Federalism and National Infrastructure
Author | Mahmud Jamal |
Pages | 147-162 |
Federalismand
NationalInfrastructure
Mahmud Jamal*
A. INTRODUCTION
IfoneweretoevaluatetheSupremeCourtofCan adasapproachtofed
eralism andnationa lin frastructure based simplyon the results oft he
casesdecidedinthelastdecadeonemightbeforgivenforthinkingthat
thishasbe enasleepyperiodforthed ivisionofpowersWithinthelast
fewyearstheCourthasconrmedseveraltimehonouredpropositions
TheCourthas
• ar med Parliamentsexclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics under
thepeace orderandgood government powerwhichhasbeenset
tledlawsince
• reiteratedth atthedaytodayregulationofthesec uritiesmarketfall s
underexclusiveprovincialjurisdict ionoverpropertyandcivilrights
undersec tionof the ConstitutionAct a proposition rst
articulatedbythePrivyCou ncilin
OslerHoskinHarcour tLLP
QuebecAorneyGe neralvLacombeSCRLacombeQuebecAorney
General) v Canadian Owne rs and Pilots AssociationSCRCO PAIrepre
sentedtheinter venerGreaterTorontoAirportsAuthorit yintheseappeal s
Johannesson v Rural Municipality of West St PaulSCRJohannesson
Reference re Securities Ac tSCRIrepresentedtheinter venerCanadian
BankersAssoc iationinthisr eference
Lymburn v Mayland ACPC
MJ
• recognizedthatParliamentcandestroydatacollectedunderafederal
g un c o nt r o l sc h e m ew i t h ou t r s t o e r i n gt h e da t a to a p ro v i n ce t h er e b y
armingthatwhatParliamentcancreateitcana lsoeliminate and
• conr medthat a municipality cannot preventa cellphonecompany
fromconst ructing aradiocommun icationantenn asystem ata place
auth ori zedb ythe fede ralm in ist erofi ndus tr yther ebyc onti nui nga n
unbrokenlineofauthoritystretch ingbackoveracentury
Whileat rstblusheachof thesedecisions preservedthe statusquo
anteacloserexaminationrevealsgreatuxintheCourtsjurisprudence
This paper reviews recent decisions involving aeronautics securit ies
regulationdatacollectionandtelecommunicationsAswillbeseenthe
Courtsapproachtointerjurisd ictionalimmun itycontinuestoevolve
anevolution thatha slegaland practica lsignicancea ndthata ectsnot
onlyt heinterplay of thepowers in sections a nd oft heConstitu-
tionAct butalso the scopefor a unilateral federalin frastructure
policyThepopular metaphorofcooperativefederalismalsocontinues
toevolvef roma mere descriptive conceptto a legala ndinterpre tive
principle toa n unwrien constitutional pri nciplebut not one which
fornow constrai nsthe exerciseof federallegislativecompetence
The Courta lsoc ontinuesto debate the roleof evidence in divisionof
powersa nalysis both in interjur isdictional immun ity and virescases
withi mplicationsfor legalcerta intythe Courtsadjudicativerole and
thedeference giventolegislative policydecisions madeonthe basisof
expertevidence
B. THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT
JURISPRUDENCE ON FEDERALISM AND
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Lacombe and C OPAAUnifiedSystemof
Aeronautical Navigation and Aviation Regulation
Within the past decade the Court reviewed what may have seemed
thelongseledquestion ofParliamentsexclusiveauthoritytoregulate
QuebecAorneyGe neralvCanadaAorneyGene ralSCRQuebec (AG) v
Canada (AG)
Rogers Communications Inc v Châteauguay (City)SCRRogers
Toronto Corporation v Bell Telephone Co of CanadaACPCBellseealsoIn
re Regulation and Control of Radio C ommunication in CanadaACPCRadio
Communication in Canada
To continue reading
Request your trial