Category: Environmental Page 8 of 53

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.

The Canada Energy Regulator Protects Trans Mountain from Canadians

By Christine Laing

On May 31, 2021

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

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.

Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited

By Arlene Kwasniak

On May 3, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

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:

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

By Nigel Bankes

On April 30, 2021

In Climate Change, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the third in a series of posts regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA)). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. The second post summarized the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. In this post, we provide commentary on four aspects of the Reference: the breadth of the matter and the characterization of the GGPPA, the constitutional implications of minimum national standards as defined in this case, the role of provincial inability and extraprovincial effects, and finally the role of domestic courts in adjudicating a global problem like climate change

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

By Nigel Bankes

On April 29, 2021

In Climate Change, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the second in a series of posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. In this post, we summarize the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. Our goal in reviewing the dissents is to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement between the majority and the dissents.