StayOrGoAB
GitHub
/ Claims and evidence

Who would approve pipelines, mines, major projects, and environmental assessments — and would approvals actually get faster?

Key claims used in this dossier, paired with the sources that support them. Claim status and risk labels come from the public claim ledger for this topic.

001
Current sources show a layered approval system: federal impact assessment and Canada Energy Regulator roles, Alberta environmental assessment and energy regulation, Indigenous consultation, fisheries and species-at-risk law, and market/export dependencies for some projects.source supportedhigh risk
Sources:
003
The Supreme Court of Canada's 2023 Impact Assessment Act reference supports a narrower conclusion: federal assessment power has constitutional limits, but it does not eliminate every federal role over major projects.source supportedmedium risk
Sources:
004
The strongest pro-independence case is that Alberta could use its existing assessment and AER systems to build a more integrated single-window process for Alberta-controlled projects, if it also legislated continuity, consultation, environmental safeguards, appeals, staffing, and recognition arrangements.inferencemedium risk
Sources:
005
The strongest anti-independence / pro-federation caution is that faster Alberta paperwork would not by itself resolve Indigenous consultation, federal or successor environmental protections, interprovincial or international pipeline recognition, courts, financing, or market/export constraints.inferencehigh risk
Sources:
006
This topic remains high uncertainty: current sources identify today's laws, regulators, and constraints, but they do not provide a signed independence transition framework for assessments, consultation, environmental enforcement, CER-to-successor pipeline jurisdiction, export routes, or market recognition.source supportedhigh risk
Sources: