1 CALGARY LAW REVIEW a special publication on business law by the calgary herald NOVEMBER, 2012 Don t hamstring energy deals with demands on China by brian burton Power Calgary litigator, mother of four, spouse and university instructor you can have it all, says Maureen Killoran, managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt Litigator, Calgary managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt, winner of a Women in Law leadership award from the Association of Women Lawyers; mother of four and university instructor: Maureen Killoran never started out to be a downtown, power attorney for one of the biggest law firms in Canada. Killoran says it all came from taking a flexible approach to finding out what she was good at and a rather more rigid approach to setting priorities. When and how did you decide you were going to become a lawyer? I did my degree in English and history at Queens and I knew I didn t want to be a teacher. I wasn t really quite sure what I wanted to do and I was resisting my parents advice. As two people who grew up in the Depression, they told all four of their kids to get a professional degree, doctor, lawyer, engineer, and you re set for life. So after my degree I actually worked for a couple of years and then ultimately decided to apply to law school. The reason it took me so long is, I actually didn t think it was going to be my thing. And I was so pleasantly surprised in law school by how much I liked it. That s a big jump to take when you re of two minds. Yeah, I guess it was. I thought, well, if I m going to practice law, it doesn t mean I have to do it in the traditional way. I don t have to be with a big Toronto, Bay Street firm. If you d asked me, in first year, I probably thought I would do something a little left of centre and something more human rights oriented. I worked with LEAF (the Women s Legal Education and Action Fund) and one of our professors was really involved in the Bosnia Herzegovina war crimes trial, so I did some work with her on that. And then I summered at a law firm and was shocked at how much I liked the actual practice of it. So I went from thinking I was going to be a left-of-centre human rights lawyer to being at a Bay Street firm. What was it that appealed to you about corporate law? It s the problem solving, I think. It s all about trying to find the business answer for your client, with the help of the law. I think I was really encouraged to see how 99.9 per cent of the time, your gut feeling was actually the right answer and that the courts give you case law that s really based on common sense. You re a litigator. That s a very winor-lose kind of thing. What attracted you to litigation? I took kind of a circuitous route of attorney INTERVIEW BY BRIAN BURTON PHOTOS BY WIL ANDRUSCHAK and, again, wasn t entirely sure that I wanted to be on the corporate side of litigation. I started off doing quite a bit of medical malpractice defence when I was a lawyer at Bennett Jones. And, once again, the reason I turned to that was because I found the material interesting, the interaction with people interesting. And after a short period of time, I found it not so interesting. You dealt with people whose lives had really been compromised by some awful event. Sometimes children. And, to be perfectly frank, when you do energy law, as I do, or corporate litigation, you re not dealing with life and death situations and people whose lives have been turned upside down, plaintiffs who are weeping. It s just about money. It s about being creative. Sometimes, finding a solution that everybody will buy into, that s a moderate compromise, is the way to go. And sometimes it s adversarial and it s aggressive. I think I pride myself on working really hard for my clients and taking the hard stand. But never in such a way that my credibility is compromised because that s what I have to offer my clients my reputation with the judges and with the other lawyers in town. That s the most meaningful thing to me. I remember when my kids were little, somebody asked them what their mom did for a living and they said, She goes to an office and she yells at people on the telephone. (Laughs) And some days it feels like that. (Laughs) But most days it s pretty civilized. You re now managing partner for a big, corporate law firm. How did that happen? I have no idea. (Laughs) I missed a meeting, I think. It certainly wasn t anything I aspired to be. But I think, when your partners ask you to fulfill the role, it s one that you ought to step up and fulfill. And we d had someone in the position for eight years, Tris (Tristram) Mallett, and he d done a fantastic job. At Osler, the firm feels very strongly that you ought to continue to practice while you manage and I feel very strongly that I don t want to give up my practice. I want to do 100 per cent of it and I do. If a great file comes in, I m going to do it. I really love my practice. I love litigating and I m not going to give any of it up. The Canadian government should use caution and a modicum of historical perspective before demanding strict reciprocity from China in foreign investment, oil and gas lawyers say. It s worth making the point with the Chinese government about equal access to markets, they say, but big energy deals in Calgary shouldn t be hamstrung by direct linkages to specific Canadian efforts to buy into companies in China. It s harder (for us) to make investments there than it is (for them) to make investments here, concedes Peter Glossop, a competition and antitrust specialist with Osler Hoskin Harcourt. But Glossop says Canadians need only look back to the National Energy Peter Glossop Program of 1980 to recall a time when Canada sought to control foreign ownership in its oil industry. Now, as Canada promotes foreign investment to accelerate enormous energy developments in this Frank Turner country, and as state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China have responded with more than $30 billion worth of energy investment in the past four years, Glossop suggests we should cut China some slack on the principle of equal access to their economy. In a perfect world, everybody would be perfectly reciprocal, he says. But attempting to use access to Canadian energy as a lever to open up the Chinese economy to Canadian investment might be expecting too much of a country going through rapid change, he warns. I think it s better, on balance, to have capital coming into this country than not. Osler colleague Frank Turner agrees that huge inbound energy investments could be needlessly complicated by horse trading on unrelated Canadian investments in China. Turner is a Calgary-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) expert and he and Glossop have worked on several mega deals in which the Chinese have acquired energy assets in Canada. It s well recognized by both industry and government that we need billions and billions of dollars to develop our resources and Canadian capital markets just aren t big enough, Turner says. There are only a very small number of capital pools that are big enough to do these deals and Chinese SOEs are an important part of that picture. Glossop adds that there is also a limit to the amount of investment exposure multinational oil companies want to have in any one country and companies such as Exxon and Shell may well be near those limits with the investments they ve already made and proposed in Canada. The obvious and eager alternative is Asian SOEs. Turner says Canada also badly needs to diversify and expand markets for its increasing oilsands output. See KIDS, Page 2 See EXPORTS, Page 2 INSIDE: eyeing the arctic for resources ENERGY LAW PROGRAM CROSSES BORDERS SOCIAL MEDIA, THE GOOD AND THE cautious PROFILES OF CALGARY LAWYERS P 4 P 6 P 6 3, 5, 7
2 2 CALGARY LAW REVIEW KIDS, from page 1 How many kids do you have? Four. All boys. (Arran, 23; Fraser, 21; Josh, 14; and Liam, 13.) So, you ve got the managing partner gig, you ve got a full case load, a very full home life, obviously, and you teach at U of C. I probably will this year. The first year I think I missed was last year that s So I ll be on the schedule again in I generally try to do the intensive trial advocacy courses. That s instructing trial lawyers in town on trial skills. And then they have a similar one at the University of Calgary. The third-year class is put through a one-week intensive program. I usually instructed that. The other one I do is at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. I try to do that once a year, which is another trial advocacy intensive training course. How did you come to teach at an American university? I met Jim Seckinger, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, while I was teaching trial skills at the University of Calgary about five years ago. He has a great intensive trial skills course that he offers his students twice per year. It s taught by trial lawyers from all over the States lots of hard-nosed Chicago litigators. He invites me down to ND to instruct annually. Jim is especially tickled to compare the U.S. trial lawyers with their Canadian counterparts. As you might expect, Canadians are much more polite but equally effective. There are lots of women graduating law schools, but if you look at senior partners, not so many. We re still losing women. It s a difficult issue, especially as a woman who who beat those odds. And if you ask me how, I m not sure I could give you an answer. Other than, I really loved what I did in the day. I think it makes me a better parent. You ve got to explain that! Not better than other parents. Just better than I would be, otherwise. For me, it s the right choice. I have a lot of energy and I m probably attention deficit. I need tons of stimulation and I m not good at taking things slow. I go home and it s been this way ever since my boys arrived and I am energized and completely focused on making the most of every moment I have with them. And I ve done what I ve done by being, not just organized with my time, but absolutely rigid when it comes to my priorities. Actions speak louder than words. So, for me, when I m home with my kids I m interacting and I play a big role in their lives and they in mine. And it wasn t always easy. Especially when they re little and they re saying, How come you don t stay home, like my friend s mom does? But the two youngest guys are now 13 and 14. Their powers of observation are such that they say, Wow. You volunteered at my kindergarten classes. Sometimes I think I couldn t have done it in another city. I mean, in Calgary, you can hop in your car and in 10 minutes flat I was at their preschool, at the hockey arenas and soccer arenas. And I think, if I were in Toronto, it just would have been an awful lot tougher to do it. As managing partner, have you been able to do anything that makes a difference for women? I m thinking of that in light of your award for Women in Law (2011). You know, naturally as you sort of ascend through the ranks of a law firm, you tend to identify more with the women who come to work for you. And I think all of us who ve reached a level of seniority tend to take a special interest in the women beneath us, to say, You can have it all. And when I say that, I really mean you can do it without sacrificing your priorities. You can be a great parent. You can be a great spouse. You probably have to have a great spouse. (Laughs) Like I do. He (Ray Daniels, senior vice-president, operations, Enerplus) and I made a commitment to each other that we are raising these kids together and they re our priority. Sometimes stuff hits the fan and we pull out our Blackberries and say, Whose day is more important and who can cancel things? You have to have an equal partner at home, but you can do it. On at least one occasion, you ve been to the London Court of International Arbitration. Whose rules do you play by there? Usually you ll find, especially in oil and gas contracts, the contract will (specify) the London Court of International Arbitration. But more often than not, I m still dealing with Alberta law. So, we re seen as a jurisdiction with so much experience in energy and in oil and gas contracts and operations, that you ll find, internationally, parties are okay with choosing Alberta law. Chinese M&A (mergers and acquisitions) in town have you acted on any of those? Lot s of them. Usually, I will be asked to take a look at an arbitration clause in one of the agreements or take a look at some of the litigation that may be exposed in the due diligence process. We have acted for many of those in-bound investments. We were on the transaction where we sold ConocoPhillips interest in Syncrude. ($4.5 billion sale to Sinopec.) There s been recent speculation that s there s a great deal of foreign M&A going on behind the scenes besides the Nexen deal that s currently getting all the press. Is that accurate? Yes. There have been stories that there s a whole bunch of activity out there and I would certainly say that that s our view, as well. And this Nexen deal is a pretty important one, right? Depending on how the government decides, it s really going to set the tone for our market and what s going to happen in the next few years. Calgary Herald Archive The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp. s bid to buy Calgary oil producer Nexen Inc. is just one of the moves by China to invest in Canadian resources. EXPORTS, from page 1 Currently, Canada sells its oil and gas exports exclusively to the United States but pipeline constraints and rising tight-oil production in the U.S. have caused sharp discounts on prices paid for Canadian oil. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has estimated Canadian producers will take an $18-billion hit on prices this year alone and Turner says the alternative is to develop Asian markets. But that will require major pipeline projects to carry oil to West Coast shipping terminals. Natural gas also badly needs a West Coast outlet to Asian markets and that means Canada needs still more foreign investment in pipelines and massive liquefaction plants. The Chinese believe they understand the (investment) rules here, Turner says, and it would be a potential setback for Canada if demands for mathematical reciprocity changed that. Much has been made of China s $30-billion buy into Canadian energy, but Glossop says Chinese investment shouldn t be seen as aggressive or threatening. He notes it s small compared with Chinese investments in Australia and Russia and minute compared with the $300 million annual investment made by U.S. companies in Canada. The Calgary office of global law firm Norton Rose has also acted in major joint ventures involving Chinese SOEs, as well as a friendly takeover of a failing Canadian oil company by a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Norton Rose is currently establishing a Canada Desk in China to support Chinese investment here and a China Desk in Canada to assist Canadian companies seeking Chinese investment or needing legal support for investments in China. This effort is backed by senior partner and former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, who recently visited Beijing and Shanghai with senior Norton Rose colleagues to help raise the firm s profile there. Norton Rose partner and Calgary-based M&A specialist Craig Hoskins says Mulroney s status as a former head of government is a major door opener throughout Asia. He says that, while huge energy deals involving SOEs grab the headlines, a wave of more modest, normal course M&A investments is taking shape as private capital from mainland China seeks investment opportunities in Canadian energy. At the same time, Canadian oilsands producers are approaching Norton Rose seeking Chinese partners for projects. Where they can, he says, energy companies are dodging the volatility of stock markets and turning to private capital for more patient investment in energy joint ventures. Where major deals with SOEs are concerned, Hoskins says, a mirror image analysis of reciprocity is probably not the best way of looking at things. China is an enormous country with enormous issues and undergoing enormous changes. To think that Canada is going to push them (on investment policy) is likely fallacious. Hoskins suggests it s better to engage with China on energy investments than to wait until its market and legal reforms are completed to Western standards because Canada s energy opportunity is now. File-by-file reciprocity may be like throwing the baby out with the bath water and we could forego a lot of investment without speeding change. But he adds that now is likely a good time to make the Chinese aware that Canada is keeping score on reciprocity. Turner and Hoskins decline to comment on whether either of their firms was among those warned by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) about systematic hacking efforts based in China and aimed at seven Canadian law firms. But Hoskins dismisses hacking as a red herring where investment is concerned. Canada needs to engage with the world and it will encounter a whole myriad of risks, he says. You manage those risks. You don t eliminate them by closing off investment. China s thirst for oil unquenchable Wil Andruschak photo Osler Hoskin Harcourt managing partner and litigator Maureen Killoran at her firm s offices located in Calgary s TransCanada Tower. CALGARY LAW REVIEW Calgary Law Review is a special publication of the Calgary Herald Special Projects Manager/Editor: Barb Livingstone, , Co-ordinator: Jennifer Worley There s a reason China s state-owned oil companies are rapidly becoming some of the biggest clients of Calgary s top law firms. It s because, in some ways, the two vast countries are mirror opposites of each other. Put simply, each has what the other lacks. Canada has the world s second-largest oil reserves, at 170 billion barrels and the largest reserves open to foreign investment. (Saudi reserves and production are state owned, as are those of many other major exporters.) Canada also has a very small population and correspondingly smallish capital formation capacity from which to fund identified opportunities for some $200 billon worth of energy projects. And Canada is learning that it needs export alternatives to the U.S. Conversely, China is the world s second-largest and fastest-growing oil importer and its emergence as an economic powerhouse has given it immense cash reserves with which to buy oil and gas properties, projects or entire energy companies. China s vehicle fleet is the world s second largest, growing 20-fold in the decade ending in 2010 and now totalling 78 million units. It s also the world s largest vehicle manufacturer, producing 18.4 million units in By 2050, the Chinese fleet is predicted to surpass 500 million vehicles, easily making it the largest in the world. Every day, China produces about four million barrels of oil and consumes about 10 million. By 2017, Chinese daily consumption is forecast to reach 12 million barrels per day, pushing imports to nine million bpd as domestic deliveries decline. And by 2050, consumption is expected to reach 20 million barrels per day, most of it coming from offshore. Seen in this light, it s not hard to understand why Chinese state-owned oil companies are willing to spend a few billion dollars out of China s $3 trillion in depreciating foreign exchange reserves to buy oil sands assets that are likely to appreciate in value. Fees paid to Calgary law firms, running into millions of dollars, are simply inconsequential as the Chinese government seeks to maintain domestic economic growth and, thereby, it s own political legitimacy. The same logic applies to Canadian natural gas reserves but with two added incentives for Chinese investment. Gas is the lowest-carbon fossil fuel in an increasingly carbonconstrained world. And North American natural gas prices, depressed by a continental glut, are running about one-tenth of the price natural gas commands in Asia. Producing gas in Alberta and British Columbia, pipelining it to the West Coast and liquefying it for shipment to China would produce a huge and ongoing savings in energy costs on whatever reserves China might acquire. In the process, China would help to fund development of more than $100 billion worth of proposed projects in the oilsands and a somewhat smaller number of proposed liquefied natural gas projects in Alberta and B.C. Each deal would require armies of construction workers and smaller armies of Calgary lawyers.
3 CALGARY LAW REVIEW 3 PROFILE: PAT Maguire, bennett jones Pat Maguire is a partner at Bennett Jones, where he serves as co-head of the corporate department. A member of the firm s energy practice group. Maguire acts for energy companies on a broad range of commercial transactions, in Canada and internationally. Born in the U.S., Maguire grew up in the town of Millet, Alta. He obtained his law degree from the University of Alberta and articled at Bennett Jones in Calgary in 1991, where he worked until 1996 before moving on to Nexen. While at Nexen, Maguire took on a variety of international assignments, including spending a couple of years in Yemen. Because he particularly enjoyed the international environment and wanted to expand his understanding of the business world, Maguire headed back to university to do an MBA at Cambridge University in He wrote his thesis while living in the south of France, and travelled the world before rejoining Bennett Jones in The job is increasingly international, notes Maguire, 46. Our firm has offices in China and in the Middle East, and that provides me with great opportunities, as I have always been internationally focused. Most recently, Bennett Jones has been acting in connection with a lot of Asian investment into Canada. Q: How would you describe yourself? A: There are different kinds of lawyers. Some are great technical practitioners, and some are very business oriented. I would describe myself as being a balance of the best of those. I want to get the deal done, but I want to get it done right. Q: What was your first job? A: My first job was as a maintenance person for the County of Wetaskiwin. It incented me greatly to go to law school. My first legal job was at Bennett Jones, where I articled in Q: What attracted you to your area of specialization? A: The economics in Alberta are really based on the energy industry, and it seemed to be the obvious place for me to practise. My area of specialty is in commercial transactions, which is not overly bound by procedural rules, and provides room for a great degree of creativity. Q: What s the best part of your job? A: I am lucky to work at Bennett Jones with some very smart, engaged people. These are some of the best lawyers in the field and they are leaders in the community. It is a fantastic environment to be in. It challenges me every day and is really rewarding. Q: What s the most challenging part of your job? A: Time management is definitely the biggest challenge. It s not uncommon to have clients asking for more of your time than you have to give. I occasionally over-commit, based on the time I have available. Q: What makes a good lawyer? A: The right balance of brains, technical expertise, business sense and personal skills. Q: Whom do you admire? A: Nelson Mandela. His ability to always see there is a path forward into the future that will be better than where we re at today, has been awe-inspiring. On a professional level, a senior regulatory lawyer at Bennett Jones who mentored me in the early years, taught me how to be a good lawyer, a good business adviser and a good partner. Q: What are you most passionate about? A: Family, friends, my colleagues and my clients. Within the day, each of them will have priority. Q: What does a great day off look like for you? A: Spending time with the family, skiing, golfing, and in the evening, a good bottle of red wine and a nice meal. Jacqueline Louie nortonrose.com Over and Above On January 1, 2012 Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose. Our enlarged national capabilities and unmatched international platform allows us to help our clients achieve new heights - all with a significant local presence lawyers 43 offices 6 continents 1 vision NRC_1886_HeraldLawReviewAd_OverAndAbove.indd 1 01/11/2012 1:16:32 PM
4 4 CALGARY LAW REVIEW Greenland is being eyed by countries around the world for the rich resources that lay beneath the barren island, which is a quarter the size of the U.S. Calgary Herald Archive Climate change brings Arctic resources closer by brian burton Every kid knows the North Pole is hallowed ground, free of the grasping claims of nation states. Santa, after all, is a law unto himself, who, presumably, has scant need for the services of lawyers and other mortals. And, in fact, the latest map documenting the territorial ambitions of Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the United States shows an area adjacent to the pole that is, at least notionally, unclaimed. Think of it as Santa Land for now, anyway. The rest of the vast seabed between Canada and Russia is more or less up for grabs, as five nations around the pole seek legal extensions of their territorial waters beyond the established 200-nautical-mile limit. Claims are made to the United Nations Commission Wylie Spicer on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). The commission is guided by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and in particular by Article 82 of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Article 82 allows extensions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf from 200 to as much as 350 nautical miles with certain important provisos. Article 82, then, is where Santa Land ends and the laws of men take over. Wylie Spicer, Calgary-based expert on Arctic and maritime law with Norton Rose, explains that Article 82 is based on the concept that the seafloor beyond the 200-mile limit is part of the common heritage of mankind. Regardless of who succeeds in claiming various extended tracts of seafloor and the resources under them, Article 82 specifies that the first royalties, up to seven per cent of revenues, will be shared equitably between 162 nations who are signatories to UNCLOS. This article has been sort of a sleeping giant and no one has made payments under it, so far, Spicer says. But global warming is bringing Arctic resources within reach and the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that oil reserves alone could exceed 90 billion barrels or $7 trillion, at today s prices. Obviously, resource companies should be very aware of agreements governing these extensions of seabed boundaries, Spicer observes. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) a creature of UNCLOS based in Kingston, Jamaica is charged with distributing royalty revenues from extensions of seabed rights. Under Article 82, the ISA is directed to distribute royalties, up to seven per cent of production or revenues, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the landlocked among them. In Canadian terms, think of it as an equalization payment, redistributing a portion of the wealth from richer jurisdictions to poorer ones. But, unlike Canadian law, which gives each province undivided right to its own resources, UNCLOS and ISA use resources as the source for revenue redistribution. Nations which succeed in extending their claims beyond 200 miles will, in effect, become paid managers of subsea resources, overseeing their development on behalf of the 162 UNCLOS signatories, remitting the first seven-per-cent of revenues to ISA for the least developed nations and, hopefully, retaining any royalties beyond seven per cent. The unanswered question, in an extremely remote and hostile environment, is whether there will be any room for royalties to rise beyond seven per cent. Spicer describes Canada as a contented signatory to UNCLOS, willing to abide by its terms and see first royalties go to developing nations. The U.S., meanwhile, has not signed on to UN- CLOS. In July, 34 Republican senators once again indicated opposition to signing the Law of the Sea Treaty, denying the two-thirds Senate majority that international treaties need for U.S. ratification. Ironically, Spicer says, in the much more developed Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. has drafted detailed regulations for remitting royalties to ISA in the extension zone between 200 and 350 miles offshore. Canada, meanwhile, has no corresponding royalty regulations for the high Arctic or off Newfoundland. While there is some active exploration in the extension zone off Newfoundland, no drillers are active in the area above the Arctic Archipelago. As oil and gas become rarer and rarer, 51 countries have applied for extensions in various areas around the world. With that, Spicer says, the Article-82 sleeping giant is edging closer to an awakening. The first stirrings took place during an UNCLOS conference in Beijing, where Spicer attended and monitored issues important to Canada, including how resource royalties will be calculated, who controls the Lomonosov Ridge under the Arctic Ocean, who controls a section of the Beaufort Sea and how pollution management will be extended to the 350-nautical mile limit. We stand to be huge winners on the extended continental shelf issues, Spicer says. Canada and the U.S. are contesting control of a sliver of the Beaufort Sea about the size of Lake Ontario that the National Energy Board (NEB) has estimated could contain some 10 billion barrels of oil. Canada bases its claim on a straight-line extension of the Alaska/Yukon border as delineated in an 1825 treaty between Russia and Great Britain, while the U.S. bases its claim on a line drawn equidistant from both coasts. Both countries are reviewing offshore drilling regulations in light of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. And both have publicly suggested a resolution may lie in the fact that, beyond the 200-mile limit, the American line appears to be better for Canada, while the Canadian line appears to be better for the U.S. In 2001, Russia submitted a formal claim to extend its territory in a way that would project far onto the Canadian side of the pole, based on the huge Lomonosov Ridge having arisen from the European continental shelf. Canada says the ridge, some 1,800 kilometres long and up to 200 km wide, arose from the North American continental shelf and properly falls under Canadian jurisdiction. Russia says it has spent $50 million researching its claim, while Canada has spent $109 million on a 10-year mapping project. Canada has until 2013 to submit its counterclaim, but with seabed extension disputes going on all over the world, there s no telling when a ruling might be made. (Denmark has also signaled an interest in the Lomonosov issue, based on its ownership of Greenland.) Additionally, Spicer says the issue of resource royalty calculations requires considerable refinement, even though most countries have signed on to general terms. It s not known, for instance, whether royalties will be calculated before or after production companies recover the costs of hugely expensive arctic development projects. From recent public hearings of the National Energy Board in Inuvik, Spicer says, he learned that Northerners are generally supportive of development but the ocean is a primary food source and they want very close regulation to ensure that pollution will be prevented. An oil spill under the sea ice would be catastrophic and the NEB got that message, loud and clear, he says. Law faculty distinctively Calgarian Calgary Herald Archive Ian Holloway, U of C s dean of law. by Jacqueline louie The University of Calgary s law faculty has a clear and simple goal: to be Calgary s law school. We want our programs to be reflective of the needs of our community. We want to be a central part of Calgary and its future. We want our graduates to go on to be leaders within the community, and we want to be a part of the professional fabric of Calgary, says dean of law, Ian Holloway, Q.C. That s why, when the U of C s faculty of law recently launched a new development campaign, it brought together a diverse, broadly representative group from Calgary s legal community to help reach its goal. The level of government support for legal education has not been keeping up with inflation, and so increasingly law schools at every university in Canada have to turn to external sources of support, Holloway says. Trying to put those two things together a need for resources, and a desire to be more reflective of our community led us to put together what we call a campaign cabinet a group of women and men who are leaders within the legal profession in Calgary. They include senior people from law firms, but also include corporate counsel people from industry and that s unique. One of the things that makes Calgary such a special city, at least from the perspective of the legal profession, is the extent to which corporate counsel are involved in things. On our committee, we ve got a wonderful blend of lawyers in private practice and corporate counsel. The honorary co-chairs of the U of C law school s development campaign are Rick George, former Suncor CEO; and Jim Palmer, Q.C., chairman emeritus of law firm Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer. Senior leaders on the committee are Brian Felesky, Q.C., managing director of Credit Suisse Securities; Kerry Dyte, Q.C., executive vice-president of Cenovus; and Eric Miller, vicepresident of Agrium. Approximately 20 people are part of the campaign cabinet, which includes managing partners or senior partners of most of the major law firms in Calgary, as well as senior executives from a number of corporations, including companies such as Nexen, Trans- Canada Pipelines, Talisman Energy, Enbridge, Precision Drilling, Total, Chevron and others. The makeup of our cabinet is really unique amongst law schools in North America, Holloway says. To have such a blend of lawyers in private practice and business executives, is not something that you (typically) see in North American law school campaigns. We are very proud of it. It really does say something special about this city, and the level of civic pride and engagement in Calgary. The development campaign s objective, is to raise $20 million over the next five years. In addition to raising additional resources, the development campaign also seeks to integrate the U of C s law school more closely with Calgary s legal and professional community.