Category: Environmental Page 14 of 53

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Suspension of Routine Environmental Reporting in Alberta

Orders Commented On: Ministerial Orders 15/2020, 16/2020, 17/2020 (Environment and Parks)

Section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 provides a minister with power to suspend or modify the application of legislation which they are responsible for under the Government Organization Act, RSA 2000, c G-10. This post looks at 3 ministerial orders made by the Minister of Environment and Parks this week under section 52.1 which suspend certain reporting requirements under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000 c E-12, the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3, the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c P-40, the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019, and the Renewable Fuels Standard Regulation, Alta Reg 29/2010, on the basis that these reporting obligations are not in the public interest during the COVID-19 public health emergency. These orders, together with other public health orders issued by Alberta during this crisis, are published here.

Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

By Andrew Leach

On February 13, 2020

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Andrew Leach and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

Decision Commented On: Teck Resources Limited, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, Fort McMurray Area, 2019 ABAER 008/CEAA Reference No. 65505

A lot of ink is currently being spilled over the federal government’s upcoming decision to approve – or not – Teck Resources’ Frontier oil sands mine project. Premier Jason Kenney and members of his Cabinet insist that the Frontier project is critical to Alberta’s economic prosperity. The Mining Association of Canada’s Pierre Graton stresses that Teck completed a “world-class, independent and rigorous assessment” and that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the joint review panel (JRP) that reviewed it. Environmental groups argue that approval is fundamentally inconsistent with Canada’s climate change commitments. The project is being framed as both a test of Prime Minister Trudeau’s resolve to combat climate change and a referendum on the federal government’s support for Alberta’s economic interests and its commitment to national unity.

Our purpose here is not to take sides but rather to lay out the facts and relevant legal context as clearly as possible so that Albertans and indeed all Canadians can come to their own informed views about the desirability, or not, of this project and what, if any, larger importance to attach to the federal Cabinet’s eventual decision.

Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

By David V Wright

On December 13, 2019

In Climate Change, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

Document Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this year, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released draft guidance for the climate change related requirements in the new federal Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1) (IAA or the Act). While the future of this guidance was uncertain in recent months due to the federal election, as was the future of the entire new regime, the Act is now firmly in force and here to stay. No amendments are expected, as stated by the new federal environment minister. As part of implementing the regime, the new Impact Assessment Agency (the Agency) is now in the process of issuing detailed guidance explaining what information proponents should provide during the planning and assessment phases, including with respect to initial and detailed project descriptions, engagement with Indigenous communities, public participation, and climate change. The final climate change guidance, which ECCC has developed through what it calls a Strategic Assessment on Climate Change (SACC), is expected in early 2020.

This post focuses on the draft SACC. Specifically, I provide relevant background, explain the general threshold-based structure of the proposed regime, and then offer commentary on several key features and one missing piece. Overall, this draft guidance takes a significant step in the right direction by providing details and parameters that should be welcomed by project proponents and those interested in seeing clarity regarding quantification of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in impact assessment. This is no small feat in the impact assessment realm where integration of climate change considerations has been a challenge for many years across the world. However, in several ways the guidance does not go far enough, particularly in terms of relating project-specific emissions analysis with what really matters: achieving Canada’s climate change commitments and avoiding severe climate change-induced damage on a global scale. As the 25^thConference of the parties (“COP 25”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change draws to a close in Madrid, the world is watching. It is not too late for Canada to further clarify how emissions from major projects reviewed under the IAA will fit into the path toward achieving Canada’s targets under the Paris Agreement and achieving the recently announced commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which has just been included in the mandate letter released today to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

By Shaun Fluker

On December 12, 2019

In Environmental

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

Matter commented on: Fortress Mountain Holdings Ltd. Application No. 003-00037369 under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3

This is a short comment to raise awareness about a systemic problem in how Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) administers its decision-making powers concerning the development of natural resources and assesses the environmental impacts associated with this development. It is a problem of transparency and more particularly, the absence of transparency and lack of any meaningful opportunity for public participation in the AEP decision-making process. This is not a new problem, and it is one which I canvassed more thoroughly in The Right to Public Participation in Resources and Environmental Decision-Making in Alberta published by the Alberta Law Review in 2015. In short, decisions made by AEP under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000 c E-12 (EPEA) or the Water Act concerning the use or development of natural resources are generally made behind closed doors with no opportunity for public input and minimal disclosure. This makes a mockery of the statements of purpose set out in section 2 of EPEA and section 2 of the Water Act, which state that a purpose of each Act is to provide opportunities for citizens to give advice on decisions affecting the environment.

Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On November 22, 2019

In Administrative Law, Environmental

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

Case commented on: Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society v Alberta, 2019 ABQB 714 (CanLII)

This decision grants public interest standing to Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society and one individual (the ‘Applicants’) seeking declarations and mandamus in relation to a 2005 ministerial designation of public lands under section 9 of the Stray Animals Act, RSA 2000, c S-20. The Applicants assert that the Minister responsible for the administration of public lands under the Act failed to comply with a statutory requirement to form an opinion in relation to designating lands upon which persons may be licensed to capture and dispose of wild horses. They accordingly sought a judicial declaration that the 2005 land designation is void and an order requiring the Minister to form the opinion and publish it prior to making any future land designations under section 9 of the Act. The Province responded that the Applicants do not have standing to commence these proceedings and that the proceedings should be struck as an abuse of process. The Province also sought summary dismissal on the basis that the Applicants’ claim is barred by a limitation period. In this decision, Mr. Justice B.A. Millar ruled that the Applicants have public interest standing, but he summarily dismissed the application because the proceedings relate to a decision made in 2005 which is far beyond the 6 month time limitation for seeking judicial review under section 3.15(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.