Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

Provide a comment

• Suggestions to Strengthen Environmental Safeguards in the Draft Canada–Alberta Impact Assessment Co-operation Agreement

  by John B., about 2 months ago

  There are some fundamental issues with this draft agreement that put Canada's valuable and cherished environment and nature at increased risk. Recommendations below:

  • Add a minimum federal interest test. Reliance on Alberta’s assessment system should occur only where provincial processes demonstrably meet the minimum federal requirements, including effects on fisheries, migratory birds, species at risk, climate, and Indigenous rights.

  • Include explicit climate impact assessment requirements. Assessments conducted under the agreement should evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and consider the project’s consistency with Canada’s climate commitments and emissions reduction objectives.

  • Require cumulative effects analysis. Environmental reviews should assess cumulative impacts on ecosystems... Continue reading

  There are some fundamental issues with this draft agreement that put Canada's valuable and cherished environment and nature at increased risk. Recommendations below:

  • Add a minimum federal interest test. Reliance on Alberta’s assessment system should occur only where provincial processes demonstrably meet the minimum federal requirements, including effects on fisheries, migratory birds, species at risk, climate, and Indigenous rights.

  • Include explicit climate impact assessment requirements. Assessments conducted under the agreement should evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and consider the project’s consistency with Canada’s climate commitments and emissions reduction objectives.

  • Require cumulative effects analysis. Environmental reviews should assess cumulative impacts on ecosystems, water resources, biodiversity, and Indigenous land use, rather than evaluating projects in isolation.

  • Avoid automatic deferral of federal conditions to provincial conditions. While alignment of conditions is appropriate where possible, federal conditions should continue to apply where necessary to protect matters under federal jurisdiction.

  • Strengthen nature and biodiversity considerations. Assessments should explicitly evaluate impacts on biodiversity, habitat, and ecological integrity, including impacts on species at risk and sensitive ecosystems, and support Canada’s national biodiversity conservation commitments.

  • Provide for independent scientific review where warranted. Projects with potentially significant environmental or climate impacts should have the option of independent expert review to support evidence-based decision-making.

  • Enhance transparency and public access to information. Environmental studies, modelling assumptions, mitigation plans, and monitoring data should be publicly accessible (with appropriate protections for Indigenous knowledge) to support informed participation and accountability.

• I'm Against Weakening Federal Impact Assessment rules for Alberta

  by Greg Hooper, about 2 months ago

  Alberta's existing EIA rules have already been weakened for political reasons.

  Albertans and Alberta's natural lands will be better served by having strong federal regulations and processes to support public efforts to manage development for current and future generations.

  
  

  All of the conditions and development pressures which required provincial and federal legislation in the first place still exist.

  
  

  This agreement looks like nothing more than an end run around a proper public discussion on behalf of current and prospective developers in a variety of industries.

  
  

  Thank you for your attention,
  
  Greg Hooper
  Calgary

  Alberta's existing EIA rules have already been weakened for political reasons.

  Albertans and Alberta's natural lands will be better served by having strong federal regulations and processes to support public efforts to manage development for current and future generations.

  
  

  All of the conditions and development pressures which required provincial and federal legislation in the first place still exist.

  
  

  This agreement looks like nothing more than an end run around a proper public discussion on behalf of current and prospective developers in a variety of industries.

  
  

  Thank you for your attention,
  
  Greg Hooper
  Calgary

• Jurisdiction is not solely Alberta's

  by Melanie Daniels B.Sc., P.Biol., about 2 months ago
  The previous Government worked hard to implement policies and programs that address the historic harms committed against Indigenous Peoples. Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 did not relinquish jurisdiction to Canada nor Alberta (a province younger than the Treaties). The Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930 transferred management of resources to the Province, this province has demonstrated that they are not capable of sound land management, perhaps management of resources should be transferred back to the Indigenous Peoples of this land. It is important to acknowledge that First Nations from across the prairie provinces are opposed to the NRTA... Continue reading

  The previous Government worked hard to implement policies and programs that address the historic harms committed against Indigenous Peoples. Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 did not relinquish jurisdiction to Canada nor Alberta (a province younger than the Treaties). The Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930 transferred management of resources to the Province, this province has demonstrated that they are not capable of sound land management, perhaps management of resources should be transferred back to the Indigenous Peoples of this land. It is important to acknowledge that First Nations from across the prairie provinces are opposed to the NRTA as it violates their rights and was enacted during a time that First Nations and Metis were struggling from disease, hunger, separation from children, land, culture & language; not to mention there was NO consultation and it was illegal for First Nations to retain legal counsel. This legislation is not a source of Canadian pride!

  
  

  This agreement will undermine the progress made since the enactment of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People's Act, 2021. When Alberta is the sole authority or decision maker the Action Plan Measures, that were agreed to in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, will no longer apply for major projects that are not federally regulated. How will this agreement honour the Indigenous Oversight Forum (CER-Action plan measure 34), the Indigenous Ministerial Arrangement Regulations, Indigenous guardianship programs and Indigenous oversight? Alberta will never agree to these types of arrangements and it will never contemplate Indigenous Authority over land and resources. Is this Canada's goal, to find a way out of these commitments?

  The second 'whereas' of the Agreement only recognizes Alberta's jurisdiction, this is inherently wrong and violates Canada's UNDRIPAct. This Agreement cannot go forward in the current draft, Indigenous peoples must be at the table to draft this agreement with Canada and Alberta, they are the original stewards of these lands after all.

• Alberta UCP receives non-confidence vote from First Nations Treaty 6,7, and 8

  by L White, about 2 months ago
  The Alberta UCP government has continually ignored and dismissed countless consultation for free and prior consent in numerous Bills concerning Water and the Environment in Alberta with First Nations Treaty partners. Bill 14 is a prime example. There are numerous other examples.

  There was a motion of non-confidence submitted on March 9, 2026 in the Alberta Legislative Assembly initiated by First Nations Treaty 6, 7, and 8 UNANIMOUNSLY.

  The motion was basically ignored by the Alberta UCP. The separatist UCP has continually ignored and dismissed any Environmental protections in any area of Alberta.

  The Alberta UCP does not consider fact... Continue reading

  The Alberta UCP government has continually ignored and dismissed countless consultation for free and prior consent in numerous Bills concerning Water and the Environment in Alberta with First Nations Treaty partners. Bill 14 is a prime example. There are numerous other examples.

  There was a motion of non-confidence submitted on March 9, 2026 in the Alberta Legislative Assembly initiated by First Nations Treaty 6, 7, and 8 UNANIMOUNSLY.

  The motion was basically ignored by the Alberta UCP. The separatist UCP has continually ignored and dismissed any Environmental protections in any area of Alberta.

  The Alberta UCP does not consider fact based studies and assessments. The Alberta Regulatory bodies have not been consulting impact assessments of previous projects and make statements to the effect that selenium in water can be mitigated. The tailing ponds are leaking into groundwater.

  The liability factors in allowing the Alberta UCP to "conduct impact assessments" in quotations, because they will not occur, in any meaningful manner and without actual factual information or consultation, should be sufficient in and of itself, for it not to be an option.

  Canadian Federal regulations must be used in impact assessments in full partnership with First Nations Treaty 6, 7, and 8.

  No to Alberta UCP.

  
  

  
  

• UCP Adhering to Rules & Expectations

  by Judith Shields, about 2 months ago
  I have been a resident of Alberta for over 20 years. This current UCP government has acted in ways that indicate they are either unwilling or unable to abide by legislation or to take the needs of current & future Albertans into consideration.

  I have been a resident of Alberta for over 20 years. This current UCP government has acted in ways that indicate they are either unwilling or unable to abide by legislation or to take the needs of current & future Albertans into consideration.

• Water is already at risk in Alberta due to poor management - Water is Life

  by Melanie Daniels B.Sc., P.Biol., about 2 months ago

  Water in Alberta is already under severe stress. Many of the province’s major watersheds are fully allocated, groundwater systems are poorly understood, wetlands continue to be lost, and climate change is intensifying drought cycles. In this context, the draft Co‑operation Agreement Between Alberta and Canada poses significant risks to water security by inviting the federal government to rely on Alberta’s environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes for projects primarily under provincial jurisdiction (Clause 1(1)) and to avoid “duplicative decision‑making” by deferring to Alberta where Alberta asserts it can address federal effects (Clause 3(1)).

  This approach is incompatible with the reality... Continue reading

  Water in Alberta is already under severe stress. Many of the province’s major watersheds are fully allocated, groundwater systems are poorly understood, wetlands continue to be lost, and climate change is intensifying drought cycles. In this context, the draft Co‑operation Agreement Between Alberta and Canada poses significant risks to water security by inviting the federal government to rely on Alberta’s environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes for projects primarily under provincial jurisdiction (Clause 1(1)) and to avoid “duplicative decision‑making” by deferring to Alberta where Alberta asserts it can address federal effects (Clause 3(1)).

  This approach is incompatible with the reality of water management in Alberta.

  Alberta’s Water‑Management System Is Not Equipped to Protect Federal Interests

  Alberta’s EA and regulatory processes evaluate water impacts on a project‑by‑project basis. They do not assess cumulative withdrawals across a basin, integrate climate projections, protect ecological flows, or evaluate downstream interprovincial impacts. Water licensing remains governed by “first in time, first in right,” a system that prioritizes senior licence holders over ecological needs and Indigenous rights. Monitoring and enforcement gaps further undermine water protection, with inconsistent data collection and limited transparency.

  These weaknesses are not incidental, they are structural. A system that has not protected water to date cannot be the foundation for federal reliance going forward.

  The Draft Agreement Would Entrench These Weaknesses

  • Clause 1(1) invites Canada to rely on Alberta’s processes to address federal water‑related effects, despite Alberta’s track record of over‑allocation, weak cumulative‑effects management, and limited protection for fish habitat, migratory birds, and interprovincial waters.
  • Clause 3(1) frames federal oversight as duplication, when in fact federal assessment is the only process that consistently evaluates cumulative watershed impacts, climate‑related water risks, and Indigenous rights.
  • Clause 6(1) states that federal conditions will defer to provincial conditions where provincial tools exist—even when those tools are weaker, unenforced, or incomplete.
  • Clause 7(1) proposes that Canada “recognize Alberta as best placed to consult with Indigenous Peoples,” despite Canada’s constitutional obligations under s.91(24) and Alberta’s failure to protect Indigenous water rights, water security or uphold UNDRIP‑aligned standards.

  Together, these clauses would reduce federal oversight at the very moment Alberta’s water systems require stronger protection.

  Recommendations

  To safeguard water security, the agreement must be amended to:

  • Remove automatic deference clauses (1(1), 3(1), 6(1), 7(1)).
  • Require a water‑management equivalency analysis before federal reliance.
  • Mandate federal assessment in water‑stressed or over‑allocated basins.
  • Ensure Canada retains responsibility for consultation where water impacts affect Indigenous rights and Indigenous water security.
  • Establish minimum standards for water monitoring, transparency, and ecological‑flow protection.

  Conclusion

  Alberta’s water systems are already at their limits. The draft Co‑operation Agreement would weaken federal oversight and entrench a provincial system that has not protected water, has not managed cumulative effects, and has not upheld Indigenous water rights. Water requires stronger governance, not less. Canada must revise the agreement to ensure that water protection remains a federal priority and that federal responsibilities are not delegated to a system that cannot meet them. Better yet, revise the agreement to ensure First Nations and Métis play a role in water management and guardianship.

• Raised on the beauty of Canada

  by Tracy, about 2 months ago
  I grew up knowing the land, trees, water and wildlife in this country were what made it truly wonderful and unique. But now I’m afraid after watching what ford is trying to do in Ontario. And now this with Alberta, I don’t trust Daniel Smith to ever do the right thing, she has proven over and over again. This can’t be allowed to happen, we must protect our natural habitats, the watersheds she will not, the UCP will not. Let’s not destroy what makes Canada unique and beautiful all in the name of money.

  I grew up knowing the land, trees, water and wildlife in this country were what made it truly wonderful and unique. But now I’m afraid after watching what ford is trying to do in Ontario. And now this with Alberta, I don’t trust Daniel Smith to ever do the right thing, she has proven over and over again. This can’t be allowed to happen, we must protect our natural habitats, the watersheds she will not, the UCP will not. Let’s not destroy what makes Canada unique and beautiful all in the name of money.

• No to Alberta MOU with Ottawa

  by Deborah Stadfeld, about 2 months ago
  I totally disagree with Ottawa giving this Alberta “current” UCP govt any more authority over our environmental laws. They have proven to be untrustworthy with no respect of Treaty rights. Their goal is only for profit to USA big corporations. 7 generation principle should prevail. Rape our land, eradicate wildlife!

  I totally disagree with Ottawa giving this Alberta “current” UCP govt any more authority over our environmental laws. They have proven to be untrustworthy with no respect of Treaty rights. Their goal is only for profit to USA big corporations. 7 generation principle should prevail. Rape our land, eradicate wildlife!

• Water is life

  by Michelle small, about 2 months ago

  For as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow.

  I do not consent to ai data centers being built in Alberta.

  I believe this is going AGAINST MY INHERITED TREATY RIGHTS.

  I do not consent to alberta starting oil and gas projects without the consent of first nations.

  Protect the land and water.

  Look out for the next seven generations.

  Alberta does not have my first nations treaty consent and is trying to go against section 35 with the separation referendum as well. Land is law. Creator sees all. Ekosi.

  For as long as the sun shines, grass grows and rivers flow.

  I do not consent to ai data centers being built in Alberta.

  I believe this is going AGAINST MY INHERITED TREATY RIGHTS.

  I do not consent to alberta starting oil and gas projects without the consent of first nations.

  Protect the land and water.

  Look out for the next seven generations.

  Alberta does not have my first nations treaty consent and is trying to go against section 35 with the separation referendum as well. Land is law. Creator sees all. Ekosi.

• Need a 3rd party voice

  by Jason Posti, about 2 months ago
  Hello,

  
  

  Thank you for allow us the opportunity to present our opinion on this proposal.

  I will start by saying I am not in favour of this proposal to have the AB government be in sole control over such far reaching decisions for not only Albertans but Canadians and North Americans on the whole.

  For my first part I will point out the already blurred lines between the current UCP Government and the oil industry. Our premier was in fact an oil lobbyist arguing for the tax payers of Alberta to pay for the clean up of wells that have... Continue reading

  Hello,

  
  

  Thank you for allow us the opportunity to present our opinion on this proposal.

  I will start by saying I am not in favour of this proposal to have the AB government be in sole control over such far reaching decisions for not only Albertans but Canadians and North Americans on the whole.

  For my first part I will point out the already blurred lines between the current UCP Government and the oil industry. Our premier was in fact an oil lobbyist arguing for the tax payers of Alberta to pay for the clean up of wells that have had all the profits extracted already and the oil companies at this point long gone to pay for the clean up. Just on that alone Danielle Smith and the UCP cannot be trusted to look after our best interests when it may clash with oil company profits. A third party review is warranted for sure.

  A second point to make is that the current UCP government will only listen to voices that agree with their point of view which has been made alarmingly clear during the first session of our 2025 Legislature with the precedent setting use of the not withstanding clause 4 separate times to push though unpopular bills. This lack of listening continues with the unpopular pushing ahead of our provincial police force that no one wants. A third party review of what they approve is warranted again for this.

  For my last point on this is that decisions unilaterally made in Alberta will affect everyone in Canada and North America as well. Allowing a regulating hating pro oil patch expansion at all costs is akin to letting the fox decide the entrance/exit rules for the henhouse.

  My only hope is that you take into account my suggestions here as well as any other that are presented, both for and against.

  
  

  Thanks,

  
  

  Jason