Alberta’s Draft Co-operation Agreement On Environmental And Impact Assessment: What It Means For Major Project Development And More

On March 6, 2026, a draft Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Alberta and Canada (Alberta’s Draft Agreement)¹ was released to create a “one project, one review” approach to major infrastructure projects in the province.²

Alberta’s Draft Agreement was created in response to the recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta.³ Alberta’s Draft Agreement is one of four goals Canada and Alberta aimed to achieve by April 1, 2026, pursuant to the MOU.⁴

Alberta’s Draft Agreement represents a concerted effort by Canada and Alberta to proactively create a regulatory mechanism to avoid the lengthy, expensive and disruptive constitutional litigation that has plagued Canada’s energy industry in recent decades.

Alberta’s Draft Agreement is one of many between Canada and various provinces (collectively, the Provincial Agreements). Although all the Provincial Agreements aim to achieve the “one project, one review” approach by coordinating and streamlining provincial and federal processes, Alberta’s Draft Agreement differs by including a commitment by Canada to complete any required impact assessment within a maximum of two years from receipt of the initial project description. Alberta’s Draft Agreement also does not include provisions allowing substitution of a provincial review process for a federal review process, or vice versa. Instead, Alberta’s Draft Agreement contemplates a harmonized process in which Alberta and federal regulators develop a single assessment process that meets the legislative requirements of both jurisdictions.

With reference to Alberta’s Draft Agreement, on March 23, 2026, Alberta announced it would bring forward new provincial legislation to set a 120-day approval timeline for major projects.

Potential impacts of Alberta’s Draft Agreement

Alberta’s Draft Agreement establishes a framework that allows both Canada and Alberta to work together in the interim to reduce duplication, improve regulatory certainty and facilitate major project development by issuing federal assessment decisions within a maximum of two years. While Alberta’s ongoing action challenging the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is explicitly unaffected by Alberta’s Draft Agreement (10(2)), proponents of Alberta’s Draft Agreement expect that it will help reduce the constitutional disputes which have characterized Alberta’s energy industry in recent years.

Alberta’s Draft Agreement emphasizes early coordination between federal and provincial regulators to identify potential overlap (2). Deciding whether Canada’s processes, Alberta’s processes or a harmonized process applies depends on which jurisdiction the major project falls under:

• Canada: Where projects primarily fall within federal jurisdiction, Canada commits to integrating Alberta’s requirements into the federal process where appropriate (1(2)).
• Alberta: Where projects primarily fall within Alberta’s jurisdiction, Alberta’s processes will be relied upon although Canada will continue to offer its resources in support (3).⁵
• Both Canada and Alberta: In the event both federal and provincial assessments may apply to proposed projects, Alberta’s Draft Agreement does not include any provisions to substitute a provincial review process for a federal review process, or vice versa. Instead, Alberta’s Draft Agreement contemplates a harmonized process in which Alberta and federal regulators shall develop a single assessment process that would meet the legislative requirements of both jurisdictions (4(1)).

Alberta’s Draft Agreement does not set out a specific process for determining whether a major project is primarily within Canada’s jurisdiction, Alberta’s jurisdiction or both.

Another key component of Alberta’s Draft Agreement is coordination of Indigenous consultation and participation. When projects fall primarily within provincial jurisdiction, Canada acknowledges Alberta’s role in consulting with Indigenous Peoples under provincial consultation policies (7(1)). Alberta’s Draft Agreement preserves the legal positions of both governments. It explicitly states that neither party cedes jurisdiction by entering the arrangement (10(1)), and as stated above, Alberta’s Draft Agreement does not affect Alberta’s ongoing action challenging the constitutionality of the IAA (10(2)).

By prioritizing coordination and administrative efficiency, Alberta’s Draft Agreement offers a framework for reducing regulatory duplication and uncertainty. For governments and project proponents alike, Alberta’s Draft Agreement has the potential to put us on a pragmatic pathway toward more predictable and efficient environmental assessments that will hopefully lead to more investment and development in Alberta.

How does Alberta’s Draft Agreement compare to similar agreements between Canada and other provinces?

Canada has signed similar agreements with other provinces in recent years. British Columbia was the first province to do so when it signed a co-operation agreement with Canada in 2019.⁶ Since then, Ontario⁷ and New Brunswick⁸ have signed co-operation agreements with Canada while Manitoba,⁹ Prince Edward Island¹⁰ and Nova Scotia¹¹ have developed draft co-operation agreements with Canada aimed at eliminating duplicative federal and provincial regulatory assessments and achieving the goal of “one project, one review” for major projects.

Alberta’s Draft Agreement significantly differs from other Provincial Agreements in its commitment that “[a]ny impact assessment determined to be required under [Alberta’s Draft Agreement] will be completed within a maximum of two years from receipt of the initial project description” (emphasis added) (5(1)).¹² None of the other Provincial Agreements include this commitment by Canada to complete requisite impact assessments within a maximum of two years.¹³

Further, as discussed above, in the event both federal and provincial assessments apply, Alberta’s Draft Agreement does not include any provisions to substitute a provincial review process for a federal review process, or vice versa. Instead, Alberta’s Draft Agreement contemplates a harmonized process in which Alberta and federal regulators are to develop a single assessment process that would meet the legislative requirements of both jurisdictions (4(1)). Each of the other Provincial Agreements (except for Alberta and Nova Scotia) contain provisions allowing the respective provinces to request to substitute the federal assessment for the province’s process where a project is subject to both provincial and federal review processes.

Alberta’s commitment to a 120-day approval timeline

On March 23, 2026, Alberta announced that it will bring forward legislation to impose a 120-day approval timeline for major projects. The announcement supports Alberta’s stated goals of “doubling oil and gas production by 2035 and increasing market access.”¹⁴ In the announcement, Alberta stated that it intends to achieve the 120-day approval timeline for major projects by improving coordination between government and regulatory bodies while continuing to prioritize Indigenous consultation and environmental protections.

Alberta’s commitment to a 120-day approval timeline is ambitious, given that major projects in Alberta have typically required years to receive approvals in the past.

On April 14, 2026, Bill 30 was introduced into the Alberta Legislature. Titled the Expedited 120-Day Approvals Act, the legislation allows proponents of projects expected to cost a minimum of CA$250 million to apply for a designation requiring decisions on all approvals required for a project to be made within 120 business days of its designation. Unlike the Building Canada Act, this designation does not require all requisite approvals to be issued within 120 business days, only that a decision be made which could approve or deny the project. Further, it is not clear whether the legislation applies to expedite environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation requirements or whether the legislation presumes that designations will only be granted for projects that have either been completed or are far enough along in these processes that they can be completed within the 120-day period if they are to be approved. Environmental assessment and Indigenous consultation are the major drivers of regulatory delay. If the legislation does not apply to expedite these processes, major projects can still be expected to take years to get their approvals.

Footnotes

1. Government of Canada, “Draft Co-Operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Alberta and Canada” (6 March 2026), online. ↩

2. Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, Canada and Alberta reach agreement-in-principle to accelerate the construction of major projects in Alberta, (Ottawa, Ontario: 6 March 2026), online. ↩

3. Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding, (Calgary, Alberta: 27 November 2025), online [MOU]. ↩

4. The other three goals include a carbon equivalency agreement, a methane equivalency agreement, and a tri-lateral memorandum of understanding with Alberta, Canada and the Pathways Alliance oil sands companies. ↩

5. Section 16(1) of the IAA gives the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) the discretion to “decide whether an impact assessment of the designated project is required.” [Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 16(1)]. The IAA effectively allows Canada to defer to Alberta’s processes in place of Canada’s processes should the IAAC decide not to conduct an impact assessment. ↩

6. Government of Canada, “Impact Assessment Cooperation Agreement Between Canada and British Columbia” (5 September 2019), online. ↩

7. Government of Canada, “Co-operation Agreement between Ontario and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment” (18 December 2025), online. ↩

8. Government of Canada, “Co-operation Agreement between New Brunswick and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment” (16 December 2025), online. ↩

9. Government of Canada, “Draft Co-operation Agreement between Manitoba and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment” (24 November 2025), online. ↩

10. Government of Canada, “Draft Co-operation Agreement between Prince Edward Island and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment” (3 November 2025), online. ↩

11. Government of Canada, “Draft Co-operation Agreement between Nova Scotia and Canada” (13 February 2026), online. ↩

12. Government of Canada, “Draft Co-Operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Alberta and Canada” (6 March 2026), s 5(1), online. ↩

13. Please note that both the Ontario agreement and New Brunswick agreement reference the two-year timeline in their respective recitals, but neither agreement explicitly incorporates the commitment to meet the two-year timeline into the body of the agreements. ↩

14. Government of Alberta, “Alberta to streamline major project approvals” (23 March 2026), online. ↩

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.