Bill 45 amends Alberta’s Critical Infrastructure Defence Act by widening the statutory definition of “essential infrastructure.” It adds all land within 2 kilometres of the Alberta–U.S. border, specific oil and gas facilities identified through the provincial TIER regulation, and the Alberta head or principal office of the entities responsible for those facilities.
The Act also inserts a new clause stating that the statute “binds the Government of Canada.” Taken together, the changes expand the set of places and persons protected by the Act’s existing offence provisions, tie that scope directly to a technical environmental regulation (AR 133/2019), and create potential federal–provincial and civil‑liberties tensions for enforcement and compliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the Act’s definition of “essential infrastructure” to include a geographic band along the U.S. border and to capture facilities defined in the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation where certain extraction, processing or refining activities occur and records are kept. It also treats an Alberta head or principal office of the responsible entity as essential infrastructure and adds an express clause that the Act binds the Government of Canada.
Who It Affects
Operators and owners of oil, bitumen and natural gas facilities subject to Alberta’s TIER regime; corporate head offices located in Alberta; law enforcement and provincial regulators who enforce the Act; protesters and communities located within the new 2‑km border zone, including Indigenous rights‑holders.
Why It Matters
By widening what counts as essential infrastructure, the bill expands the reach of the Act’s existing prohibitions on interfering with protected infrastructure without changing the offence text. Linking protected status to the TIER definition makes protection contingent on an independent regulatory definition that can change over time. The explicit binding of the federal government raises novel interjurisdictional and enforcement questions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 45 does not create new offences; it changes which places and actors are treated as “essential infrastructure” under Alberta’s existing Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. First, it adds a geographic strip — every parcel of land in Alberta that lies within 2 kilometres of the international border with the United States — to the statutory list of protected infrastructure.
Anything within that band now falls into the Act’s coverage for the purpose of the Act’s enforcement provisions.
Second, the bill reaches deeper into the energy sector by importing the term “facility” from the province’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (AR 133/2019). It then specifies a set of activities — extracting, processing or producing bitumen or crude oil; upgrading or refining bitumen; extracting or processing natural gas or condensates; and compressing natural gas for processing — and says a facility is captured if at least one of those activities occurs there and if production and specified gas‑emissions records for the facility are retained.
That creates a two‑part trigger: link to the TIER regulatory label and an operational/recordkeeping condition.Third, the bill treats the head or principal office, in Alberta, of a person responsible for a captured facility as essential infrastructure. In effect, the statute follows the line of corporate responsibility from the site itself to a central Alberta office, increasing the number of physical locations that can be protected under the Act.
Finally, the bill adds a short standalone provision declaring that the Act “binds the Government of Canada,” explicitly removing a statutory shield for the federal Crown within the text of the provincial statute.Practically, these changes broaden the set of locations subject to the Act’s penalties for interference, making more sites and offices potential targets for criminal enforcement. Because the bill cross‑references an environmental regulation for its definition of “facility,” the list of protected energy sites will move if that regulation changes.
The clause binding the federal government does not settle constitutional questions about provincial power over federal undertakings; it merely makes the provincial Parliament’s intent explicit and flags likely legal disputes about enforceability and immunity.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds all Alberta land within 2 kilometres of the United States border to the Act’s list of protected infrastructure, creating a continuous protected band along the international boundary.
It captures TIER‑defined “facilities” where at least one enumerated activity occurs: extracting/processing/producing bitumen, upgrading or refining bitumen, extracting/processing/producing crude oil, extracting/processing natural gas or condensates, and compressing natural gas for further processing.
A facility is only captured if production and specified gas‑emissions records for that facility are retained there, making recordkeeping part of the statutory trigger for protection.
The bill extends protection to the head or principal office in Alberta of any person responsible for a captured facility, linking site protection to corporate offices within the province.
The Act is amended to state explicitly that it “binds the Government of Canada,” putting the provincial legislature’s intent on the record and inviting jurisdictional scrutiny.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Geographic expansion: 2‑km border band
This amendment inserts a new subclause that declares “all land in Alberta within 2 km of the border with the United States of America” to be essential infrastructure. Mechanically, that means any parcel in the delineated band becomes subject to the Act’s protection regime. The practical implications include an expanded enforcement footprint along the border and potential effects on private landowners, cross‑border access points, and events or demonstrations that occur near the international boundary.
Energy‑facility trigger tied to the TIER regulation
This provision imports the regulatory concept of a “facility” from the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (AR 133/2019) and then enumerates the activities that qualify a facility for protection. It couples that activity list with a records condition: the facility must retain production and specified gas‑emissions records. The cross‑reference makes the Act’s scope dependent on a technical environmental regulation; any changes to AR 133/2019 (or its interpretation) will alter which installations the Act protects.
Head or principal office in Alberta included
This short insertion treats the Alberta head or principal office of a person responsible for a captured facility as essential infrastructure. The change extends protected status away from the physical production site to corporate offices, broadening who can be targeted by the Act’s enforcement tools and increasing business locations that might face restrictions or policing.
Expressly binding the Government of Canada
The Act now contains a standalone clause stating that it ‘binds the Government of Canada.’ That is a declarative step: the provincial legislature removes any textual immunity for the federal Crown. It does not, however, resolve the constitutional questions about whether a province may validly subject federal undertakings or functions to provincial statutes; those questions remain for courts if enforcement against federal actors is attempted.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Energy producers and large facility operators — They gain clearer statutory protection for extraction, processing, upgrading and compression sites that fall within the TIER definition, reducing the risk of disruptive protest or interference that could halt operations.
- Pipeline and transmission operators — The border‑zone expansion and facility additions make more corridor lands and related infrastructure eligible for the Act’s enforcement measures, which companies can use to justify rapid police intervention to protect operations.
- Corporate offices headquartered in Alberta — By naming head or principal offices as protected, the bill shields corporate decision‑centres and data/records locations tied to energy facilities, which investors and boards will view as a legal reinforcement of asset security.
- Provincial enforcement agencies and municipalities near the border — The statute gives local authorities a clearer legal basis to prioritize protection of border lands and certain energy assets, aligning provincial law with local public‑safety objectives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Protesters, civil‑society organizers and Indigenous participants — The broader definition increases the number of locations where protest activity could be subject to criminal sanction, raising the risk of arrests and injunctions near borders and facilities.
- Smaller producers and midstream companies — Facilities that become protected may face higher compliance burdens, altered access rules and greater law‑enforcement presence; smaller operators typically absorb these costs less easily.
- Landowners in the 2‑km border strip — Private land within the new band could become subject to heightened enforcement and restrictions, creating uncertainty about permissible uses and events on those parcels.
- Provincial law‑enforcement and courts — Expanding the Act’s geographic and substantive scope likely increases demands on police and the justice system to enforce and litigate the new boundaries and to adjudicate disputes, many of which may be legally novel.
- Federal government legal and operational interests — If Alberta attempts to apply the statute to federal works or personnel, the Government of Canada may face legal exposure and will likely have to mount court defences, creating litigation costs and intergovernmental strain.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill embodies a classic trade‑off: the provincial government seeks to secure economically critical infrastructure by widening the Act’s reach, but doing so collides with two legitimate constraints — constitutional limits on provincial power over federal undertakings and fundamental democratic freedoms (assembly and protest) that operate on private and public land; protecting infrastructure may require limiting activity that democratic law also protects, and the statute leaves those conflict points for courts and enforcement discretion to reconcile.
The bill is efficient at checkbox expansion: it widens the set of protected sites without revising the underlying offence structure. That efficiency is also its main implementation risk.
By cross‑referencing the TIER regulation, the statute delegates a critical definitional choice to a separate regulatory regime; the practical set of protected facilities will therefore shift with regulatory updates or administrative interpretation. Companies and regulators will need to track two instruments — the Act and AR 133/2019 — to know what the Act protects.
The addition of the 2‑km border band and the inclusion of corporate head offices create fence‑line enforcement and private‑land complications. The statutory text does not carve out standard usages for private landowners or specify enforcement protocols for events or assemblies that occur in the band; those gaps increase the likelihood of contested police actions and injunctive litigation.
Likewise, the clause purporting to bind the Government of Canada is declarative but constitutionally contestable: provinces cannot straightforwardly regulate federal undertakings, and courts will need to resolve whether and how provincial protections apply to federal actors or federally regulated facilities.
Finally, the record‑retention trigger is a practical fulcrum. Making protection contingent on the presence of “production and specified gas emissions records” ties the Act to a compliance posture — facilities that fail to retain records risk a change in legal status.
That raises evidentiary and privacy questions (what records are “specified,” who inspects them, and how they may be used in prosecutions) which the bill does not address and which will fall to regulation, litigation or enforcement policy to resolve.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.