Category: Environmental Page 5 of 59

How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

Secrecy enables government messaging control and defeats democratic accountability. The right to information is foundational to democratic participation in the conduct of public affairs. When journalists and academics cannot access information on an issue, that information is not conveyed to the public, and the public cannot meaningfully participate or assess government decision-making on the issue. This situation is common with environmental damage – the government permits and enables environmental damage but misleads the public into believing that the environment is being protected. This is the worst outcome for the protection of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, but the ideal outcome for a governing party, who takes credit for the economic benefits of the environmentally damaging project and avoids any criticism by keeping the public unaware of the environmental damage.

Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On July 7, 2025

In Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented on: Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FC 983; Kebaowek First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 472

PDF Version: Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

This post briefly summarizes two recent federal court decisions relating to critical habitat under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). These decisions add to a long list of federal court decisions adjudicating the interpretation of SARA provisions, resulting from litigation initiated by environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) seeking judicial orders that force federal Ministers to interpret SARA in accordance with its purpose, implement SARA without undue delay, or frankly take any measures whatsoever under SARA to protect listed species at risk and their critical habitat (ABlawg has commented on many of these decisions, see for example two 2024 posts written by Drew Yewchuk here and here). Federal officials have impaired the effectiveness of SARA with peculiar interpretations that obstruct the application of legislation’s protection measures for species at risk. While the two decisions commented on here relate to species at risk in Ontario and Nova Scotia, both decisions will impact the application of SARA in Alberta and likely have implications for coal exploration and development along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains and UCP government’s policy push to open up the Eastern Slopes to coal under the coal industry modernization initiative.

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

By Nigel Bankes

On June 27, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

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.