Tag Archives: alberta

Union group says documents show Alberta government prioritized Cargill plant operation over worker safety

Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

The Supreme Court of Canada rules the federal carbon pricing law is constitutional.

Parliament passed the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2018, based on the consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global climate change. Countries around the world committed to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement. In Canada, the federal government passed the Act to implement its commitments.

Specifically, the law required provinces and territories to implement carbon gas pricing systems by January 1, 2019 or adopt one imposed by the federal government.

Why is the federal Act constitutional?

Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote for the majority of the judges, which found the Act to be constitutional. They noted that global warming causes harm beyond provincial boundaries and that it is a matter of national concern under the “peace, order and good government” clause of the Constitution.

The majority noted the Act would only apply where provincial or territorial pricing systems are not strict enough to reduce global warming.

A rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law

The majority noted that national concern is a well-established but rarely applied doctrine of Canadian constitutional law. The application of this doctrine is strictly limited in order to maintain the autonomy of the provinces and respect the diversity of confederation. However, the federal government has the authority to act in appropriate cases, where there is a matter of genuine national concern and where the recognition of that matter is consistent with the division of powers.

Federalism

The Constitution divides federal and provincial powers. The majority of judges observed that Canada, which has a federal system of governance, requires a balance between federal and provincial powers. They recalled that this concept, known as federalism, is a foundational principle of Canada’s Constitution.

Not a tax

The majority noted that the term “carbon tax” is often used to describe the pricing of carbon emissions. However, they said this has nothing to do with the concept of taxation, as understood in the constitutional context. As such, they also concluded that the fuel and excess emission charges imposed by the Act were constitutionally valid regulatory charges and not taxes.

How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

Three provinces – Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta – challenged the constitutionality of the Act by referring the legislation to their respective courts of appeal. The courts of appeal for Saskatchewan and Ontario found the Act constitutional, while the Alberta Court of Appeal found it unconstitutional.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the federal government had the authority to pass such a law that puts a price on carbon.

What were the main arguments?

The provinces said they had their own climate policies, tailored to their own circumstances. They also argued that they have jurisdiction over natural resources.

For its part, the federal government argued that it has the authority to address issues that are national in scope. It also maintained that the law was a backstop (or safety net) to ensure minimum carbon pricing standards across the country.

Climate change is real

The Supreme Court also pointed out that all of the parties agree that global climate change is real. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities and it poses a grave threat to the future of humanity.

Cases in Brief are prepared by communications staff of the Supreme Court of Canada to help the public better understand Court decisions. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

Consultations Will Let Albertans Say ‘No’ to Rocky Mountain Coal Mining, Minister Promises

Leave a reply

Alberta’s energy minister has promised people will be able to say “no” to coal mining in the Rocky Mountains during upcoming consultations.

“Albertans will tell us how they want to see coal development—if they want to see coal development—and, if they want to see coal development, where it will be,” Sonya Savage said Tuesday.

Savage was responding to questions from NDP Opposition critic Kathleen Ganley during a meeting of the standing committee on resource stewardship, The Canadian Press reports.

The story appeared a day after the NDP put forward legislation to ban coal mining in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. A day later, Environment Minister Jason Nixon was “reassuring rural municipalities in the province’s dry south that their water supply isn’t threatened by industrial development such as coal mines,” CP adds.

“Alberta continues to have some of the most rigorous water licence rules [and] environmental rules when it comes to the protection of water,” he told a Rural Municipalities Alberta convention.

The province’s United Conservative government has promised consultations on Rocky Mountain coal development will begin March 29. They were announced in February in response to public outcry over the government’s decision to revoke a policy that had protected the summits and eastern slopes of the Rockies from surface coal mines since 1976.

Exploration leases on thousands of hectares were sold on formerly protected so-called Category 2 land. Those leases remain active, although new sales have been halted.

No details about the consultations have been released. Critics have wondered if the consultations will give Albertans the option of telling the government not just under what circumstances they would accept mines, but whether they want them at all.

The land in question includes the headwaters for much of the province’s drinking water.

Savage said Tuesday that details are to be released shortly. She suggested their scope will be broad.

“We’re going to hear the views of Albertans,” Savage said. “We’re going to listen to them before we take any next steps with respect to what can or can’t be developed on Category 2 lands.

“You’re trying to suggest that…those leases are going to stay after the coal consultations and that coal mining will be permitted in Category 2 lands, which is as far from the truth as possible,” Savage told Ganley.

Savage also promised talks with area First Nations.

“There will definitely be government-to-government direct consultations with Indigenous communities,” she said. “That will run parallel with consultation that will start on the 29th.”

If the government wanted to assure Albertans its mind was really open on the issue, it could start by stopping any further work on exploration leases already sold, Katie Morrison of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society told CP’s Bob Weber.

“I would have more confidence if they cancelled the exploration permits…pending the outcome of these consultations,” she said in an email.

“If they really have no predetermined outcomes, then companies should not be able to continue to damage these landscapes and incur costs that could be subject to compensation from Albertans later.”

Morrison said the further along coal companies get, the harder it will be to implement land use plans and the more expensive it will be to reclaim damage caused by exploration activities such as drilling and road-building.

Elements of this report by The Canadian Press were first published March 15-17, 2021.

Reprinted with permission from The Energy Mix

‘Future Belongs to Renewables’ as Norwegian Wealth Fund Blacklists Four Alberta Fossils

1 Reply

Ecojustice Goes to Court Against Alberta’s ‘Foreign-Funded Influence’ Panel

Leave a reply

A judge in Calgary was to hear arguments this week over whether Alberta’s public inquiry into the purported foreign funding of environmental charities is a valid defence of the province’s ailing oil industry or an attempt to silence dissent.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Karen Horner was to hear a challenge from environmental law charity Ecojustice on Thursday and Friday, The Canadian Press reports. The hearing’s initial April date was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I can’t recall an issue that has prompted so much public interest in recent times for an Ecojustice case, and overwhelming support,” said Executive Director Devon Page.

The inquiry was one plank in a “fight-back” strategy touted by the United Conservatives on the 2019 election campaign trail. Forensic accountant Steve Allan was tapped that summer to be commissioner with an initial C$2.5-million budget and July 2020 deadline. Allan’s report is expected on May 31 after three extensions and a $1-million budget increase.

Page called the inquiry a “political stunt that’s not based in reality” and wants it shut down.

Ecojustice argues in its brief that the inquiry was called for an “improper purpose,” which it says was “targeting, intimidating, and harming organizations that have raised concerns about the environmental impacts, including climate change impacts, of oil and gas development in Alberta.”

Page said shortly after the inquiry was announced, he took a call from a Nova Scotia resident who worried about being called before it because of a letter to the Alberta government opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

“Will there be a report that says Canadian charities have acted in un-Canadian or anti-Albertan fashion?” Page asked. “That prospect is real. It may not be legitimate, but it’s real.”

Steve Allan

The Alberta government counters in its submissions that cabinet is “entitled—and mandated” to decide what’s in the public interest and what matters are deserving of a public inquiry. The Allan inquiry, it says, “concerns the economic viability of the entire province and the efficient and responsible development of Alberta’s natural resources.”

A consortium of pro-industry interveners back that view in a joint brief. The Indian Resource Council, the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, and oilpatch entrepreneur [and serial provocateur] Brett Wilson together argue that “public interest requires a generous interpretation” of what the inquiry’s purpose should be.

Ecojustice argues the inquiry has a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” It cites numerous comments Premier Jason Kenney has made asserting the province must fight back against foreign funders of anti-oil campaigns. “The inquiry is being used as a political pawn to support predetermined government actions,” the law charity says in its submissions.

The government says it’s important to draw a distinction between a politician’s partisan comments and the commissioner’s presumed impartiality.

Ecojustice points out that Allan donated to the campaign of Doug Schweitzer, who would go on to become a UCP cabinet minister, as evidence of bias. A brief submitted on Allan’s behalf notes he has donated to parties across the political spectrum.

“His experience and dedication on both a professional level and as a ‘good citizen’ in his community, with matters of public interest across the political perspective, qualify him to act objectively, fairly, and with integrity in the inquiry,” his lawyer wrote.

Ecojustice contends the inquiry is outside Alberta’s jurisdiction because it deals with matters of interprovincial commerce and trade, as well as the regulation of charities, while the province argues defence of its natural resources industry is well within its purview.

Late last year, Ecojustice lost a court bid to have Allan’s work paused until there was a ruling in its lawsuit. Page said the group would make the same request at the upcoming hearing.

“The actions of an organization who seeks to undermine and discredit one of Canada’s largest economic subsectors speaks for itself,” said Alberta Energy spokesperson Kavi Bal.

“Alberta’s government was pleased to see the courts strike down a nuisance injunction application by Ecojustice, earlier this year, designed to slow down the public inquiry into foreign-funded campaigns.

“We will see this inquiry through to its completion.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published February 10 10, 2021. Reprinted with permission from The Energy Mix.

Environmental groups targeted by Kenney’s ‘baseless conspiracy theory’ say they still have not been contacted by his ‘anti-Alberta’ Inquiry

Despite pouring millions of tax dollars into a public inquiry investigating “foreign funding of Alberta anti-energy campaigns,” many environmental groups targeted by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and his right-wing allies say no one from the Inquiry has ever bothered to contact them.

Last week, Alberta’s Energy Minister announced the Inquiry’s final report would be delayed by another four months and require an additional $1 million cash infusion to complete its work after Commissioner Steve Allan missed his July 2 deadline. [Open for Discussion]

Steve MacLellan

Ramble On