By: Alastair Lucas
Bills Commented On: Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act, and 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
Many expected changes and even new approaches to compliance and enforcement under Bills C-68 and C-69. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Continue reading
By: Alastair Lucas
PDF Version: Another Favourite Supreme Court of Canada Case: The Northern Gas Pipeline Saga
Case/Matter Commented On: Berger Inquiry; Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, 1976 CanLII 2; Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project (2009)
Processes for reviewing and analyzing proposals for large diameter pipelines to move natural gas from the Canadian Arctic to Southern North American markets have been significant for the development of Canadian environmental law. This includes regulatory review processes and judicial review cases that arose out of the pipeline review proceedings. Milestone decisions were taken on critical procedural matters including community hearings to receive traditional knowledge, intervenor funding, and decision maker impartiality. The story spans more than 35 years and involves two separate sets of pipeline proposals (see Thomas Berger, Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland, The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1977) (Berger Report)).
Cases Considered: MacDonald v Alberta Health Services, 2013 ABQB 404.
It is tempting to view the Alberta Queen’s Bench decision in MacDonald v Alberta Health Services, 2013 ABQB 404 as a simple affirmation that there is no legal right to consultation on government decisions about public programs. See, for example, Canadian Assn of Regulated Importers v Canada (Attorney-General), [1993] 3 FC 199 (TD); rev’d [1994] 2 FC 247 (CA), where a change by the Minister to the distribution of import quota for hatching eggs and chicks affected traditional importers. But little reflection is needed to see that the procedural issues raised by Alberta Health Services’ (AHF) decision to close the obstetrics unit at the Banff Hospital are far more nuanced. The applicant, Dr. MacDonald, who with his wife and partner Dr. Fowke, performed all deliveries at the Hospital in 2012 seemed to be left wondering whether every arguably interested person except he and his partner were consulted and had some input into the closure decision.
PDF version: Peter Lougheed’s Section 92A
Commenting on: the legacy of section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982
“Exclusive” power of provincial legislatures to make laws for “exploration”; “development, conservation and management” of provincial non-renewable resources and forestry resources. Provinces can also regulate, (without price or supply discrimination) the export of these natural resources. This is the essence of section 92A of the Constitution Act 1982, a provision for which Peter Lougheed fought hard in the negotiations that led to patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982.
PDF version: A National Securities Regulator? – No way! says the Alberta Court of Appeal
Case considered: Reference Re Securities Act (Canada), 2011 ABCA 77
Can the federal government pass legislation to establish and empower a national securities regulator? Essentially, this is the question referred by the Alberta Cabinet to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Specifically, the question relates to the draft National Securities Act, Sessional Paper No. 8 525-403-10. The National Securities Act would mean federal regulation of participants in the Canadian securities industry, federal disclosure rules and limits for raising money from the public, federal regulation of the trading of securities, and federal monitoring and enforcement of these rules to protect the public.
This question, the Alberta Court of Appeal answered with a resounding “No”.
