Category Archives: Environmental

Coal Law and Policy Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy Part Six: Coal Consultation Terms of Reference

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

This is the sixth 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, and Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

These previous posts have traced recent developments in coal law and policy in Alberta, including the revocation of the Coal Development Policy of 1976 effective June 1, 2020, the limited reinstatement of that Policy on February 8, 2021 following broad opposition from civil society, and the promise by the Minister of Energy, Sonya Savage to engage in “widespread consultations on a new coal policy.”

Following that last announcement (which was also accompanied by a Ministerial Directive to the Alberta Energy Regulator, available as an appendix to Department of Energy, Information Letter IL 2021-07) and a second (February 23, 2021) news release promising “a comprehensive consultation plan”, the Minister went on most recently to establish (March 29, 2021, Engaging with Albertans on a modern coal policy) the Coal Policy Consultation Committee (CPCC). The Committee is to be chaired by Ron Wallace, a former member of the National Energy Board. The four other members are Fred Bradley, a former conservative MLA and former Alberta minister of the environment, Natalie Charlton, the executive director of the Hinton and District Chamber of Commerce, Bill Trafford, the president of the Livingstone Landowners’ Group, and Eric North Peigan, who is a small business owner and a member of Piikani Nation.

Continue reading →

Indigenous Law, the Common Law, and Pipelines

By: Kent McNeil

PDF Version: Indigenous Law, the Common Law, and Pipelines

Matter Commented On: Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. v Huson, 2019 BCSC 2264 (CanLII)

The extent to which Indigenous law is part of Canadian law along with the common law and civil law has become a major issue over the past two decades. Judges have been reluctantly wading into the matter, expressing somewhat inconsistent opinions. A recent example is in Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. v Huson, 2019 BCSC 2264 (CanLII), involving an application by a pipeline company for an interlocutory injunction.

Members of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in British Columbia oppose construction through their territory of a natural gas pipeline that would terminate at Kitimat on the West Coast (Shiri Pasternak, “No, those who defend Wet’suwet’en territory are not criminals”, The Globe and Mail (12 February 2020)). They set up blockades on service roads to prevent the project from proceeding, leading to the injunction application, which Justice Marguerite Church of the BC Supreme Court granted.

Continue reading →

Stakeholders Expected Consultation on the Coal Policy Rescission: Was There a Legal Duty?

By: Aimee Huntington, Niall Fink & Peter Shyba

PDF Version: Stakeholders Expected Consultation on the Coal Policy Rescission: Was There a Legal Duty?

Cases Commented On: Blades et al v Alberta; TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII)

This is the sixth ABlawg post on Alberta Energy’s decision to rescind the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta (the “Coal Policy”) in May of 2020 (the “Rescission”). Much has happened since May. At the time of writing, Energy Minister Sonya Savage has temporarily reinstated the Coal Policy with a commitment to “engage with Albertans in the first half of 2021 about the long-term approach to coal development in Alberta.” A Coal Policy Committee has been established, although details on public consultation remain unclear. It is also unclear whether the reinstatement renders moot the case of Blades et al v Alberta, an application for judicial review by two cattle ranchers initiated in July of 2020 (the “Blades Application”). Finally, it is still unclear how the reinstatement will affect approvals for coal exploration granted between rescission and reinstatement (on this point, see Nigel Bankes’ previous post). What is clear is that the government’s duty to consult stakeholders on changes to the Coal Policy will remain contentious in the foreseeable future.

The Blades Application highlighted multiple potential sources of an obligation to consult stakeholders, including provisions in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), the common law, and constitutional claims raised by Indigenous intervenors. This post considers one particular source for this obligation: the legitimate expectations of stakeholders in the South Saskatchewan Region. We do so in light of the recent treatment of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII). Continue reading →

Federal Government Declines Emergency Order for Southern Mountain Caribou

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Federal Government Declines Emergency Order for Southern Mountain Caribou

Matter Commented On: Government of Canada, Statement: Government of Canada’s approach to addressing the imminent threats to the recovery of Southern Mountain Caribou (18 March 2021)

The federal government recently added a Statement on Southern Mountain Caribou to the species at risk public registry announcing that the Governor in Council has declined to issue an emergency protection order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29. This statement was a response to the recommendation for the order made by the federal Minister of the Environment following her finding in March 2018 that the southern mountain caribou face an imminent threat to their recovery. I wasn’t planning to comment on this announcement because it is fully consistent with the federal strategy of deference to the provinces on the woodland caribou file, a strategy which I debunked recently in Canada and Alberta Agree to More Pie-In-The-Sky on Woodland Caribou. Accordingly, this announcement was not surprising, or particularly newsworthy in Alberta. However, I changed my tune last Friday afternoon while perusing my inbox looking for a weekly fix of Alberta government spin, and Jason Nixon, the Alberta Minister of Environment and Parks, did not disappoint with his comments in Federal recognition of Alberta’s caribou recovery efforts: Minister Nixon, expressing that the federal Statement is a recognition of Alberta’s strong caribou recovery efforts to date.

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

Legislation Commented On: Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1; Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29; Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (forthcoming)

This is another installment in the continuing ABlawg series on the law and policy framework for coal projects in Alberta. This installment focuses on three statutes or regulations by which the federal government exercises authority over possible coal mining in Alberta’s eastern slopes: the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the forthcoming Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (a regulation under the Fisheries Act).

It should be noted these three enactments are not exhaustive of federal powers that apply to coal mining. The federal government may be involved in other ways, including through the general protection for fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, limitation of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial projects, constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, or water allocation disputes between provinces.

Continue reading →