Supreme Court majority rules against federal impact assessment law

In his 204-page judgment, he wrote the government failed to make that case.

Two judges, however, dissented, saying the law was constitutional.

The Impact Assessment Act, which was known in Parliament as Bill C-69, is now the second such piece of legislation to be thrown out by the courts.

In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down assessment legislation passed by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

Here is some of the reaction to the decision:

“The Government of Canada developed the Impact Assessment Act to create a better set of rules that respect the environment, Indigenous rights and ensure projects get assessed in a timely way. We remain committed to these principles. We are heartened that the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed our role on these core principles. We will now take this back and work quickly to improve the legislation through Parliament.” — Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Justice Minister Arif Virani.

—

“This legislation is already responsible for the loss of tens of billions in investment as well as thousands of jobs across many provinces and economic sectors. The ruling today represents an opportunity for all provinces to stop that bleeding and begin the process of reattracting those investments and jobs into our economies.” — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery.

—

“We need clear rules for major economic projects and we don’t have those. The system for project approvals remains broken and it’s time for the federal and provincial governments to end the political bluster and to collaborate on a proper set of rules.” — Alberta Opposition NDP energy critic Kathleen Ganley.

—

“This should cause the federal government to rethink the many other areas where it is overstepping its constitutional competence, like electrical generation and oil and gas production.” — Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe.

—

“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces’ rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation. … The (Impact Assessment Act) has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.” — Saskatchewan Justice Minister Bronwyn Eyre.

—

“We are pleased that this decision affirms the roles of each level of government. Regulatory certainty and efficiency are key to facilitating natural resources projects that are in the interests of Canada.” — Lisa Baiton, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

—

“Even though the court found the IAA was not sufficiently focused on federal jurisdiction, it confirmed that no project is immune from environmental scrutiny. … All types of projects can and should be subject to a comprehensive federal environmental assessment to protect against harm in Canada’s areas of responsibility.” — Ecojustice lawyer Joshua Ginsberg.

—

“This is not the win that Alberta was hoping for. The entire court — majority and minority opinions — agreed with our arguments about when the federal government can require an assessment and the information that can be considered. Overall, we think this opinion can be a win for Canadians and the environment, but Parliament needs to step up and enact amended assessment legislation that applies to all projects with the potential to harm areas of federal jurisdiction.” — Anna Johnston, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

—

(The Canadian Press)

by The Canadian Press

Supreme Court majority rules against federal impact assessment law

Our Community