Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Red Tape Progress Report

Context

The Impact Assessment Act provides for the assessment of the environmental, social and economic impacts of major projects that are likely to have significant effects in areas of federal jurisdiction (for example, large dams and mines, ports, interprovincial and international pipelines and transmission lines, offshore oil and gas production facilities) and for the mitigation of adverse federal effects. It is part of a larger regulatory landscape in Canada that includes federal permitting and shared responsibilities with the provinces and territories.

Impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act is intended as a project planning tool to identify potential adverse effects in advance, through a clear and open process, and to address those effects through project design and mitigation measures. It also provides a critical forum to meet Crown consultation requirements and to identify, mitigate and accommodate impacts on Indigenous rights from major project development. Since the Impact Assessment Act was enacted in 2019, an average of eight major projects per year have met the threshold for entering the federal impact assessment system, and 40% of those have completed the process with early decisions, many within six months^{Footnote 1}.

Assessments are conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and involve extensive engagement with Indigenous Peoples and the public. Assessments may also be referred to an independent review panel or the process may be substituted with that of another jurisdiction.

Getting major projects built in Canada is a priority. Federal departments and agencies have been reviewing policies and practices to accelerate decision-making and improve the delivery of project assessments, permits, licences, and authorizations for major projects. Under the instruction of the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory and Permitting Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects and coordinated by the Clean Growth Office in the Privy Council Office, IAAC has been working together with other federal departments to develop permitting plans, coordinate Crown consultations and increase collaboration with proponents to improve coordination related to major projects. This Red Tape Progress Report provides an opportunity to outline improvements being explored, developed and implemented to accelerate and improve federal impact assessments.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to establishing a Major Federal Projects Office to achieve project reviews and decisions within two years. IAAC will support the Office and collaborate with partners across government to enable this outcome with its own policies, practices, and regulations. This includes reviewing the Impact Assessment Act and its regulations and developing proposals, as appropriate, to support the outcome of two-year project reviews.

On June 26^th, the Building Canada Act received royal assent, empowering the government to accelerate nation-building projects in consultation with Indigenous Peoples. IAAC is committed to supporting the implementation while protecting environmental integrity and Indigenous rights and building relationships and opportunities for economic partnerships with Indigenous Peoples.

Executive summary

IAAC has started and will continue to do things differently and advance a more efficient and focused approach to impact assessments through three key streams. First, to reduce the burden on proponents, IAAC will streamline information requirements to make the process more predictable and manageable. Second, IAAC will minimize duplication with provincial processes and sharpen its focus on areas of federal jurisdiction. Third, IAAC will accelerate timelines to deliver faster decisions to support economic development while ensuring that the environment and Indigenous rights are protected as projects get built. Many of the actions that IAAC will undertake reduce red tape across all three streams.

Progress achieved

Item 1: Reducing burden on proponents and Federal Authorities

Context:

During the assessment process proponents are required to provide a significant amount of information and studies describing their project and its potential impacts. Almost all proponents may also require additional federal permits, licences or authorizations unrelated to the Impact Assessment Act, which usually require additional, more detailed information (for example, a detailed project design) and further consultation.

Actions:

Legislative and regulatory amendments

The Impact Assessment Act was amended in June 2024 to align with constitutional authorities. These changes have more clearly focused federal impact assessments on areas of federal jurisdiction and removed the mandatory requirement for a Detailed Project Description, making it discretionary.

To support these legislative changes, the Information and Management of Time Limit Regulations were updated in September 2024. While the Impact Assessment Act and related policy and guidance establish the general process, time limits and information to be gathered and assessed during an impact assessment, the Information and Management of Time Limit Regulations set out the information that must be included in a project description, as well as criteria under which the legislated timelines can be suspended, the guidelines and plans IAAC is required to provide to the proponent, and the format in which information should be provided. The Information and Management of Time Limit Regulations amendments ensured consistency in language with the amended Impact Assessment Act, removed duplicative requirements between the regulations and the Impact Assessment Act, and clarified that time limit suspension requests must be submitted to IAAC rather than the Minister, which makes the process more efficient.

Federal Lands Ministerial Order

For projects on federal lands and outside Canada not subject to an impact assessment, federal authorities (federal departments and agencies, port authorities and airport authorities) must make an environmental effects determination under sections 82 and 83 of the Impact Assessment Act before acting or making a decision that would enable the project to proceed.

In February 2025, the Ministerial Order listing project types that are exempt from requiring an environmental effects determination was expanded to exempt more projects that would cause only insignificant adverse environmental effects. The changes increase clarity and consistency and help improve process efficiency for low-risk projects.

To support federal authorities, IAAC is finalizing guidance materials to help them understand which projects are now excluded under the Order and no longer require an environmental effects determination. This will support consistent implementation and further reduce unnecessary administrative steps for federal authorities and for proponents of low-risk projects on federal lands.

Reduced burden through regional assessment

Regional assessments can be directed by the Minister to assess the positive and adverse effects, including cumulative effects, of multiple existing and future physical activities in a specific geographic region. Regional assessments reduce burden on proponents and facilitate more efficient project assessments and approvals by providing information and data to support future project-specific assessments and decisions, providing early opportunities to engage with Indigenous Peoples, the public, industry, and others, and helping to identify effective mitigation measures for future activities. Since 2019, IAAC has completed three regional assessments, and two others are ongoing.

Improved practices and adoption of collaborative tools

With support from IAAC, there has been a notable increase in Indigenous leadership and collaboration during assessments. Indigenous-led assessments and co-operation agreements have created meaningful mechanisms for all parties to work in partnership and seek consensus. Indigenous Groups have been able to draft their own, self-led assessments, which reduces the burden on proponents and leads to more inclusive assessments.

Increased efficiency in planning phase and early decisions

The Planning Phase for projects can lead to quick decisions by facilitating early review of project designs, consultations and engagement with Indigenous Peoples, the public, stakeholders and provinces and identifying project design changes to mitigate potential effects or identifying provincial or other processes to manage federal effects such that a full impact assessment is not required.

Several measures have been introduced to reduce burden on proponents during the Planning Phase, such as:

• Streamlined summary of issues: The Summary of Issues to which the proponent must respond has been shortened by focusing only on the information necessary to inform the early decision.
• Targeted use of detailed project descriptions: Following the 2024 amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, IAAC only requests a Detailed Project Description if it is unable to make an impact assessment decision without it.

A corollary benefit of these improvements translates into IAAC making decisions about whether a comprehensive impact assessment is required earlier in the Planning Phase. Previously the service standard was to make that decision on day 90 of the 180-day legislated timeline, whereas IAAC is now making that decision on day 60.

Refined tailored impact statement guidelines

Tailored impact statement guidelines are a key document in the impact assessment process, describing the information and studies that a proponent must provide during the Impact Statement Phase. IAAC has streamlined project-specific guidelines by concentrating on key issues material to decision-making. Where appropriate, IAAC relies on provincial processes and other regulatory mechanisms, enabling proponents to gather the necessary information within one year, far shorter than the three-year time limit allocated for the Impact Statement Phase under the Impact Assessment Act.

Federal permitting coordination

Since July 2024, consistent with the Cabinet Directive, IAAC has provided permitting coordination services for all projects subject to an impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act ("designated projects"), as well as for non-designated clean growth projects that meet at least two of the Government’s clean growth criteria. Through this service, IAAC coordinates the federal permitting processes for major projects that require two or more federal permits, licences and authorizations, streamlining certain process steps within the federal regulatory system.

This service supports proponents in navigating the federal regulatory system by clarifying permit requirements, timelines, and responsibilities. More specifically, it includes:

• A point of contact within IAAC and centralized support from the Clean Growth Office.
• Requiring permitting departments to review proponents’ Impact Statements through the lens of permitting requirements and informing them whether a federal permit is required and what additional information is missing in order to submit a comprehensive permit application.
• A Detailed Permitting Plan, developed in collaboration with proponents and relevant federal regulators, that outlines requirements, key milestones, and processes for the federal permits needed for the project to start construction and increase accountability to all participants.
• A Permitting Dashboard on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry, providing a public, transparent view of permitting progress.

Through this initiative, IAAC aims to enhance predictability, improve transparency, and support timely regulatory decisions for projects and helps proponents to reduce administrative burden by being better prepared for the permitting process or completing federal permits concurrently with the impact assessment.

Indigenous consultation

With input from Indigenous partners and industry organizations, IAAC developed new guidance for proponents on early engagement with Indigenous Peoples. This guidance supports meaningful early engagement and early identification of issues and facilitates a more efficient process by providing clear guidance and expectations to proponents before they undertake engagement activities.

Outcomes:

As a result of IAAC’s efforts to reduce burden, proponents can expect a more efficient and responsive impact assessment process, with more streamlined information and study requirements and earlier decisions with additional clarity on impact assessment and federal permitting requirements. These improvements align the process with stakeholder needs by making the process clearer, timelier and more predictable.

Key examples:

Projects such as the Sainte-Marguerite Hydroelectric Generating Station Project, Big Bear Camp Aerodrome Project, and the Ten Shilling Aerodrome Project have benefited from IAAC’s increased efficiency in early decisions, receiving early assessment decisions within 60 days.

Through permitting coordination, all federal permits for the Marathon Palladium project were secured within 15 months. All projects now undergoing an impact assessment will have detailed permitting plans and transparent timeline commitments through permitting dashboards.

"Biigtigong Nishnaabeg and the Crown worked to build a collaborative relationship throughout the environmental assessment for the project. The project is on the Exclusive Aboriginal title territory of Biigtigong Nishnaabeg and since the community is the most highly impacted by the proposed project, the Crown needed to provide Biigtigong Nishnaabeg with supports and resources that would accommodate for impacts and enable the community to benefit from the project. The Crown recognized and respected Biigtigong Nishnaabeg’s requirement for a consensus-based process, and we believe we have set a new precedent for how the government can and should work with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis in decision-making."

The tailored impact statement guidelines for the Shaakichiuwaanaan Lithium Project were streamlined by 60%, and the tailored impact statement guidelines for the Suncor Base Mine Extension project were re-issued and reduced by approximately one third.

Federal authorities will benefit from removal of requirements to assess low-risk, routine projects on federal lands. For example, certain projects such as electrical lines and short road and rail expansions will no longer require an environmental effects determination. Federal authorities will also be better supported in implementing the requirements on federal lands through tailored guidance, training, and interpretation tools.

The Regional Assessment for Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador was completed in February 2020 and resulted in a regulation to exclude certain exploratory drilling projects from project-specific federal impact assessments. This significantly reduced proponent burden and increased efficiency, reducing the overall authorization process for exploratory drilling projects from approximately three years to six months.

Similarly, IAAC is leveraging the two completed Regional Assessments of Offshore Wind Development (Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador) to reduce proponent burden and improve efficiency for the assessment of wind projects in the Nova Scotia offshore.

Item 2: Reducing duplication and a greater focus on federal effects

Context:

Some projects require both federal and provincial assessments, which may require similar information from proponents to assess similar effects. IAAC is working to develop co-operation agreements with willing provinces to implement a "one project, one review" approach - to reduce duplication with and defer more to provincial assessments.

Actions:

Legislative and regulatory amendments

The June 2024 Impact Assessment Act amendments included important changes to reduce duplication and introduced greater flexibility to defer to provincial processes. A new definition of federal effects clarified the link to federal jurisdiction and the Minister’s discretion to designate projects was narrowed. In 2024, the authority to designate projects was delegated to the President of IAAC allowing for even more efficient decisions.

The sections related to IAAC’s decision on whether a comprehensive impact assessment is required were amended to include explicit consideration of whether other federal or provincial processes could address the potential adverse federal effects. In addition, flexibility to substitute federal assessments was increased — to enable a harmonized process with provinces that supports a single, streamlined review from the proponent’s perspective, with each jurisdiction undertaking parts of the assessment co-operatively.

Tailored impact statement guidelines

To reduce duplication, IAAC is updating its generic template for tailored impact statement guidelines to focus on key issues which are likely to be material and relevant to decision making based on the nature, complexity and context of specific projects. The updated template will support IAAC’s work with other jurisdictions to reduce duplication and increase efficiency when developing project-specific guidelines, for example, by deferring to the requirements of other jurisdictions where overlap exists.

Federal-provincial co-operation

The Impact Assessment Act includes tools to support a "one project, one review" approach, with recent amendments adding flexibility to defer to and rely on provincial processes. Co-operation agreements enable this coordination and provide clarity and predictability for proponents. Currently one agreement exists with British Columbia (BC) signed in 2019. Consistent with the Speech from the Throne commitment to strike co-operation agreements with willing provinces within six months to enable "one project, one review", IAAC is working with provincial counterparts to develop agreements and mechanisms to implement this approach.

Beyond formal co-operation agreements, IAAC develops project-specific co-operation protocols with provinces wherever possible to leverage provincial processes.

Outcomes:

The actions outlined in the previous section are making a difference. The Minister’s discretionary authority to designate a project to be subject to the Impact Assessment Act has been limited, which will reduce uncertainty for proponents. Duplication of effort between federal and provincial governments is being minimized, and an increased reliance on provincial processes has further eased the regulatory burden on proponents.

Key examples:

Since August 2019, of the 76 requests received to designate a project only five were designated (two for the same project) and only one of these is actually undergoing the federal process. The Minister can only designate a project if they are of the opinion that the project may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. The Minister must also consider other factors such as whether other federal or provincial processes could address the potential adverse federal effects and impacts on Indigenous rights.

In eight of the 12 decisions taken in the Planning Phase, following an initial assessment, since the amended Impact Assessment Act came into force in June 2024, IAAC relied on provincial assessment processes and federal permitting to make an early federal decision that a comprehensive federal assessment was not required. These early decisions were taken in an average of just over 3 months (105 days).

To ensure a more streamlined review of the impact statement for the Crawford Nickel project, IAAC worked with federal authorities to focus their technical reviews during the assessment and coordinated federal permitting post-assessment.

The tailored impact statement guidelines developed for the Strange Lake Rare Earth Mining Project were developed with Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the proponent with one integrated document on federal and provincial requirements.

"We entered into the discussion with NG [Nunatsiavut Government] and the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and we were so impressed with how they all were willing to collaborate on our file that we could use one impact assessment document for all of them, as long as it met all of their criteria."

"We’ve gone from the fifth drillhole in September 2019 to become the first mining project in Canada to file an Impact Statement under the 2019 Impact Assessment Act. The ability to achieve this milestone in just over five years also reflects the federal government’s commitment to timely and efficient permitting processes and effective engagement with proponents."

Under the co-operation agreement with BC, IAAC has aligned timelines and refined federal information requirements. Ongoing collaboration with BC has led to process improvements that reduce duplication and enhance Indigenous and public participation. To date, the Minister has substituted four assessments to the BC process.

Item 3: Going faster

Context:

In the Speech from the Throne, the Government stated that the time to approve projects deemed to be in the national interest would be reduced from five years to two years, while upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples. IAAC is re-engineering its processes under the Impact Assessment Act so all projects can receive federal approvals in two years or less.

Actions:

Legislative amendments

The 2024 amendments to the Impact Assessment Act tightened legislated timelines further by only allowing the Minister and Governor in Council the ability to extend time limits during the decision phase once as opposed to unlimited extension. In other phases of the process, a proponent can ask for a timeline extension or the time limits may be extended to allow for cooperation with a jurisdiction. The most common reasons for extensions are changes in companies or project design, further Indigenous consultation, or gathering information to mitigate identified concerns.

Better integrating permitting and assessments

Proponents are encouraged, if they are able, to begin permitting during the impact assessment, using shared information to speed up approvals. Federal permitting requirements can be integrated into the impact assessment process to improve regulatory coordination, reduce duplication and support early project design decisions.

Tapping into artificial intelligence

IAAC is piloting innovations such as using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to conduct faster analysis, identify key issues and possible mitigation, and accelerate the Planning Phase.

Streamlined planning phase

IAAC is finding ways to conduct public engagement more efficiently. For example, IAAC is working to provide fewer, more concise documents with greater focus on key issues for public comment. This improves efficiency and engagement by reducing the number of large and very technical documents that have not historically yielded substantive public input. In addition, some public engagement may be concurrent and conducted for multiple documents at the same time rather than sequentially.

Simplified templates and risk-based scoping

IAAC is creating templates to speed up the preparation of its products. The templates are developed in consultation with federal authorities, and assessments are being scoped using a risk-based approach which focuses efforts on key issues and aligns resources on what matters most for federal decision-making under the Impact Assessment Act. This project scoping and development of these templates benefits from lessons learned from past assessments.

Supporting federal authorities

IAAC is actively supporting federal authorities in adopting a more risk-based approach to impact assessments. Through ongoing collaboration, guidance, and training, IAAC is encouraging federal authorities to align their information requirements with the scale and nature of potential project impacts under federal jurisdiction. This shift helps focus and reduce the amount of information proponents are required to provide and re-direct resources to higher-risk issues.

IAAC has also been assessing which key issues warrant the involvement of federal authorities and scoping its engagement accordingly. As a result, federal authorities are beginning to streamline their advice during the assessment process, improving efficiency while maintaining rigor where it is most needed. Memoranda of Understanding between IAAC and federal authorities serve to support these efficiency commitments and an efficient impact assessment process.

Process innovation for integrated assessments of nuclear projects

In 2024, IAAC and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) developed a framework for completing the reviews of nuclear projects subject to integrated impact assessments within three years. IAAC, CNSC, and Bruce Power have also reached an agreement-in-principle for a project charter that identifies service standards and accountabilities that will allow for the remainder of the assessment of the Bruce C Nuclear project to be completed within a three-year timeline.

To promote consistency and efficiency, IAAC piloted the use of AI to identify and compile mitigation measures from previously completed assessments of nuclear projects. This work supported the development of a set of mitigation measures that can be used to address common and well-understood effects early in the process. By standardizing routine elements, IAAC is concentrating its efforts on the most important and project-specific issues within federal jurisdiction.

IAAC is also testing a more proactive and accelerated Planning Phase for the Peace River Nuclear Project, issuing draft tailored impact statement guidelines and other planning documents earlier in the process to shorten the Planning Phase by up to 60 days.

Standard mitigation measures

IAAC has compiled a list of standard mitigation measures for well-understood adverse effects within federal jurisdiction based on years of experience and feedback drawn from decision statements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the Impact Assessment Act. These measures reflect input from proponents, federal experts, Indigenous groups and other stakeholders during past assessments.

These standard measures will be used to inform all impact assessment participants of common mitigation measures that may be applied to a specific pathway of adverse effect within federal jurisdiction. Identifying these mitigation measures early in the process can save time and focus proponent efforts on more complex, project-specific issues.

Follow-up programs

IAAC is developing a guidance document for proponents on how to develop, evaluate, and report on follow-up programs, which serve to verify the accuracy of the impact assessment of a project and determine the effectiveness of any mitigation measures. This guidance will help standardize reporting and improve consistency across projects. IAAC is implementing a follow-up program tracking tool to support the review of results and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures over time.

Delegation

The Impact Assessment Act permits for delegation by the Minister of powers, duties and functions to IAAC officials. The use of this delegation authority is being maximized which will continue to result in process efficiencies moving forward. These changes will reduce administrative burden and expedite decision-making.

Indigenous consultation

IAAC is investing in proactive Indigenous consultation and early issues identification through updated guidance and capacity building to strengthen relationships with Indigenous groups. IAAC is consulting early and frequently in the pre-planning phase to support a more streamlined and expedited assessment process. These coordinated efforts, along with co-operation agreements with provinces, aim to reduce duplication and minimize consultation fatigue for Indigenous groups by ensuring a consistent, collaborative approach across jurisdictions.

Outcomes:

IAAC’s streamlined impact assessment process is delivering faster, more predictable decisions. Proponents can now work on permitting during the assessment process, reducing delays and uncertainty by addressing key issues earlier. Information requirements are clearer and more focused, and duplication is minimized. Follow-up program results will improve future assessments and be used to continue to develop and refine standard mitigation measures.

Key examples:

Since the June 2024 amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, twelve projects have entered the federal impact assessment process. Eight received early federal assessment decisions in an average of just over 3 months (105 days).

Prior to the amendments in 2024, the average duration of the Planning Phase was over 470 days. Since the 2024 Impact Assessment Act amendments, the average Planning Phase has taken 180 days (excluding the Bruce C Nuclear and Rocky Creek Coal Mine projects, which have had extended timeline suspensions at the request of the proponents).

Next steps

Item 1: Reducing burden on proponents

Context:

Proponents are required to provide a significant amount of information during the assessment process, describing their project and its potential impacts.

Almost all proponents may also require additional federal permits, licences or authorizations unrelated to the Impact Assessment Act, which usually require additional, more detailed information (for example, a detailed project design) and further consultation.

Actions:

Short term:

Faster early decisions

IAAC will continue to incorporate lessons learned from implementing the amended Impact Assessment Act, including the option to reach an earlier decision without a Detailed Project Description, with the goal of further increasing the efficiency of the Planning Phase and reducing the information burden on proponents.

Coordinated permitting

IAAC will work with federal permitting authorities to continue to improve its new permitting coordination service by applying lessons learned since its inception in June 2024. Providing improved project-specific permit information and advice will allow proponents to better plan for the regulatory processes that align with overall project schedules and significantly reduce the effort required from proponents and other participants.

Stakeholder engagement

IAAC will continue to provide guidance and actively support proponents in engaging Indigenous groups, provinces, federal authorities, and other stakeholders throughout the assessment process. Early and meaningful engagement helps identify key issues and streamline reviews.

Clear guidance and tools

Taking into consideration lessons learned through implementation, IAAC will continue to provide clear guidance to proponents on impact assessment requirements and best practices (for example, template for tailored impact statement guidelines) to reduce the amount of information required of proponents and focus on key issues material to decision making.

Medium term:

IAAC will take steps to identify potential amendments to the Information and Management of Time Limit Regulations that may further reduce the information burden on proponents.

Outcomes:

Together, these actions will result in a more efficient, focused, and coordinated federal regulatory system. that includes continued implementation of guidance to focus on key issues and federal effects, better alignment with permitting information requirements and realization of Planning Phase efficiencies.

Item 2: Reducing duplication and a greater focus on federal effects

Context:

Some projects require both federal and provincial assessments, which may require similar information from proponents to assess similar impacts. IAAC will continue to reduce duplication with both provincial and other federal processes by advancing co-operation agreements with willing provinces, relying on and leveraging provincial processes and information requirements, and focusing on effects within federal jurisdiction and where federal impact assessment adds value.

Actions:

Short term:

Focusing on key federal issues

As IAAC gains experience implementing the amended Impact Assessment Act, impact assessments will focus increasingly tightly on key federal issues that are material to decision making. This targeted approach will help streamline assessments and reduce unnecessary information requirements. This will be implemented through project-specific scoping (tailored impact statement guidelines).

Advancing provincial co-operation

The Government of Canada will continue discussions with willing provinces to establish co-operation agreements. These agreements would enable a "one project, one review" approach to allow for a single assessment process from a proponent’s perspective. Agreements will provide transparency by outlining how provinces, and the federal government will work together. They will also provide an important signal to investors that both levels of government are working together to attract investment in major projects and reassurance to the public that shared and respective responsibilities to protect the environment and Indigenous rights will be met.

Regulatory amendments

IAAC will bring forward potential amendments to the Physical Activities Regulations (Project List) to reflect the new definition of federal effects and the outcomes of the Project List Review and to ensure that only those projects most likely to result in significant adverse effects in federal jurisdiction will be subject to the Impact Assessment Act.

Improving guidance

IAAC will continuously refine its publicly available templates and guidance, such as the generic tailored impact statement guidelines, to enhance clarity and efficiency. Publicly available templates will ensure that generic information requirements are transparent and well understood by proponents and stakeholders.

Medium term:

IAAC will work with permitting departments to achieve better alignment between the information requirements for impact assessment and those for other federal permits, licences and authorizations required for the projects to start construction, with the ultimate goal of developing one application process for all federal authorizations for proponents that are able to undertake integrated or parallel impact assessment and permitting processes.

Long term:

IAAC will complete more regional assessments to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of future federal impact assessment processes and decisions. By developing standard mitigation measures or sector-specific exclusion regulations, regional assessments will enable future project-specific assessments to focus resources on addressing key issues that are unique at the project level.

Outcomes:

By focusing assessments on key issues, improving guidance, refining templates and exploring regulatory amendments, IAAC will increase focus on federal effects, reduce duplication of regulatory processes and information requirements and increase clarity for proponents.

Strengthened co-operation with provinces and Indigenous groups will support a more unified approach across jurisdictions.

Better alignment between impact assessment and permitting requirements will move toward a single application process for federal authorizations.

Completed regional assessments will inform the continued development of standard mitigation measures and sector-specific exclusion regulations, further streamlining future assessments.

Item 3: Going faster

Context:

In the Speech from the Throne, the Government announced the creation of a Major Federal Project Office and committed to ensuring the regulatory process for projects deemed to be in the national interest would be complete within two years (from five) and to moving toward a two-year process for all major projects, while upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples. IAAC is re-engineering its processes under the Impact Assessment Act so all projects can complete the assessment process within two years.

Actions:

Short term:

Enhancing operational efficiency

IAAC will continue to build on experience gained from implementing the amended Impact Assessment Act to further improve operational efficiency and ensure assessments can be completed within two years.

When established, IAAC will work with the Major Federal Project Office to facilitate project reviews for projects determined to be in the national interest supporting implementation of the Building Canada Act.

Standard mitigation measures

IAAC has developed a comprehensive list of standard mitigation measures based on analysis of past project assessments which will be used to accelerate assessments, reduce the burden on proponents, and provide greater certainty to proponents.

Medium term:

Increased use of artificial intelligence

IAAC will continue to improve its use of AI tools to facilitate faster analysis and document production.

Outcomes:

IAAC will work toward achieving the two-year timelines for completing assessments, by working with the Major Federal Projects Office for national interest projects, using standard mitigation measures and greater use of AI tools where appropriate.