Alberta to appeal ruling ordering release of documents on coal mining in Rockies

Open this photo in gallery:

The Alberta government is appealing part of a court decision that it must hand over thousands of documents relating to its 2019 move to quietly cancel a policy governing where coal mines can be built in the province.

The case stems back to 2020, when a group of Southern Alberta ranchers filed a freedom of information request for records around the government’s decision to rescind the province’s 1976 Coal Policy without any consultation. The decision caused public backlash so fierce it forced the government to backpedal and introduce new rules around coal mining.

The ranchers had asked for correspondence and briefing materials about why and how the decision was made, including internal memos, reviews, reports, e-mails and letters. But Alberta Energy took years to fulfill the request and returned few records, many of which were redacted.

The ruling earlier this month from Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench upheld an April, 2023, decision from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta that the government release documents requested by the ranchers.

Justice Kent Teskey dismissed the government’s attempt to keep the information secret, writing that the release of records had already been “so slow as to be practically non-existent,” and a judicial review would only exacerbate the delay.

One of the ranchers is Laura Laing, a vocal opponent of coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

She’s disappointed that – after four years – the fight to get all of the documents continues.

She said it further reflects the government’s repeated pushback on open and transparent communication.

“Rather than supporting generational Albertans and their understanding, they’re defending foreign coal companies,” Ms. Laing said in an interview Thursday.

“It must be really bad if they’re fighting to prevent Albertans from seeing it.”

Energy Minister Brian Jean accepts that mistakes were made in the original redactions, and said the government will be releasing uncensored documents.

“What I feel like, is somebody bought a box of black markers and decided to sit down in a room and have some doughnuts and some coffee and went to town, and got a little excited about all the opportunities to block out a whole bunch of words that didn’t mean anything in substance,” he said in an interview.

The appeal will be limited to technical grounds for some elements of the decision, but the government would release all the unredacted portions for the documents that are not covered by that limited appeal, he said.

Mr. Jean said the case would be something of a learning moment for government departments about the need for transparency, and properly applying freedom of information laws.

“Transparency and accountability is our motto, and we’re going to make sure that our departments and the government in all sectors and departments right through the whole process are focused on that because it’s important that Albertans know that the government is actually working for them,” he said.

Asked about the decision in Question Period last week, Premier Danielle Smith said her government would abide by the decision of the court.

“We obviously have had a change in leadership in this file, and we will make whatever documents available that the court requires,” she said.

On Thursday, Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley called the United Conservative government’s decision to appeal the legal ruling “shameful.”

“They’re continuing to keep stuff hidden, and they’re now appealing for their right to keep things hidden and to essentially eliminate Albertans’ freedom of access to their own information,” she told media in Calgary.

The government had argued that some of the records in question should be kept secret because they would reveal the deliberations of cabinet (one reason that information can be legally redacted). But Justice Teskey said that cabinet confidence does not apply to the records at hand.

Ms. Notley said while cabinet confidence is important, the government is overswinging.

“Stamping ‘Cabinet document’ on 5,000 documents and saying that people don’t have access to them as a result is ridiculous. Nobody in cabinet reads 5,000 pages before a cabinet meeting,” she said.

“It is just a gross overuse of an exemption. And that’s of course what the court said. The court said there’s no rational connection between these documents and this particular exemption, and I agree.”