be, have to be compromise from private landowners, which is, you know, upsetting, especially if you think you. Have, you know, potential to make economic gains in one area, and that's blocked by people that you think should have no legal right to your land. So there might be these kind of short term losses. So like I said, short term economic gain, but really, society will ultimately win in the long run in these situations. So yes, I'm sure the developer is not feeling very happy about the situation, but in fact, private land owners historically have played a really important role in conservation and will continue to so there are entire environmental organizations, especially especially conservation ones, that are focused on buying up land and then designating it specifically for conservation purposes. And there are lots of people out there, private land owners, people in agriculture, who have designated parts of their lands as conservation trusts. So I know in southern Manitoba there was problems. I don't know how many years, five or six years ago, where there was a particularly protected species of orchid that kept popping up in farmers fields, and so you had this conflict where they couldn't legally remove it, but it was affecting their profits. And so it's a situation where eventually there are legal ways for that land to be purchased or for them to, you know, get financial compensation for that land from somewhere down the road. So, yeah, it will require compromise. But really, again, I think private landowners, and in this case, this private landowner could have ultimately ended up making a lot of profit off of a piece of land that I'm not sure that they would have made if they had sold it through the private market. So in this case, I think again, the long term benefits of society are important. And in terms of the benefits that we're gaining from this piece of land, from a human rights perspective, it's people rely on that land for mental health purposes, for educational purposes, for environmental purposes, recreational purposes, there's cultural purposes to that land. So it is protecting a lot of very valuable components, both in an environmental sense, but also like a societal sense. So again, I think it was a great resolution, and moving forward, this is ultimately the way the world is going, and we're seeing this shift where you will have to give up some of your land, potentially, but also in most cases, it's like expropriation. So if you have a farmer field under a hydro line, yeah, there's way for you to get paid and or if you happen to own land and you want to protect it, there are ways to make sure that in the future, you can prevent certain land uses as well. So I think it brings up an interesting approach to conservation, and yes, is very much a conflict, but also can become more of a compromise situation, I think, where a society will ultimately win. And I think that's kind of the goal of a human rights perspective, is this long term societal benefit that we're we're seeking?

Stuart Murray  48:13  
Yeah, it's a great summation Heather about where the whole LeMay project went. And I think the, you know, the reporting on it gave a bit of an indication that there was a private developer who owned the land, and all of a sudden was, you know, sort of the subject of protestation and looking at, how does that work, and how does that feel? And if somebody says, Well, this is my land, I have the right to do with what I want. You know, I know what the outcome is. The provincial government stepped in, and as you say, the landowner at that time, the former landowner, I should say, obviously, handsomely profited. And you know, it has created an opportunity for land that you know when you look at the history of it, and as you so eloquently pointed out, the benefits to from a human rights perspective, has has been saved, if you will, or will continue to do the kinds of things that it does in the future, just maybe from your perspective, Heather, you know, the challenge of somebody would say to you, and you did sort of touch on it, because I think it's simple. It's important. I mean, we're looking at it. I'm not going to ask you to comment on anything that the federal government's we're doing with Bill five, or any of that sort of stuff. That's not what this conversation is about. But just in a general perspective from somebody with your background and your lens, when somebody says, you know, I from an environmental standpoint, I, you know, I think we need to be mindful of the environment. But, you know, how do we care for the environment when we don't have an economic engine that allows us to care for the environment? You're kind of, you know, stopping that economic engine. How do you kind of talk about, or, how would you, you know, have a conversation with somebody who is maybe a little bit more prone to. Say No, I'm, if you ask me, between the environment and the economy, I'm going to come down on the side of the economy, because I think that's important, to pay for roads, for schools, for all of those things that the economy does do, what? What's your sort of sense of of that conversation? And how would you answer that?

Heather Fast  50:16  
I mean, that is the conversation I've had so many times I can't even count, but my general perspective is you are entitled to your opinion. If you are someone that wants to put all your eggs in the economic basket, go for it. We have lots of historical evidence to show that doesn't work very well and is not the best approach in terms of societal wellbeing and environmental protection. So I would probably most of the time, I guess I would point out that there are many environmentally friendly solutions out there that also spur economic development, also some of the economic development plans that governments at all levels have currently, not just the feds, but also provincially and elsewhere, involves depleting resources that once they're gone, we can't make money from them anymore. Anyways. So again, to me, it's kind of a short term gain versus long term gains kind of thing. And in the long term, I think figuring out solutions that will still result in economic gain and compromise but also benefit other things and protect other things, like environmental like the environment and human rights, is really just, I mean, that's what all the evidence of best practices. It's about diversity, collaboration, having a broad scope, not working in a silo, and again, not just focusing on monetary impacts. So and then, if you're my student, I would spend the rest of the course just giving you a million different things to read, because, again, that economy is important. I work in politics and track policy. That's always going to be an important thing. And as someone who comes from an human rights lens, you have to be able to still talk in economic language. But the point is, the whole point of environmental rights is we want to talk about more than just the economics, and we need to worry about more than that. And talking about economics and talking about the other things, they don't have to be exclusive. It can happen all together. And that's why rulings like the ICJ and seeing some of these decisions coming out, where they're connecting all of these different pieces and saying, You are right. You are right. We're all right in our different silos, but we need to come up with interdisciplinary solutions. That's the pathway that we need to be focused on. And again, most of the time, when you have conversations with someone and they're focused on economics, within 10 minutes, they're telling me about some amazing new environmentally friendly development that is going to benefit both the economy and the environment. So that's where I tend to go. And I do have an economics background in my undergrad, so I'm not super unfamiliar, but as you know, I definitely lean more towards the right spaced approach. And I mean, it usually just gives me an opportunity to talk about that. So again, if you want to talk about economics, I'm going to give you a lesson on human rights.

Stuart Murray  53:26  
I love it. Okay, Heather, that's fantastic. You know, I said at the outset of this, this podcast, that we were going to go international. We've been to the UN we've been to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and we brought it back home to Winnipeg and LeMay forest. And you've been, you've been an excellent guest, and so thank you for finding some time to appear on humans on rights, and thank you for the great work you do, and thank you for sharing your thoughts today. Yeah, thanks

Heather Fast  53:51  
so much for having me.

Matt Cundill  53:53  
Thanks for listening to humans on rights. A transcript of this episode is available by clicking the link in the show notes of this episode, humans on rights is recorded and hosted by Stuart Murray, social media marketing by Buffy Davey, music by Doug Edmond. For more, go to humanrightshub.ca 

Tara Sands (Voiceover)  54:14  
produced and distributed by the sound off media company. You.