Author Archives: Drew Yewchuk

About Drew Yewchuk

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

Document Commented On: Mine Financial Security Program Standard, dated May 6, 2021

On May 6, 2021, the Alberta Government announced they would review and modify the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring (purportedly at least) that companies pay for the reclamation of their mines, both oilsands and coal. At first glance, a review and modification sounds like a good idea, since the MFSP has been criticized as severely deficient since at least 2015 when an Auditor General report identified numerous significant problems concluding that in the event that “a mine operator cannot fulfill its reclamation obligations… the province may have to pay a potentially substantial cost for this work to be completed” (at 2). Since then, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has improved its administration of the program, but Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the primary department responsible for the policy and design of the MFSP, has not addressed the overall structure of the program (see the Auditor General’s 2019 report). Under the MFSP, the province held $1.57 billion in security against estimated reclamation liabilities of $20.8 billion in December 2014 and $1.46 billion in security against $28.35 billion in estimated reclamation liabilities in June 2018. So reform is long overdue, especially if Alberta is considering approving new coal mines. Continue reading →

Reporting Obligations Under the Species at Risk Act: A Review of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Strategy Implementation Progress Report

By: Dana Poscente and Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Reporting Obligations Under the Species at Risk Act: A Review of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Strategy Implementation Progress Report

Matter Commented On: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Alberta Population (also known as the Saskatchewan-Nelson River Populations) in Canada for the Period 2014 to 2019 (Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Report Series) (Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2021)

This post discusses the recent “Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) Alberta Population” (WSCT Implementation Report), assesses whether the WSCT Implementation Report meets the criteria set out in the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002 c 29 (SARA), and describes the overall problems with implementation reports under SARA.

The Westslope Cutthroat Trout is a freshwater fish native to western North America, recognizable for the orange-red slashes under its lower jaw. Throughout much of its range, this species is the only native true trout, and as such it plays an important role in its ecosystems and is viewed as an indicator species of general ecosystem health (SARA Registry, “Species Details”). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed the Alberta population of Westslope Cutthroat Trout as threatened in both 2006 and 2016. The reason for this designation was that the population had been reduced by almost 80 percent through over-exploitation, habitat degradation, and hybridization and competition with introduced, non-native trout. As well, the range of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout is currently less than 20 percent of its observed historical range, and the existing range is severely fragmented (WSCT Implementation Report at 3, citing the 2016 COSEWIC Assessment).

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

Legislation Commented On: Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1; Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29; Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (forthcoming)

This is another installment in the continuing ABlawg series on the law and policy framework for coal projects in Alberta. This installment focuses on three statutes or regulations by which the federal government exercises authority over possible coal mining in Alberta’s eastern slopes: the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the forthcoming Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (a regulation under the Fisheries Act).

It should be noted these three enactments are not exhaustive of federal powers that apply to coal mining. The federal government may be involved in other ways, including through the general protection for fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, limitation of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial projects, constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, or water allocation disputes between provinces.

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

By: Drew Yewchuk & Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

Matter Commented On: Information Letter 2021-07 “Coal Policy Reinstatement” (February 8, 2021) and attached Ministerial Order 054/2021

This is the fourth instalment in ABlawg’s series on coal law: for the background, see Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status, the special edition: What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?, Part Two: The Rules for Acquiring Coal Rights and the Royalty Regime, and Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?

 This post covers the regulation of coal exploration programs. On February 8, 2021 the Minister of Energy ordered the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) not to “issue any new approvals for coal on Category 2 Lands” using the Minister’s authority to issue directions to the AER under section 67 of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3. This did not cancel ongoing coal exploration programs and hence the importance of considering at least some elements of the regulation of these activities.

Continue reading →

The AER is Seeking Public Input on its Proposed Regulatory Solution for the Growing Orphan Well and Other Unfunded Liabilities Problem in Alberta’s Oil and Gas Sector

By: Shaun Fluker & Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The AER is Seeking Public Input on its Proposed Regulatory Solution for the Growing Orphan Well and Other Unfunded Liabilities Problem in Alberta’s Oil and Gas Sector

Matter Commented On: Proposed amendments to AER Directive 067: Eligibility Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approvals

 On January 13, 2021 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued Bulletin 2021-01 seeking public comments on proposed amendments to Directive 067: Eligibility Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approvals. These amendments are an implementation component of Alberta’s policy initiative, announced in July 2020 as the new Liability Management Framework, to improve the effectiveness of laws intended to address Alberta’s growing (and already enormous) problem of unfunded end-of-life closure and reclamation liabilities in the energy sector. The proposed amendments to Directive 067 constitute the details of the Licensee Capability Assessment System – the AER’s replacement for the catastrophic failure known as the Licensee Liability Rating program used in the oil and gas sector. The AER will receive public comments on the proposed changes to Directive 067 until and through February 14, and this post constitutes our comments – which will be submitted to the AER in its requested form (which can be downloaded here  and sent via email to Directive067@aer.ca – alternatively you can submit the comments form by mail to the AER, Directive 067 Feedback, Suite 1000, 250 – 5 Street SW, Calgary, AB T2P 0R4).

Continue reading →