Author Archives: Martin Olszynski

About Martin Olszynski

B.Sc. in Biology (Saskatchewan), LL.B. (Saskatchewan), LL.M. Specialization in Environmental Law (University of California at Berkeley). Assistant Professor. Please click here for more information.

Bill C-69’s Detractors Can Blame Harper’s 2012 Omnibus Overreach (Blog Edition)

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Bill C-69’s Detractors Can Blame Harper’s 2012 Omnibus Overreach (Blog Edition)

Legislation Commented On: An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Last week, Postmedia columnists Licia Corbella and Don Braid both set their sights on Bill C-69, the federal Liberal’s environmental law reform bill that proposes new impact assessment legislation and the replacement of the current National Energy Board with a new Canadian Energy Regulator. Ms. Corbella claimed that Bill C-69 is “so destructive it just might be the bookend to [the] disastrous and infamous National Energy Program.” Mr. Braid suggested that it poses a “grave danger” to the already beleaguered Trans Mountain pipeline and implored for the Bill to be “ritually slaughtered” by the Senate when it comes before it later this fall.

The problem is that Bill C-69 poses no such danger. In fact, the relevant transitional provision (s 182) makes clear that a project like Trans Mountain, whose assessment began under the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012 c 19 s 52 (CEAA, 2012), would remain under that regime even if that assessment is not completed when the law comes into force. Unfortunately, almost all of Ms. Corbella and Mr. Braid’s assertions about Bill C-69, as well as those of the Canada West Foundation’s Martha Hall Findlay and former Conservative Party leadership candidate Rick Peterson, on which both columnists rely, do not withstand scrutiny.

Continue reading →

Federal Court of Appeal Quashes Trans Mountain Pipeline Approval: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Quashes Trans Mountain Pipeline Approval: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Case Commented On: Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153

Last Thursday, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General). Those following Canada’s contentious pipeline debate will know that this was the primary legal challenge to Kinder Morgan’s certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN or certificate) for its Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) (for a series of related ABlawg posts, see here). The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the CPCN on two grounds: first, the Court held that the National Energy Board’s (NEB) decision to exclude the increased marine traffic associated with the project from the environmental assessment (EA) conducted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA, 2012) was unreasonable; and second, Canada did not adequately discharge its constitutionally-rooted duty to consult and accommodate affected Indigenous peoples. This post focuses primarily on the first ground, although as will be seen the two are related. As further discussed below, the Federal Court of Appeal’s analysis with respect to marine traffic appears to be on solid footing (the Good). More problematic is the Court’s approach to the reviewability of EAs generally (i.e. the ability to challenge such reports in court) (the Bad). Most problematic, however, has been the decision’s reception and distortion by various groups and individuals to make various claims that the decision simply does not substantiate (the Ugly).

Continue reading →

New Report Provides a Framework for Thinking about Environmental Risk in the Regulatory Context

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: New Report Provides a Framework for Thinking about Environmental Risk in the Regulatory Context

Report Commented On: Responsible Risk: How putting a price on environmental risk makes disasters less likely

Anyone following the public debate with respect to carbon taxes in Canada will likely have heard of the Ecofiscal Commission – a policy shop operating at McGill University that for the past couple of years has been championing the use of carbon pricing as the most efficient way to tackle climate change. The Commission is not, however, a one-trick pony; it has also published reports on municipal water pricing, urban congestion, and biofuel subsidies, to name but a few.

In its most recent report, “Responsible Risk: How putting a price on environmental risk makes disasters less likely” (“Responsible Risk”), the Commission has set its sights on the environmental risks that inevitably accompany economic growth and development in Canada. In the report, the Commission makes the case for a more widespread use of “financial assurance” tools (e.g., bonds, insurance, industry funds) in order to more effectively and efficiently manage these risks.

As someone who researches and writes about environmental law and policy and who spent nearly half a dozen years working for a regulator, it is clear to me that this report should be mandatory reading for regulators, regulatory lawyers, and law students interested in environmental and natural resources law.

Continue reading →

Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

By: Martin Olszynski, Brett Favaro and Nicolas Lapointe

PDF Version: Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act

On February 5, 2018, the federal government tabled Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act. This Bill is the product of roughly two years of study and public consultation by both the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – study and consultation that was promised by the then-opposition Liberals during the last federal election campaign. That promise was itself a response to the previous Conservative government’s changes to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14, as part of its overhaul of the federal environmental regime back in 2012. With respect to the Fisheries Act specifically, the previous government took direct aim at the habitat protection provisions of that legislation (section 35). While some of the changes were positive, such as broadening protection to include not just “works and undertakings” but also “activities”, most of them were widely panned (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here). Whereas the original prohibition protected all fish and fish habitat, post-2012 only those fish (and their habitat) that were part of, or supported, a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery are protected. The level of protection has also been reduced: whereas the previous version of section 35 protected against “harmful alterations, disruption, or destruction” of fish habitat, the 2012 version only protects against the “permanent alteration or destruction” of fish habitat. Continue reading →

In Search of #BetterRules: An Overview of Federal Environmental Bills C-68 and C-69

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: In Search of #BetterRules: An Overview of Federal Environmental Bills C-68 and C-69

Legislation Commented On: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence (Bill C-68) and An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Last week, the federal government tabled its much-anticipated package of federal environmental law reforms. Regular ABlawg readers will know that the Faculty of Law’s Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law group has been actively participating in this process from the beginning, with several members submitting briefs and testifying before both parliamentary committees and expert panels (a full list of relevant ABlawg posts is included at the end of this post). In this post, I provide an initial overview and analysis of Bill C-68 (Fisheries Act) and the proposed Impact Assessment Act under Bill C-69. Subsequent posts will examine specific issues in more detail, as well as the proposed Canadian Energy Regulator Act. Continue reading →