The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

By: Jennifer Koshan and Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

Matter Commented On: Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Our colleagues Martin Olszynski and Shaun Fluker have posted concerns about the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns from the perspective of the rule of law and procedural fairness (see here and here). Amnesty International has also raised concerns about the Inquiry’s “aggressive approach to defending the oil and gas industry from criticism” and the impact this approach will have on human rights defenders – especially those who are Indigenous, women, and/or environmental activists. Ecojustice flagged similar concerns about freedom of expression in its letter to Inquiry Commissioner Steve Allan. Continue reading →

Binding The Courts: The Use of Precedent in Sentencing Starting Points

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Binding The Courts: The Use of Precedent in Sentencing Starting Points

Cases Commented On: R v Felix, 2019 ABCA 458; R v Parranto, 2019 ABCA 457

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released two companion decisions on sentencing starting points in R v Felix, 2019 ABCA 458, and R v Parranto, 2019 ABCA 457. In Felix and Parranto, the Alberta Court of Appeal considers the appropriate sentencing starting point for an offender involved in the wholesale trafficking of fentanyl, an insidious and dangerous drug responsible for the deaths of many Albertans. These decisions are prime examples of how an appellate court grapples with precedential authority in arriving at the final outcome. In this post, I will discuss these cases as exemplars of this precedential process, which lies at the heart of the rule of law under our common law system. These decisions give us a glimpse of the complexities of precedent, in cases where there is no issue of whether precedent should be followed but rather on the issue of how best to follow it. Continue reading →

Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change: Big Steps for Impact Assessment, Baby Steps for Climate Change

Document Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Draft Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this year, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released draft guidance for the climate change related requirements in the new federal Impact Assessment Act (S.C. 2019, c. 28, s. 1) (IAA or the Act). While the future of this guidance was uncertain in recent months due to the federal election, as was the future of the entire new regime, the Act is now firmly in force and here to stay. No amendments are expected, as stated by the new federal environment minister. As part of implementing the regime, the new Impact Assessment Agency (the Agency) is now in the process of issuing detailed guidance explaining what information proponents should provide during the planning and assessment phases, including with respect to initial and detailed project descriptions, engagement with Indigenous communities, public participation, and climate change. The final climate change guidance, which ECCC has developed through what it calls a Strategic Assessment on Climate Change (SACC), is expected in early 2020.

This post focuses on the draft SACC. Specifically, I provide relevant background, explain the general threshold-based structure of the proposed regime, and then offer commentary on several key features and one missing piece. Overall, this draft guidance takes a significant step in the right direction by providing details and parameters that should be welcomed by project proponents and those interested in seeing clarity regarding quantification of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in impact assessment. This is no small feat in the impact assessment realm where integration of climate change considerations has been a challenge for many years across the world. However, in several ways the guidance does not go far enough, particularly in terms of relating project-specific emissions analysis with what really matters: achieving Canada’s climate change commitments and avoiding severe climate change-induced damage on a global scale. As the 25th Conference of the parties (“COP 25”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change draws to a close in Madrid, the world is watching. It is not too late for Canada to further clarify how emissions from major projects reviewed under the IAA will fit into the path toward achieving Canada’s targets under the Paris Agreement and achieving the recently announced commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which has just been included in the mandate letter released today to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Continue reading →

Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

Matter commented on: Fortress Mountain Holdings Ltd. Application No. 003-00037369 under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3

This is a short comment to raise awareness about a systemic problem in how Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) administers its decision-making powers concerning the development of natural resources and assesses the environmental impacts associated with this development. It is a problem of transparency and more particularly, the absence of transparency and lack of any meaningful opportunity for public participation in the AEP decision-making process. This is not a new problem, and it is one which I canvassed more thoroughly in The Right to Public Participation in Resources and Environmental Decision-Making in Alberta published by the Alberta Law Review in 2015. In short, decisions made by AEP under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000 c E-12 (EPEA) or the Water Act concerning the use or development of natural resources are generally made behind closed doors with no opportunity for public input and minimal disclosure. This makes a mockery of the statements of purpose set out in section 2 of EPEA and section 2 of the Water Act, which state that a purpose of each Act is to provide opportunities for citizens to give advice on decisions affecting the environment. Continue reading →

Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

Document Commented On: Resolution LP.5(14) on the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol, adopted 11 October 2019, by the 14th Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters. [Note: Documents relating to the London Convention and Protocol including this document may be accessed on the website of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) here but users have to create an account to obtain access. Follow “Meeting Documents” and then LC Documents (Session 41). For convenience, the text of the Resolution is included at the foot of this post].

This post examines the recent decision of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol (the London Protocol or LP) to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters (London Dumping Convention or LC) to agree to the provisional application of an amendment to Article 6 of the LP. That amendment (originally adopted in 2009) when it enters into force will allow the export of CO2 for geological sequestration. The amendment is a crucial piece of the puzzle to permit collaborative projects for the subsea disposal of captured carbon dioxide emissions from industrial facilities located elsewhere than the coastal State responsible for the disposal site. This initiative, which will permit provisional application of that amendment, will help facilitate projects such as the Equinor-led Northern Lights Project on the Norwegian continental shelf. That project is currently drilling a test well: see here and here. Continue reading →