March 14, 2020

Polluter Polluter PayPay Federa onFedera on

In Support of a Dra Proposal: Forma on of the

As the sun sets on Alberta’s conven onal oil industry, it is me to create a new economy and prosperity. This can be accomplished by ensuring property owners, municipali es, and taxpayers are not stuck with the bill racked up by industry, to clean up the mess. ALDP Coalition members have proposals to deal with the problem. We have undertaken to a empt to outline the main proposal to others for their input or acceptance

Polluter Pay Steering Commi ee: Mark Dorin. Vern Bre n. Regan Boychuk. Dwight Popowich. Tom Prilesky.

Reference Name

Legal Basis for the Polluter Pay Funding Model Proposed by

the Polluter Pay Federa on Temporary Steering Commi ee

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

Contents: Background Primer

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE POLLUTER PAY FEDERATION FUNDING MODEL ..................................... 2

Environmental Laws ......................................................................................................................... 2

Energy Activity Licensing Laws ......................................................................................................... 2

Laws Governing “Right of Entry” on the Surface of Lands Not Owned by the Licensee ...................... 3

THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE ............................................................................................... 5

Exceptions to the Polluter Pay Rule and Related Jurisdiction ............................................................ 5

Orphan Fund Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 5

The So-Called “Recovery of Rentals” Process ....................................................................................... 6

The Central Aspect of the Polluter Pay Federation Funding Model ................................................... 7

Jurisdictional Problems and the Related Solutions ........................................................................... 7

Problem: AER Refusal to Recognize the Law and Surface Rights Board Termination Orders ............. 8

Solution: Applicaton of the Judicial Rule Against Collateral Attack ..................................................... 8

TAXPAYER SALVATION AND JOB CREATION ............................................................................. 9

Most Segments of Society Will Benefit, While a Few Will Not ......................................................... 10

No Benefits to Society Flow from Corruption and White Collar Crimes ........................................... 11

Polluter Pays Federation – the Inclusive Approach ......................................................................... 11

Legal Basis for the Funding Model

Polluter Pay Federation

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 11, 2020, the writer helped to present the Polluter Pay Federation Launch event, which event, held in Warburg, Alberta, was videotaped and can be viewed on the internet. Links to several media broadcasts on subjects connected to the Polluter Pays Principle are provided on Page 9 of this document.

It is not possible, in a short presentation like that given at Warburg and elsewhere, to thoroughly explain the legal basis for the funding model proposed by the Temporary Steering Committee of the proposed Polluter Pay Federation, which the writer was instrumental in developing.

The purposes of this Primer are: (1) to provide sufficient background on the legal basis for the central aspect of the proposed funding model; (2) to explain the polluter pay principle entrenched in Alberta and federal energy laws; and (3) to summarize and stress the benefits to taxpayers, landowners, and Alberta businesses and workers that will flow from the lobbyist and other activities of the proposed Federation.

Times and Reality Have Changed: Alberta desperately needs new business and economic opportunities and job creation, and related opportunities are staring us in the face. The Polluter Pay Federation will be key and central to driving new economic growth, as well as the long term sustainability of Alberta, as the province transitions away from reliance on conventional oil and gas development, which is in its twilight. A change of focus away from increasingly non-existent development, to clean up of the massive mess left behind by irresponsible industry and irresponsible factions of the Alberta Energy Regulator, is not only necessary, such change is unavoidable. The facts of life in Alberta are that the conventional oil and gas basin, which is some 100 years old, is depleted – a way of life that was good to Albertans has all but ended.

Taxpayers can kick start the Polluter Pay Federation. Small donations from taxpayers shall speed formation of the non-profit corporation that will save the taxpayer from massive future debt of crushing proportions by ensuring only the polluter pays for the sins of industry and government. As things stand currently, industry and government are downloading the cost of their liabilities onto landowners and municipal governments. Costs that industry and government hope landowners will incur, can largely be passed by the landowner onto taxpayers. The Polluter Pay Federation will set things right by ensuring a return to the rule of law that requires industry members to cover the costs of the liabilities they created.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

2

LEGAL BASIS FOR THE POLLUTER PAY FEDERATION FUNDING MODEL The legal basis for the funding model proposed for the Polluter Pay Federation (proposed name for the non-profit corporation envisioned) is discussed. The Temporary Steering Committee has considered the statutory scheme harmoniously as a whole (as per Supreme Court of Canada guidance) in making all proposals and recommendations including the funding model recommended for adoption.

The critical aspects of the statutory scheme, inter alia, include the following provisions of Alberta law:

Environmental Laws

1. Section 2 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (the “EPEA”),1 which sets out the purpose (legislative intent) of the EPEA;

2. The duty of all operators (as defined in Part 6 of the EPEA) to conserve and reclaim “specified land” and to have all specified land certified as reclaimed (and certified as remediated prior to reclamation certification if applicable or necessary), in accordance with the provisions of the following regulations made under the EPEA:

a) The Remediation Regulation, AR 154/2009

b) The Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, AR 115/1993

3. Section 144 of the EPEA, which requires that a surface “right of entry” cannot be terminated or surrendered by the operator in a manner that is binding on the surface owner or occupant until a reclamation certificate has been issued, essentially making all rights of entry indefinite in duration unless the right of entry is terminated, for example by the surface owner or the Surface Rights Board, for other reasons (such as payment default by the operator);

Energy Activity Licensing Laws

4. The enabling statutes that confer decision making and other powers on the Alberta Energy Regulator (the “AER” or the “Regulator”) and/or the Alberta Utilities Commission (the “Commission”), empowering certain employees of these bodies to issue licenses, permits, and other approvals (statutory authorizations) to conduct energy activities that are otherwise illegal (revocable privileges):

a) AER Enabling Statutes: the Responsible Energy Development Act (the “REDA”)2 referenced in Section 3 of the EPEA; where the REDA incorporates the EPEA and other licensing statutes by reference to these additional laws including, inter alia, the following licensing statutes:

(i) The Oil and Gas Conservation Act (wells and facilities);3 and,

(ii) The Pipeline Act.4

1 RSA 2000, c E-12. 2 SA 2012, c R-17.3. 3 RSA 2000, c O-6. 4 RSA 2000, c P15.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

3

b) AUC Enabling Statutes: The Alberta Utilities Commission Act (the “AUC Act”),5 as well as:

(i) the Hydro and Electric Energy Act;6 and,

(ii) the Pipeline Act.

Laws Governing “Right of Entry” on the Surface of Lands Not Owned by the Licensee

5. The Surface Rights Act (the “SRA”)7 prevents a titled land (surface) owner (including the Provincial Crown, but not the owner of Metis lands) from effectively negating or sterilizing limited and specific rights conferred by a licence, permit, or other approval of the AER or AUC on an energy developer; and incorporates by reference:

a) activities that require a licence, permit, or other approval of the AER or the AUC (Section 15, subsections (3) and (6)), where the Surface Rights Board is statutorily prohibited from issuing a right of entry order that is inconsistent with a licence, permit, or other approval of the AER or the AUC by ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada;8 and,

b) Part 6 of the EPEA (requiring that rights of entry may not be surrendered or terminated by the energy developer until a reclamation certificate has been issued under Section 144 of the EPEA).

6. Section 101 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act grants right of entry (to the licensee or a person designated by the AER such as the Orphan Well Association) for the limited or severely restricted purposes of well or facility “suspension”, as this term is used by the AER,9 or “abandonment” as this term is used by the AER.10 The obvious reason is for public safety purposes.

7. The Public Lands Act,11 which is, by way of the REDA, administered in relation to upstream oil and gas activities by the AER, effectively making the AER the titled owner of most Alberta public lands for right of entry (including compensation) purposes (other than restricted development areas where the Minister of Infrastructure has the primary jurisdiction to make such decisions under the Government Organization Act and restricted development area regulations pertaining to such areas within Edmonton, Sherwood Park, and Calgary).

The holder of a statutory authorization issued by the AER or the AUC has “right of entry” if the holder owns the land surface in question. Otherwise, a separate right of entry, acquired by contract or an order of the Surface Rights Board (or the Canadian Energy Regulator (the “CER”) for federal projects) is also required for the energy developer to have legally acquired the right to use the surface of lands the developer does not own (host lands or lands of a host titled owner and/or occupant).

5 SA 2007, c A-37.2. 6 RSA 2000, c H-16. 7 RSA 2000, c S-24. 8 Togstad v. Alberta (Surface Rights Board), 2015 ABCA 192 (CanLII) at para. 7 (permission to appeal refused by the Supreme Court of Canada). 9 AER Directive 013. 10 AER Directive 020. 11 RSA 2000, c P-40.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

4

The right to engage in various activities to acquire or finalize a “right of entry” is conferred on an energy developer by a decision of the AER, AUC, or CER, deemed to be an effective (land rights) expropriation decision that is binding on the Surface Rights Board. An effective expropriation of land rights can legally occur in one of two fashions and only upon meeting all related applicable provisions of law:

A. A contract or private agreement between the statutory authorization holder and the owner and/or occupant of the land surface, commonly referred to as:

1. A “surface lease” or “facility surface lease”, which in reality are arguably not true lease agreements in common law terms given that they are governed by the provisions of various statutes such as those referenced above.

2. An easement agreement or grant of easement (in Alberta an outdated common law right to cross, sometimes referred to as a “right-of-way”, which should properly no longer be used in Alberta because of Item 3 below).

3. A right-of-way agreement (entitling the grantee of rights to register a Utility Right-of-Way pursuant to the statutory provisions of Section 69(3) of the Land Titles Act discussed in Item 8 below.

• Note: The grantee of rights pursuant to a written contract must pay an entry fee sas required by law12 to legally acquire the right of entry, and a “surface lease” must contain a clause setting out the entry fee sum to be paid.13

B. Only in the events that (1) a right of entry order cannot be acquired by one of the means referenced in Item A above, and (2) the applicant proves attempts to obtain right of entry by consent of the owner and occupant (if there is an occupant of the lands required) an order of the Surface Rights Board granting right of entry.

8. Utility Right-of-Way: Applicable provisions of the Land Titles Act14 governing a unique interest in land referred to as a “Utility Right-of-Way”, which, unlike easements, are a statutory interest in land that can be acquired for power line or pipeline purposes (not necessarily federal pipeline purposes). The right to enter (to use the land covered by a written grant) is not acquired until the written instrument (contract, agreement, or right of entry order) is registered with an Alberta Land Titles Office.

The right to be compensated (compelling polluters and potential polluters to pay landowners and land occupants for any damages that arise from issuance of a licence, permit, or other approval of the AER, AUC, or CER) arises from common law tort actions for trespass, or is set out in and governed by:

• Section 25(1) of the Surface Rights Act of Alberta in respect of provincially authorized energy activities; or,

• Sections 320 – 332 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 10.

12 Surface Rights Act Section 15. 13 Surface Rights Act, Section 12(2). 14 RSA 2000, c L-4.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

5

THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE Therefore the principle, widely being ignored in Alberta - that polluters (or potential polluters) alone must pay for the costs of their actions - is entrenched in both Alberta provincial and federal law, when the statutory scheme as a whole (no simple task) is properly considered, specifically:

• Section 2(i) of the EPEA, which refers to the polluter pays principle and is applicable to all provincially or federally authorized energy projects (wells, facilities, pipelines and others); and,

• Section 136 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which reads as follows:

Purpose

136 The purpose of sections 137 to 142 is to reinforce the “polluter pays” principle by, among other things, imposing financial requirements on any company that is authorized under this Act to construct or operate a pipeline.

Exceptions to the Polluter Pay Rule and Related Jurisdiction

There are two exceptions to the strict rule that the polluter alone must pay for the cost of its actions, which are referred to as (1) the Orphan Fund, and (2) recovery of “rent” under Section 36 of the Surface Rights Act. Where it might appear, upon review of specific powers granted to the AER to require licensees to post security, without also considering the provisions of Section 25(1)(e) of the Surface Rights Act, that there might be additional exceptions, such is not the case at law.

Orphan Fund Legislation

The main exception to the polluter pays principle are the provisions of Part 11, Sections 68-77 of the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Act, which mandates the creation and maintenance of the “Orphan Fund” via a yearly levy to be imposed on upstream oil and gas industry members (more accurately remaining members) as calculated each year by the AER according to mandatory requirements.

By way of this levy, industry members other than the company that was the polluter or potential polluter must pay for the sins of irresponsible members of industry and irresponsible factions of the AER that developed and imposed the complex and convoluted so called Liability Management System (the Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) or Licensee Management Rating (LMR) systems).15

The problems that landowners and taxpayers face are:

• the AER is ignoring (breaking) the above-referenced law that is the only exception to the polluter pays principle by failing to levy the full costs associated with “orphans” on remaining industry members when a polluter is unwilling or unable to pay for its “end of life obligations” (abandonment or decommissioning of a well or facility, and remediation and/or reclamation of the related site or “specified land” as defined in Part 6, Section 134(f) of the EPEA);

• rather than observing the law, the taxpayer has been lending funds to the Orphan Well Association, which are insufficient to carry out the necessary work within a time frame contemplated by law, whereby the taxpayer is at risk;

15 AER Directive 001, AER Directive 006, AER Directive 011, Directive 067, and AER Directive 075.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

6

• taxpayers other than Alberta citizens (the federal government) have provided money to deal with the orphan well problem in Alberta, which is rapidly and exponentially growing, where Alberta NDP government begged, and the UCP government continues to beg, for federal funds to deal with the acute, rapidly-growing problem of orphan wells and facilities (energy activities with no associated responsible party as licensee).

There are related problems caused by the provisions of Appendix 2 of AER Directive 006, which is used to inappropriately block transfers of well licenses after reclamation certificates are issued in a manner that is inconsistent with prevailing aspects of the statutory scheme.16 These problems are:

1. Costs associated with wells called “legacy” wells (technically orphans, which should be covered by the Orphan Fund), which require ongoing re-abandonment work (and possibly related site remediation) are not being borne by the polluter or remaining industry members.

2. Surface Rights Board backlog caused by massive numbers of filings under Section 36 of the Surface Rights Act associated with wells tied up in bankruptcy proceedings or those wells and facilities named as “orphans” by the AER. This is a process referred to myopically and in a misleading fashion as “recovery of rentals”.

The So-Called “Recovery of Rentals” Process

By way of the provisions of Section 36 of the Surface Rights Act, the provincial taxpayer is supposed to pick up the tab for non-payment to landowners by irresponsible and defunct operators.

The government has a related obligation to recover as much of the sums paid to landowners on behalf of irresponsible operators, or because of irresponsible AER actions, but has not lived up to such obligations to date. In short, circumvention of the provisions of several Alberta laws provides an illegal free pass to industry (unjust enrichment) at the expense of surface landowners and taxpayers.

The purposes of Section 36 of the Surface Rights Act are several, and are certainly not limited to causing taxpayers to pay a rate of annual or other periodic compensation to landowners on behalf of defaulting operators. Some of the purposes and the legislative intent are not readily inferred from the SRA itself – as required one must consider related aspects of the statutory scheme as a whole as we have been instructed to do by binding judicial authority being ignored, in particularly by, but not limited to, employees of the AER.

It is absolutely not the intent of the legislation for landowners to wait for payment of an ongoing rate of compensation (usually paid annually but sometimes paid periodically), which is patently not rent.

Rather, a rate of ongoing compensation is to be paid (often to various parties) for the factors set out in Section 25(1)(c) and Section 25(1)(d) of the SRA, which covers:

1. loss of use (more accurately loss of income if any) of that portion of the land that is covered by an agreement for use of the land by an operator or a right of entry order (Section 25(1)(c)

16 The “entitlement” provisions of Section 16(1) and the “eligibility provisions of Section 20 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, as well as the eligibility provisions of Section 23 and the forfeiture of a well provisions in Section 32(5) of the Mines and Minerals Act.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

7

2. the adverse effect of the location of that portion of the titled land parcel for which loss of use compensation is to be paid (Section 25(1)(d), which includes:

a) compensation for any operational nuisance and inconvenience experienced by the titled surface rights owner or occupant (any person or persons who have acquired the rights owned by the titled owner by way of an agreement to use the titled land or any portion of it such as a lease agreement, including another operator). This compensation includes the cost of dealing with the operator (or any inability to deal with the operator or regulatory bodies that are to enforce the law or the terms and conditions of a licence, permit, or other approval); and,

b) the cost of belonging to an organization that educates rights holders or advocates for observance of surface rights, and the time expended by the landowner or occupant to educate themselves.

The Central Aspect of the Polluter Pay Federation Funding Model

It is Item 2(b) above that forms the central aspect of the funding model recommended by the Temporary Steering Committee for the Polluter Pay Federation (proposed name). This funding model:

• is shown in Figure 5 of Draft 2 of the Polluter Pay Federation Proposal dated February 19, 2020 published by the Temporary Steering Committee;

• was explained by Regan Boychuck and Mark Dorin by way of the Polluter Pay Federation Launch Event, which was videotaped and is available for viewing over the internet;

• was essentially confirmed by a Surface Rights Board member in the matter of Conoco Canada Resources Limited v Reirson, 2002 ABSRB, having regard to the statutory scheme, where the decision reads as follows:

The Board finds that the Warburg Surface Right Membership was necessary to the determination of fair compensation payable by the Respondents. Therefore, the Board fixed cost as requested by the Respondents, namely:

• would be confirmed by the judiciary given that compensation principles related to surface rights are based on expropriation principles as the judiciary has repeatedly found and confirmed.

Jurisdictional Problems and the Related Solutions

The primary causes of Surface Rights Board backlog (Section 36 Applications in particular) are:

• failure of the Alberta Energy Regulator to transfer well licenses to “entitled” and “eligible” parties (explained above) as required by law (S. 16(1) and S. 20 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act); and,

• failures to consider and observe the provisions of Section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which are applicable when a well licensee forfeits a well.

If the statutory scheme, interpreted harmoniously as a whole, were properly observed, as required by the collective provisions of Section 32 of the Mines and Minerals Act, the Crown in right of the Province of Alberta would: (1) be the transferee of well licences related to forfeited wells; and (2) become the “operator” named in a surface lease or right of entry order responsible to pay the landowner (negating the need for the landowner to file applications yearly under Section 36 of the SRA).

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

8

Put another way, the Energy Minster for Alberta, the AER, and Surface Rights Board members are not working together without duplication of efforts as required by binding judicial authority effectively upheld or confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada:

...The legislative intent in having two bodies is not that they duplicate each other’s work but that they work together. Moreover, the Board cannot exercise its jurisdiction so as to effectively repeal a permit granted by the Commission: Windrift at para 21....

Togstad v. Alberta (Surface Rights Board), 2015 ABCA 192 (CanLII) at para. 7.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) also confirmed that when the right to access the mineral (via a well bore) terminates, or a surface “right of entry” terminates, a well must be abandoned by law as requried by the provisions of subsection 3.012(a) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules, AR 151/1971 (link in the quoted decision of the SCC below):

[17] A licensee must abandon a well or facility when ordered to do so by the Regulator or when required by the rules or regulations. The Regulator may order abandonment when “the Regulator considers that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public or the environment” (OGCA, s. 27(3)). Under the rules, a licensee is required to abandon a well or facility, inter alia, on the termination of the mineral lease, surface lease or right of entry, where the Regulator cancels or suspends the licence, or where the Regulator notifies the licensee that the well or facility may constitute an environmental or safety hazard (Oil and Gas Conservation Rules, Alta. Reg. 151/71, s. 3.012). Section 23 of the Pipeline Act requires licensees to abandon pipelines in similar situations. The duty to reclaim is established by s. 137 of the EPEA. This duty is binding on an “operator”, a broader term which encompasses the holder of a licence issued by the Regulator (EPEA, s. 134(b)). Reclamation is governed by the procedural requirements set out in regulations (Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 115/93). [Underline emphasis added.]

Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (“Redwater”) at para. 17

The rules and regulations referenced by the SCC in the Redwater matter are those laws relied on by the AER to name orphans and to require the Orphan Well Association to abandon orphaned wells and facilities. The exact same rules and regulations similarly apply to wells and facilities that have not been named as an “orphan” by the AER, notwithstanding that a right to the mineral or to use the surface (under a mineral lease, surface lease, or right of entry order) has terminated.

Problem: AER Refusal to Recognize the Law and Surface Rights Board Termination Orders

As McClung JA (as he then was) found that the Surface Rights Board cannot exercise its jurisdiction to effectively repeal a decision of a licensing body (the AER or AUC), the AER may similarly not exercise its jurisdiction to effectively repeal a termination order issued under the provisions of Section 36(5)(b) of the SRA. To do so is to mount a prohibited collateral attack on the jurisdiction of the Surface Rights Board and the SRA itself in an incorrect venue (Togstad at paras. 6 and 7).

Solution: Applicaton of the Judicial Rule Against Collateral Attack

Togstad (supra) is the leading judicial authority pertaining to decisions of the AER or AUC as relates to right of entry order decisions of members of the Surface Rights Board (and it follows vice versa). Unless properly attacked or challenged in a correct forum successfully, the decision of one body (such as the AER) remains valid and is binding on all others (such as Surface Rights Board members) pursuant to the judicial rule against collateral attack. Application of the law as a whole will eliminate application backlog at the Surface Rights Board by causing the AER to transfer licenses to parties that can or will pay landowners.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

9

When the Surface Rights Board terminates the surface rights previously acquired by a well or facility licensee pursuant to the provisions of Section 36 of the SRA, the decision is binding on the AER – the well or facility must be abandoned – there is no option – as confirmed by the SCC at para. 17 in the so-called “Redwater” case quoted from above. This is the key to new business and job creation.

TAXPAYER SALVATION AND JOB CREATION As members of the Polluter Pay Federation Temporary Steering Committee have endeavored to explain to various members of the public in differing ways (see short Lethbridge Video and Polluter Pay Federation Launch Video):

• The Central Problem is Unmatched Industry Lobby Efforts: The acute problems that every Albertan and their local municipal governments face, caused by increased refusal of polluters and potential polluters to pay their bills, stems from the highly successful lobby efforts of industry. A countervailing lobby (such as the proposed Polluter Pay Federation) is desperately and immediately required to balance the rights of taxpayers and real property owners with the rights of industry.

Taxpayers can kick start their salvation at industry cost: See Temporary Go Fund Me Campaign

• Taxpayer Risks are Enormous if not Properly Mitigated: If the polluter is not required to pay, or industry by way of a properly-calculated Orphan Fund levy is similarly not required to pay, the burden of massive, unfunded (no security held) upstream oil and gas liabilities will fall to provincial, and possibly federal, taxpayers, which would be disastrous to society (except oil and gas executives, who would not be further, unjustly enriched).

CBC Sunday Edition Radio Program and internet story: 'If the polluter doesn't pay to clean it up, taxpayers will have to': Alberta's growing oil well problem

• The Good News Includes Economic Opportunity and Job Creation Benefits: $40 - $70 Billion in unfunded oil and gas liabilities represents the same amount injected into the economy through cleanup (end of life obligation work) if landowners can learn to trigger mandatory well and facility abandonments and AER reform occurs (a return to the rule of law by decision makers at the dysfunctional AER is required). In time of crisis, attitudes change. Oil pricing disputes between nations and a virus pandemic impact us. It is time to love only SAFE and LEGAL oil and gas.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

10

Most Segments of Society Will Benefit, While a Few Will Not

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

11

No Benefits to Society Flow from Corruption and White Collar Crimes

It is possible that the only factor keeping Alberta from descending into chaos is that landowners and taxpayers, who are averse to breaking the law, are in the majority. As noted by US Supreme Court Justice Brandeus during a time when US prohibition laws were being openly broken in a decision that later came to be known as the Famous Dissent, the government leads by example, and crime is contagious.

When the government, or parts of it such as the Alberta Energy Regulator, break the law, it invites every man and woman to become a law unto themselves. Corporate executives in the Alberta upstream oil and gas industry have largely accepted the invitation. Will landowners be next to do so in retaliation?

The defense of necessity is not available to government ministers, Alberta Energy Regulator employees or the employees of other regulators, Surface Rights Board employees, or municipal or federal officials. These government employees have a solemn duty to know, observe, uphold, and enforce the rule of law, but far too many of them are failing to do so.

We cannot be afraid of enforcing property right protection laws, public safety laws, and bankruptcy laws. Insolvent companies pose unacceptable risks to society – their executives and shareholders have nothing to lose and much to gain by taking risks.

There is no place within responsible energy development for corruption caused by a powerful industry lobby. It is time for legal push back to a return to the rule of law, and the only proposal on the table whereby taxpayers and landowners can do so are those of the Polluter Pay Federation Temporary Steering Committee.

Polluter Pays Federation – the Inclusive Approach

There is a place for all property owners, First Nations, municipalities and their various associations within the Polluter Pay Federation.

The majority of funds, or the cost of membership incurred by landowners, flows from the operator to the Federation, downwards to its membership groups that include landowners, to the municipal government level.

Taxpayers are the main benefactors.

Of course real property owners shall also benefit in numerous ways, including improved safety and property values.

PRIMER: Polluter Pays Principle March 14, 2020, Mark Dorin ©

12

At this time (post Launch on March 11, 2020) the Temporary Steering Committee is seeking to:

• Attract additional members to form the Final Steering Committee

• Incorporate the non-profit corporation vehicle required

• Embark on a membership drive

• Elect a qualified and paid board of directors

• Hire the administrative staff, legal staff, and experts to deliver the benefits of ensuring the polluter alone pays for the costs of their actions, including enforcement of the polluter pays principle through regulatory and compensation boards and the courts as necessary to ensure a fair balance of rights between industry on one hand, and other stakeholders on the other hand.

The Alberta Energy Regulator itself holds that the purpose of law enforcement is behavior modification. The time has come to enforce the laws that require extensive modification of the attitude of each and every employee of the AER and each and every industry employee or potential employee.

Safe, sustainable, and healthy communities, in terms of both human and economic health, must be the goal or Alberta has no future. This goal is possible in every corner of Alberta and can be realized without significant delay only when we gather the political will to belatedly do so while there is still time.

Mark Dorin For and on behalf of the Temporary Steering Committee; and,

Polluter Pay Federation concept supporters (as requested)

March 14, 2020 (Draft 0)