ABLawg

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.

Must We Be Nice? Civility Rules and Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13

By Fraser Gordon

On June 12, 2025

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Fraser Gordon

Case Commented On: Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Must We Be Nice? Civility Rules and Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13

Lawyers as advocates must be “courteous and civil and act in good faith to the tribunal and all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings” (Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct, s 5.1-6); this duty in fact extends outside of the courtroom and applies to all persons “with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of his or her practice” (Code of Conduct, s 7.2-1). What this means in practice is notoriously hard to identify; the Law Society Appeal Panel, in a (173 paragraph) decision considered when to sanction a lawyer for incivility. In this blog, I want to consider the Law Society’s most recent attempt at this nettlesome question, and also and, more generally, whether this is a good use of the regulator’s resources.

Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

By Nigel Bankes

On June 11, 2025

In Constitutional, Indigenous, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Bill Commented On: Bill 54, Election Statutes Amendment Act

PDF Version: Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

In the dying hours of this last Legislative Session the Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery introduced a series of amendments (Amendment # A6, adopted May 14, 2025 and Hansard at 3494) to Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act. This is the Bill that will make it easier for parties to call for a citizen-led secession reference. One of the amendments related to proposed changes to the province’s Referendum Act, RSA 2000, c R-8.4. The amendment (the non-derogation clause or amendment) purports to clarify that:

Nothing in a referendum held under this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

By David V Wright

On June 10, 2025

In Environmental

By: David V. Wright and Martin Olszynski

Bill Commented On: Bill C-5 – An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

PDF Version: Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

On Friday, June 6^th, the new Carney Government tabled Bill C-5, Part II of which consists of the Building Canada Act. This proposed legislation is intended to follow through on a promise to speed up resource development and streamline federal project approvals (see also the recent Speech from the Throne). Tabling of the Bill follows the recent First Ministers’ meeting, where there was discussion of potential major projects such as “highways, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, critical minerals, mines, nuclear facilities, and electricity transmission systems” (see federal Backgrounder here). The Bill enters today’s broader context of threats to Canada’s economic security and sovereignty due to developments south of the border such as tariffs and expressed imperialist ambitions, and the associated shockwaves rumbling through global economic and political orders.