Canadian Supreme Court Rules Environmental Impact Legislation Largely Unconstitutional

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Environmental Impact Legislation Largely Unconstitutional

This weekend, I reported on the green energy investment bloodbath that has recently occurred, which is a result of escalating inflation, challenges with supplies and materials, and people’s desires to have light and power when they need it.

Now, I have even more good news about the continuing battle against eco-activists pseudoscience. The Canadian Supreme Court greatly damaged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government and eco-power grabbing ambitions.

Canada’s Supreme Court dealt a blow to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government on Friday by ruling that a federal law assessing how major projects such as coal mines and oil sands plants impact the environment is largely unconstitutional.

The decision is a victory for Alberta, Canada’s main fossil fuel-producing province, which challenged the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), saying it gave Ottawa too much power to kill natural resource projects.

“This is a significant setback for the federal government,” said David Wright, a law professor at the University of Calgary.

“The court has said the federal government can enact environmental assessment legislation but the way they went about it, for most of this law, goes too far.”

Watt’s Up With That contributor Charles Rotter notes how important the IAA was to Trudeau.

The IAA, a cornerstone of Trudeau’s environmental policy, required comprehensive environmental assessments to be conducted before greenlighting major projects, particularly those within industries such as oil, pipelines, and coal mines. The act was seen as a tool to gauge the potential environmental impacts of significant industrial projects, aligning with broader global movements towards sustainable and environmentally conscious development.

The court’s decision hinged on the argument that the IAA granted the federal government overly broad powers, enabling it to intervene in areas traditionally under provincial control. The majority opinion highlighted concerns regarding the act’s vague decision-making mechanisms and the expansive powers it conferred upon the federal government, particularly concerning the regulation of projects with environmental impacts.

The ruling underscores the complexities and contentious nature of environmental regulation in a federation where jurisdictional boundaries are meticulously delineated. It reflects a judicial inclination towards upholding the sanctity of constitutional divisions of power, ensuring that the federal government does not unilaterally encroach upon areas reserved for provincial authority.

However, it appears that the legislation is not dead. Parliament will tweak it to align it more with the Canadian constitution.

It doesn’t mean the law is now off the books — a ruling such as this from the Supreme Court of Canada is not necessarily binding, but is traditionally treated as being binding by governments, noted David Wright, an associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary.

“I think what we can expect is the federal government is going to get to work very quickly to put together a suite of amendments to bring the act into conformity with the law,” Wright said.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.