“One Project, One Review”: Co-operation Agreements for the Assessment of Major Projects

September 2025

Contents

We Want Your Views

The purpose of this paper is to provide information and seek views on the Government of Canada’s proposed approach to working with provinces on the assessment of major projects, with the goal of “one project, one review”, under co-operation agreements.

Context

To meet the economic challenges and opportunities of today and the future, the Government of Canada is focused on building one Canadian economy, by removing barriers to interprovincial trade and identifying and expediting nation-building projects that will connect and transform the country. As part of this, in the 2025 Speech from the Throne, the Government committed to striking co-operation agreements with every interested province to realize its goal of “one project, one review” for major projects. Canada’s First Ministers subsequently agreed to work toward efficiently and effectively implementing this, with the goal of a single assessment for all projects, in a manner that respects federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdiction, enhancing co-ordination activities on permitting and eliminating duplication. This will enable accelerated reviews while upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.

Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) provides for the assessment of the impacts of major projects that are likely to have significant effects in areas of federal jurisdiction (e.g., 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. About eight major projects per year across the country meet the threshold to be subject to the federal impact assessment process. The IAA is part of, and informs, a larger regulatory landscape in Canada that includes federal permitting and shared responsibilities with the provinces and territories. The IAA, however, generally does not apply in the territories, except for major projects proposed in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and for certain transboundary or national interest projects in the Mackenzie Valley and northern regions.

Impact assessment under the IAA is a project planning tool to identify potential adverse effects in advance, through a transparent 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 and, where appropriate, accommodate impacts on Indigenous rights from major project development. Assessments are conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and involve extensive engagement with Indigenous groups and the public. IAAC also conducts regional assessments which consider impacts, including cumulative effects, on a broader basis to help inform, and ensure more efficient, project-level assessments.

Some projects that are subject to the IAA also require a provincial assessment. When this is the case, Canada is committed to working with provinces to achieve “one project, one review” where the federal and provincial governments work together to meet shared and respective responsibilities to protect the environment and Indigenous rights through a single process from the perspective of proponents, the public, and Indigenous groups.

The IAA includes various mechanisms to support coordinated action among jurisdictions in assessments. In June 2024, the IAA was amended to ensure that federal decisions under the IAA are focused on effects in federal jurisdiction under the Constitution, and to introduce more flexible co-operation tools, namely, to provide for greater reliance on provincial processes to enable early federal assessment decisions and a new harmonized assessment option that can substitute for the federal assessment. This was in response to the 2023 Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Reference Re: Impact Assessment Act which underscored the need for federal and provincial governments to work together on impact assessment in the spirit of co-operative federalism.

Co-operation agreements under the IAA will enable this and provide for “one project, one review”. These agreements would apply when a project is subject to both a federal and provincial assessment, which could include a project scheduled under the Building Canada Act if the project would otherwise be subject to federal and provincial assessments. As such, having co-operation agreements in place will help ensure accelerated assessments for nation building projects, and for all other major projects.

“One project, one review” processes may differ depending on the project, its potential impacts, and the provincial process that would apply to it. Co-operation agreements will provide certainty on the approaches to be used, while maintaining flexibility to implement the appropriate approach on a project-by-project basis. The following sections of this paper outline the federal approach to “one project, one review” through co-operation agreements. Draft agreements negotiated with individual provinces will be published as they become available.

Benefits of Co-operation Agreements

Agreements would provide greater certainty around jurisdictional roles and responsibilities in assessments. They would reflect that for projects involving primarily provincially-regulated activities, the federal government will defer to, and rely on, provincial assessment processes to address potential federal effects to the extent possible, and that federal decisions under the IAA are limited to federal effects.

Agreements would demonstrate a shared commitment to enhancing efficiency and reducing duplication, signaling to investors that both levels of government are working together to enable development, while providing reassurance that shared responsibilities to protect the environment and Indigenous rights will continue to be met. They would provide transparency, predictability and certainty to proponents, Indigenous partners, investors and stakeholders on how the federal and provincial governments will work together on “one project, one review” while meeting the requirements of each jurisdiction. Agreements would also facilitate the alignment and integration of permitting processes and requirements into the environmental or impact assessment process and improve coordination and integration of federal and provincial permitting processes.

Importantly, co-operation agreements would enable the use of new and full flexibilities in the IAA to defer to, and to work with and through, provincial processes under the mechanisms described below, to achieve “one project, one review”.

Canada-B.C. Co-operation Agreement

The Canada-B.C. Co-operation Agreement, in place since 2019, ensures a more predictable and timely assessment process, increased efficiency and certainty, and results in quality assessments that draw on the best available expertise from the provincial and federal governments, supporting the shared principle of “one project, one review.”

Of five federal impact assessments in B.C., four—including Cedar LNG—were substituted to B.C., with Cedar LNG completed in 3.5 years.

Benefits of the agreement include one set of requirements for proponents, information sharing, effective public participation, increased clarity and consistency, and coordinated communications.

Achieving “One Project, One Review”

The Physical Activities Regulations (known as the “Project List”)Footnote 1 list the types and sizes of projects (known as “designated projects”) that are subject to the IAA. The Project List provides certainty in advance on which projects are subject to the federal process and is intended to identify projects that are most likely to cause significant adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction. Approximately eight projects per year meet this threshold and undergo an initial assessment (the planning phase) and consultations to identify the key federal issues and to identify whether means, other than a federal impact assessment exist to address them, including provincial processes.

IAAC may, after the initial assessment, issue an early final decision that a comprehensive federal assessment is not required. Assurances provided under a co-operation agreement would facilitate a decision by IAAC, at this stage, to issue an early decision to rely on and defer to provincial processes as appropriate to address the federal issues identified in the initial assessment. When a comprehensive assessment is needed (e.g., for federal undertakings or more complex projects with significant and multidimensional federal effects), co-operation agreements will outline how federal and provincial governments will work together to ensure issues are assessed and addressed through a single process which could include substitution to the province’s process or substitution to a harmonized process.

Early Assessment Decisions

During the planning phase of a federal impact assessment, IAAC is required to conduct an initial assessment of a designated project, including consultations, to determine whether further assessment is required. This determination is largely based on the potential of the designated project being assessed to cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction. If the potential adverse federal effects are unlikely to be significant or are standard or well understood and key federal issues can be addressed through other means, such as provincial mechanisms (e.g., permitting and provincial assessment processes), IAAC would issue an early assessment decision that would conclude the federal impact assessment process. The existence of means other than a federal assessment, including provincial processes, to address the federal effects identified in the initial assessment is a new explicit consideration introduced in the 2024 amendments.

An agreement could commit the parties to share information early regarding how provincial means could address federal effects and, in appropriate cases, provide for continued IAAC support to the province to:

  • ensure adverse effects within federal jurisdiction are addressed in the provincial process, including through use of federal expertise;
  • incorporate the perspectives and Indigenous Knowledge of potentially impacted groups;
  • carry out Crown consultation obligations;
  • integrate permitting considerations into the assessment process to the extent possible to reduce federal permitting timelines; and/or
  • develop legally binding conditions related to the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction.

Substitution

A jurisdiction, such as a provincial government, can propose to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) to replace the federal impact assessment process of a major project with its own process. This approach, known as substitution under paragraph 31(1)(a) of the IAA, enables a single assessment that meets both federal and provincial requirements. In other words, if a project requires assessments by both the federal and a provincial government, the province can propose to lead the process on behalf of both levels of government, using its assessment process and following its timelines. For the Minister to approve such a request, the provincial process must address conditions set out in the IAA, including addressing the factors that would be addressed in a federal impact assessment, consulting with potentially affected Indigenous groups, providing an opportunity for the public to participate meaningfully in the assessment and involving federal experts throughout the assessment process. When an assessment is substituted, the federal government would continue to have a decision-making role following the assessment, in setting conditions to address significant adverse federal effects identified through the assessment, including, where appropriate, potential accommodations.

Substitution is appropriate when a province is willing and has the mandate, authorities and resources to incorporate key federal issues into its own assessment process. Substitution has been used regularly and successfully with British Columbia for more than a decade, and experience has shown that both levels of government continue to collaborate and support each other as relevant throughout the substituted process, respecting each others’ jurisdiction and ensuring provincial and federal interests are appropriately addressed.

The federal government and the province would still retain the responsibility to ensure that the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous groups has been fulfilled.

Substitution to a Harmonized Process

Substitution to a harmonized process is a new flexibility for federal-provincial co-operation, introduced in 2024 amendments to the IAA. Substitution to a harmonized process—under paragraph 31(1)(b) of the IAA—allows Canada and another jurisdiction, such as a province, to jointly develop an assessment process that meets the requirements of the IAA and a province’s legislative framework.

In a harmonized process, the federal and provincial governments would jointly determine which jurisdiction is best placed to assess which effects, resulting in a single, unified assessment process that would meet the legislative requirements of both levels of government. This process may follow the provincial timeline or adopt a different timeline that is jointly agreed upon.

Under a harmonized process, the proponent, Indigenous groups and stakeholders would experience a single review; however, parts of the assessment would be completed by the province while others would be completed by the federal government. The details of the harmonized process (e.g., process, roles, responsibilities and activities) would be established in project-level arrangements enabled by the broader co-operation agreement. Project-level arrangements would be developed at the outset of an assessment and would be published on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry. With a co-operation agreement in place, a harmonized process can serve as a substitute for the federal assessment under the IAA.

As with substitution above, the federal and provincial governments would retain the responsibility to ensure that the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous Peoples has been satisfied.

Additional Contents of Co-operation Agreements

Co-operation agreements would enable use of the three mechanisms above to provide for “one project, one review” depending on the project, its potential impacts, and the provincial process that would apply to it. They would also contain commitments to facilitate such assessments.

Individual co-operation agreements could also include commitments related to the following subjects.

Joint Review Panels

An agreement could commit Canada and a province to consider establishing a joint review panel to conduct the assessment if the Minister referred the assessment of a federally designated project to a review panel. It could also commit the parties to considering the establishment of a joint integrated review panel when a designated project contains activities regulated under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act or the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and therefore must be referred to a review panel under the IAA.

Conditions Development

An agreement could commit Canada and a province to jointly review potential conditions for a designated project, in order to minimize duplication and regulatory burden. It could also commit the parties to coordinating the opportunity for proponents, Indigenous Peoples, and the public to review potential conditions, where practicable.

Permitting

Canada is committed to increasing regulatory certainty and efficiency related to permitting and other authorizations for major projects. An agreement could include commitments for co-ordination on permitting such as the intention to align and integrate permitting processes and requirements into the assessment process, to the extent possible, and to explore other options to further streamline permitting and authorizations.

Indigenous Consultations

The IAA includes provisions to ensure assessments are conducted in a manner that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and ensures meaningful Indigenous participation and the incorporation of Indigenous perspectives and Indigenous Knowledge in the assessment process. An agreement could commit Canada and a province to collaborate on and coordinate meaningful communications and consultation with Indigenous Peoples during assessments. Co-ordination of communications and consultation with Indigenous groups could reduce duplication, overlapping processes, and the potential for consultation fatigue.

An agreement would not amend or alter the rights, processes, or obligations set out in existing modern treaties or land claim agreements. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples. This includes respecting section 35 of the Constitution Act,1982, and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Information Sharing and Communications

An agreement could include commitments related to information sharing and communications with the public, such as identifying opportunities to share information between the parties, streamlining the collection and public dissemination of information, and co-ordinating open, transparent, effective and timely communications with the public to support participation in assessments.

Participant Funding

An agreement could include commitments to coordinate federal and provincial funding or develop procedures outlining how federal funds will be distributed, to support participation in assessments, including the provision of funding to Indigenous Peoples.

Developing Co-operation Agreements

As part of its commitment to achieving “one project, one review”, Canada is working to establish individual co-operation agreements with every interested province. These agreements will set out how jurisdictions will work together on assessments of major projects, providing greater transparency and certainty for proponents, Indigenous Peoples, and stakeholders. Co-operation agreements will allow Canada and a province to make use of the authorities in the IAA to rely on provincial environmental assessments to achieve “one project, one review”, as outlined in the previous sections. “One project, one review” approaches may differ depending on the provincial process and project context; individual co-operation agreements will be tailored, if and as required, to address each province’s framework.

Providing Your Views

IAAC is interested in receiving your views on the proposed approach outlined above to working with provinces on the assessment of major projects to achieve the goal of “one project, one review” and potential co-operation agreements with provinces to enable this approach. Draft agreements developed with individual provinces will be published as they become available.

Comments on this paper can be provided online at letstalkimpactassessment.ca/one-project-one-review-cooperation-agreements-assessment-major-projects by October 20, 2025.