Author: Martin Olszynski Page 12 of 19

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.

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Announcing a Summer Discussion Series on Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Law

Event Commented On: 2017 Energy & Environmental Law Summer Discussion Series

The past year has been relatively busy from a legislative and policy reform perspective, especially with respect to Canadian energy and environmental law. At the federal level, all of the expert panels and parliamentary committees tasked by the current Liberal government with reviewing the Harper-era changes to Canada’s energy and environmental law regime have now delivered their reports: Forward, Together: Enabling Canada’s Clean, Safe and Secure Energy Future (regarding the National Energy Board); Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada (regarding federal environmental assessment processes); Review of changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: enhancing the protection of fish and fish habitat and the management of Canadian fisheries; and A Study of the Navigation Protection Act. There has also been important litigation at the provincial level, especially the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the Redwater litigation: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (CanLII).

While most of these developments have been discussed in this forum (see e.g. posts by Kwasniak, Fluker and Yewchuk, Olszynski, and Mascher with respect to environmental assessment and Bankes on the NEB report and Redwater), the Faculty and the Canadian Institute of Resources Law have decided that it would also be interesting to host a series of panel discussions over the summer to further analyze the issues.

Can Federal Legislative Jurisdiction Support a Broad, Sustainability-Based Impact Assessment?

By Martin Olszynski

On May 30, 2017

In Constitutional, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Can Federal Legislative Jurisdiction Support a Broad, Sustainability-Based Impact Assessment?

Report Commented On: Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada

This is the fourth in a series of ABlawg posts to consider the report of the Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes. Professor Arlene Kwasniak wrote the first post, wherein she summarized the main contours of the Expert Panel’s recommendations; Professor Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk (JD 2017) tackled the ever-present challenges of discretion, transparency and accountability; and Professor Sharon Mascher recently discussed the Expert Panel’s recommendations with respect to triggering. In this post, I tackle an area of lingering doubt in the Panel’s report, namely the federal government’s jurisdiction to make project-related decisions following a broad, sustainability-based impact assessment. In my view and as further set out below, this doubt is misplaced. My analysis is admittedly somewhat novel but doesn’t break entirely new ground – a similar analysis was put forward in the commentary following the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) 1992 CanLII 110 (SCC). Fundamental to my approach is the distinction between legislating with respect to a subject on the one hand, and subsequent decision-making pursuant to such legislation on the other.

Do Comparisons Between Tobacco and Climate Change Liability Withstand Scrutiny?

By Martin Olszynski

On April 26, 2017

In Climate Change, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski, Sharon Mascher, and Meinhard Doelle

PDF Version: Do Comparisons Between Tobacco and Climate Change Liability Withstand Scrutiny?

Research Commented On: “From Smokes to Smokestacks: Lessons from Tobacco for the Future of Climate Change Liability” (2017) Geo Envtl L Rev (forthcoming)

A few years ago, the Canadian Press reported that environmental groups were “taking inspiration from the legal fight against tobacco to fire warning shots at major energy companies over their alleged role in funding climate change denial and blocking climate-friendly legislation.” The next day, an editorial in the Calgary Herald suggested that “the comparison doesn’t stand up to even cursory examination. One is a product that is always hazardous to human health when consumed, the other is a staple of the modern world.” Setting aside for a moment the fact that tobacco wasn’t always understood as hazardous to human health (back in the 1950s, almost one in every two Americans smoked, and cigarettes were ubiquitous in homes, places of work, universities, restaurants and bars), the past few years have seen an increasing number of comparisons made between the fossil-fuel industry’s potential liability for climate change and “Big Tobacco’s” liability for tobacco-related disease. Very few of these comparisons, however, have considered the legally relevant similarities and differences between these two contexts in detail. In our most recent paper, recently accepted for publication in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review, we set out to do just that.

Assessing Adaptive Management in Alberta’s Energy Resource Sector

By Martin Olszynski

On February 2, 2017

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Protection of Spaces, Protection of Species

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Assessing Adaptive Management in Alberta’s Energy Resource Sector

Research Commented On: “Failed Experiments: An Empirical Assessment of Adaptive Management in Alberta’s Energy Resources Sector” (UBC L Rev) (Forthcoming)

It was three years and six months ago – almost to the day – that I published my first ABlawg post. The Joint Review Panel (JRP) assigned to conduct the environmental assessment of Shell’s then-proposed Jackpine oil sands mine expansion project had just released its report. That report was notable for several reasons, including that it was the first to conclude that an oil sands mine was likely to result in “significant adverse environmental effects” pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012, c 19 (CEAA, 2012). In Shell Jackpine JRP Report: Would the Real “Adaptive Management” Please Stand Up?, however, I focused on the role that adaptive management had played in the Joint Review Panel’s determination of the project’s environmental effects. Briefly, adaptive management is defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as “a planned and systematic process for continuously improving environmental management practices by learning about their outcomes.” The concern that I have expressed over the past few years is that, as practiced in Canada, adaptive management appears to be seldom planned or systematic. The problem was that I couldn’t show this to be the case – until now.

In a recent paper, I examine the implementation and effectiveness of adaptive management in Alberta’s energy resources sector. Using freedom of information processes, publicly available documents, and communication with the relevant regulator, I collected the environmental impact statements, environmental assessment reports (e.g. the Shell Jackpine JRP Report), statutory approvals and required follow-up reports for thirteen energy projects in Alberta: two coal mines, three oil sands mines, and eight in situ oil sands operations. In each case, the proponent proposed adaptive management for at least one environmental issue or problem. I then analyzed these various documents to determine the conception, implementation, and, to the extent possible, effectiveness of adaptive management with respect to each project throughout the regulatory cycle (i.e. from the proposal stage through to approval and reporting). Simply put, I set out to determine how adaptive management was actually being applied in this context.

Unfortunately, the results confirm longstanding concerns about the implementation of adaptive management in natural resources development.

Recent Analysis Shows Canada was Losing Fish Habitat Before 2012 Budget Bills

By Martin Olszynski

On January 23, 2017

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation

By: Martin Olszynski and Brett Favaro

PDF Version: Recent Analysis Shows Canada was Losing Fish Habitat Before 2012 Budget Bills

Matter commented on: Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans’ Review of the Fisheries Act RSC 1985, c F-14

Back in October of last year, we appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) in the context of its review of the 2012 changes to the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. Shortly after our appearance it occurred to us that it would be useful, using the best evidence available in the short time that was left, to provide FOPO – indeed all Canadians – with some quantifiable estimate of the state of fish habitat protection in Canada (the deadline for public submissions was November 30^th, 2016).

Consequently, we returned to Professor Olszynski’s original access to information request from 2015 that provided the evidentiary basis for his article “From ‘Badly Wrong’ to Worse: An Empirical Analysis of Canada’s New Approach to Fish Habitat Protection Laws” (2015) 28(1) J Env L & Prac 1). Briefly, Professor Olszynski obtained all of the subsection 35(2) authorizations issued by DFO’s two largest regions (Pacific, Central and Arctic) over a six-month period (May 1 to October 1) for the years 2012, 2013, 2014. Generally speaking, each authorization contains information about the project proponent, project type (e.g. a bridge, a mine, a dam), project location, the size and kind of impacts to habitat, and the amount of compensation or offsetting habitat required – if any. We recorded the total area that each project was authorized to impact (in m²), as well as the total amount of compensation habitat required. Of the 86 authorizations in 2012, eight authorized impacts that were not described in terms of area (e.g. the proponent was authorized to destroy 1,500 eelgrass plants, or to dewater a stream killing all its fish); these were excluded from our analysis, leaving us with 78 authorizations.