S.C.C. FILE NO. 38682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) IN THE MATTER OF The Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68 AND IN THE MATTER OF A Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council set out in Order in Council No. 211/18 dated April 25, 2018 concerning the constitutionality of amendments to provisions in the Environmental Management Act, R.S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 regarding the impacts of releases of certain hazardous substances BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Arvay Finlay LLP Michael J. Sobkin 1512 – 808 Nelson Street 331 Somerset Street West Box 12149, Nelson Square Ottawa ON K2P 0J8 Vancouver BC V6Z 2H2 Tel: 613.282.1712 / Fax: 613.288.2896 Tel: 604.696.9828 / Fax: 1.888.575.3281 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Appellant, [email protected] Attorney General of British Columbia -and- Ministry of Attorney General 6th Floor, 1001 Douglas Street PO Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9J7 Tel: 250.952.7644 / Fax: 250.356.0064 Email: [email protected] Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Catherine Boies Parker, Q.C., and J. Gareth Morley Counsel for the Appellant, Attorney General of British Columbia S.C.C. FILE NO. 38682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) IN THE MATTER OF The Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68 AND IN THE MATTER OF A Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council set out in Order in Council No. 211/18 dated April 25, 2018 concerning the constitutionality of amendments to provisions in the Environmental Management Act, R.S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 regarding the impacts of releases of certain hazardous substances BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APPELLANT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA RESPONDENT (Party pursuant to s 4 of the Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU QUÉBEC INTERVENERS Department of Justice Canada Attorney General of Canada 900 - 840 Howe Street 50 O’Connor Street, Suite 500, Room 557 Vancouver BC V6Z 2S9 Ottawa ON K1A 0H8 Tel: 604.666.0110 / Fax: 604.666.1585 Tel: 613.670.6290 / Fax: 613.954.1920 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Christopher M. Rupar [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Jan Brongers, Christopher Rupar Respondent, Attorney General of Canada and BJ Wray Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada Gall Legge Grant Zwack LLP Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 1000 – 1199 West Hastings Street 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Vancouver BC V6E 3T5 Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Tel: 604.891.1152 / Fax: 604.669.5101 Tel: 613.786.8695 / Fax: 613.788.3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] D. Lynne Watt Peter A. Gall, Q.C. and Andrea L. Zwack Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Intervener, Attorney General of Alberta Alberta Ministry of Justice Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP Constitutional Law 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 820 – 1874 Scarth Street Ottawa ON K1P 1C3 Regina SK S4P 4B3 Tel: 613.786.8695 / Fax: 613.788.3509 Tel: 306.787.0206 / Fax: 306.787.9111 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] D. Lynne Watt [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Thomson Irvine, Q.C., and Katherine Roy Intervener, Attorney General of Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Saskatchewan Saskatchewan Ministry of the Attorney General for Juristes Power Law Ontario 130 Albert Street, Suite 1103 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Ottawa ON K1P 5G4 Toronto ON M7A 2S9 Tel: 613.702.5573 / Fax: 613.702.5573 Tel: 416.326.0131 / Fax: 416.326.4015 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Maxine Vincelette [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Josh Hunter and Padraic Ryan Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario Ministère de la justice du Québec Noël & Associés 1200, route de l’Église, 4e etage 111, rue Champlain Québec QC G1V 4M1 Gatineau QC J8X 3R1 Tel: 418.643.1477, poste 20785 Tel: 819.503.2178 / Fax: 819.771.5397 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Frédéric Perreault Pierre Landry Counsel for the Intervener, Procureure générale Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the du Québec Intervener, Procureure générale du Québec i TABLE OF CONTENTS PART PAGE PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................1 A. Overview of Position ...............................................................................................1 Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................4 B. Framework of Provincial Environmental Legislation ..............................................4 C. The Provisions of Part 2.1 ........................................................................................5 D. Heavy Oil Can Be Especially Difficult to Recover and Will Persist in the Environment ...................................................................................................6 E. Provincial Resources are at Risk from a Heavy Oil Spill ........................................7 F. Provincial, Local and Indigenous Participation in Spill Response ..........................8 G. Status Quo: Provincial Permits and Regulations Apply to Federal Undertakings ..........................................................................................................10 PART II: QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ...............................................................................................11 PART III: STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................12 A. Overview of Legal Argument ................................................................................12 B. Principles for Constitutional Jurisdiction Over Environmental Protection ...............................................................................................................12 C. The First Question: Part 2.1 is intra vires as legislation aimed at protecting property and human health from the hazardous materials and ensuring civil liability is effective if a release occurs .....................................17 i. The Court of Appeal Unduly Focused on Form, Rather Than the Purpose and Effect of Part 2.1 .............................................................27 ii. The Ancillary Power Doctrine Provides an Alternative Basis for Provincial Jurisdiction ..........................................................................30 D. The Second Question: Part 2.1 does not seriously trammel on the core of the federal power over interprovincial transportation undertakings ...........................................................................................................32 i. The Core of Exclusive Federal Authority Over Interprovincial Transportation Undertakings Does Not Include Prevention of, Remediation of or Liability for Accidental Spills ........................................................................................33 E. The Third Question: Part 2.1 does not conflict with federal law ...........................36 F. Conclusion .............................................................................................................40 PARTS IV AND V: COSTS AND ORDERS SOUGHT .............................................................40 PART VI: SUBMISSION ON CASE SENSITIVITY .................................................................41 PART VII: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................42 Appendix A: Appellant’s Notice of Constitutional Question .......................................................48 1 PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview of Position 1. The Province of British Columbia (“BC”) wants to protect its people, land and resources from the harmful effects of accidental releases of dangerous substances by adding a hazardous substance permit regime to its main provincial environmental statute. The proposed amendments (Part 2.1 of the Environmental Management Act, or “EMA”) at issue in this Reference would give an environmental management director the power to impose on those in possession of a listed substance conditions relating to minimizing the likelihood of an accidental discharge, facilitating spill response, and ensuring compensation for personal injury and damage to resources situated in the Province and owned either privately or collectively (provincial, local and First Nations). EMA already regulates the intentional discharge of waste in the Province through a permitting regime. 2. The first substance proposed to be addressed is “Heavy Oil”, which, if it were to spill, would pose specific risks to human health, ecosystems and wildlife in BC and would require considerable