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.

Beyond Carbon Pricing: An Assessment of the Major Parties’ Other Environmental Policies

By: Martin Olszynski and Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: Beyond Carbon Pricing: An Assessment of the Major Parties’ Other Environmental Policies

Matter Commented On: Secure the Future (Conservative Party of Canada); Forward, For Everyone (Liberal Party of Canada); Ready For Better (New Democratic Party); Be Daring (Green Party of Canada)

Climate change is widely recognized as the most important environmental problem facing humanity. Indeed, in its recent opinion upholding the constitutionality of the federal Liberals’ carbon pricing regime, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged not only that climate change is real and caused by human activity, but also that “it poses a grave threat to humanity’s future” (References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) at para 2). The unsurprising result is that climate change now dominates environmental law and policy discourse. Indeed, at times – such as the current election period – it feels like climate policy has displaced all other environmental policy entirely. As one manifestation of this, Canadian voters have access to several independent and expert assessments of the parties’ climate policies (see here, here, here, and here), but very little with respect to the parties’ remaining environmental commitments. This post is intended to help remedy that situation by focusing on the non-climate aspects of each of the major federal parties’ environmental policies. We do also provide some relatively minor commentary on those aspects of the parties’ climate policies that we feel haven’t been sufficiently addressed. Continue reading →

Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

By: Martin Z. Olszynski

PDF Version: Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

Matter Commented On: The Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

It’s late fall 2022. A popular mayor of a southern Alberta town wakes up to a peculiar email: the Second Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns has reviewed several news reports from 2020 and 2021, as well as his social media account, and has determined that he engaged in an “anti-Alberta energy campaign.”

Just a bit down the highway, a popular Alberta country singer finds a similar email. They’ve each been given two weeks to respond. Confused, each writes back to the Inquiry to insist that they’re absolutely not anti-Alberta: they’re proud Albertans who care deeply about its lands and waters, especially the eastern slopes of the Rockies and the vital headwaters found there. Continue reading →

The Curious Demise of Alberta’s Turn Off the Taps Legislation

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: The Curious Demise of Alberta’s Turn Off the Taps Legislation

Matters Commented On: Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) reversing British Columbia (Attorney General) v Alberta (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1195 (CanLII), and Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5

The Turn Off the Taps legislation ((or, more properly, Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5) (PCEPA)) was passed under the Notley government in 2018. There have always been serious doubts as to the constitutional validity of the legislation (for discussion of the principal objections to the legislation, see ABlawg here) and it is hardly surprising that the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) commenced actions first in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and later in the Federal Court seeking to test the validity of the Act. As described by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) [Turn off the Taps IV], the AGBC had two main arguments. The first was that PCEPA is inconsistent with s 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3; the second was that the PCEPA is a law in relation to interprovincial trade that falls outside the protection offered by s 92A(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the so-called ‘resource amendment’ to the Constitution. In particular, the AGBC noted that s 92A only protects laws pertaining to “primary production” as defined in the Sixth Schedule, and yet the PCEPA purported to apply to refined fuels which fell outside that definition. The Sixth Schedule provides as follows: Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the third in a series of posts regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA)). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. The second post summarized the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. In this post, we provide commentary on four aspects of the Reference: the breadth of the matter and the characterization of the GGPPA, the constitutional implications of minimum national standards as defined in this case, the role of provincial inability and extraprovincial effects, and finally the role of domestic courts in adjudicating a global problem like climate change

Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the second in a series of posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. In this post, we summarize the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. Our goal in reviewing the dissents is to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement between the majority and the dissents.

Continue reading →