Final answer:
The statement is false. Public health and the environment may not be explicitly defined in the Constitution as areas of shared jurisdiction, but federal and state governments do share these concurrent powers. This sharing of powers has increased over time, particularly due to broad interpretations of constitutional clauses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The assertion that public health and the environment are constitutionally undefined areas of concurrent jurisdiction shared between the federal and provincial governments is false. While the Constitution does not outline every aspect of jurisdiction, it has been established through interpretations of constitutional powers, like the necessary and proper clause, that the federal and state governments share certain concurrent powers. These include the authority to tax, borrow, make and enforce laws, establish court systems, and to a certain degree administer health, safety, income security, education, and welfare. These areas have become shared responsibilities despite not being explicitly defined in the Constitution, as federal involvement has grown, particularly since the 1940s.
It's important to note that throughout the history of the U.S. federalism, the necessary and proper clause has often broadened, rather than limited, the power of the national government, contrary to the statement provided in Exercise 9.3.1 which states it has a limiting effect. This has helped in expanding federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally managed by the states. Additionally, Dillon's Rule, mentioned in another context, often restricts the power of local governments rather than granting them autonomy.