Category Archives: Protection of Species

‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

By: Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: First Report on the implementation of the Section 11 agreement for the conservation and recovery of the woodland caribou in Alberta (January 19, 2024)

PDF Version: ‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

In late January, Alberta issued the first Report on implementation of the Agreement for the conservation and recovery of the Woodland Caribou in Alberta, signed by Alberta and Canada under section 11 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA] in October 2020. Commentators have noted that the Report reveals little progress by Alberta on protecting what is left of boreal caribou in this province. This criticism is certainly warranted, however the commitments made by Alberta in this Agreement will never result in progress towards halting the march of caribou towards extirpation (see “Canada and Alberta Agree to More Pie-In-The-Sky on Woodland Caribou”). What the Report does make transparent is: (1) Alberta continues to authorize the destruction of caribou habitat despite saying publicly that the government is committed to achieving population recovery; and (2) Alberta’s only real action plan to save caribou is to kill wolves. Continue reading →

Misunderstanding Cooperative Federalism: Environment and Climate Change Canada Unreasonably Failed to Protect Migratory Bird Habitat

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented on: Western Canada Wilderness Committee v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 167 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Misunderstanding Cooperative Federalism: Environment and Climate Change Canada Unreasonably Failed to Protect Migratory Bird Habitat

Western Canada Wilderness Committee v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 167 (CanLII) is a recent decision of the Federal Court rejecting the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s restrictive interpretation of migratory bird habitat under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). The decision also offers some interesting notes about co-operative federalism in the environmental context. Continue reading →

Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada Draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity

PDF Version: Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

The federal government has a laudable objective of ‘no net loss’ for development projects that will harm biodiversity in Canada. For threatened species who will lose habitat because of development, the concept of ‘no net loss’ means either avoidance, mitigation, or offsets. Avoidance of habitat loss (e.g. no project) is rarely seriously considered – and is really nonsensical when a project footprint overlaps with habitat – and efforts aimed at mitigation of adverse effects on threatened species are widely known to be pie-in-the-sky measures with little or no effectiveness (see here). Thus, a ‘no net loss’ outcome in the context of choosing between development and protecting habitat necessarily means the use of biodiversity offsets. David Poulton has written extensively for ABlawg on the topic of biodiversity offsets and resource development (see e.g. here), and a constant theme in this topic is the legal and policy vacuum on biodiversity offsets. In 2016, the Public Interest Law Clinic submitted comments on a proposed offsets policy under section 73 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (Drew Yewchuk and I posted that submission to ABlawg here). Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has recently issued a draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity which will replace its 2012 policy, and this post publishes my submission letter giving comments to ECCC on the Offsets Policy as it relates to threatened species, in response to the public engagement which closed on February 17, 2023. Continue reading →

Secrecy in Species at Risk Act Permits

By: Drew Yewchuk & Daniella Marchand

PDF Version: Secrecy in Species at Risk Act Permits

Permit Commented On: Explanation for issuing permit (19-HCAA-01862) pursuant to the provisions of section 73 of SARA – Bull Trout

Public Interest Law Clinic staff have been monitoring the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA) public registry from the early days of the clinic in 2016, when the clinic looked at a proposed permitting policy under SARA. Maintaining the public registry is a requirement of SARA (see SARA sections 120-124), and one type of document that must be posted to the registry are the explanations for the granting of section 73 permits to affect species at risk or their critical habitat. The clinic has found instances where they are either never being posted at all or posted very late – so late that the permits are expired by several months by the time they are posted to the registry. This blog describes the problem with the long delays in posting explanations for permits and argues these delays violate the intention of SARA. This post ends with a brief reflection on the usefulness of online registries meant to increase transparency. 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 →