The All-Season Resorts Act and amendments proposed by Bill 10: Red Tape Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2)
The All-Season Resorts Act (ASRA) was proclaimed into law in late 2024, ostensibly to streamline the process for approval of all-season resorts throughout the province. The government has indicated that the ASRA is meant to “strengthen investor confidence and grow Alberta’s tourism sector” by “improving regulatory clarity, offering tailored support to the resort development industry, providing focused attentions that enhances Alberta’s competitive advantage, [and] making the regulatory system more efficient”.[1] Also, focused on improving efficiency is Bill 10: Red Tape Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2) which introduces amendments to several pieces of legislation including the ASRA.
However, it appears that the ASRA will only operate to decrease transparency and accountability around decisions made on Alberta’s public lands, and to provide short-cuts around Alberta’s environmental legislation such as the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Water Act. Recent amendments to the ASRA introduced by Bill 10 do not address these concerns. In fact, the amendments will expand the definition of an all-season development (no longer requiring a fixed-roof accommodation) and extend application of the act to include private lands as part of all-season resorts. Legislative requirements that aim to ensure environmental protection, and transparency and accountability in decision-making are not meaningless administrative hurdles (i.e. red tape) but rather essential components of effective sustainable management of Alberta’s public lands, waters and biodiversity.
Overview of the All-Season Resorts Act
While the preamble of the ASRA references the creation of an all-season resort regulator, the Act does not create a specific regulatory body. Instead, under the Act, the Minister of Tourism and Sport is empowered to designate any employee as a director for the purposes of all or part of the ASRA.[2] Indeed, the GOA website refers to the All-Season Resorts Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Sport as the regulator. [3] These officials will have authority to make decisions to issue statutory authorizations under specified provisions of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (including whether or not to require an environmental assessment), the Public Lands Act and Public Lands Administration Regulation, and the Water Act in relation to all-season resort developments.[4]
An all-season resort area is defined as “an area of public land designated as an all-season resort area under section 6” of the Act.[5] Once an area has been designated as an all-season resort area, then applications for an all-season resort development can be made. Currently, an all-season resort development is defined as “a resort facility with fixed-roof accommodation located in an all-season resort area where accommodation, activities, services and amenities are provided to members of the public throughout the year and includes any buildings or permanent structures located in the all-season resort area and the infrastructure required to support the development and its operations”. [6]
However, Bill 10 proposes to amend this definition to: “a resort facility located in whole or in part within an all-season resort area where accommodation, activities, services or amenities are provided to members of the public throughout the year and includes any buildings or permanent structures and the infrastructure required to support the resort facility and its operations”. [7] This proposed amendment broadens the type of developments that may qualify as all-season resort development as “fixed-roof accommodation” would no longer be a requirement. In other words, a permanent building such as a hotel or cottage is not required. A resort offering more temporary accommodations like tents or recreational vehicles would qualify as all-season resort developments.
Bill 10 also proposes a significant amendment by extending the application of the ASRA to private land where an all-season resort development extends partly onto private land.[8] Presumably to complement this amendment, Bill 10 introduces the concept of “master development agreement” which is an “agreement between the Minister and a person respecting the development of an all-season resort development, including its construction, operation and maintenance”. [9] Connecting private lands and public lands in this way raises a few concerns. Without knowing the precise provisions of a master development agreement, it remains possible that the government’s discretion to manage public lands will become fettered. In other words, will the master development agreement, along with a connection to private land, limit the government’s ability to manage land (because certain decisions may cause a breach of the agreement)? Does this mean the government will be required to renew a lease or constrained from amending the terms of a lease (again, for fear of being in breach of an agreement)? Perhaps, these questions will be addressed in the master development agreements but we do not know at this time as there is no indication in the ASRA that these questions are contemplated. Further, if an all-season resort development is partially on private land and partially on public land, this seems to raise concerns around potential liability associated with the all-season resort development falling onto the public purse (while the benefit is arguably primarily gained by the private owner).
As well, it is proposed that existing regulatory powers be increased to allow regulations around the issuance and terms of all-season resort dispositions including “the authorization of subletting and further subletting of leases, notwithstanding the Public Lands Act or the regulations under that Act”.[10]
All-season resort area designation and pre-existing land use requirements
The provincial Cabinet may designate public lands as an all-season resort area, so long as the designation abides by ALSA and applicable regional plans, and any regulations and policies made under the ASRA.[11] Policies respecting all-season resort areas and developments including addressing matters such as goals, objectives and priorities for regulations of these areas and developments, and principles for identification of public land for designation as all-season resort areas.[12] It does not appear any such policies yet exist.
While the ASRA indicates that lands within protected areas (under the Provincial Parks Act and the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act) cannot be designated as all-season resort areas, it does indicate that if such lands have the protected areas designation rescinded then those lands may be designated as all-season resort areas.[13] This is concerning as it suggests that the Minister may be able to recommend delisting or modification of existing protected areas to accommodate proposed all-season resort areas. We would recommend that if the status or boundaries of a protected area is to modified to accommodate an all-season resort area designation, then there must be public notice and an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal. It would be preferable, of course, that all-season resort area designation not be allowed on protected areas (by way of removal of a designation) and that any proposed recreational developments undergo the usual process for approval which might include an environmental impact assessment and review by the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB).
The actual process for delisting or modifying an existing protected area depends on the type of protected area involved. The Provincial Parks Act provides that the provincial Cabinet may make an order to decrease the area of provincial parks and provincial recreation areas.[14] The Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (WAERNARHRA) requires that public notice be provided prior to removing an ecological reserve or heritage rangeland designation or changing the boundaries of these type of protected areas.[15] The boundaries of wilderness areas are set out in a schedule to the WAERNARHRA, so a change would necessitate a legislative amendment. The WAERNARHRA does not specify how the boundaries of a natural area must be changed but given establishment is done via an order of the provincial Cabinet, changes are likely to be done in the same manner. As can be seen, in many cases, the status of a protected area can be changed with a Cabinet order and with no public notification. Thus, in order to ensure existing protected areas are not modified to accommodate an all-season resort designation, amendments to the Provincial Parks Act and WAERNARHRA may be necessary: either indicating that public notice and an opportunity to provide feedback on a contemplated all-season resort designation is required, or that changes to a protected area may not be made to accommodate an all-season resort designation and that any proposed tourism developments within a protected area must go through the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) process.
It is also noteworthy that once public lands are designated as all-season resort area, any previously applicable land use plans, policies or programs cease to apply unless the director determines otherwise. [16] This is concerning as the default is that existing land use restrictions – many which may in place to protect sensitive landscapes – will cease to have effect. Even more concerning is that – under a master development agreement which addresses the construction, operation and maintenance of an all-season resort development – its seems that a person (likely a company) will have control over the all-season resort operating on public lands although it is not clear what master development agreements will look like in practice. It is recommended that master development agreements address matters such as liability, terms for cancellation and renewal of the agreement, and requirements for environmental monitoring and reporting related to use of public lands and water.
If a person holds an approval under any enactment with respect to public land that is designated as an all-season resort area, the Director will determine whether that interest is to be withdrawn, cancelled or otherwise terminated, or will continue until its expiry and may be renewed.[17]
Regulator choice and extremely limited review of decisions
Oversight and implementation of the ASRA falls into the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism and Sport. This is an interesting choice given that this Ministry is historically more concerned with commercial activities than environmental and land management decision-making. Either the Ministry of Forestry and Parks or the Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas, both which have experience with environmental and land management legislation, seem better placed for oversight and implementation of the ASRA.
Of course, one also as to wonder why consideration of all-season resort developments has been carved out from the purview of the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB)? The NRCB is a long-established regulatory decision-maker with authority to conduct public interest reviews of major natural resource projects including tourism projects. The NRCB will review tourism projects for which an environmental impact assessment is required or for projects prescribed by the provincial cabinet for review. The NRCB’s processes include statutory rights for public hearings that allow for public participation (including intervenor funding) and greater transparency than decisions made by a branch of a government department.[18] Appeals from NRCB decisions may be made, with permission, to the Court of Appeal on questions of jurisdiction or law.[19] It should be noted that there is also a privative clause which excludes judicial review (other than by way of appeal as noted).[20]
Aside from questions around the selection of decision-maker, there are concerns with the provisions for review of decisions made under the ASRA.[21] Statutory appeals of decisions made under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act or the Water Act related to all-season resort developments may be made to the Environmental Appeals Board whereas appeals of decisions made under the Public Lands Act may be made to Public Lands Appeal Board. These appeals would be of the particular statutory authorizations made under those pieces of legislation, not of the all-season resort development as a whole. The Environmental Appeals Board and the Public Lands Appeal Board may consolidate appeals to be heard by a joint panel.
As with many pieces of legislation, the ASRA contains privative clauses which limit the right to appeal decisions to the court. The ASRA provides that certain decisions made by the Environmental Appeals Board, a joint panel or the Minister may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal only with leave of the Court and only on questions of jurisdiction or law.[22] In addition, the ASRA also contains a provision which excludes judicial review:[23]
Subject to section 14, every decision of the Minister, a director, a specified director or other person carrying out powers, duties and functions under this Act or the specified enactments in respect of an all-season resort area or all-season resort development is final. It shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court by application for judicial review or otherwise. No order shall be made or process entered or proceedings taken in any court, by way of injunction, certiorari, mandamus, declaratory judgment, prohibition, quo warranto, application to quash or set aside or otherwise, to question, review, prohibit or restrain any decision, order or proceedings of the Minister, a director, a specified director or other person under this Act or the specified enactments.
These two privative clauses purport to disallow review by the courts – except in very limited circumstances – of any decisions made with respect to all-season resorts whether made by the Minister, a director or other person under the ASRA or under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Water Act, or the Public Lands Act. It is noteworthy that these particular pieces of legislation all provide for statutory appeal processes and do not contain such expansive privative clauses. Both the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Public Lands Act contain privative clauses but are much more limited in scope (apply to decisions of the statutory appeal board or the Minister).[24] The Water Act has no privative clause. It should be noted that even with an expansive privative clause, there is always the ability for the courts to review decisions for their legality; while a privative clause may result in greater deference to a decision maker, legislation cannot fully insulate decisions from judicial review.[25]
Clearly, the government is signalling that they expect a high level of judicial deference with respect to decisions around all-season resort developments. But one wonders if this level of deference is warranted when the decision-maker does not possess expertise around environmental and land management, and the decision-maker may be an unidentified civil servant as opposed to a panel of experts or a Minister?
Concluding Remarks
The September 17th mandate letter to the Minister of Tourism and Sport, directs the Minister to:[26]
Continuing development and implementation of Alberta’s All-Season Resort Strategy by expanding opportunities for sustainable tourism in Alberta’s Rockies with a special focus on the Kananaskis, Crowsnest Pass, David Thompson, and Grande Cache regions.
While the ASRA is relatively new and untested, there is clearly a government commitment to start implementing it. Various concerns arise around capacity and expertise that the decision maker will have at their disposal. With its uncertain capacity to undertake expert environmental, wildlife and hydrological assessments and evaluation to inform the decision-maker, limited transparency and accountability, restrictive privative clauses that limit judicial review, and ability to cease existing land use requirements, the current ASRA is already problematic. Insufficiently informed and unreviewable decisions greatly increase the risk of poor decisions around siting, resource allocation and use, and direct and indirect effects on surrounding biodiversity.
The amendments proposed by Bill 10 – expanding the type of developments that may be considered all-season resorts and allowing the inclusion of private lands – create more problems. A piece of legislation that grants such extensive decision-making authority in what seems to be a black box of decision-making should, at the very least, have very limited application (we would argue that no decisions should be made in a black box without transparency and accountability). But the Bill 10 amendments expand the type of developments that may be considered all-season resort development and could include more temporary arrangements like hunting camps. Furthermore, Bill 10 allows for the inclusion of private lands and master development agreements for all-season resort developments. This seems to be a pathway to have private persons (individuals or companies) to manage and personally benefit from Alberta’s public lands with little public input or awareness.
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Your support is vital for stronger environmental legislation. As Alberta’s leading environmental charity, the Environmental Law Centre has served our community for over 40 years, providing objective guidance on crucial legislative changes. Your contribution helps protect our environment for future generations.
Please support our work: Share, engage and donate to the ELC
[1] “All-season resorts”, Government of Alberta website; online: https://www.alberta.ca/all-season-resorts.
[2] All-Season Resorts Act, SA 2024, c. A-38.5 [ASRA] at s. 2.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] ASRA at s. 5.
[5] ASRA at s. 1(a).
[6] ASRA at s. 1(b).
[7] Bill 10: Red Tape Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2) [Bill 10] at s. 1(2)(a).
[8] Bill 10 at s. 3(3).
[9] Bill 10 at ss. 1(2)(b) and 3(4).
[10] Bill 10 at s. 3(5).
[11] ASRA at s. 6.
[12] ASRA at s. 3.
[13] ASRA at s. 6.
[14] Provincial Parks Act, RSA 2000, c. P-35 at s. 6.
[15] Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act, RSA 2000, c. W-9 at s. 4.2.
[16] ASRA at s. 8.
[17] ASRA at s. 9.
[18] Natural Resources Conservation Board Act, RSA 2000, c. N-3 at ss. 8 to 11 and 25.
[19] Ibid. at s. 31
[20] Ibid. at s. 32.
[21] ASRA at ss. 12 to 15.
[22] ASRA at s. 14.
[23] ASRA at s. 15.
[24] Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c. E-13.3 at s. 102, and Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c. P-40 at s. 126.
[25] Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (CanLii).
[26] Mandate Letter available online: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b0769b96-7a45-40b5-b57c-415ff82aca49/resource/3ffa6e01-c8f6-4f13-bdbe-094b379a97cb/download/ts-mandate-letter-tourism-and-sport-2025.pdf.