Category Archives: Environmental

Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

PDF Version: Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

Matter Commented On: The Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

It’s late fall 2022. A popular mayor of a southern Alberta town wakes up to a peculiar email: the Second Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns has reviewed several news reports from 2020 and 2021, as well as his social media account, and has determined that he engaged in an “anti-Alberta energy campaign.”

Just a bit down the highway, a popular Alberta country singer finds a similar email. They’ve each been given two weeks to respond. Confused, each writes back to the Inquiry to insist that they’re absolutely not anti-Alberta: they’re proud Albertans who care deeply about its lands and waters, especially the eastern slopes of the Rockies and the vital headwaters found there. Continue reading →

Justice for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout at Grassy Mountain

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Justice for the Westslope Cutthroat Trout at Grassy Mountain

Decision Commented On: Report of the Joint Review Panel: Benga Mining Limited Grassy Mountain Coal Project, 2021 ABAER 010

On June 17, 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) denied an application by Benga Mining Limited under the Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c C-17, for approvals to construct, operate and reclaim an open-pit metallurgical coal mine (along with associated processing, transportation and related infrastructure) on the montane and subalpine lands of Grassy Mountain in the Crowsnest Pass region of southwestern Alberta. The application was considered by a federal-provincial joint review panel governed by terms of reference established under the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA 2012), terms which instructed the panel to exercise AER decision-making authority under the Coal Conservation Act and assess the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the project under various provincial statutes and CEAA 2012 (the federal registry for the environmental impact assessment is here). The panel’s decision consists of a whopping 3072 paragraphs (631 pages not including appendices). This comment focuses on the AER portion of this decision, and in particular just one aspect of this decision: the confrontation between coal development and preservation of the threatened Alberta population of westslope cutthroat trout (WSCT) along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. This comment is not reviewing the CEAA 2012 findings and recommendations because, as the panel indicates at paragraph 3066, without the provincial authorizations the project cannot proceed. Continue reading →

Kananaskis Conservation Pass

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Kananaskis Conservation Pass

Ministerial Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 51/2021 (Environment and Parks)

On May 27, the Minister of Environment and Parks (Jason Nixon) issued Ministerial Order 51/2021 to impose a fee to access Kananaskis Country. This new access fee applies to many popular parks and recreational areas in Kananaskis Country such as West Bragg Creek, Barrier Lake, Elbow Falls, Evans Thomas Creek, Spray Lakes, and Highwood Pass. Payment of the fee provides the purchaser with a Kananaskis Conservation Pass. The geographic scope of the fee requirement is curiously both over and under inclusive in relation to its name. The boundary map on the Alberta parks website (and attached to Ministerial Order 51/2021) indicates the access fee applies to areas outside of what is commonly known as Kananaskis Country (e.g. portions of the Bow Valley Wildland Park east of Canmore, including Grotto Canyon and Mount Yamnuska) and – as was pointed out by Nathan Schmidt (JD 2021) here – the fee does not apply to the McLean Creek area which is clearly within Kananaskis Country. This post critically examines the legislative changes made to implement the Kananaskis Conservation Pass requirement. Continue reading →

The Canada Energy Regulator Protects Trans Mountain from Canadians

By: Christine Laing & Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Canada Energy Regulator Protects Trans Mountain from Canadians

Decision Commented On: Decision on Trans Mountain’s Request for Confidential Treatment dated 29 April 2021

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER or Commission) has the statutory duty to assess financial resources plans filed by operating pipeline companies each year and determine whether those resources remain sufficient to cover the company’s expected liabilities if a pipeline spills. The written review process is open to the public through postings on the CER’s website. Trans Mountain requested an exception to the typical public filing process, asking the CER to keep their insurers confidential going forward. On April 29, 2021, the CER granted the request by making an order under section 60 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 10 (CER Act) to keep the identity of Trans Mountain’s insurers confidential. The decision pertains to the insurance in place to cover liability for the operating Trans Mountain pipeline, not liability associated with its decommissioning or liability associated with the construction or operation of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Continue reading →

Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited

By: Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited

Matter Commented on: Terms of Reference for the Coal Policy Consultation Committee, dated March 29, 2021

This is the seventh instalment in the ABlawg series on coal law. See Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status, the special edition: What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?, Part Two: The Rules for Acquiring Coal Rights and the Royalty Regime, Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration, Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?, and Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference.

Nigel Bankes’ post “Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference” concerns the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Coal Policy Consultation Committee (CPCC). The CPCC is responsible for consulting with Albertans as part of the process leading to the provincial government’s development of a “modern coal development policy” to replace the 1976 A Coal Development Policy for Alberta (the 1976 Coal Policy). In his post on the ToR, Professor Bankes, like most commentators, construed the ToR as being very narrow and precluding meaningful discussion of coal development, environmental and water matters, and land-use planning. Professor Bankes observes:

Continue reading →