Bill C-7 Amends Medical Assistance in Dying Laws in Canada

By: Fiona Balaton and Lorian Hardcastle

 PDF Version: Bill C-7 Amends Medical Assistance in Dying Laws in Canada

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), 2nd Sess, 43rd Parl, 2021 (assented to 17 March 2021)

On March 17, 2021, changes to Canada’s Criminal Code provisions on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) under Bill C-7 received Royal Assent and are now in effect. These changes mark a significant milestone in Canada’s MAiD laws, which have been under constant debate and criticism since the Supreme Court of Canada held in Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII), that in certain circumstances, the criminal laws prohibiting assistance in dying limited the rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner that was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.  This blog post reviews the judicial and legislative history of MAiD in Canada, outlines the major new changes, and discusses some ongoing concerns with the MAiD laws. 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 →

Protection Against Online Hate Speech: Time for Federal Action

By: Emily Laidlaw & Jennifer Koshan, with Emma Arnold-Fyfe, Lubaina Baloch, Jack Hoskins, and Charlotte Woo

PDF Version: Protection Against Online Hate Speech: Time for Federal Action

Legislation Commented On: Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6

Editor’s Note

During Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Week at the University of Calgary in February 2021, the Faculty of Law’s EDI Committee held a research-a-thon where students undertook research on the law’s treatment of equity, diversity and inclusion issues. Over the next few weeks, we will be publishing a series of ABlawg posts that are the product of this initiative. This post is the first in the series, which also closely coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination next week on March 21. The theme this year is “Youth Standing Up Against Racism”, which fits well with this initiative.

Introduction

On January 5th, 2021, Erin O’Toole, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, tweeted “Not one criminal should be vaccinated ahead of any vulnerable Canadian or front line health worker.” His tweet unsurprisingly went viral. To date the tweet has received 6.1k likes, 3.6k retweets and 4.8k comments. The tweet is representative of the kind of internet content we have grown increasingly and painfully accustomed to: content that is rhetorical, overblown, and often hateful, even if not explicitly directed at marginalized groups,  and that occurs on a platform with global reach. When Erin O’Toole tweets, it is to an audience of 122.7k followers.

This post is not about Erin O’Toole’s tweet per se. Indeed, while his tweet dehumanizes prisoners and those with a criminal record, persons who are disproportionately Indigenous, it is not obvious, on its face, that it meets the legal standard of hate speech. Rather, this post is about what tweets like his represent in the struggle to regulate hate speech online: that so much we intuitively know is wrong falls into a legal grey area, and that much of the harm is the mob pile-on that the original post inspires. In the case of the O’Toole tweet, many tweets in response have been removed by Twitter, but it is noteworthy that thousands of others addressed the harmful nature of his statements with tweets such as “prison health is public health”, recognizing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in prisons.

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

By: Drew Yewchuk & Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

Matter Commented On: Information Letter 2021-07 “Coal Policy Reinstatement” (February 8, 2021) and attached Ministerial Order 054/2021

This is the fourth instalment in ABlawg’s series on coal law: for the background, 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, and Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?

 This post covers the regulation of coal exploration programs. On February 8, 2021 the Minister of Energy ordered the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) not to “issue any new approvals for coal on Category 2 Lands” using the Minister’s authority to issue directions to the AER under section 67 of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3. This did not cancel ongoing coal exploration programs and hence the importance of considering at least some elements of the regulation of these activities.

Continue reading →