University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

By: Shaun Fluker and JD Students in the Public Interest Law Clinic

Bill Commented On: Bill 27 Education Amendment Act, 2024, 1st Sess, 31st Leg, 2024 (passed second reading Nov 19)

PDF Version: UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

On October 31 the Minister of Education introduced Bill 27 into the Alberta Legislature with the following comments: “The bill will provide clarity, consistency, and transparency to education policies in schools across Alberta. Parents across the province want to be more involved and have a larger say in their child’s education, and we are happy to strengthen their involvement through these proposed amendments.” This is a very bland introduction for a Bill that, if passed, will amend the Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3, to accomplish three objectives: (1) restrict the ability of schools to implement public health emergency measures; (2) require Ministerial approval of curriculum materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality; and (3) restrict the liberty of youth to use gender affirming names or pronouns in school. Bill 27 also grants a lot more than just a ‘larger say’ to parents – the amendments to the Education Act in the Bill grant parental control over the application of public health emergency measures, the delivery of educational materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality, and the use of gender affirming names or pronouns in schools. Suffice it to say, this is not what governing in the public interest looks like.

New Alberta Access to Information Law Part 1: More Secrecy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Bill 34: Access to Information Act

PDF Version: New Alberta Access to Information Law Part 1: More Secrecy

On 6 November 2024, the United Conservative Party introduced two bills that would repeal the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) and replace it with separate statutes for personal information held by provincial government agencies (Bill 33: Protection of Privacy Act) and the public accessibility and secrecy of government records (Bill 34: Access to Information Act).

Modernizing Professional Regulation is a Worthwhile Goal

By: Collin May

Matter Commented On: Review of Alberta Professional Regulation

PDF Version: Modernizing Professional Regulation is a Worthwhile Goal

Recently, more than one commentator has dismissed the Alberta government’s recent promises to reform professional regulation, including our own regulator, the Law Society of Alberta, as little more than grievance politics (see Shaun Fluker’s comment, here). However, the need to modernize Canada’s rather dated professional regulatory regime, with its excessive emphasis on self-governance, has been evident to many of us for a while now.

The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration v2.0, November 1, 2024

PDF Version: The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

Nearly ten years ago I posted an ABlawg comment on a draft of the first version of this Offset Quantification Protocol. The Quantification Protocol (QP) was developed at that time so as to be ready for when Shell’s Quest Project came on stream. A QP is designed to establish the circumstances under which a project, in this case a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, might generate offset credits under Alberta’s CO2 emissions legislation and regulations, which could then be used to meet the compliance obligations of a regulated emitter. At that time, the relevant regulation was the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER); the current regulation is the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER Regulation). My earlier post identified a number of issues that remain pertinent today, including the transparency of the process, issues of liability in the event of a reversal, and a question as to the apportionment of regulatory responsibilities between the mechanisms of the QP and the responsibility of the energy regulator (then the Energy Resources Conservation Board, now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)) for scheme approvals for injection activities. This latter point continues to present some difficulties in the current draft of Version 2.0, particularly with respect to monitoring for containment assurance, which is explicitly dealt with in s 5.1.6 and Appendix C of the Draft QP (but also relevant to the sections of the QP dealing with reversals). I explore these issues in more detail below.

Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Standard Form Carbon Sequestration Agreement

PDF Version: Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

The Government of Alberta (GoA) has finally released the form or template of the Carbon Sequestration Agreement (CSA) that it will use for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects organized as hub projects. A hub project is a CCS project in which one party provides transportation and sequestration (T & S) services to variety of emitters. One example is the Atlas Carbon Storage Hub promoted by ATCO EnPower and Shell Canada Products which received its final investment decision in June 2024. Previous ABlawg posts (here, here and here) have reviewed Alberta’s decision to adopt a hub approach to CCS in preference to the vertically integrated project approach that characterized Shell’s earlier Quest project (see ABlawg post here). A vertically integrated CCS project is a project in which a single party (or joint venture) is responsible for all three elements of the CCS value chain (that is to say, capture and compression, transportation, and injection and geological sequestration). In a hub project (or a hub and spoke project) one party (the hub operator) typically offers transportation and sequestration services (T & S) to a number of different large emitters. I refer readers to the earlier posts for the more detailed explanations of the background.

Page 4 of 418

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén