Author: David V Wright Page 5 of 6

M.A. (Dalhousie), J.D. (Dalhousie), LL.M. (Stanford).
Associate Professor.
Please click here for more information.

Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

On December 13, 2019

PDF Version: Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

Document Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this year, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released draft guidance for the climate change related requirements in the new federal Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1) (IAA or the Act). While the future of this guidance was uncertain in recent months due to the federal election, as was the future of the entire new regime, the Act is now firmly in force and here to stay. No amendments are expected, as stated by the new federal environment minister. As part of implementing the regime, the new Impact Assessment Agency (the Agency) is now in the process of issuing detailed guidance explaining what information proponents should provide during the planning and assessment phases, including with respect to initial and detailed project descriptions, engagement with Indigenous communities, public participation, and climate change. The final climate change guidance, which ECCC has developed through what it calls a Strategic Assessment on Climate Change (SACC), is expected in early 2020.

This post focuses on the draft SACC. Specifically, I provide relevant background, explain the general threshold-based structure of the proposed regime, and then offer commentary on several key features and one missing piece. Overall, this draft guidance takes a significant step in the right direction by providing details and parameters that should be welcomed by project proponents and those interested in seeing clarity regarding quantification of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in impact assessment. This is no small feat in the impact assessment realm where integration of climate change considerations has been a challenge for many years across the world. However, in several ways the guidance does not go far enough, particularly in terms of relating project-specific emissions analysis with what really matters: achieving Canada’s climate change commitments and avoiding severe climate change-induced damage on a global scale. As the 25^thConference of the parties (“COP 25”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change draws to a close in Madrid, the world is watching. It is not too late for Canada to further clarify how emissions from major projects reviewed under the IAA will fit into the path toward achieving Canada’s targets under the Paris Agreement and achieving the recently announced commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which has just been included in the mandate letter released today to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

By David V Wright

On October 23, 2019

In Energy, Environmental

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

Case Commented On: Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 259

The FCA has released another ruling in relation to its earlier leave decision on the consolidated TMX legal challenges (Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII); for our post on that decision see here). In this latest ruling the panel (including Justice David Stratas – who had authored the original decision) dismissed an attempted appeal (at para 4) brought by two NGOs. The panel reiterated Justice Stratas’ previous conclusion in Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (for our post on that decision see here) that “appeals cannot be brought from this Court to this Court” and again pointing to the lack of any statutory basis for the FCA to hear such an appeal (at paras 7-9).

Crown Consultation Obligations and a National Infrastructure Corridor: Simple Meets Complex

By David V Wright

On October 15, 2019

In Aboriginal, Energy, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Crown Consultation Obligations and a National Infrastructure Corridor: Simple Meets Complex

Matter Commented On: National Infrastructure Corridor

Renewed interest in a cross-Canada infrastructure corridor has surfaced in recent months and weeks, including as a federal election issue. Details were thin in the recent Conservative campaign announcement, but a substantial amount of information about a similar concept can be found in a 2017 report from the Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce (the focus of the former is on an ‘energy corridor’ while the focus of the latter and the below-cited article by Sulzenko and Fellows is on a multi-modal infrastructure corridor). That report rightly acknowledges that “such a major undertaking – which would require the accommodation of a multitude of varying interests and priorities – would undoubtedly be difficult to complete, and a number of complex issues – including in relation [to] Indigenous peoples, financing and the environment – would need to be addressed” (p 12). In this post, I provide a brief overview and initial comments in relation to a fundamental “complexity” pertaining to the corridor concept: Crown consultation and accommodation duties with respect to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

By David V Wright

On October 5, 2019

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

Case Commented On: Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (CanLII)

Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) issued another ruling in the TMX saga dealing with the consolidated challenges to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) project. This decision comes just three weeks after Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII) (Raincoast), where the FCA granted leave to six parties to commence judicial reviews challenging the Governor in Council’s decision to re-approve the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project. In this most recent decision, Justice David Stratas concluded that two of those six parties, Tsleil Waututh Nation (TWN) and Squamish Nation (Squamish), had filed applications that went beyond the narrow parameters set out in the September 4^thcourt order granting leave. Accordingly, the Court issued an order allowing both parties to file amended notices of application that comply with the restrictions in the initial order. In this post, we briefly summarize this latest and fairly unusual development and conclude with a brief comment on what might have led counsel to push the boundaries in this matter.

A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

By David V Wright

On March 29, 2019

In Climate Change, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Document Commented On: Terms of Reference for the Federal Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this month, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released the terms of reference (TOR) for the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SA). This post briefly provides commentary on the context behind this development, offers several initial impressions of the TOR, and notes a number of ways to make the most of the process as now prescribed. Overall, the TOR charts a relatively narrow path that misses a critical opportunity to improve coherence across climate law, policy and programs in Canada, including with respect to carbon pricing and provincial climate measures such as those in Alberta.

For those following federal developments on the climate law and policy front, the wait for the TOR was a long one. This is the first development since the discussion paper released last summer. Why it took so long is unclear, though the federal government has obviously had a number of matters to contend with on the climate front, including the Ontario and Saskatchewan carbon price reference cases (the latter discussed in a recent post by my colleague, Martin Olszynski) and the relatively contentious Bill C-69.