Category: Environmental Page 5 of 58

Cases and Decisions Commented On: (1) Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (CanLII), (2) Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII), and (3) AER Decision, Northback Holdings Corporation Applications for Coal Exploration Program (CEP) A10123772, Deep Drilling Permit (DDP) 1948547, and Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) 00497386 May 15, 2025, 2025 ABAER 006

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series (for the most recent post in that series see here) and our Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain project and litigation related to the project. As the title of the post suggests, this is the third such update following earlier updates in February 2024 and August 2024.

Federal Climate Plans, Policies and Projections: Have no fear, CNZEAA is (still) here?

By David V Wright

On June 23, 2025

In Climate Change, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Implementation of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, SC 2021, c 22

PDF Version: Federal Climate Plans, Policies and Projections: Have no fear, CNZEAA is (still) here?

With so much attention around the proposed Building Canada Act and the expedited process for “national interest projects” contained therein (see recent ABlawg posts here and here, and related coverage here), one could be forgiven for thinking that climate change law and policy is getting lost in the shuffle at the federal level. And given Prime Minister Carney’s scrapping of the consumer carbon tax and hints that the proposed oil and gas cap might be next, there is a fair reason to fear that Canada’s pathway to achieving its climate change commitments is in jeopardy. But wait. Since 2021, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, SC 2021, c 22 (CNZEAA or the Act, colloquially pronounced ‘sneeze-ee-yah’) has been more or less fulfilling its purpose and is about to do some more work.

A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

By Martin Olszynski

On June 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Law Reform

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

PDF Version: A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

On Tuesday, June 17^th, 2025, I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate in the context of its study of Bill C-5, Part II of which contains the Building Canada Act. Professor David Wright and I provided an initial analysis of this part of Bill C-5 shortly after it was tabled. As is my regular practice, this post includes my prepared remarks, which expand on some of that earlier analysis. I have also included hyperlinks where useful. In our initial post, Professor Wright asked whether Bill C-5 will allow Canada to ‘move fast and make things’ or ‘move fast and break things’? While it is still too early to answer that question from a project review perspective (the prospects, however, appear increasingly dim), it is now clear that as drafted Bill C-5 breaks fundamental democratic norms, at the least, and that our democracy and the rule of law will be diminished for it.

Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

By David V Wright

On June 10, 2025

In Environmental

By: David V. Wright and Martin Olszynski

Bill Commented On: Bill C-5 – An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

PDF Version: Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

On Friday, June 6^th, the new Carney Government tabled Bill C-5, Part II of which consists of the Building Canada Act. This proposed legislation is intended to follow through on a promise to speed up resource development and streamline federal project approvals (see also the recent Speech from the Throne). Tabling of the Bill follows the recent First Ministers’ meeting, where there was discussion of potential major projects such as “highways, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, critical minerals, mines, nuclear facilities, and electricity transmission systems” (see federal Backgrounder here). The Bill enters today’s broader context of threats to Canada’s economic security and sovereignty due to developments south of the border such as tariffs and expressed imperialist ambitions, and the associated shockwaves rumbling through global economic and political orders.

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.