Author Archives: Sharon Mascher

About Sharon Mascher

B.Ed. (McGill), LL.B. (Calgary), LL.M. (Calgary). Professor. Member of the British Columbia Bar. Please click here for more information.

The Sad State of Regional Land Use Planning in Alberta

By: Nigel Bankes, Sharon Mascher & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: The Sad State of Regional Land Use Planning in Alberta

Matters Commented On: (1) Coal Policy Committee, Final Report: Recommendations for the Management of Coal Resources in Alberta, December 2021, released to the public March 4, 2022, (2) Minister Sonya Savage, Press Release,  Getting it Right on Coal in Alberta, March 4, 2022, (3) Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, and (4) South Saskatchewan Regional Plan

The release of the Coal Policy Committee Recommendations on March 4, 2022, offers three reminders as to the sad state of regional land use planning in Alberta. The first reminder is that 14 years after the adoption of the much-heralded Land Use Framework in 2008, and 13 years after the adoption of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), we still have only two approved plans in Alberta, the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) (approved August 22, 2012, and brought into force September 1, 2012) and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) (adopted in 2014). This was significant to the Coal Policy Committee because it meant that while plans adopted under ALSA might ultimately supersede the “nascent form of land-use planning” (at 22) embodied in the “coal categories” of the 1976 Coal Policy, we are still awaiting plans for the balance of the eastern slopes of the Rockies north of the SSRP, namely for the North Saskatchewan, the Upper Athabasca and the Upper Peace regions (see Figure 1, below). Continue reading →

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 →

As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

Matter Commented On: Discussion Paper on the Proposed Project List

Last week, Bill C-69 finally passed through the Senate and received Royal Assent. That the legislative process has been long and fraught goes without saying. On its first passage through the Senate, a total of 229 amendments were made to the legislation. While 130 of those amendments were ultimately rejected, Bill C-69 incorporates 99 of them – 62 as proposed by the Senate and 37 with government alterations. This reportedly is “the highest number of amendments on any piece of legislation since at least 1946.” Continue reading →

In Pausing Taseko’s New Prosperity Mine Exploration Program BCCA Recognizes Unsettled Questions Relating to the Duty to Consult; Consent and Justification Analysis and Proven Aboriginal Rights

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: In Pausing Taseko’s New Prosperity Mine Exploration Program BCCA Recognizes Unsettled Questions Relating to the Duty to Consult; Consent and Justification Analysis and Proven Aboriginal Rights

Case Commented On: William v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 112 (CanLII)

On April 1, 2019, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA), in William v British Columbia (Attorney General) granted Chief Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and the Tsilhqot’in Nation (the Applicants), a stay of an order allowing an exploratory drilling program in relation to the New Prosperity Mine Project to proceed pending the outcome of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The application for leave to appeal relates to a petition for the judicial review of a Notice of Work Approval granted to Taseko Mines Limited (TML) by the Province of British Columbia on July 17, 2017 allowing the exploratory drilling work to proceed. Chief William’s petition for judicial review of the Approval was dismissed by a chambers judge (William v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1425 (CanLII)) who found that the Province’s decision was reasonable and that the Province’s consultation process and degree of accommodation had maintained the honour of the Crown. On March 1, 2019, the BCCA (William v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 74 (CanLII)) agreed with the findings of the chambers judge and dismissed Chief William’s appeal.

In reaching a decision that the stay should be granted, and specifically that the Applicants have met the merits test, Justice Bruce Butler rejects TML’s argument that this is just another duty to consult case applying a long line of settled law. In so doing, Butler JA recognizes that the law relating to sufficiency of consultation and accommodation, the role of consent, and the justification analysis from Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (CanLII) is unsettled when proven s 35 Aboriginal rights are at issue. Continue reading →

Bill C-69 and the Proposed Impact Assessment Act: Rebuilding Trust or Continuing the “Trust Us” Approach to Triggering Federal Impact Assessment?

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: Bill C-69 and the Proposed Impact Assessment Act: Rebuilding Trust or Continuing the “Trust Us” Approach to Triggering Federal Impact Assessment?

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)

Consultation Paper Commented On: Consultation Paper on Approach to Revising the Project List: A proposed Impact Assessment System

On February 8, 2018 the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-69. My colleague Martin Olszynski provided an initial overview of Part 1 of the Bill, the proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA), in an earlier post. Several of my colleagues have now posted on various aspects of the proposed IAA, including Nigel Bankes, Shaun Fluker, David Wright, Kristen van de Biezenbos, Alastair Lucas, David Laidlaw, and Arlene Kwasniak. This post focuses on the question of what projects will trigger the federal impact assessment process under the proposed IAA. As I have noted previously, how this question is answered is essential to assessing whether the proposed IAA fulfills the Liberals’ promise to develop a new impact assessment process that restores the trust of Canadians and protects our environment. It goes without saying that in order for the impact assessment process to become relevant, it must first be initiated. Without effective and transparent triggers, therefore, the rest of the process becomes immaterial. Continue reading →