Critical Infrastructure Defence Amendment Act, 2025

Summary#

This bill changes Alberta’s Critical Infrastructure Defence Act (2020). It expands what counts as “essential infrastructure” and says the law also applies to the Government of Canada. The goal is to add more places where blocking, damaging, or interfering can lead to higher penalties than regular trespassing laws.

Key changes:

• Adds all land in Alberta within 2 km of the United States border to the list of essential infrastructure.
• Adds large oil and gas sites that report emissions under Alberta’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) rules (for bitumen, crude oil, natural gas, and gas compression).
• Adds the Alberta head or main office of companies responsible for those energy facilities.
• States that the Act binds (applies to) the Government of Canada.
• Does not change the penalties or offences already set in the 2020 Act; it broadens where those rules apply.

What it means for you#

• Residents and landowners near the U.S. border

  • A wide strip of land (2 km deep along the entire border) is now covered by the Act.
  • Interfering with roads, crossings, or operations in this zone can bring higher fines and possible jail under the Critical Infrastructure law, not just regular trespass rules.
  • Normal, lawful use of your own property is not affected, but activities that block or disrupt operations can trigger the Act.

• Protesters and advocacy groups

  • More places are now “off-limits” for blockades or disruptions, including:
    • The 2 km border zone.
    • Large oil and gas facilities (oil sands, refineries/upgraders, gas plants, and gas compression sites) covered by TIER rules.
    • The Alberta head offices of companies that run those facilities.
  • Protests that block access, operations, or safety at these sites can face higher penalties than general protest or trespass laws.

• Energy workers and companies

  • Your facilities covered by TIER that handle bitumen, crude oil, natural gas, or gas compression are explicitly protected under the Act.
  • Your Alberta head office is also covered, which may change how you plan for security and access during demonstrations.

• Federal employees and agencies operating in Alberta

  • The bill says the law applies to the Government of Canada. Federal staff and contractors in Alberta must follow the same rules for essential infrastructure areas.

• General public

  • Police may act more quickly to clear disruptions at these added locations.
  • Routine travel, shopping, or commuting is not targeted, but blocking or interfering with operations at covered sites can bring tougher penalties.

Expenses#

Estimated annual cost: No publicly available information.

• The bill does not create new programs. It expands the locations covered by existing enforcement.
• Any costs would likely relate to policing and enforcement, but no estimates are provided.

Proponents' View#

• Protects key corridors and services: The 2 km border zone helps prevent blockades that can choke trade, supply chains, and travel.
• Safeguards energy sites: Oil sands, refineries, and gas facilities are vital to Alberta’s economy and power supply; they deserve stronger protection.
• Clarifies office protections: Including company head offices closes a gap where disruptions could be planned or staged.
• Consistent rules for all: Applying the Act to the federal government avoids confusion over who must follow it.
• Deterrence: Higher penalties and clear lines are meant to discourage dangerous blockades and trespass before harm occurs.

Opponents' View#

• Too broad a zone: Covering “all land” within 2 km of the border could sweep in farms, towns, and public spaces, risking overreach.
• Civil liberties concerns: Peaceful protests near borders, energy facilities, or corporate offices could face harsh penalties, chilling free expression and assembly.
• Ambiguity and enforcement risk: The broad definition may create confusion about what counts as “interference,” leading to uneven enforcement.
• Federal–provincial tension: Saying the law binds the Government of Canada may spark jurisdiction disputes and legal challenges.
• Unclear need and cost: Critics may question whether existing laws already cover serious disruptions and worry about added policing and court burdens.