Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

Provide a comment

• Climate and Energy Policy and the MOU - Jeanette Leitch

  by Jeanette Leitch, about 1 month ago

  The MOU appears to set the course for climate and energy policy for the whole country. Yet it has little to say about impacts in jurisdictions outside of Alberta or direct Federal control.

  Only one paragraph appears to recognise that impacts on other provinces: Article 10 entitled “Application of this agreement” states at point (4) “Should a proposed project be located on or cross a boundary with another province or territory with a portion of the project located within Alberta, the Parties would seek to apply the principles and approaches contained herein in co-operation with the other province or territory.”

  ... Continue reading

  The MOU appears to set the course for climate and energy policy for the whole country. Yet it has little to say about impacts in jurisdictions outside of Alberta or direct Federal control.

  Only one paragraph appears to recognise that impacts on other provinces: Article 10 entitled “Application of this agreement” states at point (4) “Should a proposed project be located on or cross a boundary with another province or territory with a portion of the project located within Alberta, the Parties would seek to apply the principles and approaches contained herein in co-operation with the other province or territory.”

  Likewise although there are various statements concerning Indigenous Peoples, there is nothing that deals with the disparity with respect to compliance with UNDRIP in the Whereas paragraphs noted below”

  ”AND WHEREAS Canada maintains its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);

  AND WHEREAS Alberta continues to act in a manner that is consistent with treaties, the Canadian Constitution, and Alberta law, and views UNDRIP as non-binding”

  Thus while Article 1 emphasizes that the MOU is intended to apply to projects primarily located in, and impacting Alberta, whether under provincial jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction, applicable projects are primarily energy related and necessarily extend beyond Alberta geographically, and even within Alberta beyond both Federal and Provincial jurisdiction to rights of Indigenous Peoples.

  The MOU needs to be clear that in dealing with climate and energy policy which could be a template for the whole country it is essential that:

  · The outcome balances the economic benefits of oil and gas in the short term while also encouraging new clean industries that scale up quickly and provide new careers and prosperity for decades to come;

  · The rules are fair and equitable across the country; and

  · Indigenous Rights are respected and honoured.

  In identifying specifics to consider I would echo the comments from East Kootenay Climate Hub (March 22) including the reference to the four Must-Haves from Feb 17-26 Pembina Release(External link) (https://www.pembina.org/media-release/pembina-institute-releases-four-must-have-results-ottawa-alberta-mou-talks) viz

  #1 No taxpayer money devoted to a new pipeline because if the business case is there the private sector should be investing

  #2 Any new rules on electricity and methane should be clear and fair across the country and Alberta must present credible plans to reduce emissions and encourage clean investment.

  #3 The oilsands companies, Canada’s largest source of emissions need to put their money on the table for their long-awaited carbon capture and storage project (Pathways CCS)

  #4 Alberta’s industrial carbon pricing system must be stronger to work properly. And that means reaching the much-talked-about $130 effective price by 2030 at the latest.

  I also endorse their suggestion to rebrand the “industrial carbon tax” as a “Clean air initiative.”

  It is important to make clear the purpose of enforcing “an effective carbon price” as distinct from regulating the “headline carbon price” ://http://www.pembina.org/blog/magic-130-2030

  In addition, I fully support the constructive and insightful comments made by Melanie Daniels B.Sc., P.Biol, vice chair of the Indigenous Centre for Cumulative Effects (ICCE).

  
  

• Climate and Energy Policy and the MOU - Jeanette Leitch

  by Jeanette Leitch, about 1 month ago

  The MOU appears to set the course for climate and energy policy for the whole country. Yet it has little to say about impacts in jurisdictions outside of Alberta or direct Federal control.

  Only one paragraph appears to recognise that impacts on other provinces: Article 10 entitled “Application of this agreement” states at point (4) “Should a proposed project be located on or cross a boundary with another province or territory with a portion of the project located within Alberta, the Parties would seek to apply the principles and approaches contained herein in co-operation with the other province or territory.”

  ... Continue reading

  The MOU appears to set the course for climate and energy policy for the whole country. Yet it has little to say about impacts in jurisdictions outside of Alberta or direct Federal control.

  Only one paragraph appears to recognise that impacts on other provinces: Article 10 entitled “Application of this agreement” states at point (4) “Should a proposed project be located on or cross a boundary with another province or territory with a portion of the project located within Alberta, the Parties would seek to apply the principles and approaches contained herein in co-operation with the other province or territory.”

  Likewise although there are various statements concerning Indigenous Peoples, there is nothing that deals with the disparity with respect to compliance with UNDRIP in the Whereas paragraphs noted below”

  ”AND WHEREAS Canada maintains its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP);

  AND WHEREAS Alberta continues to act in a manner that is consistent with treaties, the Canadian Constitution, and Alberta law, and views UNDRIP as non-binding”

  Thus while Article 1 emphasizes that the MOU is intended to apply to projects primarily located in, and impacting Alberta, whether under provincial jurisdiction or Federal jurisdiction, applicable projects are primarily energy related and necessarily extend beyond Alberta geographically, and even within Alberta beyond both Federal and Provincial jurisdiction to rights of Indigenous Peoples.

  The MOU needs to be clear that in dealing with climate and energy policy which could be a template for the whole country it is essential that:

  · The outcome balances the economic benefits of oil and gas in the short term while also encouraging new clean industries that scale up quickly and provide new careers and prosperity for decades to come;

  · The rules are fair and equitable across the country; and

  · Indigenous Rights are respected and honoured.

  In identifying specifics to consider I would echo the comments from East Kootenay Climate Hub (March 22) including the reference to the four Must-Haves from Feb 17-26 Pembina Release(External link) (https://www.pembina.org/media-release/pembina-institute-releases-four-must-have-results-ottawa-alberta-mou-talks) viz

  #1 No taxpayer money devoted to a new pipeline because if the business case is there the private sector should be investing

  #2 Any new rules on electricity and methane should be clear and fair across the country and Alberta must present credible plans to reduce emissions and encourage clean investment.

  #3 The oilsands companies, Canada’s largest source of emissions need to put their money on the table for their long-awaited carbon capture and storage project (Pathways CCS)

  #4 Alberta’s industrial carbon pricing system must be stronger to work properly. And that means reaching the much-talked-about $130 effective price by 2030 at the latest.

  I also endorse their suggestion to rebrand the “industrial carbon tax” as a “Clean air initiative.”

  It is important to make clear the purpose of enforcing “an effective carbon price” as distinct from regulating the “headline carbon price” ://http://www.pembina.org/blog/magic-130-2030

  In addition, I fully support the constructive and insightful comments made by Melanie Daniels B.Sc., P.Biol, vice chair of the Indigenous Centre for Cumulative Effects (ICCE).

  
  

• Fast tracking projects and reducing standard reports ignores sustainability and accountability

  by Ayva, about 1 month ago

  
  

  When the Alberta government and regulators do not hold industries and companies accountable, the federal government for assessments and accountability is needed as a safe guard.

  
  

  The Alberta government has disregarded:

  
  

  First Nations - not consulting them, not considering treaty laws, or reconciliation

  The public’s voices in countless projects and bills, ignoring basic democratic practices and ignoring rights and freedoms:

  • Using the notwithstanding clause
  • Violating rights, freedoms and dignity of the people - trans people, people of color, women
  • Cuts to social programs
  • Attempted to ban books
  • Constraining minority groups with higher costs for AISH, MAID
  • Increased deficit, increased taxes... Continue reading

  
  

  When the Alberta government and regulators do not hold industries and companies accountable, the federal government for assessments and accountability is needed as a safe guard.

  
  

  The Alberta government has disregarded:

  
  

  First Nations - not consulting them, not considering treaty laws, or reconciliation

  The public’s voices in countless projects and bills, ignoring basic democratic practices and ignoring rights and freedoms:

  • Using the notwithstanding clause
  • Violating rights, freedoms and dignity of the people - trans people, people of color, women
  • Cuts to social programs
  • Attempted to ban books
  • Constraining minority groups with higher costs for AISH, MAID
  • Increased deficit, increased taxes (e.g. property taxes) for cities
  • Ignoring teachers
  • Ignoring healthcare workers
  • Support and demonstrating support for Trump and fascist beliefs and policies

  How can the federal government trust the provincial government that disregards people rights and freedoms by relying solely on the province to tell the federal government how issues would be assessed through regulatory and environmental assessment processes? Federal oversight provides a safe guard for these risks. By allowing a government that disregards people, the environment, and Indigenous peoples, the process may reflect the same values the provincial government upholds. 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. "The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) facilitates the sustainable development of major projects through open and efficient assessments. These assessments identify ways to ensure the environment and Indigenous rights are protected as projects get built." The federal government has a responsibility to protect the environment, biodiversity, and Indigenous Rights.

  
  

  By not regulating industries and companies to higher standards to uphold the integrity of the environment and people, we all pay the price. Both the provincial and federal government have engaged in practices that reflect a lack of care for the environment with their current ‘conservative’ beliefs. Both levels of government have demonstrated their lack of care for sustainability by directly cutting funding for non-profit organizations and squeezing social programs.

  Both levels of government want to fast track projects, ignoring the environment, people, and wildlife to support something ‘economic’.

  Below are examples of bills to increase 'without limitation and consultation perspectives':

  Red Tape Reduction Act

  Bill C-5

  Provincial Parks General Directive

  Coal Policy

  Trails Act

  Bill 40 Growing Alberta’s Forest Sector Amendment Act

  Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

  However, our environment through tourism, education, and research supports the economy. How is fast tracking projects, reducing assessments, reducing environment policies and laws considered economic?

  
  

  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. The pipeline agreement was not transparent. Where was the public consultation and Indigenous voices? Do you want species and trees displaced? There's consistent speech about concerns for climate change and natural disasters, but this agreement doesn’t reflect the same care. Public participation is limited in Alberta as reflected by the Alberta Energy Regulator and coal mining projects dismissing public hearings. Due to water concerns, a broad public coalition of ranchers, farmers, First Nations and conservationists strongly opposed the project as well as related mining developments in the Rocky Mountains by largely Australian coal interests. Recently AER failed to inform Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree Nation about the risk of a spill from Imperial Oils’ Kearl tar sands mine until millions of tonnes of toxic water leaked. The AER failed and were incompetent to do their job. Not to mention the lack of backbone from the Alberta Energy Regulator to actually hold people and companies accountable under the laws and policies in place to PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT is concerning.

  
  

  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.

  
  

  
  

• Successful climate policy in Canada? Or it's unravelling?

  by East Kootenay Climate Hub, about 1 month ago

  Strong climate policy is essential for life on earth. The Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada is seen as the emerging "foundation on which successful climate policy in Canada is built, or the beginning of its unravelling."

  Please make it the longterm foundation for a livable future for all. Canada must do our part and not be climate laggards.

  
  We have 6 points:

  1. In general, rename the Industrial Carbon Tax:

  The name "Carbon tax" is hated and fosters misinformation, and this isn't about the revenues but rather a livable future. We all understand the need for clean... Continue reading

  Strong climate policy is essential for life on earth. The Cooperation Agreement between Alberta and Canada is seen as the emerging "foundation on which successful climate policy in Canada is built, or the beginning of its unravelling."

  Please make it the longterm foundation for a livable future for all. Canada must do our part and not be climate laggards.

  
  We have 6 points:

  1. In general, rename the Industrial Carbon Tax:

  The name "Carbon tax" is hated and fosters misinformation, and this isn't about the revenues but rather a livable future. We all understand the need for clean air especially since most of us have experienced wildfire smoke. Scrap the carbon tax name and offer instead as a clean air initiative for example. Let's face it, burning any fossil fuel pollutes the air, so focus on that to avoid fueling misinformation.

  2. In general, reframe reducing fossil fuel consumption to focus on specific personal benefits, ie. clean air, cost savings, comfort, energy security (a big one with the Middle East volatility) etc.

  Most of the public accepts that anthropogenic climate change is real but far fewer want to do anything about it. We shouldn't be fooled by the high % 's of the public agreeing that climate change is real and that something must be done. That often means "something must be done, but not by me." So switch to communicating benefits to garner support.

  3. Establish an effective carbon price of $130 by 2030 and rename (above). This is the most important piece; carbon credits must be trading for at least $130 per tonne by 2030. A delay in reaching $130 means it will be harder for Canadian businesses to make the investments they need to cut emissions.

  4. Any new rules in Alberta must not create unfairness for industry elsewhere in Canada

  The MOU suggests Alberta is going to get a special deal on methane rules and a special deal on clean electricity, but that would be unfair for businesses across Canada. Companies should get broadly similar treatment across Canada – whether they’re fixing methane leaks at oil and gas wells, or trying to build lost-cost renewable energy projects. Alberta must show it will still achieve the same emissions outcomes, on the same time frames as the rest of the country, so companies can confidently plan.

  5. Oil sands companies must immediately put money on the table for their Pathways Alliance carbon capture project

  Industry has been talking about this project for years, and it’s time for them to make good on it. Pathways is not a silver bullet, but it’s an important tool to reduce oilsands emissions. Taxpayers will already be paying for two-thirds of it through very generous tax credits. These very profitable companies must now show their commitment by allocating the funds.

  6. No taxpayer money for another pipeline

  Either an oil pipeline is a good business idea, or it’s not. If it is a good idea, then the private sector should be happy to invest in it. If they won’t invest, then it’s a bad idea and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to pay for it.”

  3-6 are Must-Haves from Feb 17-26 Pembina Release (Calgary): “While there are definitely opportunities to reach an even better result, these four pieces are the difference between the MOU being the foundation on which successful climate policy in Canada is built, or the beginning of its unravelling.”

  Please let Canada do our part for a safe and livable future.

• AER has failed in all areas

  by L White, about 1 month ago
  The AER or any Alberta government agency, for that matter, in any environmetal assessments has failed to do so. They do not consult with First Nations, they do not ensure proper assessments are completed. When they do any assessments they are not based on science or facts. They certainly do no follow-up.

  The environmental degradation of Alberta has been significant and destructive.

  The Tyee has a number of articles regarding the way in which the AER does business. They do business behind closed doors with Northback Coal and has lead to numerous law suits.When questioned, they refused to answer questions... Continue reading

  The AER or any Alberta government agency, for that matter, in any environmetal assessments has failed to do so. They do not consult with First Nations, they do not ensure proper assessments are completed. When they do any assessments they are not based on science or facts. They certainly do no follow-up.

  The environmental degradation of Alberta has been significant and destructive.

  The Tyee has a number of articles regarding the way in which the AER does business. They do business behind closed doors with Northback Coal and has lead to numerous law suits.When questioned, they refused to answer questions. There is clear conflicts of interest within the organization and more than questionable leadership that have close ties to the Alberta government.

  They do not use biologists or any science based information.

  The need for proper and legal procedures with the duty to consult First Nations with the land of First Nations is an absolute legal requirement. The funding to do so should be put in place to have these assessments done with First Nations. The failure to do so will only cause delay and court cases which they will, rightly, win.

  Environmental and Impact Assessments with Federal regulations with First Nations, is the only option.

  Sincerely,

  L White

• 4 pieces are essential for this to be the foundation of successful climate policy

  by Sue, about 1 month ago

  I am reiterating the 4 critical pieces that the Pembina Institute states need to emerge from these ongoing talks between Alberta and the federal government:

  Quoting from the Feb 17-26 Pembina Release (Calgary):

  “While there are definitely opportunities to reach an even better result, these four pieces are the difference between the MOU being the foundation on which successful climate policy in Canada is built, or the beginning of its unravelling.”

  1. An effective carbon price of $130 by 2030

  “This is the most important piece; we need carbon credits to be trading for at least $130 per tonne by... Continue reading

  I am reiterating the 4 critical pieces that the Pembina Institute states need to emerge from these ongoing talks between Alberta and the federal government:

  Quoting from the Feb 17-26 Pembina Release (Calgary):

  “While there are definitely opportunities to reach an even better result, these four pieces are the difference between the MOU being the foundation on which successful climate policy in Canada is built, or the beginning of its unravelling.”

  1. An effective carbon price of $130 by 2030

  “This is the most important piece; we need carbon credits to be trading for at least $130 per tonne by 2030. A delay in reaching $130 means it will be harder for Canadian businesses to make the investments they need to cut emissions.”

  2. Any new rules in Alberta must not create unfairness for industry elsewhere in Canada

  “The MOU suggests Alberta is going to get a special deal on methane rules and a special deal on clean electricity, but that would be unfair for businesses across Canada. Companies should get broadly similar treatment across Canada – whether they’re fixing methane leaks at oil and gas wells, or trying to build lost-cost renewable energy projects. Alberta must show it will still achieve the same emissions outcomes, on the same timeframes as the rest of the country, so companies can confidently plan.”

  3. The oilsands companies must immediately put money on the table for their Pathways Alliance carbon capture project

  “Industry has been talking about this project for years, and it’s time for them to make good on it. Pathways is not a silver bullet, but it’s an important tool to reduce oilsands emissions. Taxpayers will already be paying for two-thirds of it through very generous tax credits. These very profitable companies must now show their commitment by allocating the funds.”

  4. No taxpayer money for another pipeline

  “Either an oil pipeline is a good business idea, or it’s not. If it is a good idea, then the private sector should be happy to invest in it. If they won’t invest, then it’s a bad idea and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to pay for it.”

  Quick facts

  • Alberta’s industrial carbon pricing system – known as TIER – has been repeatedly undermined by the provincial government. In 2025, despite a headline carbon price of $95 per tonne (the industrial carbon price set by government), TIER credits traded at anywhere from $17 to $39 per tonne, far below the level needed to spur investment in decarbonization.
  • The language of the MOU suggests that oil and gas companies in Alberta will get twice as long as companies elsewhere in Canada to reduce their methane emissions by 75 per cent below 2014. If left unchanged, this would create unfairness for oil and gas producers elsewhere in the country, notably British Columbia, which has made impressive progress in reducing methane emissions while nonetheless growing oil and gas production.
  • The MOU text also indicates that the federal Clean Electricity Regulations will be placed in abeyance if Alberta can demonstrate a different path to growing its electricity supply while also achieving a net-zero emissions grid by 2050. However, Alberta’s renewable energy industry is continuing to suffer under policy uncertainty and restrictions that the province implemented after its 2023 moratorium on wind and solar development. Alberta’s electricity plans presented as part of the MOU talks must therefore be carefully evaluated to ensure the province has a viable path to achieving equivalent emissions outcomes as would have been achieved under the Clean Electricity Regulations. https://www.pembina.org/media-release/pembina-institute-releases-four-must-have-results-ottawa-alberta-mou-talks

• Efficiency without environmental security

  by Samantha, about 1 month ago

  The proposed co-operation agreement is designed to streamline impact assessments under a “one project, one review” model. Improved efficiency is a worthwhile goal, however the current framework risks prioritizing speed over environmental protection.

  By allowing federal reliance on provincial processes, the agreement introduces a real risk: that national environmental standards, particularly around cumulative impacts, water systems, and biodiversity, may be inconsistently applied or weakened. Federal oversight exists to safeguard issues that extend beyond provincial boundaries. It should not be optional.

  Critical Gaps in the Current Approach

  - This agreement proposes no meaningful consideration of cumulative effects. Project-by-project assessments fail to... Continue reading

  The proposed co-operation agreement is designed to streamline impact assessments under a “one project, one review” model. Improved efficiency is a worthwhile goal, however the current framework risks prioritizing speed over environmental protection.

  By allowing federal reliance on provincial processes, the agreement introduces a real risk: that national environmental standards, particularly around cumulative impacts, water systems, and biodiversity, may be inconsistently applied or weakened. Federal oversight exists to safeguard issues that extend beyond provincial boundaries. It should not be optional.

  Critical Gaps in the Current Approach

  - This agreement proposes no meaningful consideration of cumulative effects. Project-by-project assessments fail to capture the broader reality: multiple approvals can collectively degrade watersheds, ecosystems, and biodiversity.

  - Water security is not treated as a limiting factor. Despite growing drought conditions and competing demands, the agreement does not explicitly address water scarcity. Approving projects without climate-adjusted water modelling is no longer defensible.

  - Fixed timelines (~2 years) can constrain proper data collection, especially for seasonal or long-term environmental processes. Incomplete baselines lead to uncertain outcomes, and permanent consequences.

  - Efficiency must be paired with clear environmental thresholds. Without them, success risks being measured by speed rather than sustainability.

  - Indigenous participation remains procedural. Consultation alone is insufficient. Equitable decisions require meaningful inclusion of Indigenous governments in decision-making, not just engagement.

  What is Needed

  To align with modern environmental expectations and global commitments, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the agreement should include:

  - Non-delegable federal safeguards for water, biodiversity, and transboundary impacts.

  - Mandatory cumulative and regional assessments in high-impact areas

  - Climate and water stress testing as approval prerequisites

  - Flexible timelines tied to environmental complexity, not fixed targets

  - Indigenous co-governance mechanisms, not just consultation

  - Outcome-based accountability, including measurable environmental performance indicators

  A streamlined process that does not fully account for cumulative impacts, water scarcity, and climate risk is not truly efficient, it defers costs into the future. This agreement is an opportunity to modernize impact assessment in Canada. With targeted improvements, it can deliver both timely decisions and durable environmental protection. Without them, it risks falling short on both.

  Prepared with AI-assisted drafting; reviewed and finalized by the author.

• Genuine environment concerns

  by Glenda, about 1 month ago

  I have serious concerns with the Alberta government's commitment to environmental issues. A safe healthy environment is much less important to AB ucp which can easily be proven with their efforts to clean up abandoned oil wells. Destroying the environment to make money will harm not only the wildlife but affects human life dramatically. I would hope that ALL life in AB, especially the indigenous (who seem to be ignored) would be top priority over the growth of corporations.

  I have serious concerns with the Alberta government's commitment to environmental issues. A safe healthy environment is much less important to AB ucp which can easily be proven with their efforts to clean up abandoned oil wells. Destroying the environment to make money will harm not only the wildlife but affects human life dramatically. I would hope that ALL life in AB, especially the indigenous (who seem to be ignored) would be top priority over the growth of corporations.

• Any Alberta project which affects water and/or fisheries should have federal oversight

  by Arlene Ritchie, about 1 month ago
  The Alberta Government does not have a good reputation for handling due process for environmental impact from projects. I do not trust this government or the AER for proper environmental impact assessments.

  An example is the handling of the tailing pond spill into a water way in Northern Alberta

  Plans for massive coal mining projects in our Eastern Slopes Rockies which are extremely sensitive areas as they are the source of our headwaters coming down to the communities and farm lands have not had proper public input or input from environmental experts. These projects will use massive amounts of water... Continue reading

  The Alberta Government does not have a good reputation for handling due process for environmental impact from projects. I do not trust this government or the AER for proper environmental impact assessments.

  An example is the handling of the tailing pond spill into a water way in Northern Alberta

  Plans for massive coal mining projects in our Eastern Slopes Rockies which are extremely sensitive areas as they are the source of our headwaters coming down to the communities and farm lands have not had proper public input or input from environmental experts. These projects will use massive amounts of water and contaminate the water coming down to communities below. There needs to be much stricter rules around such projects when something as vital as water is involved

• Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada Review Feedback

  by Jovic Energy, about 1 month ago

  
  

  This draft agreement is a huge progress in addressing many of the causes of delay in addressing energy and infrastructure project delivery and Indigenous Reconciliation.

  Specifically, these clear provisions will enhance and help with achieving the objective of proper environmental impact assessment, speed of assessment, reduction in duplication and improve engagement and legal requirement on duty with First Peoples.

  • Establishing early notification and information sharing obligations in clause 2, fundamental to creating the environment and speed for desired result. This is a best practice and should be adopted as a standard for all Provinces going forward.
  • Issue management escalation ladder
  • ... Continue reading

  
  

  This draft agreement is a huge progress in addressing many of the causes of delay in addressing energy and infrastructure project delivery and Indigenous Reconciliation.

  Specifically, these clear provisions will enhance and help with achieving the objective of proper environmental impact assessment, speed of assessment, reduction in duplication and improve engagement and legal requirement on duty with First Peoples.

  • Establishing early notification and information sharing obligations in clause 2, fundamental to creating the environment and speed for desired result. This is a best practice and should be adopted as a standard for all Provinces going forward.
  • Issue management escalation ladder
  • Provision for participant funding coordination
  • Preservation of jurisdictional integrity for both the Federal government and Alberta.

  However, there are other areas that need to be improved to ensure a seamless process with minimal negative impact and/or delays to a project and at the same time protect our environment and our legal obligation with our First Peoples.

  Standards: Throughout the document, there is no defined standard but multiple clauses in different aspects references ‘standard’. These standards must be defined upfront to avoid the ambiguity it will create downstream and during implementation/use. There has to be well defined minimum acceptable standards.

  We need to have in this agreement definitive

  • What is acceptable standard
  • Deference standard, for instance ‘primarily within Provincial jurisdiction’ is undefined. Vague deference standard.
  • Minimum standard for Provincial assessment?
  • Issues management acceptable standard is not defined.
  • Permitting coordination provision lacks specificity.

  Providing criteria for each of these standards including triggers will make this agreement execution workable.

  Legal/First Nations/Indigenous right/duty to consult.

  There UNDRIP and surrounding issues are not appropriately and visibly addressed and reconciled. We need to have a clear and agreed protocol such that we do not have legal challenges during project assessment with consequential delays that will derail the objective of this agreement. Indigenous consultation deferral to Alberta may become legally risky.

  Enforcement Mechanism: There is presently no clearly defined dispute resolution remedy that can ensure elimination of potential legal dispute with corresponding delays to resolution. Even the termination clause provides insufficient transition protection, extending beyond 90 days may be more realistic.

  For example, the issues management in clause 11 identify escalation protocol but no remedy when agreement is not reached. No binding arbitration or independent third-party resolution mechanism and no consequence for party that fails to abide. The Agreement is more aspirational than legally enforceable.