Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 (2013 - 2014)

 

Catalogue no. En104-13/2014-PDF
ISSN 2292-2385
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Represented by the Minister of the Environment (2014)

Foreword

The attached reports on activities on federal lands and outside Canada 2013- 2014 are being tabled in Parliament as per section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). To ensure that Parliament receives information on activities on federal lands and outside Canada in a timely, efficient and transparent manner, this consolidated report is being tabled on behalf of federal authorities. This is the second consolidated report tabled in Parliament since the implementation of CEAA 2012.

While the focus of CEAA 2012 is on environmental assessments of designated projects conducted by one of three responsible authorities (the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency), CEAA 2012 also includes provisions to ensure that projects on federal lands and outside Canada  are considered in a careful and precautionary manner. Under sections 66-72 of CEAA 2012, authorities are required to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects that might result from a project being carried out on federal lands or outside Canada. Authorities must make this determination prior to carrying out a project or exercising a power, performing a function or duty in relation to that project. If an authority concludes that a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, the project may be referred to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council will determine whether the significant adverse environmental effects are justified in the circumstances.

CEAA 2012 does not specify how the analysis of determining significant adverse environmental effects should be conducted. An interim evaluation tool was developed by authorities, with support from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, setting out a framework for a consistent approach and facilitating the joint analysis of projects involving multiple authorities. Authorities have full discretion in defining the process by which they conduct their analysis, and the breadth of their selected governance activities are reflected in the enclosed reports.

In order to ensure all federal authorities with varying fiscal year-end dates are able to meet their obligations, the attached reports are being tabled. Federal authorities that table an annual report in Parliament will generally meet their section 71 obligation using that mechanism. However, some of these authorities have satisfied this obligation by including their reports in the attached consolidated report.

Section 71 reports have been provided by federal authorities to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for consolidation. Please contact the appropriate federal authority if you have questions with respect to information provided in these reports.

This document is also available in Adobe's Portable Document Format [PDF - 400 KB].

Table of Contents

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (the Act), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) reviews projects and considers their environmental effects including those with respect to Aboriginal peoples prior to issuance of a permit, lease, licence or other authorizations.

For projects south of 60° on-reserve, the AANDC Environmental Review Process (the Process) consists of a suite of policy tools informed by the perspectives of various First Nations and industry representatives. In the few cases where the Act applies in the North (areas within Nunavut, but excluded from the Nunavut Settlement Area, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories), AANDC reviews each project on a case-by-case basis to determine if there are any adverse environmental impacts or impacts to Aboriginal peoples as per Section 5 (1)(c) of the Act.

The Process ensures that projects receive a risk assessment and scrutiny commensurate to the level of risk and the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects associated with carrying out the project. For the fiscal year 2013-2014, the department determined that none of the projects it reviewed were likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. No referral to Governor in Council was required. 

For further information on the process and projects that were reviewed in 2013-2014, please visit the website: www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1345141628060/1345141658639

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

In response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) coming into force, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) developed and implemented a risk-based approach to the environmental evaluation of departmental activities. The approach is based on guidance provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and ensures consistency in the application of CEAA 2012 to departmental activities, and that environmental risks are assessed for all projects on federal lands.

AAFC categorizes projects into those having low, moderate or high environmental risk. Departmental officials make the determination on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects for individual projects, and incorporate mitigation measures as appropriate to minimize environmental impacts.

Between April 1st, 2013 and March 31st, 2014, AAFC did not determine that any project was likely to have significant adverse environmental effects and did not refer any projects to the Governor in Council.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

ACOA completed environmental evaluations for seven (7) projects on federal lands in the Fiscal Year 2013-2014. The environmental evaluations determined that the projects were unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Governance Activities

ACOA has implemented a thorough approach to evaluating environmental impacts under sections 66-72 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The approach provides for an analysis of all potential environmental effects of projects on federal lands which are receiving contributions from ACOA. The approach being used is a risk-based approach, classifying projects as basic or non-basic, by predicting the project's level of risk to cause adverse environmental effects. More analysis is being provided to those projects where there is uncertainty of the potential environmental effects and where the mitigations measures are not established.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) serves Canada as a responsible steward of the environment. AECL is committed to assess the impacts of all of our activities on the environment through rigorous internal processes. In addition, AECL operates facilities that are licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), and as such, AECL must meet the CNSC's regulatory requirements.

AECL has implemented a risk-based approach to address the new requirements of Sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012. Environmental Reviews for low risk projects where conventional mitigation measures can be applied undergo a streamlined review. Reviews for moderate risk projects where there is greater potential for impacts on environment or humans undergo a more rigorous review. Criteria used to distinguish moderate risk projects include the size of the building footprint, potential for airborne or liquid effluents, potential for effects on species at risk and potential for public concern.

Projects assessed at AECL sites in 2013/14 included the construction and operation of a new Laboratory complex; decommissioning of shutdown nuclear facilities at AECL's Chalk River Laboratory Site; a Live Fire Training Complex; and decommissioning of a former nuclear laboratory building on the Chalk River Laboratories site.

Additional information on AECL's environmental performance is provided on our website www.aecl.ca.

Belledune Port Authority

The Belledune Port Authority is committed to ensuring that the Port and its clients do not impact negatively on the environment. The Port has developed effective environmental management systems based on sound principles and measures.

The Port and its tenants adhere to the requirements of numerous acts and regulations including the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Shipping Act and the Fisheries Act, among others.

Projects undertaken by the Port, its clients or its tenants within the jurisdictional area of the Belledune Port Authority, undergo environmental reviews by experts to determine potential adverse environmental effects to air, land, and water and to identify methods of mitigation if necessary. These assessments, in addition to review and continual improvement of policies and legislation, ensure the Belledune Port Authority meets its environmental responsibilities.

In 2013, no projects were determined to likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Additional information is available at the Port of Belledune's website: http://www.portofbelledune.ca/index.php

Business Development Bank of Canada

Given its mandate to support entrepreneurs, and recognizing that most businesses entail some degree of environmental risk, BDC has a rigorous governance structure in place. 

BDC's governance structure comprises a Board approved Policy on the Environment. Emanating from this policy are detailed procedures, business rules, processes, and tools that ensure that these principals and objectives are achieved. BDC's policy, processes and procedures are subject to regular review to ensure consistency with evolving legislation and best practices. Compliance is monitored as part of BDC's Quality Review and Internal Audit processes.

Funding of certain projects designated by CEAA 2012 and listed in BDC procedures can only be approved upon receipt of an assessment confirming that the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Internal assessments and site visits are also conducted to identify and classify possible environmental liabilities and environmental effects associated with a property's past and present use. BDC makes use of third party environmental consultants in cases where an internal assessment is deemed insufficient, inconclusive or where serious concerns are identified.

Project undertaken on Federal Lands and in jurisdictions outside Canada are subject to the same principals and activities outlined above. To the best of its knowledge, BDC attests that it has not, including the past fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, financed any projects that could have significant adverse environmental effects. 

Canada Border Services Agency

The CBSA is committed to the protection of the environment and as such conducts its operations and activities in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner.

Under section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the CBSA is required to conduct a determination of the significance of adverse environmental effects of its projects. CBSA maintains an internal environmental assessment process to meet this requirement. 

The process, which has been integrated with the CBSA Real Property Investment Board, is a risk-based approach that considers scope and complexity of proposed projects to ensure that careful assessments are conducted and any potential environmental effects are considered.

The approach consists of an Environmental Effects Checklist, a screening tool that evaluates proposed projects to ensure their environmental effects are assessed. If the screening checklist identifies sensitive environmental receptors, or the scope of the project is of a magnitude such that there is a greater potential for environmental effects, a more detailed evaluation is required.

All assessments are reviewed internally by the CBSA Infrastructure and Environmental Operations Directorate and the Agency maintains an inventory of all the assessments, including records of decision.

In 2013-14, assessed projects were determined to be unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

CBC / Radio Canada

CBC/Radio-Canada has implemented a risk- based approach to facilitate compliance with Sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. As part of the established procedures, CBC/Radio-Canada considers a physical activity as an activity that goes beyond normal maintenance, such as removing a wall, replacement of equipment or excavating a parking lot. For the purposes of this approach, painting walls or maintaining equipment is considered maintenance work. 

As part of the established process, a project manager must complete a checklist for all physical activities prior to the initiation of the project. The checklist outlines the scope and a description of the project and examines several environmental elements including but not limited to: asbestos, halocarbons, mould, fuel storage tanks, water or air quality, etc. The checklist is our formal tool to ensure the project carried out will examine any potential adverse environmental impacts and outline any appropriate action needed to minimize the impact. New checklists for the same project may be required in situations where there is a change in the project or the level of risk has changed. Otherwise the checklist remains valid for the duration of the project. The checklist also serves to assist in the maintenance of a log of all projects.

As part of the process outlined above, no project completed in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 was determined to result in a significant adverse environmental effect. 

Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions

Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions (CED) evaluates each funded project to verify compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 before approving any financial contribution. Generally, the projects funded by CED do not have an environmental impact. During the year 2013-2014, six (6) projects on federal lands were evaluated and had no significant non-desirable environmental impact.

CED has produced a program management manual that provides guidance to staff to ensure a consistent and a global approach to environmental assessment under articles 67 to 69 of the CEAA 2012. This approach is to consider each proposal to verify compliance with the CEAA 2012.

When a project is located on federal land, a checklist is used to evaluate it to determine whether potential adverse environmental effects are present. CED has established a contract with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) to conduct environmental impact assessments - under section 67 of the CEAA 2012 - for all projects on federal lands where possible negative environmental effects were previously identified by CED. Assessments conducted by PWGSC allow CED to ensure that projects comply with the Act 2012. When required, PWGSC also supports CED in evaluating mitigation measures to validate environmental monitoring and to answer any other questions relating to the application of the CEAA.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

In order to facilitate compliance with sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012, the CFIA has developed a comprehensive guideline on environmental effects evaluations for real property projects. The guideline provides the necessary tools and details the process for decision-makers to effectively include considerations of environmental risk and appropriate mitigation measures into real property projects. The guideline ensures that environmental effects are considered when project decisions are made.

By adopting a risk-based approach, a determination is made as to whether projects have low, moderate or high environmental risk. CFIA decision-makers are able to implement appropriate mitigation measures for projects of varying risks. Once the risk level is defined, the guideline specifies the next steps for projects that require an environmental effects evaluation to determine the potential for significant adverse effects.

In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, CFIA determined that no project had the potential for significant adverse environmental effects.

Canadian Heritage

In response to its obligations outlined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), Canadian Heritage (PCH) has developed and implemented a risk-based approach to evaluate the environmental effects of its activities and funded projects. The approach is based on guidance provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and ensures consistency in the application of CEAA 2012 for all projects on federal lands.

Departmental officials make the determination on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects of proposed projects that fall under the definition of a project under CEAA 2012 and incorporate mitigation measures as appropriate to minimize environmental impacts. In most cases, these are considered to be small projects and are unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Such projects could include the erection of a monument, the construction, renovation or expansion of sporting facilities, schools or cultural buildings. Determinations made in 2013-2014, with regard to environmental effects, indicated that no PCH projects were likely to have significant adverse environmental effects and as such, the Department did not refer any projects to the Governor-in-Council.

Canadian Institute of Health Research

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has determined there is minimal risk that the organization will carry out or financially support projects that fall under sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). Given that CIHR is a federal health research funding agency and does not conduct its own research, projects falling under the Act would be research proposals submitted to CIHR for funding. CIHR has made compliance with CEAA 2012 a requirement for obtaining agency funding. As such, it has implemented a mandatory field within its research funding application forms whereby research proposals that potentially fall under the Act are identified and flagged in CIHR's database at the application intake stage. Should the research proposal be successful, CIHR then follows up with the applicant to obtain the information necessary to make a determination following the guidelines and criteria set out in Projects on Federal Lands: Making a determination under section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. Database controls are in place to ensure that no federal funds are released until CIHR is fully satisfied that the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on federal lands or outside Canada. This process is actively monitored for continuous improvement. 

In fiscal year 2013-2014, CIHR did not support projects that fell under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is mandated, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), to regulate all nuclear facilities and nuclear-related activities in Canada. Before any person or company can prepare a site, construct, operate, decommission or abandon a nuclear facility—or possess, use, transport or store nuclear substances— they must obtain a corresponding licence from the CNSC.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) submitted a request for an approval to operate the Fuel Packaging and Storage Facility at Chalk River Laboratories. The Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) submitted a licence application for the continued operation of the SLOWPOKE reactor. CNSC staff assessed these two applications against CNSC regulatory guidance and CSA standards and found that both meet the requirements.

In considering the applications, the Commission is required to decide, pursuant to subsection 24(2) of the NSCA, that the applicant is qualified to carry on the activity and if in carrying out that activity, that they would make adequate provisions for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons, the maintenance of national security and, measures required to implement international obligations to which Canada has agreed.

The Commission considered the information and submissions from AECL, RMC and CNSC staff and is satisfied that the projects will not cause significant adverse environment effects, taking into consideration the implementation of mitigation and control measures. Pursuant to section 24 of NSCA, the Commission approved the request from AECL for the operation of the Fuel Packaging and Storage Facility, and the request from RMC to continue to operate the SLOWPOKE reactor.

Canadian Space Agency

To fulfill its obligations under sections 67 – 69 of CEAA 2012, the Canadian Space Agency determines the environmental impacts of projects on federal lands by using a process that provides an analysis of potential significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the projects funded, or implemented by the Canadian Space Agency.

The process enhances operational effectiveness and strengthens departmental accountability and governance with the implementation of procedural requirements to determine whether significant adverse environmental effects will be caused using a process described in guidelines.

The environmental impact of projects is assessed prior to making a decision on their implementation. Measures to mitigate the environmental impacts are included in the authority documents allowing the project to proceed. For fiscal year 2013-2014, no projects were determined likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.

Canadian Tourism Commission

The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) is Canada's national tourism marketing organization. The CTC leads the Canadian tourism industry in marketing Canada as a premier four-season tourism destination. The CTC has determined that there is very minimal risk that the organization will carry out or financially support projects that fall under sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).

To fulfill its obligations under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012, CTC determines the environmental impacts of projects on federal lands by using a process that provides an analysis of potential significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the projects funded, or implemented by the CTC.

For fiscal year 2013-2014, we have determined that the projects carried out by CTC did not have cause for potential significant environmental impact.

Copyright Board of Canada

The Copyright Board of Canada is a quasi-judicial tribunal that establishes royalties to be paid for the use of copyrighted works. As part of this mandate, the Board does not initiate or participate in any physical activity that is carried out on federal lands or outside Canada in relation to a physical work.

Consequently, for fiscal year 2013-14, no projects were determined likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.

Correctional Service Canada

Correctional Service Canada (CSC) uses a risk-based approach to comply with its legislative requirements of section 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. CSC's approach, which is governed by an internal directive, involves screening proposed projects using an internal checklist to separate projects that require further investigation from routine low-risk projects whose environmental effects are known and can be easily controlled with standard mitigation measures. Projects that require further investigation undergo an Environmental Effects Evaluation, which systematically evaluates and documents the anticipated environmental effects of a proposed project and determines the need to modify the project plan or recommend further mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental effects.

In fiscal year 2013-2014 CSC did not conduct any projects that were found to have significant adverse environmental effects nor were any projects referred to the Governor in Council for a determination on the justification of effects.

More information about CSC's comprehensive approach to assessing potential environmental impacts of projects is outlined in the Internal Service Directive 318-11 – Environmental Assessment of Projects which can be found at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/318-11-isd-eng.shtml .

Department of National Defence

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), the Department of National Defence (DND) is required to conduct a determination of the significance of adverse environmental effects associated with planned projects on federal lands and outside of Canada. For fiscal year 2013-2014, all DND projects requiring a determination of significance were evaluated to confirm that adverse environmental effects were unlikely. There was no referral to Governor in Council. 

DND continues to renew its departmental direction and guidance, including its Environmental Assessment Manual and its Directive and Order on Environmental Assessment, to better align with CEAA 2012 requirements. In the interim, existing DND policy instruments, which were developed under the former CEAA, continue to ensure that DND complies with CEAA 2012.

Employment and Social Development Canada

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) funding does not typically support large scale economic capital ventures that are likely to create environmental impacts. Examples of projects ESDC typically support include:

  • Employment recruitment, training and placement for targeted client groups.
  • Small scale renovations (i.e. building wheelchair accessible ramps for a First Nation band office).
  • Full building renovations (homelessness projects).
  • Smaller scale new building construction – typically one or two story buildings for homeless shelters.

In order to facilitate compliance with sections 67-69, ESDC ensures that:

  • projects are tracked through ESDC's Common System for Grants and Contributions (CSGC); and
  • When a project has been identified, it is assessed to determine whether it will likely cause significant adverse environmental effects. This assessment is conducted through a series of questions and guidance provided in the CSGC as well as the Department's Operational Guide. The assessment must be completed before a funding decision is made.

The projects that were assessed this past fiscal year did not cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Environment Canada

Environment Canada (EC) has developed and deployed a department-wide process to guide department staff in meeting its Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) section 66 - 72 responsibilities in a robust and consistent manner. EC is supported by a dedicated unit that provides oversight, advice, and operational support to program areas with responsibilities under sections 66-72. 

EC utilizes a tiered, risk-based approach in the review of projects whereby the level of effort and analysis undertaken is commensurate with the level of anticipated environmental effects or risks of a proposed project. Projects were reviewed across a wide array of departmental program areas including Species at Risk Act permitting, hydrometric monitoring, disposal at sea under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the issuing of grants and contributions. Detailed procedures, processes, and tools are in place, as is a tracking system to record project data and decisions. This intranet-based tracking system captures analysis and decisions in order to compile results and allow the department to generate consolidated reports of all reviews. EC employs a continuous improvement approach to discharging its obligations, soliciting feedback from expert staff aimed at improving our existing processes.

In fiscal year 2013-2014 EC did not have any projects that were found to have significant adverse environmental effects.

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario

The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) assesses all projects on federal lands for environmental effects to ensure compliance with sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012 before approving a funding contribution. Direct recipients of FedDev Ontario funding that have third-party funding agreements are required to submit any projects on federal lands to FedDev Ontario for determination under CEAA 2012 before finalizing a funding contribution with the third party.

FedDev Ontario has established a contract with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) to conduct environmental effects evaluations under section 67 of CEAA 2012 for all projects on federal lands involving a physical activity in relation to a physical work. These assessments inform FedDev Ontario's determinations under CEAA 2012. Where required, mitigation measures are included in contribution agreements with recipients.

For fiscal year 2013-2014, no projects were determined likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has developed internal operational guidance that outlines an overarching risk-based approach for the assessment and reporting of environmental effects of projects proposed on federal lands that are subject to Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). 

For the past year, staff have reviewed and completed Project Effects Determination Reports for projects subject to Section 67. The Reports are a means to record the predicted environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures that are applied to minimize the potential negative environmental effects of medium to high-risk projects on federal lands.

The Department's Fisheries Protection Program owns and manages a national database that is used for collecting information on various program activities. This system, called the Program Activity Tracking for Habitat – PATH, has been made available to all programs in the Department who have responsibilities under CEAA 2012. PATH can be used to obtain statistical reports for projects that the department has evaluated under Section 67 of CEAA 2012. 

In the last year, there have been no determinations made where a project on federal lands was likely to cause significant environmental effects.

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) supports a broad range of international projects including, but not limited to, international development assistance program funding, the Global Peace and Security Fund (including Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force), the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and the International Science & Technology Partnerships Program.

DFATD has designed and implemented streamlined environmental review processes that demonstrate due diligence in decision-making under CEAA 2012 and support the Department's mandate, including Canada's reputation abroad for projects it funds or undertakes. Environmental reviews required for projects outside Canada respect foreign sovereignty, international law, and international agreements to which Canada is party.

The processes articulate roles and responsibilities to emphasize accountability within the Department for ensuring environmental reviews are conducted as appropriate and that decisions are documented and results are reported. For international development assistance funding decisions, a new environmental integration process has been integrated into the Department's operational processes and technical systems to systematically ensure and track compliance with CEAA 2012. The level of effort and analysis undertaken corresponds with the level of anticipated environmental effects or risks of the proposed project. No project environmental reviews conducted during the 2013-2014 fiscal year resulted in the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. Further information can be found on DFATD's Sustainable Development website.

Halifax Port Authority

The Halifax Port Authority is required by Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) to determine whether projects on federal lands are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This obligation applies when a Federal Authority proposes to carry out a project or before it exercises a power or performs a duty or function that could permit the project to proceed.

The Halifax Port Authority has developed a CEAA Environmental Form to provide potential proponents with a user friendly process which will meet the intent of CEAA 2012 for proposed projects on Halifax Port Authority Property. Federal department coordination and consultation with the subject matter experts at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, and the Department of National Defense also factor within the determination process.

The Halifax Port Authority carried out a small number of environmental effects determinations within the specified time period. Projects reviewed within the timeframe were determined not to have significant adverse environmental effects.

Hamilton Port Authority

The Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) has the obligation to manage federal property along the shores of Hamilton Harbour in Lake Ontario, and as such, is responsible for conducting appropriate environmental effects evaluations and determinations for both its own projects and those proposed by prospective tenants.

HPA conducts in-house Environmental Effects Evaluations (EEE) for lower-risk construction projects that are not likely to result in significant environmental effects with the use of standard mitigation measures. Evaluations for projects involving an industrial or manufacturing process are conducted by qualified consultants, with the input of the appropriate authorities as required.

No project had the potential for significant adverse environmental effects during the Hamilton Port Authority's fiscal year, from January 2013 to December 2013.

Health Canada

Health Canada continues to provide oversight, advice, and operational support to program areas for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The procedure developed in 2012-13 to assess and mitigate the risk of significant adverse environmental effects of projects was distributed and piloted within our organization in the current reporting period, and feedback from stakeholders has since been incorporated into it.

There were no projects determined as being likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects during this period.

Industry Canada

To fulfill its obligations under sections 67 - 69 of CEAA 2012, Industry Canada determines the environmental impacts of projects on federal lands by using a process that provides an analysis of potential significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the projects funded, or implemented by, Industry Canada.

The process enhances operational effectiveness and strengthens departmental accountability and governance with the implementation of procedural requirements to determine whether significant adverse environmental effects will be caused using a process described in guidelines.

The environmental impact of projects is assessed prior to making a decision on their implementation. Measures to mitigate the environmental impacts are included in the authority documents allowing the project to proceed. For fiscal year 2013-2014, no projects were determined likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.

Infrastructure Canada

During the 2013/2014 fiscal year, an internal environmental determination process was carried out on infrastructure projects submitted for federal funding approval. This process is used to identify a project's legislative (CEAA 2012) requirements and to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled prior to flowing federal funds.

With respect to fulfilling Section 67 requirements, the process involves the following activities:

  • Collecting, analyzing and synthesizing information provided by funding applicants;
  • Determining, based on research conducted and on information provided, whether a project is proposed, in whole or in part, on federal lands;
  • Informing the appropriate federal authority if a project is found to be proposed, in whole or in part, on federal lands; and
  • Verifying that control mechanisms are in place, such as including requirements in the contribution agreement, to ensure the completion of the Environmental Effects Evaluation (EEE) and that all conditions specified in the EEE, including issuance of federal permits, were implemented.

Marine Atlantic Inc.

Marine Atlantic underwent a number of activities during fiscal 2013/14 in order to make determinations under sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Such activities included site groundwater sampling, monitoring well installations, deconstruction and disposal of a Pontoon Dock and Car Bridge, a fuel release inspection and, several shore based infrastructure upgrades at terminal properties.

Projects reviewed by Marine Atlantic in the last fiscal year included:

  • North Sydney Gulfspan Bridge Repair, NS
  • Port aux Basques pipeline upgrades, NL
  • Port aux Basques Shore Power Project, NL
  • Port aux Basques Storm Sewer Line Replacement, NL
  • Port aux Basques Gulfspan Approach Ramp – Expansion Joints, NL
  • Bar Harbor Pontoon Dock Deconstruction, ME

None of the projects that were reviewed were determined to have significant adverse environmental effects.

Montreal Port Authority

The Montreal Port Authority's (MPA) environmental management system ensures compliance with the requirements of section 67-69 of the CEAA 2012. Indeed, procedures have been developed to ensure that issues, regulatory requirements and environmental aspects are taken into account as part of the management of contracts and leases signed with tenants, and also where work is executed by tenants.

In addition, there is a similar procedure as well for all projects executed by the MPA. These procedures ensure that environmental effects are assessed for any project or work executed on Port of Montreal's territory.

For all the projects analyzed by the MPA during the period, none was to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The review of these projects has shown that environmental effects could be managed through well-established and effective mitigation measures.

Nanaimo Port Authority

For the review of projects as defined under CEAA 2012, the Nanaimo Port Authority uses an Environmental Management Approach for planned projects on federal lands under its administration and control. The management approach enables the Nanaimo Port Authority to conduct appropriate Environmental Effects Evaluations and Determination for projects located on Nanaimo Port Authority federal lands, to satisfy the requirements of section 67 of the Act.

Lower-risk activities that are routine and predictable, which incorporate effective and established mitigation measures and environmental best practices may require less analysis while higher-risk activities will require more detailed review and scrutiny. This approach ensures that projects receive a risk assessment and review that is commensurate with the level of risk and likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects with carrying out the project. 

There were no projects determined as likely to result in having significant adverse environmental effects during this reporting period. 

National Research Council

NRC's organizational and reporting structure ensures compliance with sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). Design and implementation of all projects and real property activities fall under the direction of the Director General of Administrative Services and Property Management Branch (ASPM). The Environmental Operations Office (EOO) works with groups within ASPM and across the NRC to ensure environmental issues are considered at the project proposal phase, in the project design and implementation, and includes consideration of alternatives. The EOO adopted a risk-based approach to determine the level of involvement and review required; standard mitigation measures are applied to lower-risk projects. In collaboration with Environment Canada and others, NRC developed protocols for review of projects, regulation and management of activities occurring in more sensitive areas (i.e., property providing habitat for species at risk, or projects of public or First Nations interest).

No NRC projects approved in 2013-14 were determined to likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Natural Resources Canada

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) uses internal and external guidance along with a tri-level Environmental Effects Evaluation template process to evaluate environmental impacts under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012. Obligations for these projects are outlined on NRCan's internal communications “wiki” site, and incorporated in project approval frameworks within the department. NRCan collaborates with other government departments, such as Public Works and Government Services Canada, in managing joint projects and making determinations under CEAA 2012. NRCan's own facilities have an Environmental Management System which provides a framework and tools for managing environmental issues across the country. 

Tailored processes have been developed and are being used for specific NRCan programs. Implemented by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and NRCan, the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP) manages nuclear legacy liabilities at AECL sites. The NLLP focuses on improving the management of legacy radioactive waste, accelerating the decommissioning of outdated, unused buildings and structures and remediating lands impacted by prior operations. CEAA 2012 determinations are made based on a thorough review of the project description, AECL's Environmental Effects Review, and other pertinent documentation.

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

NSERC requires applicants to self-identify on grant applications when any proposed activities are being undertaken outdoors, and the activities take place on federal lands or outside of Canada. These self-identified grant applications are reviewed to determine whether they constitute a project as defined under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), and any projects are in turn assessed in terms of their likelihood of having significant adverse environmental effects as described in CEAA 2012. Applicants who are requesting funding for a project, as defined in the Act, must provide detailed information on the component(s) of the environment that will be affected, and any relevant planned mitigation measures, follow-up programs, and/or monitoring that will be put in place. NSERC's Guidelines on Environmental Review and Assessment can be found here: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/policies-politiques/enviroassess-enviroeval_eng.asp

For the period April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, NSERC's review of projects concluded that none were likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. In addition, NSERC was not the lead Federal Authority on any of the projects.

Parks Canada Agency

Parks Canada's mandate is to protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations. Parks Canada's Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) process supports achievement of this mandate as well as the requirements of CEAA 2012, by providing a framework to evaluate potential adverse environmental effects of projects on the lands and waters Parks Canada administers.

The EIA process maximizes efficiency by matching the depth of analysis to the potential environmental risk of the project. Best management practices are applied to routine projects with predictable effects; basic analysis is used for projects of low-complexity and little public concern; and detailed analysis is undertaken for complex projects with high levels of public concern.

Policy, guidance documents and tools have been developed to support implementation of the EIA process, and a tracking system is used to record project data and decisions. Ongoing training and communications ensure effective and consistent application of the EIA process and continuous improvement.

No projects with likely significant adverse environmental effects were identified during the current reporting period.

Port Alberni Port Authority

The Port Alberni Port Authority (PAPA) employs an environmental management program that enables it to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The program is focused on reviewing projects and activities that occur on federal lands within PAPA's administrative jurisdiction, thus satisfying the requirements of The Act; particularly Sections 67-69. Inclusive of this environmental effects approach are contracts and leases managed between PAPA and its tenants as well as works that may be conducted by tenants.

The vast preponderance of works conducted by PAPA and its tenants are deemed to be routine, low-risk and incorporate effective environmental best practices. These activities have been demonstrated to have no to little environmental impacts. The latter of which are managed through acceptable mitigation measures.

Of all the projects and activities reviewed and monitored by PAPA during Fiscal Year 2013 none were deemed to cause or were expected to cause adverse environmental effects that could not managed through established and effective mitigation measures.

Prince Rupert Port Authority

In all of its activities, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is guided by key principles of environmental sustainability, including pollution prevention, preservation of environmental integrity, efficient use of resources, and continuous improvement.

Environmental conditions in the Port are documented and monitored on an ongoing basis, which enables the identification and assessment of environmental impacts arising from Port development and operations. The Port Authority is committed to take action to mitigate adverse environmental impacts arising from development and operations, and to build considerations of environmental sustainability into planning, decision-making, and management processes.

For the 2013 fiscal year, all projects reviewed by the Prince Rupert Port Authority were considered unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, or were considered unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects with the application of appropriate environmental mitigation. Further information on major projects reviewed during this period is available on the Prince Rupert Port Authority's website at http://www.rupertport.com/documents

Public Health Agency of Canada

The Public Health Agency of Canada continues to provide oversight, advice, and operational support to program areas for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The procedure developed in 2012-13 to assess and mitigate the risk of significant adverse environmental effects of projects was distributed and piloted within our organization in the current reporting period, and feedback from stakeholders has since been incorporated into it.

There were no projects determined as being likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects during this period.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board

The Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments) has adopted a Responsible Investment Policy which embodies its belief that responsible corporate behavior with respect to environmental, social and governance factors can generally have a positive influence on long-term financial performance.

In analyzing the environmental risks in any investment, PSP Investments looks to identify, monitor and mitigate environmental risks that are or could become material to long-term financial performance. Consideration of environmental risks are taken into account as part of the due diligence process with respect to potential investments and ongoing monitoring of investments.   

In Fiscal Year 2014, PSP Investments did not pursue any investment where it was determined that significant adverse environmental effects were likely. Going forward, PSP Investments intends to fulfill its annual reporting obligations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 with its annual report to Parliament.

Please refer to PSP Investments website, for additional information on PSP Investments' responsible investment activities: http://www.investpsp.ca/en/gov-responsible-investing.html.

Public Works and Government Services Canada

To ensure Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) complies with its obligations under Sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), the Department continues to implement the PWGSC national CEAA 2012 framework as a component of the departmental Environmental Compliance Management Program. 

In order to render a CEAA 2012 determination the environmental services assessor reviews and analyzes the project information against established PWGSC project risk criteria. Risks are divided into three categories: high, medium, and low. The level of assessment and subsequent mitigation measures correspond to the level of risk. All determinations are documented in the CEAA 2012 component of the Environmental Services Ledger.

An audit of the CEAA 2012 framework implementation was undertaken in fiscal year 2013-2014. Various recommendations were identified and will be reviewed and actioned to further improve the current process.  

To date, no PWGSC projects have been determined to pose significant adverse environmental effects, and, no projects have been referred to the Governor in Council. 

PWGSC continues to provide CEAA 2012 advice and services to other federal departments and agencies.

Québec Port Authority

In the case of a construction, demolition, major rebuilding or closure project that is not covered by a regulation for the designated activities, the Québec Port Authority (QPA) requires the proponent to have an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared. Each EIS for a project must include the following:   

  • The scope of the project;
  • The environmental effects of the project, including those caused by potential accidents or malfunctions;
  • The significance of the effects;
  • Mitigation measures that are technologically and economically feasible that would mitigate the significant adverse environmental effects of the project;
  • The residual environmental effects; and
  • The monitoring and follow-up program

If a project raises public interest or if public participation in the EIS is desired, the QPA notifies the public that an information session will be held, with the opportunity for the public to participate.  

No project may begin before the QPA has analyzed and made a decision on the EIS. Analysis of the EIS is conducted by a three-person committee. Only projects whose residual environmental effects are non-significant are authorized.

Registry of the Competition Tribunal

The Competition Tribunal, established in 1986, is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal established under the Competition Tribunal Act to hear applications brought by the Commissioner of Competition or a private party, depending on the circumstances, under various parts of the Competition Act. The purpose of the Competition Act is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada. The Tribunal hears applications related to deceptive marketing practices, such as misleading advertising, under Part VII.1. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction to hear references as well as applications brought pursuant to Part VIII, which sets out restrictive trade practices such as exclusive dealings. The Competition Tribunal Act provides for an administrative infrastructure in support of the workings of the Competition Tribunal, through the Registry of the Competition Tribunal. The Registry of the Competition Tribunal is designated a department under Schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

In view of the mandate of the Competition Tribunal, and of the Registry of the Competition Tribunal, in 2013-14 neither the Tribunal nor the Registry, were involved in any projects that could have an adverse environmental effect.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

During the fiscal year 2013-14, the RCMP used an approach to evaluating the environmental effects of projects on federal lands that is in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Projects for which work was conducted outdoors were analyzed based on the following risk factors: project location (e.g. proximity to water bodies frequented by fish), project scale and scope (e.g. significant footprint) and type of operations that pose a higher risk of release of polluting substances. All projects carried out indoors, were considered 'routine' projects and determined to be of low risk with very little or no impact to the external environment. These projects were therefore not further evaluated. For projects outside Canada, the RCMP relied upon and adopted the process used by the Federal Authority responsible for the project.

There were no projects on federal lands or outside Canada in fiscal year 2013-14 where it was determined that significant adverse environmental effects were likely.

Saguenay Port Authority

In all its activities, the Saguenay Port Authority (SPA) ensures that its environmental policy is complied with. This policy establishes the environmental principles to be applied in the management of its facilities, activities and operations on its territory and the planning of future developments. It aims to ensure that activities are planned and implemented according to the following criteria: compliance with the law, preventing and reducing to a minimum any environmental impact, protecting the quality of the environment and a concern to promote sustainable development.

To this end, each new project which may have a negative impact on the environment is the subject of a detailed assessment and a study of the potential environmental impacts is performed using independent experts.

During 2013, no project was deemed likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Sept-Îles Port Authority

The Sept-Îles Port Authority (SIPA) used the draft guidance document to establish the decision-making process in accordance with the requirements of Articles 67 to 69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and determine whether a project on its territory is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. After this process streamlined environmental assessment, the SIPA is able to authorize activities that have no anticipated environmental effects or for which conventional mitigation measures can be applied. Projects for which the impact on the environment or human population seem more likely to occur are subject to further assessment of environmental effects (EE) to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects and to specify the mitigation measures required. The criteria used to determine which projects will follow this approach are based on the risk they pose to cause the release of a polluting substance into the environment or to degrade, disrupt or destroy fish habitat, migratory birds or species at risk and their habitats, or to raise public concerns.

The projects reviewed by Sept-îles Port Authority in the last period included:

  • The expansion of the SIMEC building, City sector, Sept- Îles, QC.
  • The demolition of a shed on the port terminal of Pointe-aux-Basques, City sector, Sept-Îles, QC.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) is the federal research funding agency that promotes and supports postsecondary-based research and training in the humanities and social sciences. The management of funds from SSHRC awards and grants is governed by the Tri-agency Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions (the Agreement), which outlines the responsibilities of organizations that are eligible to administer grants and awards on behalf of SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR. Eligible organizations include, but are not limited to, Canadian universities, colleges and research hospitals. The Agreement includes a requirement (section 3.10) that research institutions assist SSHRC in carrying out its responsibilities under the CEAA 2012 by assisting applicants and providing information upon request.

Applicants whose proposed research or research-related activities may constitute a project as defined in Section 66 of CEAA 2012 review a list of questions pertaining to environmental impact and complete the required sections in the application material. This information assists SSHRC staff in determining whether the research meets the definition of a project and, if yes, the likelihood for significant adverse environmental effects as detailed in CEAA 2012. SSHRC's Corporate Strategy and Performance Division leads the annual review process for funded applications, with program officers also contributing as required. In this past fiscal year, no SSHRC funded research was found to be a project as defined in CEAA 2012. This is in line with SSHRC's 2012-2013 environmental assessment report.

St. John's Port Authority

The SJPA is committed to the protection of the environment and to that end, all projects undertaken by the Port Authority, or those projects undertaken by others which the Port Authority must grant approval, are reviewed in accordance with a comprehensive Environmental Checklist. This review is to confirm there will not be any significant adverse environmental effects from the project, and that short term effects are mitigated through the use of proven practices and procedures.

In the calendar year 2013, the following projects were reviewed:

  • Painting of High Mast Pole Oceanex Terminal
  • Marginal Wharf Fendering repairs 2013
  • Gatehouse Construction Marginal Wharf – Pier 9

Standards Council of Canada

The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a federal Crown corporation. It has its mandate to promote efficient and effective standardization in Canada. The organization reports to Parliament through the Minister of Industry and oversees Canada's national standardization network.

Further to requirements to report activities under sections 67 to 69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), note that the Standards Council of Canada does not undertake projects on federal lands or outside Canada.

Statistics Canada

While Statistics Canada does not typically support large scale economic capital ventures that would likely create environmental impacts, to ensure compliance with its obligations under Sections 67 to 69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA), it has developed an internal operational process for evaluating project environmental impacts using the Treasury Board Policy on the Management of Projects and the Project Complexity and Risk Assessment (PCRA).

The process outlines a risk-based approach for the assessment and reporting of environmental effects of projects proposed on federal lands that are subject to Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

The Agency has determined that no projects carried out in 2013-2014 had cause for any significant environmental impact.

Transport Canada

Transport Canada continues to ensure that it is meeting Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 federal lands obligations by reviewing and improving its Federal Lands Framework. The framework is used by departmental staff in meeting these obligations and clearly identifies roles and responsibilities of all relevant parties.

Under this framework, new tools and approaches have been developed to provide better guidance to practitioners. For example, the department developed, and is piloting a risk-based mapping tool to help determine whether there is a requirement to consider significant environmental effects for projects located within a specific area of the Atlantic Ocean; a tracking system has been updated to better capture information related to federal lands projects; internal awareness sessions were given to departmental officials; and federal lands obligations were integrated into departmental processes, such as the approval process for new capital projects.

Finally, Transport Canada continues to co-lead a working group where CEAA 2012 authorities collectively discuss and address issues relating to federal lands obligations, as well as leads a separate working group tasked with the development of guidance specific to submerged federal lands, targeted for completion in 2014/15.

Trois-Rivières Port Authority

The Trois-Rivières Port Authority (TRPA)'s environmental management system enables ensuring compliance with the requirements of sections 67-69 of the CEAA 2012.

Thus, in accordance with Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the TRPA advises that from July 6, 2012, the effective date of CEAA 2012 to December 31, 2013, projects administered by the TRPA, that took into account the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed by expert advisors/consultants, were determined to not likely cause significant adverse environmental effects. Determinations are based on the Interim guidance as provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and a review of policies, plans, processes or procedures, roles and responsibilities, audit and feedback and continual improvement mechanisms.

Indeed, procedures have been developed to ensure that issues, regulatory requirements and environmental aspects are taken into account as part of the management of contracts and leases signed with tenants, and also where work is executed by tenants.

In addition, there is also a similar procedure for all projects executed by the TRPA. These procedures ensure that environmental effects are assessed for any project or work executed on port of Trois-Rivières property.

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

VFPA is committed to conducting its operations in a responsible and sustainable manner that safeguards and, where feasible and practicable, promotes continual improvement of the environment to its employees, customers and community partners.

As required by VFPA's Environment Policy, environmental reviews are conducted on all Projects, Physical Works, and Activities within VFPA jurisdiction or authority. The review considers the potential adverse environmental effects on land, air or water as a result of the project. Based on the scope of the project, the review includes assessment for fish and fish habitat, aquatic species, migratory birds, health and socio-economic conditions, physical and cultural heritage and the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.

Between January 1 and December 31, 2013, all projects reviewed by VFPA were considered unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, or were considered unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects with the application of appropriate environmental mitigation. Further information on the projects reviewed is provided in Table 1 on VFPA's website at: http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/environment/ourapproach/environmental--review

Western Economic Diversification Canada

The department of Western Economic Diversification (WD) has employed interim guidance circulated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to ensure a consistent approach to assessments under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012.

WD assesses each project to ensure compliance with CEAA 2012 before approving a funding contribution. If required, WD accesses expertise and guidance from partner organizations to conduct environmental effects evaluations under section 67 of CEAA 2012 for all projects on federal lands. The assessments and guidance obtained inform WD's determinations under the CEAA 2012. 

In 2013/2014, WD did not provide funding to a project on federal lands (or outside Canada).

Further information on WD's projects can be found at www.wd.gc.ca

Windsor Port Authority

In accordance with Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the Windsor Port Authority advises that from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, projects administered by the Windsor Port Authority, that took into account the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed by expert advisors/consultants, were determined to not likely cause significant adverse environmental effects. Determinations are based on the Interim guidance as distributed by CEAA, and a review of policies, plans, processes or procedures, roles and responsibilities, audit and feedback and continual improvement mechanisms.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: