Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

Provide a comment

• Serious concerns about Draft Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

  by Kelly Eaton, about 1 month ago

  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... Continue reading

  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.

• Why I oppose trusting AB with sole jurisdiction over environmental review

  by Kim Burley, about 1 month ago

  While I understand the necessity to try to streamline project approvals to allow projects to move forward I do not believe that the Alberta government will operate in good faith. The current government persists in pushing through projects despite public opposition and failed environmental reviews, eg Northback mine application. If Alberta is to be responsible for the review process it is essential that they are held to federal standards in process, methodology and reporting at a minimum. The government of Alberta has a history of failed environmental reviews and offloading costs and risks to citizens and landowners in favour of... Continue reading

  While I understand the necessity to try to streamline project approvals to allow projects to move forward I do not believe that the Alberta government will operate in good faith. The current government persists in pushing through projects despite public opposition and failed environmental reviews, eg Northback mine application. If Alberta is to be responsible for the review process it is essential that they are held to federal standards in process, methodology and reporting at a minimum. The government of Alberta has a history of failed environmental reviews and offloading costs and risks to citizens and landowners in favour of industry. Take for example the AER putting failed enforcement of well leases and well recovery to tax payers. I do not support trusting this government in particular as a partner. I am a rural resident of Alberta.

• As a colonizers child.

  by Jonah, about 1 month ago

  The history of Indigenous peoples in what is now called Alberta stretches back at least 11,000 years—often spoken of as 15,000 years to reflect a presence since time immemorial. That is not just history; that is deep, lived knowledge of the land, the المياه, the الهواء, the ecosystems that have sustained life for generations beyond what most of us can comprehend.

  
  

  For thousands of years, Indigenous communities understood how to live in balance with this land—how to protect waterways, how to steward forests, how to ensure sustainability not just for today, but for generations into the future. These were not... Continue reading

  The history of Indigenous peoples in what is now called Alberta stretches back at least 11,000 years—often spoken of as 15,000 years to reflect a presence since time immemorial. That is not just history; that is deep, lived knowledge of the land, the المياه, the الهواء, the ecosystems that have sustained life for generations beyond what most of us can comprehend.

  
  

  For thousands of years, Indigenous communities understood how to live in balance with this land—how to protect waterways, how to steward forests, how to ensure sustainability not just for today, but for generations into the future. These were not just ways of living—they were sophisticated systems of knowledge that were later taken, used, and ignored by colonizers who benefited from that understanding while systematically displacing the people who held it.

  
  

  If we are serious about impact assessments in Alberta, they cannot be performative or checkbox exercises. They must meaningfully include Indigenous voices, honour all treaty obligations, and center the knowledge of those who have been caretakers of this land since time immemorial. Anything less is not only irresponsible—it is a continuation of harm.

  
  

  And let’s be clear: this responsibility does not just fall on governments or industry. Those of us who are settlers—those of us who benefit from colonization—have an obligation to understand, respect, and value these partnerships. Reconciliation is not a word, and it is not a one-time gesture. It is ongoing, active work. If Canada truly wants to walk the path of reconciliation, then we need to actually do the work—consistently, honestly, and with accountability.

  
  

  Because this is about more than policy. This is about whether future generations will have clean water to drink, air to breathe, and land that is still alive and thriving. It’s about whether we choose to listen now—or continue down a path we already know is unsustainable.

• Deeply Concerned over the Alberta Governments track history on the Environment

  by Jeff Gardiner, about 1 month ago
  I have severe misgivings over allowing Alberta to have complete say over Environmental Reviews. My biggest current concern is their reckless attitude towards coal mining in the Eastern slopes and headwaters of so many of the rivers that flow all the way thru the Prairie provinces. A good example is the Grassy Mountain project that was DENIED already yet the UPC ministers advised the Alberta Energy Regulator that this DENIED project was to be considered as an advanced project. The Alberta government has tried to hide environmental selenium pollution on the Smokey rivers coming from the coal mining near Grande... Continue reading

  I have severe misgivings over allowing Alberta to have complete say over Environmental Reviews. My biggest current concern is their reckless attitude towards coal mining in the Eastern slopes and headwaters of so many of the rivers that flow all the way thru the Prairie provinces. A good example is the Grassy Mountain project that was DENIED already yet the UPC ministers advised the Alberta Energy Regulator that this DENIED project was to be considered as an advanced project. The Alberta government has tried to hide environmental selenium pollution on the Smokey rivers coming from the coal mining near Grande Cache and this has harmed the fish population already.

  
  

• AER is conflicted and does not act in the best interests of Albertans

  by Barry Ashton, about 1 month ago
  Dear Sir/Madam. I am of the understanding that David Yager has a paid position with the Alberta government and sits as a member of the Board or advisory group in the AER. If this is correct should this not be a conflict of interest and therefore exclude the AER from acting in any capacity regarding environmental impact studies. Further, recently Ecojustice has cited the AER for failing to act in an independent role regarding an individual represented by Ecojustice in the matter of the remediation of an orphan oil well on his land. I do not believe that the AER... Continue reading

  Dear Sir/Madam. I am of the understanding that David Yager has a paid position with the Alberta government and sits as a member of the Board or advisory group in the AER. If this is correct should this not be a conflict of interest and therefore exclude the AER from acting in any capacity regarding environmental impact studies. Further, recently Ecojustice has cited the AER for failing to act in an independent role regarding an individual represented by Ecojustice in the matter of the remediation of an orphan oil well on his land. I do not believe that the AER is capable of acting impartially regarding the best interests of ALL Albertans regarding environmental impact studies. The Federal government must not abdicate its role in this regard.

• No to Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

  by Elizabeth Davidson, about 1 month ago

  I am an Albertan, and I strongly oppose the recent draft Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  This agreement represents a troubling abdication of federal responsibility. Major resource and infrastructure projects pose serious and lasting risks to our land, water, and communities—areas that are clearly within federal jurisdiction and duty.

  By shifting oversight to Alberta’s regulatory system, the federal government is relying on a process that is neither designed to uphold federal law nor trusted by the public. When project scope can be narrowly defined or risks minimized, the result is predictable: significant environmental and... Continue reading

  I am an Albertan, and I strongly oppose the recent draft Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  This agreement represents a troubling abdication of federal responsibility. Major resource and infrastructure projects pose serious and lasting risks to our land, water, and communities—areas that are clearly within federal jurisdiction and duty.

  By shifting oversight to Alberta’s regulatory system, the federal government is relying on a process that is neither designed to uphold federal law nor trusted by the public. When project scope can be narrowly defined or risks minimized, the result is predictable: significant environmental and community impacts are ignored, dismissed, or inadequately assessed.

  This agreement undermines transparency and strips Albertans of meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that directly affect their health, livelihoods, and future. That is unacceptable.

  Equally alarming is the statement that Alberta “views UNDRIP as non-binding.” This calls into serious question whether Indigenous Peoples will receive the meaningful consultation and respect for their rights that is required.

  Albertans deserve far better. We need a rigorous, independent impact assessment process that restores federal oversight, is grounded in science, fully considers climate and cumulative effects, ensures transparency, respects Indigenous rights, and guarantees meaningful public participation.

  Anything less fails both the environment and the people of this province.

  Sincerely,

  Elizabeth Davidson

• Barrie Chivers

  by Barrie Chivers, about 1 month ago
  As an Albertan I deeply disapprove of this agreement on grounds to numerous to set out here. Suffice to say such an approach will abrogate the duty to consult and will be environmentally disastrous.

  As an Albertan I deeply disapprove of this agreement on grounds to numerous to set out here. Suffice to say such an approach will abrogate the duty to consult and will be environmentally disastrous.

• Federal Oversight of Environmental Assessment is Critical

  by Robert Blaxley, about 1 month ago

  As an Albertan, I am deeply disappointed about the recent draft Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  Large resource and infrastructure projects pose considerable risks to lands and waters that impact key areas of jurisdiction and responsibility of the Government of Canada.

  I have significant concerns about the federal government downloading its responsibilities to a provincial regulatory system that is not designed to meaningfully enforce federal legislation or address federal interests and is not trusted by the public. If Alberta defines the scope of a project narrowly, or downplays certain risks, the entire process may... Continue reading

  As an Albertan, I am deeply disappointed about the recent draft Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  Large resource and infrastructure projects pose considerable risks to lands and waters that impact key areas of jurisdiction and responsibility of the Government of Canada.

  I have significant concerns about the federal government downloading its responsibilities to a provincial regulatory system that is not designed to meaningfully enforce federal legislation or address federal interests and is not trusted by the public. If Alberta defines the scope of a project narrowly, or downplays certain risks, the entire process may overlook, ignore, or downplay important environmental and community impacts.

  Accountable, transparent, and meaningful engagement of the public is necessary throughout the entire regulatory process. This draft agreement threatens to weaken, and in some cases potentially eliminate, the opportunity for Albertans to have a say in the projects that impact our quality of life and our livelihoods. This is unacceptable.

  Importantly the Agreement also states that Alberta “views UNDRIP as non-binding.” This raises significant questions on whether the AER will require meaningful consultation and reflect input and involvement of Indigenous peoples in project decisions

  We must have an impact assessment process that encourages participation, restores independent oversight, embeds climate and cumulative‑effects science, respects Indigenous Peoples and their Rights, increases transparency, and ensures strong, enforceable, and evidence-based standards.

  Robert Blaxley MEDes

• Director/owner MERS consulting

  by MERS consulting, about 1 month ago

  Key comments include:

  
  

  1. The draft Alberta-Canada Agreement ("draft agreement") seeks to give substantially more powers to the Alberta Regulator to assess impacts in areas of federal jurisdiction. It is not clear to me that giving up powers to the Alberta Regulator is responsible in all cases or even necessary to have an efficient environmental assessment process. For example, to date, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have been the main regulatory entity overseeing impacts to fish and fish habitat in Canada under the federal Fisheries Act. Alberta has jurisdiction of the resources but DFO has regulated industrial impacts that result... Continue reading

  Key comments include:

  
  

  1. The draft Alberta-Canada Agreement ("draft agreement") seeks to give substantially more powers to the Alberta Regulator to assess impacts in areas of federal jurisdiction. It is not clear to me that giving up powers to the Alberta Regulator is responsible in all cases or even necessary to have an efficient environmental assessment process. For example, to date, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have been the main regulatory entity overseeing impacts to fish and fish habitat in Canada under the federal Fisheries Act. Alberta has jurisdiction of the resources but DFO has regulated industrial impacts that result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat and/or death of fish. Through its mandate, DFO has historically taken a collaborative approach with Alberta in ensuring compliance with fish mitigation and monitoring and has sought advice from Alberta Environment and Protected Areas. This process has allowed major projects to meet major construction and operation deadlines.

  Under 1. (1) of Reliance on Alberta's Processes and Reciprocity, Alberta would want control over the assessment of all areas of federal jurisdiction, which would include areas of fish and fish habitat, species at risk and migratory birds. In my opinion, the expertise of federal regulators is vital in areas of Federal and Canadian jurisdiction to ensure that impacts affecting all Canadians interests are properly assessed and mitigated. For projects that potentially impact environmental components that have consequences beyond Alberta's jurisdiction (e.g., migratory fish, birds, species at risk) the federal regulator needs to be part of the assessment process. Canada cannot give all assessment powers to Alberta.

  2. Under 3. Decision-Making About the Conduct of a Federal Impact Assessment Alberta would have the power to determine that their environmental assessment process should addresse all adverse effects, including areas of federal jurisdiction, specifically:

  " In alignment with clause 1 (1) of this Agreement, IAAC commits to avoiding duplicative decision making processes related to assessments by relying on the provincial environmental assessment or regulatory processes in circumstances where Alberta confirms that those processes will address the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction"..

  It is unreasonable that the sole power to decide that Alberta should assess impacts in areas of federal jurisdiction should reside with Alberta. This should be a joint decision.

  3. Under 6. Co-ordination of Potential Assessment Conditions and Decision-making; and Permitting the language around coordination should be clearer and provide more direction to both proponents and the IAAC and Alberta Regulator. Stating that decision makers "will develop a cooperative approach" (6.(c)) is not providing anything different than what already exists today. There are many examples (as noted above in DFO and AEPA) where provincial and federal agencies work together, share information, consider and use joint measures etc... Additionally, if good scientific federal reports exist and can provide reliable and useful information, why shouldn't an Alberta Regulator use it? Why does Alberta need to increase reliance on provincial reports (6. (4) e)?

  Thank you.

• Duty to Consult

  by Tallcree First Nation, about 1 month ago
  As I understand it, the Federal Government has a duty to consult with Indigenous people regarding activities on Indigenous land. The Government of Canada has passed that responsibility to the provinces, which in turn pass that responsibility on to the proponent.

  In Alberta, the Government of Alberta is often the proponent. So, with this MoU the Government of Canada is deferring its' duty to consult to the proponent that has determined the rules for consultation and then also gets to determine if the consultation is adequate or not. That is unacceptable.

  Unfortunately, both the Government of Canada and the Government... Continue reading

  As I understand it, the Federal Government has a duty to consult with Indigenous people regarding activities on Indigenous land. The Government of Canada has passed that responsibility to the provinces, which in turn pass that responsibility on to the proponent.

  In Alberta, the Government of Alberta is often the proponent. So, with this MoU the Government of Canada is deferring its' duty to consult to the proponent that has determined the rules for consultation and then also gets to determine if the consultation is adequate or not. That is unacceptable.

  Unfortunately, both the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta believe that somehow this process will uphold the honour of the crown.

  This MoU between the GoC and the GoA is unacceptable to the First Nation I work with.