•0 reads
Ottawa Introduces New Environmental Law to Replace Impact Assessment Act After Supreme Court Rebuke
The federal government has introduced new legislation to overhaul Canada's environmental assessment process for major projects. The proposed law aims to replace the Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada found to be largely unconstitutional in a 2023 advisory opinion. The new bill seeks to create a more streamlined and constitutionally sound framework by narrowing the scope of federal reviews to areas of clear federal jurisdiction. It represents Ottawa's attempt to balance environmental protection with economic development while addressing provincial concerns about federal overreach into resource management.
Source: Supreme Court of Canada
A New Framework for Major Projects
The Government of Canada has tabled new legislation intended to overhaul the federal environmental review process for major natural resource and infrastructure projects. This move is a direct response to the Supreme Court of Canada's advisory opinion in October 2023, which found that the existing Impact Assessment Act (IAA) was largely unconstitutional due to federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The new bill, tentatively titled the "Assessment of Effects of Designated Projects Act," aims to create a more constitutionally sound and predictable process. It seeks to replace the contentious IAA, which was labelled the "No More Pipelines Act" by its critics, including the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The central goal of the new legislation is to narrow the scope of federal assessments to focus explicitly on effects within federal constitutional authority, thereby respecting the division of powers outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867.
Background: The Supreme Court's Ruling
The path to this new legislation began with a legal challenge led by Alberta against the Impact Assessment Act, which was passed into law in 2019 as part of Bill C-69. The province argued that the IAA gave Ottawa a de facto veto over resource projects that fell primarily within provincial jurisdiction. In a 5-2 majority opinion, the Supreme Court agreed, stating that the IAA's definition of which projects required federal assessment and the broad scope of "public interest" factors it considered were overly expansive.
The Court found that the IAA's framework was not sufficiently directed at regulating effects within federal jurisdiction, such as on fisheries, navigable waters, or Indigenous peoples. Instead, it created an impermissible intrusion into the provinces' exclusive power to manage their own natural resources. The ruling did not strike down the law but provided a clear constitutional roadmap for the federal government to follow in rewriting it. This legislative reset is a direct outcome of that court decision, as Ottawa tables a new environmental law in response to the Supreme Court's Impact Assessment Act ruling, aiming to align the process with the court's guidance.
Key Changes in the Proposed Legislation
The new act proposes several fundamental changes to address the constitutional flaws identified by the Supreme Court. The most significant is a more constrained and precise definition of what constitutes an "effect within federal jurisdiction." The federal assessment process will now be explicitly tied to core federal responsibilities, including:
- Fish and fish habitat
- Aquatic species
- Migratory birds
- Federal lands and waters
- Effects on Indigenous peoples of Canada, including impacts on their rights, heritage, and culture
- Changes to the environment that would have an effect in another province or outside Canada
A crucial element is how the new law will handle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Supreme Court affirmed the federal government's authority to regulate GHGs through mechanisms like the carbon tax, but it cautioned against using a project-specific assessment process to do so in a way that hijacks provincial authority. The new bill is expected to clarify that while a project's climate impacts can be considered, the assessment must focus on its direct federal environmental effects, rather than serving as a tool to regulate overall national emissions on a project-by-project basis.
Reactions from Provinces and Stakeholders
Provincial governments, particularly in Western Canada, have reacted with cautious optimism. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a vocal opponent of the original IAA, stated that her government will be scrutinizing the text of the new bill to ensure it genuinely respects provincial jurisdiction and provides the certainty needed to attract investment in the energy sector. The primary demand from provinces is a clear, efficient, and predictable regulatory system that avoids the duplication and delays that plagued the previous regime.
Industry groups, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Mining Association of Canada, have long advocated for a more streamlined process. They are expected to welcome the shift towards a more focused and constitutionally sound framework, hoping it will restore investor confidence in Canada's resource sector. For them, the key will be whether the new law can deliver timely decisions on major capital projects.
Conversely, environmental organizations have expressed significant concern. Groups like Ecojustice and Environmental Defence worry that narrowing the scope of federal review will weaken environmental protections and create regulatory gaps. They argue that a strong federal backstop is necessary to ensure that the cumulative environmental effects of large projects, especially those related to climate change and biodiversity, are properly assessed. They fear the new law represents a step backward in holding major polluters accountable.
Navigating Competing Priorities
The introduction of this legislation highlights the delicate balancing act the federal government must perform. It needs to create a durable legal framework that can withstand future court challenges while also advancing its national climate goals and fostering economic growth. This focus on refining domestic policy comes as the federal government faces significant external pressures on other fronts. For instance, while navigating the complexities of environmental legislation, Canada is under pressure to meet its NATO defence spending target ahead of the upcoming Washington summit, forcing difficult decisions about fiscal priorities and national focus.
The path forward for the new environmental assessment act will involve rigorous debate in the House of Commons and the Senate. Amendments are likely as different parties and stakeholders weigh in. The ultimate test of its success will be its implementation: whether it can facilitate responsible resource development while upholding robust environmental standards and respecting the constitutional division of powers that is fundamental to Canadian federalism.
Insights
- Why it matters: This legislation fundamentally redefines the roles of federal and provincial governments in approving major resource projects worth billions of dollars. It directly impacts Canada's ability to develop its natural resources, attract investment, and meet its international climate commitments.
- Impact on Canada: The new law will shape Canada's economic and environmental landscape for decades. A successful framework could unlock investment and create jobs, while a flawed one could lead to further legal battles, investment uncertainty, and inadequate environmental oversight.
- What to watch: Key developments to watch include the parliamentary debate and potential amendments to the bill, the official reaction from provincial governments after detailed analysis, and how the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada adjusts its procedures to align with the new, more focused mandate.