Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (2012-2013)
Catalogue no. En104-13/2013E-PDF
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
Represented by the Minister of the Environment (2013)
This document is also available in Adobe's Portable Document Format [PDF- 527 KB].
The attached reports on activities on federal lands and outside Canada 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 consolidation of reports is being tabled on behalf of federal authorities.
CEAA 2012 came into force on July 6, 2012. It enables a modern approach to environmental assessment that responds to Canada's current economic and environmental context by focusing on projects with the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects, referred to as designated projects. However, to ensure accountability for decisions made on projects that take place on federal lands and outside Canada that are not designated projects, CEAA 2012 includes provisions to ensure these projects are considered in a careful and precautionary manner to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
While the focus of environmental assessment responsibilities for designated projects now rests with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the responsibility for implementing the provisions relating to non-designated projects on federal lands and outside Canada (sections 66-72), lies with individual authorities.
An authority is required to determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects of projects on federal lands prior to carrying out a project or exercising a power, performing a function or duty in relation to that project. A federal authority must also determine the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects of projects outside Canada prior to carrying out or providing financial assistance to allow the project to proceed. If an authority determines 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.
Under section 71 of CEAA 2012, all federal authorities with responsibilities associated with projects on federal lands or outside Canada must provide a report to both Houses of Parliament in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the activities took place. The attached reports are being tabled to ensure the obligations of all federal authorities, with varying fiscal year-end dates, are met. 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 their obligation this year by including their reports in the attached reports as they transition to the new legislative framework.
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, or with respect to reports that are not attached.
Table of Contents
- Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
- Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
- Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
- Business Development Bank of Canada
- Canada Border Services Agency
- Canada Post Corporation
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency
- Canadian Heritage
- Canadian International Development Agency
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation
- Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
- Correctional Service Canada
- Employment and Social Development Canada
- Environment Canada
- Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada
- Foreign Affairs and International Trade
- Halifax Port Authority
- Hamilton Port Authority
- Health Canada
- Industry Canada
- Infrastructure Canada
- Marine Atlantic Inc.
- Montreal Port Authority
- Nanaimo Port Authority
- National Defence
- National Gallery of Canada
- National Research Council Canada
- Natural Resources Canada
- Parks Canada Agency
- Prince Rupert Port Authority
- Public Health Agency of Canada
- Public Sector Pension Investment Board
- Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Québec Port Authority
- Royal Canadian Mint
- Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Sept-Îles Port Authority
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
- St. John's Port Authority
- Transport Canada
- Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
- VIA Rail Canada Inc.
- Western Economic Diversification Canada
- Windsor Port Authority
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
In response to its responsibilities pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has developed an Environmental Management Approach (the Approach) that 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, a suite of new policy tools have been developed and informed by interdepartmental discussions as well as the perspectives of various First Nations and industry representatives. In the few cases where CEAA 2012 applies in the North (areas within Nunavut Territory, but excluded from the Nunavut Settlement Area, and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region of the Northwest Territories), the Approach relies upon the existing regulatory regime and processes.
The Approach ensures that projects receive a risk assessment and scrutiny commensurate with the level of risk and the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects associated with carrying out the project. For the fiscal year 2012-2013, 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.
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 July 6th, 2012 and March 31st, 2013, 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
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) completed environmental evaluations for projects on federal lands in the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and no projects were determined to likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.
ACOA has implemented a thorough approach to evaluating environmental impacts under sections 67-69 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 2012/13 included:
- Decommissioning of shutdown facilities at the Chalk River Laboratories Site;
- Installation of a cover on a legacy radioactive waste management area at the Chalk River Laboratories Site; and,
- Decommissioning of AECL's Glace Bay Heavy Water Plant Site in Nova Scotia.
Additional information on AECL's environmental performance is provided on our website www.aecl.ca.
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, 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.
Projects 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, 2013, financed any projects that could have significant adverse environmental effects.
Canada Border Services Agency
The CBSA has developed an internal assessment process to meet its obligations under section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012.
The process, which has been aligned and 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 tool that evaluates proposed projects to ensure their environmental effects are assessed, and if deemed necessary, mitigation measures are developed and implemented. If the 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. CBSA maintains an inventory of all the assessments, including records of decision.
In 2012-13, assessed projects were determined to be unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Canada Post Corporation
Certain Canada Post Corporation (CPC) activities during 2012 would constitute Projects within the meaning of section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). The projects involved construction, renovation and maintenance of post offices, letter carrier depots and other mail processing facilities, and the placement and installation of CPC street furniture on federal lands.
Under CPC's Environment Policy, the company is committed to environmental protection in its operations. All contractors and other suppliers carrying out projects on behalf of CPC must ensure that environmental laws and regulations are respected. During 2012, CPC initiated a review of its obligations under section 67 of CEAA 2012, to confirm that processes and contractual arrangements were either in place or would be put in place to support compliance. Canada Post can confirm that, to the best of its knowledge, its projects during 2012 were not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects within the meaning of section 67 of CEAA 2012. Going forward, Canada Post intends to fulfill its annual reporting requirement under CEAA 2012 within its Annual Report to Parliament (beginning with the 2013 report, to be tabled in Spring 2014).
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
In order to facilitate compliance with sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (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 2012-2013 fiscal year, CFIA determined that no project had the potential for significant adverse environmental effects.
The department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) complies with sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). To respond to CEAA 2012 obligations, PCH modified its existing departmental environmental procedures on an interim basis. PCH will complete the update of its procedures and tools to better reflect CEAA 2012 by end of fiscal year 2013-2014.
As a funding department, PCH makes environmental effects determinations on proposed projects that fall under the definition of a project under CEAA 2012. In most cases, these are considered to be small projects and are unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Such projects can include construction, renovation or expansion of sporting facilities, schools or cultural buildings. In 2012-2013, environmental effects determinations were completed with no project resulting in significant adverse environmental effects.
Canadian International Development Agency
To comply with the CEAA 2012 legislation, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has approved a new Environmental Integration Process to harmonize its various environmental analysis processes and to ensure that CIDA's international development assistance program funding for projects outside Canada does not result in significant adverse environmental effects. This includes determining whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, as required under section 68 of CEAA 2012, and also, insofar as is practicable, whether the project complies with local environmental laws and regulations of the jurisdiction outside Canada where it would be carried out. This Process uses a risk-based approach to determine which program funding decisions require detailed environmental analysis. The Process is designed to be applied systematically across all funding decisions throughout the full project cycle, and is being integrated throughout the Agency's operational processes. It is anticipated that this new process will be fully operational in early 2014. In the interim, CIDA has continued to apply its previous process for systematically assessing and following up on funding decisions, to determine that federal funding decisions do not result in any significant adverse environmental effects.
Canadian Institutes 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 CEAA 2012. Given that CIHR is a federal health research funding agency and does not conduct its own research, projects falling under the CEAA 2012 would be research proposals submitted to CIHR for funding. CIHR has made compliance with CEAA 2012 a requirement for obtaining 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 the interim document 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 2012-2013, CIHR did not support projects that fell under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012.
Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation
Projects are examined by the Corporation's Facility Management and Security Services Division whose personnel judge potential environmental impacts based on their professional knowledge and experience in architecture, engineering, property and building operations and maintenance. The Director of Facility Management and Security Services reports all projects and activities to the Chief Operating Officer on a regular basis. If projects or activities are assessed as having a significant environmental impact, experts would be engaged to perform studies and assessments where required to meet the Corporation's obligations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.
For Fiscal Year 2012-2013, we have determined that the projects carried out for both the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum did not have cause for potential significant environmental impact.
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 for, construct, operate, decommission or abandon a nuclear facility - or possess, use, transport or store nuclear substances - they must obtain a corresponding licence from CNSC. AECL submitted Environmental Impact Statements and detailed decommissioning plans with its application to the CNSC to amend their licence to decommission the Waste Water Evaporator and the NRX Ancillary Buildings. CNSC staff assessed the documentation against CNSC regulatory guidance and CSA standards and found that they meet the requirements.
In considering the application, 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 provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons and the maintenance of national security and measures required to implement international obligation to which Canada has agreed.
The Commission considered the information and submissions from AECL and CNSC staff and is satisfied that the decommissioning projects will not cause significant adverse environment effects, taking into consideration the mitigation and control measures to be applied by AECL. Pursuant to section 24 of NSCA, the Commission approved AECL's request to decommission the NRX Research Reactor Ancillary Buildings and the Waste Water Evaporator at the Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario.
CBC/Radio-Canada has implemented a risk based approach to facilitate compliance with sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). As part of the established procedures, CBC/Radio-Canada considers a physical activity as an activity that goes beyond normal maintenance, such as reconstruction of a department space, or excavating a parking lot. For the purposes of this approach, painting walls or maintaining / repairing 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 outlines 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 2012-2013 was determined to result in a significant adverse environmental effect.
Correctional Service Canada
Correctional Service Canada (CSC) uses a risk-based approach to comply with its legislative requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. CSC's approach 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 to eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental effects.
In fiscal year 2012-2013 CSC did not have 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 approach to assessing potential environmental impacts of projects is outlined in an internal policy document entitled Internal Service Directive 318-11 - Environmental Assessment of Projects which can be found at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/acts-and-regulations/005006-0001-eng.shtml
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.
Department of Environment
Environment Canada has developed and deployed a process to guide Department staff in meeting its Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) section 66 - 72 responsibilities in a consistent manner. Environment Canada has developed an inventory of Department staff whose work may potentially trigger a review under section 67. It has engaged these programs in the development and use of tools to support reviews. The Department tailored the general guidance provided by CEAA 2012 to create a standardized decision-framework and associated intranet-based system. This system enables users to complete reviews in a guided and efficient manner to the level of detail commensurate with the project's complexity. A tiered, risk-based approach allows the Department to focus efforts on projects where uncertainty of impacts exists. Furthermore, the intranet-based system captures analysis and decisions through the use of template forms in order to compile results and allow the Department to generate consolidated reports of all reviews. Lastly, Environment Canada created and delivered bilingual guidance packages and training to Department staff identified as having potential obligations to undertake section 67 reviews. Environment Canada's process for addressing section 66 - 72 under CEAA 2012 is new, and as such it is employing a continuous improvement approach to discharging its obligations, soliciting feedback from expert staff which will result in iterative improvements to our existing processes. During this reporting period no projects were determined to likely have significantly adverse environmental effects.
Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
The Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) has employed the inter-departmental interim section 67 determination guidance to ensure a consistent approach to assessments under sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012).
FedDev Ontario reviews each project through an assessment of environmental effects to ensure compliance with 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 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.
Further information on FedDev Ontario's projects can be found at www.feddevontario.gc.ca.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently finalizing an internal operational guidance document 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). The Department's guidance will be based on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's Operational Policy Statement as well as an Inter-Departmental interim Section 67 Determination Guidance.
Presently, staff follows interim guidance that includes the requirement to complete a Project Effects Determination Report for projects subject to Section 67. The report is a means to record the predicted environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures that are applied to minimize the potential negative environmental effects of projects on federal lands.
In addition, 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 related to projects on federal lands. PATH can be used to obtain statistical reports on numbers of projects that the department has evaluated under section 67 of CEAA 2012.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) supports a large number of activities abroad, the majority of which, by their very nature, pose little, if any, environmental risk. The majority of activities subject to review are initiatives related to Global Partnerships (including Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force), Canada Fund for Local Initiatives and International Science & Technology Partnerships Program.
DFAIT has designed and implemented a streamlined, risk management process that demonstrates due diligence in decision-making under CEAA 2012 and supports the Department's mandate, including Canada's reputation abroad for projects it funds or undertakes. Any environmental reviews required for projects outside Canada must be conducted with respect for foreign sovereignty, international law, and international agreements to which Canada is party.
The process articulates 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. 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 2012-2013 fiscal year resulted in the potential for significant adverse environmental effects.
Halifax Port Authority
The process of evaluating projects under CEAA 2012, section 67 was initially a continuation of the environmental screening process used under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Halifax Port Authority is a participant of the Director General Federal Lands Working Group, hence, future environmental determinations, will follow the framework provided as part of that working group activity.
These determinations will use a mixture of methodologies, based on previous environmental screening experience, specialist information from consultants and federal colleagues, as well as appropriate use of precedent under previous legislation eg the repealed Exclusion List Regulations 2007 if applicable.
Federal department coordination and consultation with the subject matter experts at DFO, Transport Canada and DND was also key factor within the determination process.
None of the projects reviewed in the timeframe had 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 therefore is responsible for conducting appropriate environmental effects evaluations and determinations for both its own projects and for those proposed by prospective tenants.
HPA conducts evaluations in-house for routine construction projects. The evaluation of projects with an industrial or manufacturing process component, or those that may have Fisheries Act implications for example, are conducted by qualified consultants with the input of the appropriate authorities. Since the coming into force of the CEAA 2012 up to December 2012, no projects were determined to likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.
HPA participated in the interdepartmental CEAA 2012 federal lands and outside Canada working group formed in 2012. Authorities collectively discussed and addressed issues relating to CEAA 2012 and our federal lands obligations, and began the development of an interim approach for conducting environmental reviews.
Health Canada is supported by a dedicated unit that provides oversight, advice, and operational support to program areas for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. During this reporting period Health Canada applied procedures developed under the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A new procedure for assessing and mitigating the risk of significant environmental effects of projects has been developed and will be implemented. Given the established mitigation measures in place, there were no projects determined as likely to result in significant environmental effects during this period.
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 2012-2013, no projects were determined likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.
A joint approach between Infrastructure Canada (INFC) and Transport Canada (TC) was developed to evaluate the environmental effects of federally funded infrastructure projects to be carried out, in whole or in part, on federal lands.
This approach involves the following activities:
- Determining whether a funded project takes place, in whole or in part, on federal lands, and if so, informing the appropriate authority.
- Participating in the Environmental Effects Evaluation (EEE) made by the federal authority in collaboration with other authorities.
- Where appropriate, acting as the federal coordinator for the EEE process and Aboriginal consultation process.
- Verifying that control mechanisms are in place to ensure all mitigation measures specified in the EEE are implemented by including requirements in the contribution agreement, where applicable.
Marine Atlantic Inc.
Marine Atlantic underwent a number of activities during fiscal 2012/13 in order to make determinations under sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Such activities included an Underwater Benthic Habitat Survey, a Marine Sediment Sampling Program, completion of an Environmental Effects Determination Report for Projects on Federal Lands, a monitoring well drilling program, completion of a Geotechnical Engineering Report required for structural design, completion of a Hazardous Materials Survey to determine possible hazards prior to construction, and soil sampling.
Projects reviewed by Marine Atlantic in the last fiscal year included:
- Dolphin Structure Construction and Implementation in Argentia, NL
- Upgrades to the Drop Trailer Yard in Port aux Basques, NL
- Pre-Construction of the Terminal Building in North Sydney, NS
- Construction of the new Checkers Shack in Port aux Basques, NL
- Upgrades to the Terminal Building in Port aux Basques, NL
None of the projects that were reviewed were determined to have significant adverse environmental effects.
Montreal Port Authority
The Montreal Port Authority (MPA)'s environmental management system enables ensuring compliance with the requirements of sections 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 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 also a similar procedure 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 property.
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
To facilitate the review of projects as defined under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 the Nanaimo Port Authority is using an Environmental Management Approach for project reviews on federal lands under its administration and control. The management approach will enable the Nanaimo Port Authority to make an Environmental Effects Determination for projects located on Nanaimo Port Authority federal lands, thereby satisfying 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 require less analysis. This approach streamlines implementation of obligations of the Nanaimo Port Authority for low-risk projects.
While there were no projects to report on for the 2012 fiscal year, development and improvement of guidelines and procedures for project reviews is ongoing.
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 2012- 2013, all DND projects requiring a determination of significance were evaluated and resulted in unlikely adverse environmental effects. There was no referral to Governor in Council.
DND is currently updating 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.
National Gallery of Canada
The National Gallery of Canada assessed the Three Watchmen and Majestic projects during fiscal year 2012/2013. In order to make determinations under sections 67-69 of the CEAA 2012 the gallery reviewed previous soil samples from the area and the scope of work for each project. Since existing soil would be reused for both projects, they were not in proximity or had chance of discharge to water ways and no animal habitat would be disturbed it was determined that neither projects were likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
National Research Council Canada
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 and regulation/management of activities occurring in more sensitive areas (i.e., property providing habitat for species at risk, or projects of public or First Nation interest).
No NRC projects approved in 2012-13 were determined to likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Natural Resources Canada
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is implementing a process to evaluate environmental impacts under sections 67-69 of CEAA 2012. Internal guidance and a three-phase environmental effects evaluation template process have been developed to help determine potential impacts of project proposals. Federal lands/projects outside of Canada obligations have also been outlined in other key mechanisms, such as the Departmental Strategic Environmental Assessment templates, and in standard contribution agreement templates for NRCan program activities. In addition, NRCan takes measures to ensure that good environmental practices are routinely incorporated into our daily operations, thereby reducing risk. NRCan has an Environmental Management System which provides a framework and tools for managing environmental issues related to NRCan facility operations across the country.
Moreover, tailored processes are being used for specific NRCan programs. The Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP) manages nuclear legacy liabilities at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (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. Implemented in partnership by AECL and NRCan, both organizations are involved in the process leading to NRCan's CEAA 2012 Section 67 Federal Lands Determinations. Determinations are made based on a thorough review of the project description, AECL's Environmental Effects Review, and other pertinent documentation.
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. In July 2012, Parks Canada put into place an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) process to evaluate potential adverse environmental effects of projects on the lands and waters it administers. The EIA process provides a framework to fulfill the Parks Canada mandate and CEAA 2012 requirements, while improving assessment efficiency. The new approach matches assessment effort to potential risks through options ranging from best management practices for projects with predictable effects and well understood mitigation measures, to detailed analyses for projects that are complex and may lead to high levels of public concern.
To support its implementation of CEAA 2012, Parks Canada developed a new EIA policy, a suite of related guidance documents and tools, and communications products for internal and external audiences. Staff training was conducted and a tracking system developed to record project data and decisions. Following a one-year implementation period, policy and guidance are being refined and will be finalized in the coming fiscal year.
No projects with likely significant adverse environmental effects were identified during the current reporting period.
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.
Between July 6 and December 31, 2012, 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 is supported by a dedicated unit that provides oversight, advice, and operational support to program areas for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. During this reporting period, the Public Health Agency of Canada applied procedures developed under the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A new procedure for assessing and mitigating the risk of significant environmental effects of projects has been developed and will be implemented. The Public Health Agency of Canada did not have any projects that required an assessment 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 2013, PSP Investments did not pursue any investment where it was determined that significant adverse environmental effects were likely.
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 developed a national CEAA 2012 framework. The framework details the implementation of PWGSC's CEAA 2012 program which determines whether projects are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The PWGSC CEAA 2012 framework has been integrated into the departmental Environmental Compliance Management Program that encompasses all environmental legislation applicable to PWGSC's operations and mandate.
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 assessment outcomes are documented in the national PWGSC CEAA 2012 Ledger.
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 federal departments and is an active member of several working groups related to CEAA 2012.
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
- 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.
Royal Canadian Mint
The Royal Canadian Mint has been using its Environmental, Health & Safety and Security Impact Assessment (EHSIA) process to meet the requirements outlined in Section 67-69 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).
The EHSIA process is completed for all projects that involve the addition and/or modification of processes, equipment, materials, etc. The process is also completed for the addition and/or replacement of chemicals and projects involving the maintenance and/or modifications to buildings and property. As part of the environmental portion of the EHSIA process, the project's impacts to the environment are documented. As part of the assessment process, mitigation measures are also documented (if required).
For 2012, all projects undertaken by the Royal Canadian Mint which were evaluated under CEAA 2012, were determined to not likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
During the fiscal year 2012-13, the RCMP used an approach to evaluating the environmental effects of projects on federal lands that is in line with the process used under the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1992. 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 2012-13 where it was determined that significant adverse environmental effects were likely.
Sept-Îles Port Authority
The Sept-Îles Port Authority (SIPA)'s environmental management system enables ensuring compliance with the requirements of sections 67-69 of the CEAA 2012. The system was elaborated in 2012 and implemented in 2013.
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 SIPA. These procedures ensure that environmental effects are assessed for any project or work executed on port of Sept-Îles property.
In 2009, SIPA drew up an Environment Practices and Procedures Guide which includes mitigation measures for the different activities of the Port. This document is attached to our calls for bids, leases and environmental evaluations. The implementation of this Guide allowed us to effectively manage our projects and has shown that environmental effects could be managed through well-established and effective mitigation measures.
The Sept-Îles Port Authority did not analyze any new projects during the period requiring compliance with the above-mentioned sections.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) advises applicants of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) at the time of application. Applicants are invited to review a list of questions to determine whether any of their proposed research activities constitute a project as defined in the Act and, if yes, the likelihood that these projects would have significant adverse environmental effects as described in CEAA 2012. SSHRC program officers also review applications with these questions in mind. In this past fiscal year, no funded projects were found to have a likelihood of significant environmental effect as defined by the legislation.
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 Canadian universities, colleges and research hospitals. The Agreement includes a requirement that research institutions assist SSHRC in carrying out its responsibilities under the CEAA 2012, by assisting applicants and providing information upon request.
St. John's Port Authority
The SJPA is committed to the protection of the environment; 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 2012, the following projects were reviewed:
- Structural repairs Pier 17
- Water Metering Installation Marginal Wharf
- Pier 1 Fendering and Structural Repairs
- New Security Barrier Harbour Drive
- Painting of High Mast Pole Oceanex Terminal
- Wharf Replacement Pier 20
- Fendering Repairs and Replacement Piers 2, 3 and 5
- Timber Deck repairs Piers 20 and 21
- Marginal Wharf Fendering Repairs 2012
Since the coming into force of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, Transport Canada has developed internal policies in order to ensure that the department meets its federal lands obligations in a consistent manner. Transport Canada's Federal Lands Framework provides guidance to departmental staff in meeting these obligations and clearly identifies roles and responsibilities of all relevant parties. Departmental templates for conducting appropriate environmental effects determinations have also been developed as part of this guidance. The department has updated its internal tracking system in order to better capture information related to federal lands projects and has provided internal awareness sessions related to Transport Canada's role under this new legislation. Finally, the department has developed a monitoring framework that has been linked to the departmental National Environmental Management System to ensure that mitigation measures for projects on federal lands are implemented.
The department has also worked with Infrastructure Canada to develop a joint policy for evaluating the environmental effects of funded infrastructure projects to be carried out, in whole or in part, on federal lands.
Over the last year, Transport Canada has co-led a working group where CEAA 2012 authorities collectively discuss and address issues relating to federal lands obligations; for example, this working group collectively developed an interim common approach for conducting environmental reviews for projects occurring on federal lands.
Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
The 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 July 6 and December 31, 2012, 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://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/environment/ourapproach.aspx.
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
VIA Rail Canada Inc. has defined processes within its Environmental Management System to evaluate the environmental impact of its projects and activities; and to determine if the environmental impacts, if any, are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
In 2012, all new projects, new initiatives and activities were assessed using VIA's Hazard Assessment and Risk Control Strategies (HARCS) process. This process is implemented by the project manager at the planning phase to identify and assess environmental risks and to identify appropriate controls to mitigate the risks, as required. In addition to the HARCS process, VIA's Environmental Evaluation Checklist and process were used for projects and initiatives larger in scope. As a second step, an evaluation of the environmental impacts of projects is performed, when required, to identify the environmental impact, determine if any had significant effect on the environment and implemented appropriate mitigation measures.
In 2012, VIA Rail Canada Inc. did not carry any project or activities that generated significant adverse environmental effects. Major projects for 2012 consisted of the initiation of the demolition and construction of a train station on existing railway property and of regular maintenance and repair activities of railway bridges. In all cases, VIA processes were followed, environmental evaluations were completed, identification and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures were performed as per project plan and assessment report, and appropriate permits received.
Western Economic Diversification Canada
The department of Western Economic Diversification (WD) has employed interim guidance circulated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the 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. Direct recipients of WD funding that provide third-party funding agreements are required to submit projects on federal lands to WD for a determination under CEAA 2012 before finalizing a funding contribution with the third party.
WD has various arrangements in place to conduct environmental effects evaluations under section 67 of CEAA 2012 for all projects on federal lands. Arrangements range from accessing expertise and guidance with our partner organizations to procuring services from duly qualified consultants if required. The assessments and guidance obtained inform WD's determinations under the CEAA 2012. To date, all projects on federal lands funded by WD were determined not likely to have significant adverse environmental effects.
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 July 6, 2012, the effective date of CEAA 2012 to December 31, 2012, 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
- Date modified: