The AWA‘s Ian Urquhart, who had called the coal committee’s terms of reference a “betrayal of public trust,” welcomed the April 23 announcement that the committee would address environmental issues, but thought this should be part of a broad landuse planning exercise. Planning just for coal policy was putting “the cart before the horse,” in his view.

Arlene Kwasniak agreed. It would be better, she argued, “to first conduct strategic and regional assessments … that take into account all existing and likely potential uses, and the values (cultural, aesthetic, habitat, etc.) of the region, and not just one resource use.” Broader analysis of this kind makes it possible “to determine how a resource development, such as coal, sustainably fits in,” and “we have the perfect tool in Alberta to accomplish this – a regional or sub-regional plan under the ALSA [Alberta Land Stewardship Act].”

This view had much to recommend it. The ALSA was enacted under the leadership of my friend and academic colleague Ted Morton when he was Alberta’s Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. I supported the ALSA then and continue to do so. As a matter of pure policy logic, treating coal as part of an ALSA-based planning exercise made sense.

But political logic mattered too, and it pointed in a different direction. The broader ALSA-based planning favoured by Urquhart, Kwasniak and many others would clearly be led by the Environment Ministry. Nigel Bankes suggested (video at 54:35-57:0) that even a coal-specific consultation would better be conducted by Environment under the aegis of the ALSA. Maybe in a perfect world, but one should never let perfection be the enemy of the good. In the real-world circumstances of this case, putting the Environment ministry in charge of the consultation would put it in the hands of Jeremy Nixon, the bête noir of anti-coal activists. Recall Kevin Van Tighem’s praise of Sonya Savage as “a responsible Minister, working diligently to get her government out of a mess that was created by other Cabinet Ministers,” especially Jeremy Nixon. Kevin wrote that if Savage put an end to continued exploration during the consultation (which, as we’ve seen, she did), he’d “publicly congratulate her government.” He then reconsidered: “Well, most of her government. Not Nixon. Never.”

Such deep distrust of the Environment Minister surely justifies a consultation limited to matters — including the environmental matters — within the administration of the Energy Minister.

So does the history leading to this consultation. Remember that it all started with the demand to restore the pre-recission status quo with respect to coal pending consultation on a new coal policy.

A broader consultation clearly wasn’t in the cards, and under the circumstances might not be a good idea. I agreed with Kevin that Sonya Savage had “appointed an advisory panel with some good members on it,” which suggested at least the possibility of a favourable coal-policy outcome in the relatively near future. A broader ALSA process, I argued in correspondence among the “four unusuals” (about which more in a subsequent post), would be “risky because it would take so much longer and involve so many more balancing acts.” In any case, I continued, ALSA-style public-interest principles can and should inform decisions more narrowly focused than full-scale regional plans. The more limited coal-based consultation, in other words, could well yield an outcome that could readily be incorporated into broader ALSA planning down the road.

All things considered, keeping an eye on the ball (or lump) of coal was arguably better than fruitlessly complaining about the cart before the horse.

The coal committee was scheduled to report in November 2021. In the meantime, the Grassy Mountain project was denied permission to proceed by the Joint Review Panel (see the next post in this series).