Serious concerns about Draft Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

I am writing as a professional biologist with over 30 years of experience in environmental assessment, permitting and mitigation planning for oil and gas development in Alberta.

I am concerned with provisions in the draft Agreement that position Alberta as “best placed” to undertake impact assessments on behalf of the federal government, including for matters within federal jurisdiction. While I support efficient regulatory processes, my professional experience leads me to conclude that reliance on provincial oversight alone is not appropriate in the current context.

In principle, Alberta possesses a well-developed regulatory framework. However, in my professional experience, and increasingly in recent years, the implementation of these regulations has been inconsistent and, at times, compromised. Effective environmental assessment is not solely a function of written policy—it depends critically on rigorous, transparent, and unbiased application. It is this implementation where I believe significant shortcomings exist.

A central concern is the role and independence of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). The AER was not originally established as an environmental protection agency, but rather as an industry-focused regulator with a mandate rooted in facilitating and overseeing energy development. Although its responsibilities now include environmental considerations, its institutional orientation remains closely aligned with industry regulation rather than independent environmental stewardship. More importantly, there have been instances of direct ministerial influence affecting regulatory processes, including interventions that altered the scope or trajectory of project reviews. Such actions undermine confidence in the AER’s independence and constitute a breach of public trust.

The recent advancement of coal mining proposals on Alberta’s Eastern Slopes is a clear and pressing example. This region is ecologically critical, forming headwaters that support downstream water quality and quantity, fisheries, and communities and industry, while also providing habitat for species at risk and holding deep significance for Indigenous peoples. Despite this, these development proposals have been characterized by rapid policy reversals, limited transparency, and decision-making that appears to prioritize industrial interests over well-established environmental and social risks. The pace and manner in which coal-related projects have advanced—alongside efforts to constrain or redirect regulatory review—demonstrate the risks of relying solely on provincial oversight.

There is also clear evidence that federal protective legislation is not being consistently implemented in Alberta. For example, established Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) permitting requirements and mitigation measures for species at risk—such as protective buffers for bull trout critical habitat—have not been adequately applied in areas of the southern Eastern Slopes (e.g. Loomis Creek), where logging and associated activities have proceeded with insufficient adherence to these standards.

These examples demonstrate that, in practice, Alberta’s regulatory system cannot be relied upon to provide consistently impartial assessment of projects with significant environmental and social implications. This is precisely the type of context in which strong, impartial federal involvement is essential. This is particularly concerning where potential effects fall squarely within federal jurisdiction, including impacts to fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, species at risk, and Indigenous rights.

For these reasons, I strongly recommend that the Government of Canada retain an active and independent role in impact assessment. Federal oversight is essential to ensure that assessments are credible, unbiased, science-based, and conducted in the public interest. At a minimum, this should include independent federal review, clear federal standards, and the ability to intervene where provincial processes are insufficient.

Efficiency in assessment is an important goal, but it must not come at the expense of environmental protection, scientific integrity, or public confidence. The circumstances in Alberta today underscore the need for strong federal involvement, not its reduction.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kelly Eaton, B.Sc., P.Biol.