Discussion paper on the review of the Physical Activities Regulations

Consultation has concluded

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is seeking feedback on a discussion paper on the five-year review of the Physical Activities Regulations (also known as the Project List).

The Project List identifies the projects that are subject to the Impact Assessment Act and that may require an impact assessment. The aim is to ensure the Project List focuses federal impact assessments on:

  • projects with the greatest potential for adverse environmental effects in federal jurisdiction
  • adding value beyond what federal regulatory oversight and provincial processes already cover

Have your say

We are seeking feedback from Indigenous communities and national Indigenous organizations

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is seeking feedback on a discussion paper on the five-year review of the Physical Activities Regulations (also known as the Project List).

The Project List identifies the projects that are subject to the Impact Assessment Act and that may require an impact assessment. The aim is to ensure the Project List focuses federal impact assessments on:

  • projects with the greatest potential for adverse environmental effects in federal jurisdiction
  • adding value beyond what federal regulatory oversight and provincial processes already cover

Have your say

We are seeking feedback from Indigenous communities and national Indigenous organizations, environmental non-governmental organizations, industry stakeholders, and interested public to provide comments on the draft recommendations for the five-year review of the Project List. The comment period starts July 30, 2024, and ends September 27, 2024.

To provide a comment or upload a submission, please register or sign in.

Comments and submissions will be made public in the official language in which they are received. You can consult comments and submissions published on the French page.

We will consider all feedback received to inform the review of the Project List.

Provide a comment

Thank you for taking the time to share your comments. Please see our Privacy Policy for how we treat the information collected on this website.

Your comments will help inform the review of the Project List.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

  • Nuclear

    by Nicole Corrado, 2 months ago

    https://letstalknuclearsafety.ca/regdoc-234-operations-programs-reactor-facilities I am quite concerned with 3.9.8, which mandates testing “fish tissue and other receptor species tests for exposure uptake”. As Canada is moving away from animal testing, this seems counterintuitive to include animal testing in a document to modernize practices, especially when there is no mention of phasing out and replacing the practice. Mining is harmful to all life, and to the planet. Forcing fish and birds to be exposed to the effluent, and cutting them up to test them for selenium and other pollutants is cruel and outdated. Canada is phasing out toxicity testing on animals. Please... Continue reading

  • Please consider animal welfare

    by Nicole Corrado, 2 months ago

    I noticed a lot of wildlife live here. Please preserve the trees at this location. Please do not harm animals with this project. Please do not use animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish


    Please work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods. https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/


    Please only use non lethal ways to live with geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Develop a Living With Coyotes program with the animal welfare organization Coyote Watch Canada. www.coyotewatchcanada.com


    Please only use non lethal ways to manage wildlife. There are humane, non lethal ways to deal with beavers. Here's a great resource... Continue reading

  • Support for LAND recommendations

    by Robin Faye, 2 months ago

    To be brief, there are many, many negatively impactful activities that escape assessment according to the Physical Activities Regulations. There are many projects and potential projects that are not considered major, but should be (SMR's are just one example) because they can (and will) have major effects on their surrounding areas as well as areas downstream. The exemption for projects licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is particularly concerning because it allows industry (in our self-interested economy) to regulate itself regardless of the public's interest. Transparent oversight is necessary to ensure public safety and environmental stewardship. Therefore, I support... Continue reading

  • Nuclear energy is not a solution to reaching Canadas energy requirements

    by Margaret Sagar, 2 months ago

    As an informed member of the public and citizen of Canada, I object to the premise that nuclear power is essential to reach Canada’s net zero goals for carbon emissions as we move away from fossil fuels.
    1. Nuclear projects such as the proposed SMRs and MicroMRs have not been created on a commercial scale. They are new unproven technology

    2. They will be extremely expensive to build as are all nuclear power projects.

    3. They will take way too long to build, test etc., at least a decade which makes them come online way too late to meet energy... Continue reading

  • Rural Ontario home and transport route

    by KCollier, 2 months ago

    I am a member of Nuclear Waste Watch (NWW) in northern Ontario, but my comments do not necessarily reflect details of their positions.

    In summary, NWW pointed out on several occasions the lack of trust by many, not only NWW, in Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as a "captured regulator". Too many conflicts of interest and past lapses create no confidence in CNSC being able to carry out its roles.
    NWW believes that storing and management of nuclear waste in situ at or near the sites of nuclear power plants in far preferable to transporting those materials over public roads... Continue reading

  • Question in overview

    by Sam Arnold, 2 months ago

    The Overview states that the IAA applies only to major projects and to about ten designated projects per year. It therefore appears to me that the IAAC under section 16 will be able to disqualify any major project that it does not wish to study if it deems the project to not be in the interest of government and federal jurisdiction.

    For example, deep geological repositories (DGR) for high level nuclear waste. It’s well known that DGRs have a high likelihood of failure within 100 years of operation, and much more so for the 1 million years it will take... Continue reading

  • Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Facilities

    by Doug Shaigec, 2 months ago


    The current inclusion of "hydroelectric generating facilities with a production capacity of 200 MW or more" in the Project List is too broad, in terms of encompassing pumped storage hydroelectric (PSH) projects that may have a production capacity of greater than 200 MW, but not have potential to cause adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction.

    For example, closed-loop PSH projects that involve the development of new "dryland" reservoirs (constructed on lands where no existing watercourse is present) do not have the potential for non-negligible adverse changes to fish and fish habitat, or aquatic species as defined in the... Continue reading

  • Nuclear exemptions

    by Draven, 3 months ago
    Expanding the recommendation to remove the requirement for SMRs and large licenced technology to also include demonstrated international nuclear technologies both commercial and research reactors. This would also for Gen 4 nuclear reactors to be built in Canada if they have been demonstrated elsewhere. Of course all these technologies would still abide by the CNSC and other regulations.