Phase 3: Impact Assessment

Whether conducted by the Agency or Review Panel, impact assessments must take into account key elements set out in the Impact Assessment Act. The interactions and effects of the relevant factors are described in an Impact Assessment Report. The factors to be considered include:

• Changes, both negative and positive, to the environment, health, social or economic conditions as well as the effects of malfunctions and accidents, cumulative effects and interactions between effects in federal jurisdiction.
• Mitigation measures that are technical and economically feasible
• The impact that the project may have on any Indigenous group or the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada
• Purpose of and need for the project
• Alternative means of carrying out the project
• Alternatives to the designated project
• Indigenous knowledge provided
• Considerations related to Indigenous cultures
• Any assessment of the effects of a designated project that is conducted by or on behalf of an Indigenous governing body
• Extent to which the project contributes to sustainability
• Extent to which the project affects the Government of Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and commitments related to climate change
• Any change to the designated project that may be caused by the environment
• The requirements of the follow-up program
• Community knowledge
• Comments received from the public
• Comments from another provincial, territorial or Indigenous jurisdiction
• Any relevant regional or strategic assessment
• Any study or plan that is conducted or prepared by a jurisdiction that is in respect of a region related to the designated project
• The intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors
• Any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency requires to be taken into account

Examples of questions that the Agency or Review Panel will ask when reviewing the Impact Statement include:

• Are effects predictions well founded?
• Are the mitigation measures and follow-up program appropriate and likely to function as designed?
• Are the proposed mitigation measures sufficient to reduce the likelihood of potential adverse effects of the designated project?

A spectrum of cooperation mechanisms are used to achieve "one project, one review." If another jurisdiction's process allows, and to the extent possible, the Agency endeavours to collaborate and avoid process duplication by taking into consideration the following tools when conducting an impact assessment:

• Cooperation Agreements: An agreement between the Government of Canada and a jurisdiction to provide a framework for cooperation when the federal assessment process and that of the other jurisdiction apply to the same project. The agreement sets out the principles and mechanisms for a cooperative assessment and describes the roles and responsibilities of the parties.
• Cooperative Assessments: A single, jointly implemented process that satisfies the requirements of all jurisdictions involved. This could include asking the Proponent for single set of information, jointly administering the process, coordinating information requirements, coordinating public participation and Crown consultation with Indigenous groups, and more. Federal time limits could be adjusted for the purpose of aligning with the other jurisdiction's process.
• Delegation: The Agency can delegate all or a part of the federal assessment process to another jurisdiction. The Agency would ensure that the requirements of the federal process are met and the Minister or Governor in Council (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) would retain decision-making power.
• Substitution: The Minister could approve the substitution of the assessment process of another jurisdiction for the federal process. The Minister's decision to allow substitution would be made before the end of the planning phase. In a substituted assessment, the other jurisdiction would commit to satisfying the conditions set out in the Impact Assessment Act. The Minister or Governor in Council (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) would retain decision-making power.
• Joint Review Panels: Review Panels can be established in cooperation with another jurisdiction to conduct an impact assessment. A Joint Review Panel Agreement would be established between the Minister and the other jurisdiction outlining the review process and the terms of reference for the Joint Review Panel. The Joint Review Panel would meet the process requirements of both jurisdictions. The Joint Review Panel's Impact Assessment Report including rationale, conclusions and recommendations, would be submitted to both jurisdictions. Federal time limits could be adjusted for the purpose of aligning with the other jurisdiction's process.

Before the commencement of the impact assessment, the Agency may establish a longer time limit for the impact assessment to allow the Agency to cooperate with a provincial, territorial, or Indigenous jurisdiction or for project-specific circumstances. The Agency may also establish shorter time limit for any reason that it considers appropriate. The reasons for establishing a new time limit are posted on the Registry.

Impact assessments of projects involving lifecycle regulators, including the Canadian Energy Regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or offshore petroleum boards, would be conducted by Integrated Review Panels. The single, integrated assessment would be conducted through a panel review process and would fulfill, to the extent possible, the requirements of relevant Acts. Lifecycle regulators would participate in all stages of the impact assessment to provide expertise. The Agency would appoint panel members, with at least one panel member from the roster of the lifecycle regulator.

A Review Panel Secretariat supports the conduct of an Impact Assessment by a Review Panel and comprises staff from the Agency. In the case of a Joint Review Panel, staff from any provincial, territorial, or Indigenous jurisdiction may also be part of the secretariat. In the case of an Integrated Review Panel, staff from the lifecycle regulator are part of the secretariat

The secretariat provides administrative, technical and procedural support to Review Panels, Joint Review Panels and Integrated Review Panels. The secretariat supports the Review Panel in conducting its review in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Agency ensures that all other activities performed by Agency staff while assigned to the secretariat are conducted in a way to avoid a conflict of interest with the Review Panel. The work of the Secretariat staff is separated from the rest of the Government by an ethical wall. This means the Secretariat staff work at the direction of the Review Panel and do not communicate with the Agency or any jurisdiction regarding the deliberations of the Review Panel.

Review Panel members must be unbiased and free from any conflict of interest relative to the designated project and must have knowledge or experience relevant to the designated project's anticipated effects or have knowledge of the interests and concerns of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that are relevant to the assessment. The Review Panel chairperson is appointed by the Agency.

Potential members of a Review Panel may be selected from a roster of candidates established by the Minister or may be identified for the purpose of the specific project. The Agency identifies potential candidates and conducts interviews to identify relevant knowledge and expertise and any potential bias or conflict of interest. Once the membership of the Review Panel has been decided by the Agency, panel appointments are made public and notification is posted on the Registry.

In the case of Integrated Review Panels with lifecycle regulators, at least one panel member must be selected from the lifecycle regulator's roster on the recommendation of the lifecycle regulator. The panel members from the roster of the lifecycle regulator cannot form the majority of the Review Panel.

Types of hearing sessions may include:

• Community hearing sessions: Encourages the full and open participation of people living in or adjacent to the project area and provides a more informal setting in which community members are able to make presentations to the Review Panel on any matters within the scope of the review and present community knowledge or Indigenous knowledge.
• General hearing sessions: Provides an opportunity for participants and the Proponent to make presentations to the Review Panel on both the technical and non-technical subjects that are within the scope of the review. They also provide the opportunity for participants to question the information submitted during the review process.
• Technical hearing sessions: Allows participants who possess specialized knowledge or expertise in a specific topic to present the results of their analysis of the potential environmental and other effects of the designated project to the Review Panel. They also allow for scrutiny of the designated projects by participants who have conducted a technical review of the project. This may include participants who have hired technical experts to assist them with their review.