Monthly Archives: May 2014

Canada’s National Conservation “Plan”?

Today the federal government announced a commitment of $252,000,000.00 ($252 million) over the next five years for various conservation initiatives that can be broadly divided into three priorities:

– conserving Canada’s lands and waters;

– restoring Canada’s ecosystems; and

– connecting Canadians to nature.

The commitment is broken down as follows:

– $100 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to protect sensitive lands over five years.

– $37 million for marine and coastal conservation over five years.

– $3.2 million to assist a national inventory of conserved areas in Canada over five years.

– $50 million to restore wetlands over five years.

– $50 million to help voluntary actions to restore and conserve species and their habitats over five years.

– $9.2 million to connect urban Canadians to nature over five years.

– $3 million for an Earth Rangers program to expand family-oriented conservation programming over three years.

This follows on the footsteps of news from Alberta, earlier today, that the province has commenced lease sales for seven plots of land (consisting of approximately 1700 hectares of mountain caribou habitat) in northern Alberta.

The leasing news from Alberta, itself, came after news that a federal panel of scientists, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, concluded that all of Alberta’s mountain caribou herds should be considered endangered.

Today’s five-year commitment to the conservation of Canada’s environment is a smaller commitment than the Government has made to ensuring broadband service to 280,000 rural homes ($305,000,000.00 ($305 million) over five years).

It is hard to judge the impact of this announcement, but difficult not to be suspicious: it lacks any real detail (despite this being an election promise from three years ago), and follows on the heels of the gutting of federal environmental and fisheries laws by the government.

By James Early

Kinder Morgan: Who Participates?

While thousands of interested parties participated in the Northern Gateway hearings, the same cannot be said of the Kinder Morgan National Energy Board (“NEB”) pipeline review.

More than 2,100 people applied to participate in the Kinder Morgan hearings, though as few as 400 will be permitted to appear as intervenors at the hearing. New rules enacted by the federal government now limit participation to only those who are directly affected by the project.

In order to participate, the NEB must be satisfied that an applicant:

-is directly affected by the granting or refusing of a project application

-has relevant information or expertise for the NEB to consider; or

-both.

As part of the new rules, the NEB is to determine who is directly affected by considering the following two factors:

1. The nature of the person’s interest.

2. Whether the granting or refusing of a project application causes a direct effect on the person’s interest.

The first enquiry addresses whether a person has a specific and detailed interest, rather than a general public interest. Examples of interests that could support participation are: commercial, property or other financial interest (including employment); personal use and occupancy of land and resources; or use of land and resources for traditional Aboriginal purposes.

In relation to this second stage, the NEB will consider the degree of connection between the project and the interest, the likelihood and severity of harm a person is exposed to, and the frequency and duration of a person’s use of the area near the project.

The interpretation of these rules, however, is proving contentious.

In challenging the rules on participation, this week Forest Ethics Advocacy, amongst others, filed an application with the NEB alleging:

“…[the restriction on participation] is a draconian, undemocratic limitation of their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression…”

The applicants also allege that the NEB used a very narrow definition of the phrase “directly affected”, and that the NEB refuses to hear submissions on climate change or fossil fuels:

“This board cannot determine whether the proposed pipeline is in the public interest without a full consideration of the environmental effects… …[th]e project is being proposed in order to increase pipeline capacity in support of growing oil production. Without acknowledging that increased production of oil sands is having a devastating effect on the environment, and resulting in climate change, this board cannot even begin to address the issues which it has deemed relevant

The NEB application follows on the heels of a Tsleil-Waututh application, filed just a few days earlier in the Federal Court of Appeal. In this case, the First Nation claims that the NEB review process is unilateral and one-sided.

The First Nation has stated:

“…serious legal errors made by the federal Crown and NEB have led to a flawed and unlawful review process that puts Burrard Inlet and all peoples who live here at risk.

“The Crown and NEB are running roughshod over our Aboriginal Title and Rights. The process to review Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline expansion and tanker project was designed without First Nations consultation or public participation. The timelines appear to have been designed to rush through approvals,” says Chief Maureen Thomas, Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

“Legal materials to be filed in the Federal Court of Appeal will demonstrate that, among other things, the NEB lacked legal authority to start its review process because of the federal government’s failure to first consult Tsleil-Waututh on key decisions about the environmental assessment and regulatory review of the project.”

Regardless of the disposition of the NEB and Federal Court applications, what appears to be certain is that litigation in relation to the Kinder Morgan project is not likely to stop. Currently the Northern Gateway project is facing litigation on at least 10 fronts from a range of parties including First Nations and environmental groups.

By James Early