This article explores whether the Supreme Court of Canada majority’s reasons in the Reference re Impact Assessment Act missed the forest for the trees. By applying a literal interpretation to the definition of “effects within federal jurisdiction” and what the Court called the “interprovincial effects clause” in the legislation, the majority departed from decades of flexible, purposive interpretation of environmental legislation. This article highlights three interrelated critiques of this aspect of the decision. First, it unpacks the way in which the majority’s reasons run contrary to the Supreme Court’s consistent approach to interpreting environmental legislation in previous decisions, inviting readers to reflect upon whether this shift in statutory interpretation undermines the validity of most environmental legislation which is drafted in a similarly broad way. Second, the article critically examines the majority’s conclusion that the “interprovincial effects” clause was ultra vires, inviting consideration of whether the decision creates a constitutional gap for evaluating the effects of transboundary air pollution in impact assessments. Third, the article responds to the majority’s admonition that the government had not attempted to apply the clarified national concern test from the GGPPA References to the interprovincial effects clause, analysing what this might have yielded. The decision has important implications for understanding the scope of jurisdiction over GHG emissions in our federation. Whereas the GGPPA References clarified that both orders of government have jurisdiction over different aspects of GHG emissions, the IAA Reference creates uncertainty about Parliament’s jurisdiction to consider transboundary air pollution — an aspect that must be federal — in assessments. The decision also reveals a striking shift in tone in the Supreme Court’s approach to interpreting environmental law, raising concerns about the future of environmental and climate federalism. The implications are significant given the increasingly urgent need for all governments to do their part in mitigating the climate emergency.
Nathalie J. Chalifour (Thu,) studied this question.