:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2023/06/08/showers-likely-for-southern-bc-as-wildfires-cut-air-quality-challenge-control/20230608110620-6481f1b326fd5b7f33b24456jpeg.jpg)
Federal lawyers defended the government’s Impact Assessment Act in the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday against concerns the legislation was too broad.
Justice Malcolm Rowe said the act allows Ottawa to use narrow concerns over matters such as fisheries to gain control over a wide variety of unconnected issues.
“The feds get their hook in under some head of power and once the hook is in, they can use that for any purpose they want,” he suggested to federal lawyer Chris Rupar.
Rupar said it’s not unusual for environmental assessment legislation to address a broad range of issues. Legislation from Alberta — one of the provinces opposing the federal bill — does similar things, Rupar said.
Rupar said the law contains safeguards to ensure that it only captures development proposals that would generate “significant” impacts.
“It’s not all projects or physical activities that are covered,” he said, “there are thresholds.”
Dayna Anderson, Rupar’s co-counsel, argued the legislation is needed to ensure national consistency in environmental standards.
Disallowing the bill, she said, “would create provincial enclaves and completely and totally immunize provincial resource development from federal regulation in any area, no matter the magnitude of the federal effects it would cause.”
The five justices are hearing an appeal launched by the federal government after the Alberta Court of Appeal found the act unconstitutional last May.
Nine out of 10 provinces oppose the act, as well as other groups such as the Indian Resource Council and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
The bill is supported by a broad array of legal experts and environmental groups.
The court is to hear arguments Tuesday in support of the bill. Opponents are slated to speak Wednesday.
Alberta justice minister Tyler Shandro said Alberta will present its arguments to the Supreme Court on Wednesday as part of the two-day hearing.
“This — no more pipelines — act is a threat to the long-term economic prosperity of our province, our energy industry and the entire country. We want to grow investment in Alberta, not have it driven away by unbalanced, unpredictable new rules for major projects.
“Over the past 25 years, our province has contributed $400 billion more to the federal government’s revenues than it has received in federal spending. In 2021, Alberta was the only province that made a positive net fiscal contribution to the federation. Albertans paid $394 million more in taxes to the federal government than they received in federal spending,” Shandro said in a statement Tuesday.
“Any damage to the Alberta economy caused by the ‘No More Pipelines’ act will be felt across the country.”
“But this act doesn’t just harm the economy. It is also a violation of the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of provinces and territories to control the development of their natural resources,” Shandro wrote.
“Last May, Alberta’s Court of Appeal ruled that the Impact Assessment Act was unconstitutional in a 4-1 decision. Seven other provinces are joining Alberta as interveners in this case and to defend provincial rights.
“Alberta began the fight against this act while it was still a bill before Parliament, and we will continue to use every tool available to stand up for Albertans’ interests. Alberta is speaking up for a strong provincial and national economy and pushing back against federal intrusion on provincial jurisdiction.”
With files from Emily Mertz, Global News
© 2023 The Canadian Press
