Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada

Provide a comment

• The True Intent and Responsibilities to Treaty Must Be Respected

  by Mitch Wincentaylo, Treaty Partner Consulting & Advising, about 1 month ago
  I urge the federal government to reconsider this MoU with the Province of Alberta. This proposed agreement, if approved, will have long-lasting and negative impacts to the environment and long-term human health. The Federal Government of Canada does NOT have a right to offload its responsibilities to Treaty, as it is an administrator of the Crown.

  
  

  The Government of Alberta does not have strict environmental regulations or monitoring, and has continually proven that it not only dismisses scientific evidence from its own institutions, but that it disregards human health and does not value human life, with case examples shown through... Continue reading

  I urge the federal government to reconsider this MoU with the Province of Alberta. This proposed agreement, if approved, will have long-lasting and negative impacts to the environment and long-term human health. The Federal Government of Canada does NOT have a right to offload its responsibilities to Treaty, as it is an administrator of the Crown.

  
  

  The Government of Alberta does not have strict environmental regulations or monitoring, and has continually proven that it not only dismisses scientific evidence from its own institutions, but that it disregards human health and does not value human life, with case examples shown through the lack of monitoring, consultation, human and environmental health studies (from communities downstream of the oilsands) such as Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Mikisew Cree Nation and others (as an example).

  This proposed agreement will further weaken environmental regulation within Alberta, and it is not right to allow a province this much control over decisions impacting natural resources and the long-term health of communities.

  Please, Prime Minister Carney - please reconsider this proposal. Please act and lead with integrity, respect and do the right thing for Indigenous Peoples and us Canadians. Do your due-diligence - meet with the Chiefs and Elders of Treaty Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Ten. Have them at the table to discuss this, and ensure that any decisions made regarding impact assessments include them as equal members of leadership. Please act in good faith, and please uphold your responsibility as a partner through Treaty, and as a leader for us Canadians.

  As a Canadian, an ally to Treaty Six, and sadly, an Albertan - please reconsider this agreement. Danielle Smith and the UCP are not to be trusted, and do not act in the best interests of us. There is more at stake here, please think of the long-term effects and implications this will cause. This is not a precedent you want to set.

• Abdicating responsibility to an irresponsible regulator.

  by Jon Eaton, about 1 month ago
  I cannot believe what I’m seeing.

  
  The Federal Government has already been failing Canadians when it comes to protecting Species at Risk, water and air quality, and the proposed solution is to pass these responsibilities on to a totally industry captured regulator, the AER and a province where the Minister of Environment is a cheerleader for unsustainable and rampant development.

  
  I won’t bother to detail the numerous failures of the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Province of Alberta when it comes to both protecting the environment and looking out for the Public Interest, as these are readily available for anyone... Continue reading

  I cannot believe what I’m seeing.

  
  The Federal Government has already been failing Canadians when it comes to protecting Species at Risk, water and air quality, and the proposed solution is to pass these responsibilities on to a totally industry captured regulator, the AER and a province where the Minister of Environment is a cheerleader for unsustainable and rampant development.

  
  I won’t bother to detail the numerous failures of the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Province of Alberta when it comes to both protecting the environment and looking out for the Public Interest, as these are readily available for anyone with even a passing interest and a cell phone. The purpose of my comment is to express my extreme disappointment with the Federal Government for putting forward this outrageous plan and for the complete abdication of their important roles and responsibility in protecting our environment.

  
  In case it isn’t yet clear enough let me stated that I am strongly opposed to any plan to hand over additional environmental responsibilities to the Province of Alberta, its corrupt and industry captured agencies, or it’s departments.

  Please do not make this horrific mistake!

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

• Federal Oversight Required

  by B. Dickinson, about 1 month ago

  I cannot support this draft agreement. To put it bluntly, the UCP Government of Alberta cannot be trusted to conduct credible environmental and impact assessments without federal oversight.

  
  

  Since it came to power, the UCP government has favoured resource development, private enterprise and short-term profit over long-term environmental concerns. The Alberta Energy Regulator supports the ideology of the provincial government and the interests of business and industry. This is particularly evident in the case of Grassy Mountain. The Provincial-Federal Joint Review Panel rejected the original Grassy Mountain project as "not in the public interest" largely because of risks to water... Continue reading

  I cannot support this draft agreement. To put it bluntly, the UCP Government of Alberta cannot be trusted to conduct credible environmental and impact assessments without federal oversight.

  
  

  Since it came to power, the UCP government has favoured resource development, private enterprise and short-term profit over long-term environmental concerns. The Alberta Energy Regulator supports the ideology of the provincial government and the interests of business and industry. This is particularly evident in the case of Grassy Mountain. The Provincial-Federal Joint Review Panel rejected the original Grassy Mountain project as "not in the public interest" largely because of risks to water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Those risks are still present, but Northback is attempting to reopen the Grassy Mountain coal mine with the support of the AER. This is egregious behaviour given the opposition of the majority of Albertans to coal mining on the Eastern Slopes and to Grassy Mountain in particular.

  The UCP government's All-Seasons Resort Act is another example of the little value this government places on environmental integrity and environmental assessment. The Act "fast tracks" approvals for resort projects on public lands. Recently three All-Seasons Resorts were announced: Castle Mountain, Fortress Mountain and Nakiska. All three are located within provincial parks. The approval process is completely backwards. Areas are first designated, then plans are developed and finally some form of "consultation" takes place.

  To reiterate: I am deeply concerned about the negative consequences of allowing the Government of Alberta to be solely responsible for environmental and impact assessments in Alberta.

  
  

• From Calgarian Carolyn Fisher: DO NOT share Canadian Environment Reviews with the corrupt Alberta Environmental Regulator and Alberta UCP Government

  by Carolyn Fisher, about 1 month ago

  I grew up on a farm in southern Alberta. On our farm, the well water was not safe to drink. So we had to haul every drop of water that we ever used in the house from town, 9 miles away.

  
  

  With that in mind, I have been enraged to see the UCP Alberta government and their industry-captured toady, the Alberta Energy Regulator, weasel and maneuver in their efforts to bring open pit coal mining to the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies.

  
  

  As an Albertan, I was horrified to learn about the recent draft Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and... Continue reading

  I grew up on a farm in southern Alberta. On our farm, the well water was not safe to drink. So we had to haul every drop of water that we ever used in the house from town, 9 miles away.

  
  

  With that in mind, I have been enraged to see the UCP Alberta government and their industry-captured toady, the Alberta Energy Regulator, weasel and maneuver in their efforts to bring open pit coal mining to the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies.

  
  

  As an Albertan, I was horrified to learn about the recent draft Co-operation Agreement between Alberta and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  Why would the federal government abdicate its responsibility to regulate projects that put Alberta's landscapes, watersheds, flora, fauna, and people at risk – to the untrustworthy Alberta Energy Regulator?

  The Alberta UCP government - and the controversial Alberta Energy Regulator - have shown over and over again that they prize industry and extraction, especially digging, drilling, and chopping, at the cost of protecting Alberta's watersheds and environment.

  The Alberta Energy Regulator is known by Albertans to be a captured regulator that fails to do its job of holding industry to account and protecting environmental standards.

  Examples:

  Northback Coal's Grassy Mountain coal mining project on the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Despite being rejected as not in Alberta's interest in 2021 by the Federal and Provincial Joint Panel, the UCP Alberta Government instructed the AER to call the supposedly terminated Grassy Mountain coal project "Advanced" so that it could be exempted from the 2025 moratorium on further coal development - and therefore continue.

  Coal mining releases selenium and other toxins into watersheds, killing at-risk native fish and contaminating the water downstream for humans - for generations. There is no technology that will clean up the selenium in a watershed to safe levels. Just ask Teck, who spent billions trying to remove selenium from the Elk River in BC. Or ask Fernie and Sparwood, who are having trouble finding suitable water wells, since selenium from coal mining appears to have leached the groundwater.

  Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Rob Morgan cancelled a planned public hearing for the Valory Resources Summit coal mine at the request of the coal company CEO. Huh? How does that happen for public engagement on this proposed coal mine near Grande Cache?

  The supposed-to-be impartial Alberta Energy Regulator privately met with Northback coal before reversal of the moratorium on coal mining in 2025.

  What a flagrant conflict of interest. Do you really want this kind of thing to continue?

  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.

  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

  Don't let the scandal-plagued Alberta Energy Regulator and the Alberta UCP government get away with allowing industry to make up industry regulations without oversight from Albertans. 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.

  I want our Alberta watersheds, critical habitats, flora, fauna, and people to be protected from unregulated industry. The AER is a failure. I've been doing my part by collecting signatures for Corb Lund's petition to stop coal mining on the eastern slopes of Alberta.

  Now you do YOUR part. Don't allow the Alberta UCP government and the AER to wreck Alberta for the benefit of industry.

  
  

  Thank you,

  Carolyn Fisher

  Calgary, Alberta

• In opposition

  by Nicole, about 1 month ago
  To whom it may concern, I would like to shed light and oppose the decision to proposed Impact Assessment Co op Agreement between Alberta and Canada (MoU to consolidate and fast track energy products).

  As a student of environmental studies, I know the impacts this decision may bring forth. It will weaken the impact assessment. Also interfering with the commitment to honour treaty rights, the federal government an it simply just wipe it's hands and expect to dump these responsibilities unto the provincial government. I would like to utilize my voice and speak out in opposition of this as there... Continue reading

  To whom it may concern, I would like to shed light and oppose the decision to proposed Impact Assessment Co op Agreement between Alberta and Canada (MoU to consolidate and fast track energy products).

  As a student of environmental studies, I know the impacts this decision may bring forth. It will weaken the impact assessment. Also interfering with the commitment to honour treaty rights, the federal government an it simply just wipe it's hands and expect to dump these responsibilities unto the provincial government. I would like to utilize my voice and speak out in opposition of this as there is so many risks and will impact the scope of our futures.

  
  

  
  

  
  

• Improving Clarity and Ensuring Credibility

  by NA, about 1 month ago

  Clarity

  The cooperation Agreement will be read my many who are not constitutional scholars. For communications purposes it should be clear on the constitutional underpinnings requiring provincial governments and Canada to work together on approving major projects and avoiding unacceptable environmental harm.

  On clarity, the draft Agreement falls short. It lays out areas of Alberta’s jurisdiction but not areas under the jurisdiction of Canada and thus could be interpreted as accepting that only Alberta has relevant areas of jurisdiction. Thus, it does not explain the need for Alberta and Canada to work together.

  It should clearly spell out the relevant... Continue reading

  Clarity

  The cooperation Agreement will be read my many who are not constitutional scholars. For communications purposes it should be clear on the constitutional underpinnings requiring provincial governments and Canada to work together on approving major projects and avoiding unacceptable environmental harm.

  On clarity, the draft Agreement falls short. It lays out areas of Alberta’s jurisdiction but not areas under the jurisdiction of Canada and thus could be interpreted as accepting that only Alberta has relevant areas of jurisdiction. Thus, it does not explain the need for Alberta and Canada to work together.

  It should clearly spell out the relevant jurisdictional provisions for each of Alberta and Canada for approvals of many large projects, e.g., provinces approve the development of non-renewable resources and Canada regulates trade and commerce, seacoasts and inland fisheries and undertakings connecting provinces with other provinces.

  It is the interactions between these jurisdictional responsibilities that requires governments to work together.

  It should clearly spell out that environmental protection is not mentioned in the Constitution Act but the provisions for ensuring environment protection are split between Alberta and Canada, for example with provinces protecting lands and Canada protecting fisheries.

  Specifically, the second WHEREAS paragraph should cite the constitution text for areas of provincial jurisdiction. It should be accompanied by a sister paragraph with relevant areas of Canada’s jurisdictions. Both should cite the Constitution Act verbatim: Exact words matter.

  Specifically, the fourth WHEREAS paragraph should explain that responsibility for "the environment" is not included in the Constitution Act but some elements of that protection are the responsibility of each level of government, for example provinces are responsible for lands and Canada is responsible for fisheries and interprovincial undertakings. This means that it is appropriate that both levels of government work together to protect the environment.

  Adding this clarity will enhance the quality of debate going forward.

  Credibility

  The credibility of the assessment process and conclusions will be diminished if some credible science is not included in the assessment process. The Agreement should state that the best science and knowledge from Canada, Alberta and Indigenous Peoples will be used during the assessment and when defining any conditions.

  
  

  
  

  
  

• Concerned about Draft Co-operation Agreement - negative effects on wildlife, land, water, and Indigenous Peoples

  by Dr Lucy Poley, about 1 month ago

  To whom it may concern,

  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... Continue reading

  To whom it may concern,

  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.

  Sincerely,

  Lucy Poley, PhD Geography

• Alberta Environment is part of Canada's Environment

  by John Andreasen, about 1 month ago
  Just at a time when the Alberta government is abandoning the protection of the environment to the greed of industry, we need the Federal government to play their very important and critical role in protection of the environment. Every single province requires the balance of federal oversight if we are to maintain consistent and meaningful protections across the whole of the country. Please, Federal government, do not turn away from your responsibilities of permitting, regulating and monitoring our environment.

  Just at a time when the Alberta government is abandoning the protection of the environment to the greed of industry, we need the Federal government to play their very important and critical role in protection of the environment. Every single province requires the balance of federal oversight if we are to maintain consistent and meaningful protections across the whole of the country. Please, Federal government, do not turn away from your responsibilities of permitting, regulating and monitoring our environment.

• Fox in the Henhouse

  by Bethe Andreasen, about 1 month ago
  I want to appeal to the Federal Government to continue their important role in environmental assessment, permitting, monitoring and regulation. We have a semblance of all of those in Alberta but the current situation with coal mining in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies makes it abundantly clear that regulations are not being followed or enforced. At this particularly critical time for our environment, please do not abandon our province to its own devices.

  I want to appeal to the Federal Government to continue their important role in environmental assessment, permitting, monitoring and regulation. We have a semblance of all of those in Alberta but the current situation with coal mining in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies makes it abundantly clear that regulations are not being followed or enforced. At this particularly critical time for our environment, please do not abandon our province to its own devices.

• Alberta Government and the Alberta Energy Regulator cannot be trusted

  by Alistair Des Moulins, about 1 month ago

  The Environmental Assessment process should be done by a body that is independent of business and environmental interests that can be trusted to evaluate the pros and cons of a project based on scientific and other evidence provided to it.

  The Alberta Government (AG) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) have shown many times over many years that they are not independent of business and in the last 5 years it seems that AER often takes instructions from the provincial government. I believe the AER now has a paid government employee on the board.

  The Oldman Dam was approved despite... Continue reading

  The Environmental Assessment process should be done by a body that is independent of business and environmental interests that can be trusted to evaluate the pros and cons of a project based on scientific and other evidence provided to it.

  The Alberta Government (AG) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) have shown many times over many years that they are not independent of business and in the last 5 years it seems that AER often takes instructions from the provincial government. I believe the AER now has a paid government employee on the board.

  The Oldman Dam was approved despite overwhelming scientific evidence saying it was a bad idea.

  Alberta has billions of dollars in environmental liability from Orphan Oil and Gas wells due to AER’s lack of oversight on companies who fail to clean up after the wells are non producing. While regulations exist they are not enforced - this applies even if conditions are applied for a project approval.

  In the last year or so the AER cancelled a public hearing for a coal mine west of Edmonton after a phone call from the proponents CEO.

  The Minister of Energy directed the AER to consider Northback’s Grassy Mountain coal proposal to be an “Advanced Project” which exempted it from new regulations and despite a previous applying having been rejected as “not in the public interest” by a Joint Federal Provincial Review panel in 2021. So the regulator is not independent of the whim and ideology of the provincial government.

  Regarding species at risk: AG cannot be trusted to do assessments that take species’ needs into consideration. This is evident in the Upper Smoky sub regional plan where the needs of the caribou have been ignored to allow almost all of the caribou habitat to be clearcut. With AG directing AER it does not bode well for these species in environmental assessment processes.

  In general it seems in the last 5 years that AG/AER only consider science if it happens to agree with their ideology and desired outcome for a project.

  So I feel it would be a disservice to Albertans of all species if the AG/AER was allowed to be the sole entity doing environmental assessments of projects that currently come under Federal Jurisdiction.