#environmental-law

The federal government has introduced new legislation to amend the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), responding directly to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that found the original law largely unconstitutional. The proposed changes aim to narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, focusing more explicitly on areas of federal jurisdiction to avoid intruding on provincial powers. Tabled by Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, the bill seeks to provide greater clarity for major resource projects, but it is already facing scrutiny from provinces, industry, and environmental groups over where the new lines are drawn.

The Canadian federal government has introduced new legislation to overhaul its environmental assessment process for major projects, directly responding to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that found the previous Impact Assessment Act (IAA) largely unconstitutional. The proposed law aims to narrow the scope of federal oversight, focusing on effects within clear federal jurisdiction such as fisheries, migratory birds, and Indigenous rights. The move seeks to provide greater regulatory certainty for industries like mining and energy while navigating the complex constitutional division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, which had challenged the original act.

The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a landmark opinion, finding the federal Impact Assessment Act largely unconstitutional in a major victory for Alberta and other provinces. The Court ruled that the 2019 law, often criticized as the "No More Pipelines" bill, improperly intruded on provincial jurisdiction over resource development. By focusing on a project's overall effects rather than those specifically within federal authority, the legislation created an unconstitutional overreach. The decision compels Ottawa to redraft its environmental review process, significantly altering the landscape for major energy and infrastructure projects across Canada.

The federal government has introduced new legislation to amend the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), responding directly to a Supreme Court of Canada advisory opinion that found the original law largely unconstitutional. The proposed changes aim to narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, focusing on effects within federal jurisdiction to avoid encroaching on provincial powers over resource development. This move seeks to provide clarity and certainty for major projects, but it reopens debate among provinces, industry stakeholders, and environmental groups over the appropriate balance between economic development and environmental protection.

The federal government has tabled new legislation, the Major Projects Review Act, to replace the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) after the Supreme Court of Canada found the latter largely unconstitutional. The proposed law aims to create a constitutionally sound and efficient review process for major resource and infrastructure projects. It focuses on effects within federal jurisdiction, seeking to provide clarity for industry and investors while upholding environmental standards and Indigenous consultation rights. The move comes amid ongoing debate over federal authority, with provinces and industry groups cautiously awaiting the bill's full details and implementation.

The federal government has introduced new legislation to overhaul Canada's environmental assessment process for major projects, directly responding to a Supreme Court of Canada opinion that found the previous Impact Assessment Act largely unconstitutional. The proposed law aims to narrow the scope of federal oversight to areas of clear federal jurisdiction, seeking to end a protracted battle with provinces over resource development. While industry groups hope for increased clarity and investment certainty, provincial governments and environmental organizations remain cautious, scrutinizing the bill for signs of federal overreach or weakened environmental protections.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 5-2 majority decision, has issued an advisory opinion stating that the federal Impact Assessment Act is largely unconstitutional. The court found that the law, which assesses the environmental and social impacts of major resource and infrastructure projects, oversteps federal authority and infringes on provincial jurisdiction over natural resources. The ruling represents a significant victory for Alberta and other provinces that challenged the legislation. The federal government has acknowledged the decision and has pledged to revise the law to align with the court's guidance.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a landmark 5-2 decision, has found the federal Impact Assessment Act to be largely unconstitutional. The court ruled that the legislation, which assesses the environmental and social impacts of major resource and infrastructure projects, oversteps federal jurisdiction and infringes on powers reserved for the provinces. Chief Justice Richard Wagner, writing for the majority, stated the law's focus on a project's overall "public interest" was too broad. The ruling is a significant victory for Alberta and other provinces, potentially streamlining approvals for future energy projects.

The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a landmark ruling, finding the federal government's Impact Assessment Act is largely unconstitutional. In a 5-2 decision, the court sided with Alberta and other provinces, concluding the legislation oversteps federal authority by intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction over resource development. The ruling strikes down key provisions of the 2019 law, often called the 'No More Pipelines Act' by critics. The federal government must now redraft the legislation, creating significant uncertainty for major energy and mining projects across the country.

The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a landmark ruling, finding the federal Impact Assessment Act largely unconstitutional. In a 5-2 decision, the court determined the legislation, known as Bill C-69, overstepped federal authority by infringing on exclusive provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and local projects. The judgment represents a significant victory for provinces like Alberta, which challenged the law as an intrusion on their economic sovereignty. The federal government must now redraft the legislation, creating immediate uncertainty for major resource projects while potentially clarifying regulatory pathways in the long term.