Arlene Kwasniak

Matter Commented On: Amendments to the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 as set out in Bill 7: Water Amendment Act, 2025 (Bill 7)

PDF Version: Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

On October 30^th, the governing United Conservative Party of Alberta introduced Bill 7, the Water Amendment Act, 2025. Bill 7 passed third reading at the Legislative Assembly on December 2, 2025, and will come into force on proclamation. No amendments were made. This post assesses the Bill’s potential impacts on water management in Alberta. Part I of this post provides an overview of water law in Alberta, up to the amendments. Part II sets out the amendments Bill 7 presents and describes them in relation to traditional water management as prescribed by law in the province for over 130 years. Part II primarily takes a legal perspective. Part III then offers analyses of the amendments from an ecological, social, infrastructure, and related impacts and concerns perspective.

Water Availability Engagement Survey – Available to Whom for What?

By Arlene Kwasniak

On June 25, 2025

In Water Law

By: Arlene Kwasniak

Matter Commented On: Alberta Government Enhancing Water Availability Engagement and Proposed Amendments to the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3

PDF Version: Water Availability Engagement Survey – Available to Whom for What?

This Government Initiative is Phase 2 of Environment and Protected Areas (EPA) Water Availability Engagement (WAE) initiative. The EPA website states that Phase 1, which concluded early this year, “Sought feedback … to understand challenges within the current water management system and potential solutions for increasing water availability” and that Phase 2 focusses on “Collecting feedback on proposed changes to the Water Act” to “enhance the water management system and increase water availability.” The website provides three resources relevant to Phase 2:

The Vital Importance of Federal Environmental Assessment and the Federal Election

By Arlene Kwasniak

On April 21, 2025

In Environmental

By: Arlene Kwasniak

Matter Commented On: The federal leaders’ debate and how the role of federal environmental assessment was inappropriately miscast, denigrated, and not defended.

PDF Version: The Vital Importance of Federal Environmental Assessment and the Federal Election

On April 17^th I watched the English debate among the Canadian Prime Minister contenders. I watched the French debate the day before. For those who may not know, I want to set something straight. It deals with so called “Bill C-69” that CPC leader Pierre Poilievre insists should be repealed. He calls it the “No Pipelines Act,” a term he lifted from Jason Kenny, who called it that years ago. Poilievre calls it new legislation that blocks development, in particular development related to the energy industry like pipelines and references it as just a bunch of useless red tape standing in the way of industrial and resource development. This post addresses these false claims.

Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited

By Arlene Kwasniak

On May 3, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited

Matter Commented on: Terms of Reference for the Coal Policy Consultation Committee, dated March 29, 2021

This is the seventh instalment in the ABlawg series on coal law. 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, Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration, Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?, and Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference.

Nigel Bankes’ post “Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference” concerns the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Coal Policy Consultation Committee (CPCC). The CPCC is responsible for consulting with Albertans as part of the process leading to the provincial government’s development of a “modern coal development policy” to replace the 1976 A Coal Development Policy for Alberta (the 1976 Coal Policy). In his post on the ToR, Professor Bankes, like most commentators, construed the ToR as being very narrow and precluding meaningful discussion of coal development, environmental and water matters, and land-use planning. Professor Bankes observes:

Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment and Bill C-69 – The Further Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment

By Arlene Kwasniak

On March 26, 2018

In Environmental

By: Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment and Bill C-69 – The Further Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment

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

This is a continuation of the series of ABlawg posts on Bill C-69. The Impact Assessment Act (IAA) part of Bill C-69 is intended to replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA 2012). This post concerns how the proposed IAA addresses the situation where more than one jurisdiction has decision-making authority over a project and each jurisdiction requires an impact assessment (IA). A key question for federal legislators is should there be two (or more) assessments or one assessment? And if one, what is the nature of that process, and what roles must the respective jurisdictions play in the assessment?