Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Climate, Nature and Economy Lens (CNEL) reference template

With supplemental guidance

Climate, Nature and Economy Lens (CNEL) reference template
With supplemental guidance [PDF - 760 KB]

Proposal Identification

Proposal title:
Lead department:
Date of template finalization:
Lead branch / directorate in lead department:
Contact information:

Proposal type: Select one:

Does this proposal represent a sub-component of a broader package? Select one:

If answered "Yes," please name the broader package (e.g. MC, horizontal initiative, etc.):

Summary of proposal – (600 words max)

[USER GUIDANCE] If the proposal involves renewed funding for an existing initiative, please include links to any existing and publicly available information currently available on Government of Canada websites.

Request for exemption

[USER GUIDANCE] As per the Directive, departments and agencies are not required to conduct a CNEL in certain situations. Consult experts within your organization and, where necessary, the SEEA Secretariat at ECCC, when considering whether a given proposal should be exempt.

The lead approving this form is requesting an exemption from completing the CNEL on the following ground(s): Select one:

  1. The proposal is prepared in response to a clear and immediate emergency where time is insufficient to undertake an assessment.

    [USER GUIDANCE] Ministers are responsible for determining the existence of an emergency. Emergency situations may include:

    • Natural disasters (e.g., wildfire, flooding, ice storm, earthquake, etc.)
    • Public health emergencies (e.g., infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics)
    • National security emergency (e.g., bomb or nuclear threats, military attack)
    • Cyber security incidents
    • Chemical releases (e.g., oil spills, release of hazardous materials)
       
  2. The proposal is prepared as a matter of routine or administrative procedure with a low likelihood of important environmental or economic effects.

    [USER GUIDANCE] Departments and agencies are encouraged to develop a list of pre-determined proposal types falling into the category of routine or administrative matters in consultation with the SEEA Secretariat at ECCC.

    Examples of types of proposals that may be considered in this category include:

    • Governor-in-Council appointments
    • Decks or aide-mémoires for information
    • Administrative amendments to legislation or regulations (e.g., updating references, adjusting for translation discrepancies, etc.)
    • Government responses to Parliament that summarize existing federal policies and programs
    • Progress or performance reports (e.g., Departmental Plans, Departmental Results Reports, annual reports to Parliament, and status reports)
       
  3. The proposal is subject to federal environmental or impact assessment legislation, such as the Impact Assessment Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

    [USER GUIDANCE] A CNEL is not required for proposals already subject to environmental and economic effects assessments under a process conducted under federal environmental or impact assessment legislation. In such circumstances, relevant environmental and economic findings from the legislated process are considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the SEEA process and the findings of the CNEL Reference Template.

Describe the rationale for the exemption request. (300 words max)
[USER RESPONSE]

Preliminary screening

[USER GUIDANCE] The preliminary screening questions are mandatory. A response should be chosen from the drop-down menu for each question, and additional textual input may be required based on your responses. The preliminary screening questions determine if more detailed elements of the CNEL must be completed. Each screening question includes several points to consider, phrased in the form of sub-questions. These points are meant to illustrate key factors to assess in your response but should not be considered an exhaustive list to guide your response.

Question PS-1 –

Could this proposal produce important effects related to greenhouse gases (GHG) and/or impact Canada’s GHG emissions reduction plans or targets?
Select one:

Points to consider when responding to Question PS-1:

If you respond YES:

If you respond NO:

[USER RESPONSE]

If you respond UNDETERMINED:

[USER RESPONSE]

Question PS-2 –

Could this proposal have an important impact on nature and/or biodiversity?
Select one:

Points to consider when responding to Question PS-2:

If you respond YES:

If you respond NO:

[USER RESPONSE]

If you respond UNDETERMINED:

[USER RESPONSE]

Question PS-3 –

Beyond impacts identified in questions PS-1 and PS-2 pertaining to GHG emissions and biodiversity, could this proposal result in other important environmental effects?
Select one:

Points to consider when responding to Question PS-3:

If you respond YES:

If you respond NO:

[USER RESPONSE]

If you respond UNDETERMINED:

[USER RESPONSE]

Question PS-4

Do current or projected impacts of climate change pose a specific or heightened risk to this proposal achieving its stated objectives?
Select one:

Points to consider when responding to Question PS-4:

If you respond YES:

If you respond NO:

[USER RESPONSE]

If you respond UNDETERMINED:

[USER RESPONSE]

Question PS-5

Will this proposal affect, either positively or negatively, climate change adaptation or climate resilience in Canada? Select one:

Points to consider when responding to Question PS-5:

If you respond YES to Question PS-5:

If you respond NO:

[USER RESPONSE]

If you respond UNDETERMINED:

[USER RESPONSE]

Question PS-6.1 –

Does this proposal involve spending, revenues, costs, or benefits to the private sector of $15 million per year or more in any year of the proposal’s implementation?
Select one:

Question PS-6.2 –

Is this proposal a regulatory proposal subject to the Cabinet Directive on Regulation?
Select one:

Only If you respond YES to PS-6.1 and NO to PS-6.2:

Part A – Strategic environmental analysis

Section A-100 - Effects on greenhouse gas emissions

Complete this section if you answered "Yes" to preliminary screening Question PS-1.

[USER GUIDANCE] Climate change mitigation is about reducing GHG emissions from human activities. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act is a roadmap that outlines a sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach its emissions reduction target of 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and put Canada on a path to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This section assesses whether/how the proposal could affect the amount of GHG emitted annually and over time. For the questions below, increases and/or decreases in GHG emissions refers to the difference to future emissions between a status quo scenario and a scenario where the proposal is implemented.

Context for all responses provided here, including any discussion of baseline emission trends, should be included in A-160, the narrative section dedicated to explaining the proposal’s impact on emissions.

A-110    Emission reductions

[USER GUIDANCE] This section seeks information on elements of the proposal that could reduce future GHG emissions over what would occur in the absence of the proposal.

A-111

Will some aspects of the proposal generate GHG reductions or increase GHG sequestration compared to the present?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

At least some elements of the proposal would lead to a reduction in emissions. Answering “Yes” to this question does not require that the overall proposal result in net GHG reductions when balanced against any GHG increases associated with the proposal, nor that any GHG reductions are necessarily ongoing. For example, a proposal to consolidate several existing federal facilities into a single newly built facility will lead to discrete emissions reductions associated with the carbon footprints of each existing building that is closed even if the carbon footprint of the new facility is unknown. Therefore, the overall net GHG impact of the proposal remains unknown.

No

No part of this proposal reduces emissions or increases sequestration. For example, a proposal to establish a new scientific base in the North, as a new capital asset with related construction and energy needs, is not expected to include components that reduce emission in comparison to a scenario where the base is not built. “No” should also be selected for proposals that only increase emissions, with additional details provided under A-120.

Undetermined

The proposal’s impacts on GHG emissions reduction and sequestration are unknown.

A-112

Does the proposal accelerate the timeline of GHG reductions that would occur prior to 2050 under current policies?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

This proposal achieves new emissions reductions which would not otherwise occur:

The proposal delivers emission reductions, which, absent the proposal, would not have occurred by or before 2050. An example would be a proposal to increase the stringency of regulations on the GHG intensity of fuel beyond both current and expected future limits.

This proposal accelerates emission reductions that would have occurred at a later date

The proposal accelerates emissions reductions that would likely have been realized by or before 2050, even without the proposal. An example may be a program to replace oil-burning furnaces in homes. Such a program would advance already-expected emissions reductions as it is assumed most homes would have replaced their oil-burning furnaces by 2050, even without additional federal intervention.

This proposal generates a mix of new and accelerated emission reductions

The proposal involves a combination of the above cases.

This proposal does not generate emission reductions

No emission reductions are expected.

Undetermined

It is unknown whether anticipated emission reductions would or would not have occurred prior to 2050 absent the proposal.

A-113

Does this proposal directly support the implementation of any specific elements mentioned in any of Canada's GHG emissions reduction plans or targets?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

This proposal is directly mentioned in or meaningfully supports specific aspects of one or more of Canada’s recent climate plans. For example, a proposal to deliver on clean fuels, as committed to in section 2.1.2 of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.

No

This proposal is not directly linked to Canada’s climate plans or targets. This would be a proposal that introduces an approach to reducing emissions that was until now not formally covered in Canada’s current GHG emissions reduction plan.

Undetermined

It is not known whether this proposal is linked to specific elements of Canada’s climate plans.

A-120    Emission increases

[USER GUIDANCE] This section seeks information on elements of the proposal that could increase future GHG emissions over what these would be in the absence of the proposal.

A-121

Will some aspects of the proposal, excluding government operations, generate new GHG emissions compared to the present?
(select any that apply)

[USER GUIDANCE] Please select all options that apply when responding to this question. For example, a proposal to fund a new electrified light rail transit system may have temporary GHG emission increases associated with the construction of physical infrastructure, while reducing GHG emissions over the long run by displacing fossil-fuel powered transportation (with lower or zero carbon intensity).

No new GHG emissions

This proposal has no elements expected to increase GHG emissions over what they would been if not implemented.

Temporary GHG emission increases

This proposal has elements that will contribute to a temporary increase in emissions (e.g., construction, equipment investments, etc.). For example, a proposal funding light rail transit would temporarily increase emissions through the construction of stations, roadwork, etc. while reducing car/truck usage over the long-term term.

New ongoing GHG emissions

This proposal introduces, expands, or extends any activity or infrastructure that produces GHG emissions. This includes any policies or programs that grow the economy, or a specific sub-sector, in a way that is not compliant with net-zero approaches.

For example, a federal program that supports the economic expansion of a cement facility using traditional technology, leading to an ongoing increase in fossil fuel consumption.

Undetermined

The proposal’s impacts on emissions are unknown. For example, a grants and contributions (G&C) program where the types of projects to be funded would be unknown.

A-122

Will government operations / program delivery associated with this proposal produce GHG increases above and beyond those associated with the usual activities of the sponsoring department(s):
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]
For this question, “government operations” refers to the resources and activities employed directly by federal organizations in achieving the objectives of the proposal. For example, the work of government employees, vehicles (cars, boats, etc.) used to carry out government activities (e.g. site visits, inspections), other equipment in use (e.g. computers, lab equipment), etc. The focus should be on novel changes to departmental operations, either in scope or type, associated with the proposal that will lead to consequential changes in emissions. Detailed consideration of existing or typical government operations activities should not be included.

Yes

This proposal would increase emissions from government operations above and beyond the usual activities. For example, a proposal aiming to build a new* government facility (e.g. office building) or increase fleet size (e.g. trucks, marine vessels). Another example may be the creation of a new federal organization or sub-organization entailing a substantial increase in employees, equipment, and/or workspace.

*Assuming the new facility is not replacing an older facility but is built in addition to any existing facilities and is not built according to net-zero standards.

No

This proposal would not increase emissions of the federal government above and beyond those associated with the usual activities. For example, requesting funding to continue an existing program, to expand a program in an incremental manner, or to launch a new program similar in scope and activity to the department’s existing programs.

Undetermined

The impact of this proposal on emissions stemming from government operations is unknown.

A-123

Will the proposal change land use or land cover in a way that increases GHG emissions:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

This proposal would directly or indirectly cause or contribute to land-use change and/or land cover change, resulting in a shift from high-carbon storage land to low-carbon storage land, where there was no such change in land before.

Definitions

“Land-use change” refers to the anthropogenic process of transforming the natural landscape.

Land-use change can result in GHG fluxes between the atmosphere and Canada’s managed lands. The following is an illustrative list of land-use changes with a negative impact from a GHG perspective (that also have the biggest biodiversity impacts):

Land-use categories (a-f):

  1. “Forest land”: all treed areas of 1 hectare or more, with a minimum tree crown cover of 25% and trees of 5 m in height or having the potential to reach this height.
  2. “Cropland”*: all land in annual crops, summer fallow and perennial crops. All agricultural land that is not classified as grassland is classified de facto as cropland, including unimproved pastures where the natural vegetation would be forest (i.e. Eastern Canada and most of British Columbia).
    “Annual crops”: a plant that completes its life cycle within one growing season (e.g. corn).
    “Perennial crops”: mostly forage, but also including berries, grapes, nursery crops, vegetables, fruit trees and orchards.
  3. “Grassland”*: grassland used for agriculture is considered unimproved pasture or rangeland exclusively used for grazing domestic livestock. It occurs only in geographical areas where the grassland would not naturally regrow to forest if abandoned (i.e. natural shortgrass prairies in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta). Vegetated areas that do not meet the definition of forest land or cropland are generally classified as Grassland (i.e. extensive areas of tundra in the Canadian North are considered unmanaged grassland).
    * Agricultural land can include both cropland and grassland.
  4. “Wetland”: areas where permanent or recurrent saturated conditions allow the establishment of vegetation and the development of soils typical of these conditions and that are not already included in the forest land, cropland or grassland categories. Currently, managed lands included in the wetlands category are those where human interventions have directly altered the water table—which include peatlands drained for peat extraction and land flooded for hydroelectric reservoirs.
  5. “Settlement”: all built-up land, including urban, rural residential, industrial and recreational land; roads, rights-of-way and other transportation infrastructure; and land used for resource exploration, extraction and distribution (mining, oil and gas).
  6. “Other Land”: this category comprises areas of rock, ice or bare soil, and all land areas that do not fall into any of the other first five categories.

“Land cover change” refers to the change in how an area is managed within the same land-use category. Some examples of land cover change include, but are not limited to:

No

The proposal would not directly or indirectly cause or contribute to land-use change and/or land cover change, as defined above.

Undetermined

It is unknown whether the proposal would directly or indirectly cause or contribute to land-use change and/or land cover change, as defined above.

A-130    Anticipated net effects on GHG emissions – qualitative

A-131

Considering emissions effects described in sections A-110 and A-120, this proposal is expected to result in the following net changes in GHG emissions in the near term (5-year time horizon) and long term (25-year time horizon):

GHG emissions change compared to a scenario in which the proposal does not move forward Net near-term effect
(5-year time horizon)		 Net long-term effect
(25-year time horizon)
Direction

Select one:

  • Decrease emissions
  • Increase emissions
  • Undetermined net GHG impacts

Select one:

  • Decrease emissions
  • Increase emissions
  • Undetermined net GHG impacts

[USER GUIDANCE]

Decrease emissions

This proposal results in net GHG reductions – i.e., the decrease in emissions is larger than the increase in emissions (if applicable) stemming from this proposal over the relevant time horizon. For example, a proposal funding public transport (e.g. light rail transit) may increase emissions through infrastructure construction but may also deliver an even greater decrease in emissions by reducing the use of cars or buses. Such a proposal could result in net GHG emissions increase in the short term but net GHG emissions decrease over the long term.

Increase emissions

The proposal leads to a net increase in GHG emissions over the relevant time horizon.

Undetermined net GHG impacts

The proposal’s net impacts on GHG emissions are unknown over the relevant time horizon.

A-132

If net emission increases are anticipated from this proposal as per A-131, are explicit plans being made to address those? If yes, describe those plans in section A-160.
Select one:

A-140    Compatibility of the proposal with a net-zero future

A-141

Will the proposal involve new buildings, infrastructure, or other endeavours specifically designed to be "net-zero" in terms of GHG emissions?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

The proposal involves or delivers specific, stand-alone elements which are “net-zero” or “net-zero ready,” wherein elements will not, on an ongoing basis, emit GHGs or emissions will be offset through actions such as tree planting or deployment of technologies that can capture carbon before it is released into the air. Proponents can select “Yes” to this question even if only some elements are “net-zero” while other elements may generate GHG emissions and/or if the overall net GHG impact is unknown.

No

This proposal does not involve or deliver any specific, stand-alone elements which are “net-zero” or “net-zero ready,” irrespective of whether the proposal contributes directly or indirectly to Canada’s economy-wide goal of net zero emission by 2050.

Undetermined

The proposal’s association with “net-zero" or “net-zero ready” elements is unknown.

A-142

Will the proposal impede emissions reductions in the targeted sector(s) or other sectors:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

This proposal impedes emissions reductions elsewhere. While some proposals may not directly lead to changes to GHG emissions, they may have indirect impacts and could impede other actions that are aimed at reducing/removing emissions. For example, a program that relies heavily on air transportation to expand tourism or promote access to healthcare for remote communities may inadvertently hinder efforts to reduce emissions in the transportation sector.

No

This proposal would not impede emissions reductions elsewhere.

Undetermined

It is unknown whether the proposal would impede emissions reductions elsewhere.

A-143

Will the proposal directly invest in or otherwise enable or support assets that may be stranded (rendered prematurely unusable) by future emission reduction policies:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

Stranded assets are any asset or investment that experiences unanticipated or premature write-downs, devaluations, and/or conversion into a liability. For example, an initiative that induces electric utilities to retrofit their facilities to burn natural gas instead of coal (a higher emitting fuel) may result in near-term emission reductions; however, these new facilities will either need to be abandoned before the end of their productive lifespan (~ 50 years) or significantly upgraded to meet 2050 net-zero objectives.

No

This proposal would not lock-in emissions generating assets.

Undetermined

It is unknown whether the proposal would lock-in emissions generating assets.

A-150    Anticipated net effects on GHG emissions - quantitative (if applicable)

[USER GUIDANCE]
Only complete section A-150 if your proposal is making quantified claims of reductions and/or increases to GHG emissions.

A-151

Provide the projected cumulative net effect of your proposal on Canada's annual GHG emissions from now until target years 2030 and 2050 respectively. If available, provide also the projected changes to annual emission for these two target years.

Please note:

Any proposal lead claiming an effect on annual GHG emissions of more than 0.5 megaton of carbon dioxide equivalent in any year must contact the SEEA Secretariat at ECCC for validation. The GHG modeling team at ECCC, responsible to publish the official GHG emissions projections of the Government of Canada, will review the claim to ensure its soundness and incrementality to measures already modeled in Canada’s projections.

GHG emissions change compared to a scenario in which the proposal does not move forward Cumulative emission change
to 2030		 Cumulative emission change
to 2050		 Annual emission change - 2030 Annual emission change - 2050
GHG emissions changes (in Mt)
- for decrease
+ for increase		 Enter value Enter value Enter value Enter value

[USER GUIDANCE]
GHG estimates provided for “Cumulative emission change to 2030” and “Cumulative emission change to 2050” should be a summation of all the annual emissions changes in each year, leading up to and including the year 2030 for the former and 2050 for the latter. GHG estimates provided for “Annual emission change in year 2030” and “Annual emissions change in year 2050” should be the annual impact anticipated in the given year (i.e., annual reduction/increase expected as of 2030 and annual reduction/increase as of 2050). Further context and detail on the timing or trends related to expected GHG reductions / increases can be provided in section A-160 Narrative.

A-152

Actual GHG emissions changes may differ from those quantified due to the following factors:
 (select any that apply)

[USER GUIDANCE] Please select one or more of the above certainty factors to help characterize the quantified emissions provided in A-151, as applicable. If “Other” is selected, please provide further details in A-160.

A-153

To support quantification provided in A-151, is a spreadsheet file detailing the calculations provided with this CNEL, e.g., Excel workbook?
 Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE] Please select “Yes” or “No” to indicate if supporting material used to derive the estimates in A-151 has been provided. If “Yes,” please attach the appropriate material in your submission, along with the CNEL.

A-154

Describe the model/tool, methodology and assumptions used to derive the quantitative estimates provided in A-151. Recommended maximum 600 words.

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Where a numerical estimate is provided in either or both time periods under A-151, please provide additional methodological information. Factors to be considered include:

Include all relevant information used to estimate energy use and/or emissions.

A-160    Narrative

Explain the proposal's impact on emissions. Refer to the information provided is sections A-110 to A-150 as appropriate.

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE]
This section should cover any emission increases or decreases, the direct drivers of each linked to the proposal, as well as the associated timelines and any factors that may contribute to uncertainty regarding the anticipated outcomes.

Input in A-160 should be guided by the sub-questions contained within section A-110 to A-150 and should expand upon and provide context for the responses provided for those sub-questions, where appropriate.

Section A-160 should reflect on whether any anticipated emission reductions will be achieved directly by reducing the intensity or volume of emission-emitting activities; through enabling measures, enhancing supply chains, systems, infrastructure or other measures that will, in turn, support the reduction or replacement of emission-emitting activities; through amplifying existing emission reduction approaches, increasing awareness of or encouraging behaviours and activities that will lead to reduced emissions; or through some combination of these or other approaches. Conversely, this section must also assess whether the proposal has the potential to increase GHG emissions, such as thorough intensifying the volume of emission-emitting activities or indirectly by undermining existing emission reduction strategies.

Where available, context can also be provided on how emissions may be projected to evolve in the targeted sector(s) if the proposal is not approved. Would emissions be expected to increase or decrease in the absence of the proposed interventions? Are other policies and programs already working to reduce emissions in these areas? How would the proposal interact with existing programs or influence pre-existing emission trends?

Context can also be provided on how the proposal’s impacts may differ between 2030 and 2050. Will maximum impact be achieved by or before 2030 and be maintained thereafter? Will the proposal’s impact(s) grow between 2030 and 2050? Will a desire to achieve targeted GHG reductions for 2030 (i.e., a reduction of 40% to 45% across Canada’s economy) contribute to or impede the achievement of the 2050 goal of a net-zero Canadian economy? In some cases, a proposal may accelerate already-expected GHG reductions without changing the annual emissions for 2030 or 2050. For example, a new federal program may cut a certain emission source in half by 2035 rather than the previously expected date of 2045. In such cases, the cumulative reductions over time should be emphasized over the corresponding time horizon rather than focusing only on the impacts in 2030 and 2050.

Examples to consider when preparing input to section A-160:

Example: Affordable Housing
A proposal that seeks to build new affordable housing intended to operate beyond 2050 may propose to use furnaces that can only burn natural gas, which would reduce emissions in the short term compared to an oil-based heating system, aligning with Canada’s 2030 goals but would still generate a certain level of emissions, making it challenging to align with Canada’s 2050 net-zero target. However, if the buildings are designed to be “net-zero ready,” with furnaces compatible with biogas or hydrogen once the external infrastructure is available to supply such fuels, this can be considered a concrete path to net-zero emissions and would thus have a positive impact towards achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Example: Policies on Sustainable Finance
Sustainable finance policies that seek to incorporate climate considerations throughout financial decision-making can mobilize private sector financing towards Canada’s climate objectives. While sustainable finance policies may not directly lead to emissions reductions, they can enable and accelerate progress towards Canada’s 2030 and 2050 emissions targets.

Example: Fuel Switching and Building Standards
Practices that increase efficiency, such as fuel switching, i.e. the adoption of less carbon-intensive fuels, may have merit in some cases, but caution is needed to determine their impacts on Canada’s 2030 and 2050 emission targets. For example, switching fuels (such as burning natural gas instead of coal to generate electricity) could have a positive impact on the 2030 target but would require offsetting measures to meet net-zero 2050 objectives. Similarly, a proposal that increases the efficiency of existing practices or technologies is likely to have a positive impact on the 2030 target but a negative impact on the 2050 target. However, a proposal that induces the adoption of non-emitting sources of energy (such as solar, wind or green hydrogen) is likely to have a positive impact on both 2030 and 2050 targets. Moreover, energy efficiency practices or technologies used in conjunction with low or non-emitting energy may also have a positive impact on the 2050 target as they can help support the transition away from fossil fuels by reducing demand.

Section A-200 – Effects on biodiversity

Complete this section if you answered "Yes" to preliminary screening Question PS-2

[USER GUIDANCE] This section summarizes both the positive and potentially adverse impacts the proposal might exert on biodiversity. It also promotes establishing links to Canada's National Biodiversity Strategy.

A-210    Identification of positive and negative effects on nature and biodiversity

A-211

The proposal could enable the following positive effects on nature and biodiversity:
(select any that apply)

[USER GUIDANCE] Conserved areas include protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). Protected areas include national/provincial/territorial parks, Indigenous protected areas, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries and marine protected areas. OECMs are areas that do not meet the formal definition of protected area but are managed in a way that conserves biodiversity over the long term. Examples of OECMs can include: Indigenous territories, watersheds or resource management areas, and areas with restricted access, such as those used by the military. Canada has set a target to conserve 25% of its lands and oceans by 2025 and 30% of each by 2030.

[USER GUIDANCE] Ecological/conservation corridors are areas of land and water that aim to maintain or restore ecological connectivity. They do this by allowing species to move and natural processes to flow freely across large landscapes. Ecological/conservation corridors complement protected and conserved areas.

[USER GUIDANCE] The proposal drives improvement in the condition and/or functioning of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services can be defined as direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being and have an impact on human survival and quality of life.

This includes:

[USER GUIDANCE] Please visit Species at risk – Canada.ca for more information regarding the species at risk public registry and the Pan-Canadian approach to species at risk.

[USER GUIDANCE] Please visit Migratory bird conservation – Canada.ca for more information regarding regions and strategies and programs and partnerships.

[USER GUIDANCE] Describe these effects in A-220.

A-212

The proposal could potentially harm nature or biodiversity through
 (select any that apply)

[USER GUIDANCE] The proposal would directly or indirectly cause or contribute to land-use change and/or land cover change where there was no such change in land before. *

* Please refer to the definitions and land-use categories provided earlier at question A-123 for more detailed information.

Land-use change resulting in the loss of natural land can affect the environment and result in population declines in wildlife species. For example, loss of natural areas such as forests or wetlands can disrupt the ecosystem services that support human wellbeing, resulting in a decline in air and water quality, an increase in air and water temperatures and an increased risk of flooding. As cities grow outward, urban expansion often encroaches on surrounding areas, including agricultural land, forests and other natural areas. When cropland is lost to urban growth, there can be additional pressure to convert natural areas to cropland to increase agricultural capacity.

“Landscape fragmentation” refers to the physical disintegration of continuous habitats into smaller units or patches, most often caused by urban or transport network expansion. Landscape fragmentation includes the severance of ecological/conservation corridors, impairing ecological connectivity and harming protected and conserved areas.

“Marine habitat fragmentation” refers to the physical disintegration of continuous sea-based habitats into smaller units or patches. Marine habitat fragmentation can be caused by but is not limited to drilling or mining, dredging, destructive anchoring, removal of corals, and/or land reclamation.

[USER GUIDANCE] Consult instructions under A-211 for definition and descriptions of some key types of ecosystem service.

[USER GUIDANCE] The degradation of the health and/or functioning of any of the natural processes related to ecosystem services, in addition, but not limited to, the introduction of invasive species. Invasive species are non-native species introduced to a new ecosystem through climate change and/or anthropogenic action. Invasive species may displace native species and compete with them for resources, degrade habitat, introduce diseases, and breed with native species to form hybrids.

[USER GUIDANCE] Please visit Species at risk – Canada.ca for more information regarding the species at risk public registry and pan-Canadian approach to species at risk.

[USER GUIDANCE] Please visit Migratory bird conservation – Canada.ca for more information regarding regions and strategies and programs and partnerships.

[USER GUIDANCE] Describe these effects in A-220.

A-220    Narrative

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Please explain the potential positive and negative effects of the proposal on nature and biodiversity, making reference to the responses given in sections A-211 and A-212. Describe, if applicable, how the proposal supports Canada’s National Biodiversity Strategy*.  Refer also to the question prompts in A-220 of the SEEA to help guide your response. As a starting point, analysts may wish to make a list of the key features of their proposal, including the proposal’s location(s), proposed activities and outcomes, the timeframe or lifespan of the proposal, and targeted clients or populations. Being clear on these features of the proposal can help orient thinking around relevant positive and negative effects on nature and biodiversity.

* As of drafting of this template, the Strategy is not yet been finalized but a milestone document is available to serve as an interim version until the final 2030 Strategy is released, tentatively set for late 2024.

Section A-300 – Environmental effects

Complete this section if you answered "Yes" to preliminary screening Question PS-1 and/or PS-2 and/or PS-3

[USER GUIDANCE] While GHG emissions and biodiversity and nature are two important areas of consideration for environmental impacts, proposals can have a broad range of environmental impacts outside of those areas that also merit consideration and planning. The questions in this section serve to assess whether the proposal will include measures to enhance positive environmental effects or measures to mitigate negative environmental effects (“improving effects”). It also assesses whether the proposal will have the potential to cause negative environmental effects (“deteriorating effects”). Consideration of environmental effects should include the following factors as outlined and defined in Question PS-3: frequency and duration; location and magnitude; timing; risk; irreversibility; and cumulative nature.

A-310    Overview of environmental effects

A-311

Select the relevant areas of effects, positive (improving) or negative (deteriorating), under which this proposal could have an important impact on the environment, including those with limited certainty. You may add additional areas of effects as appropriate- these should be reflected in your narrative answers in this section. An unchecked row indicates no identifiable effect.
(select any that apply, and indicate if it is an improving and/or deteriorating effect)

Environmental topics

Climate Change

Emission of greenhouse gases [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Capture and sequestration of greenhouse gases [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Reducing potency of GHG emissions (e.g. combustion of methane to carbon dioxide) [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Albedo Effect  [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Nature and Biodiversity

Effects on species at risk [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

General effects on wildlife [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Invasive species [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Migratory birds [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Wetlands [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Landscape fragmentation/habitat loss [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Cumulative environmental effects [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Human health and well-being

Environmental changes that affect an identifiable community [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Exposure to harmful substances (e.g., toxic chemicals) [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Exposure to climate or natural disaster risks [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Other human health effects [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Human activity

Circularity and recycling [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Energy efficiency [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Energy use [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Material efficiency [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Material use [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Waste generation [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Pollution

Noise  [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Air [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Water [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Soil [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Greening Government

Environmental footprint of GoC operations [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Environmental performance of procured goods and services [Improving / Deteriorating effect]

Other(s)

[USER REPONSE]

A-320    Narrative

A-321

Describe the potential outcomes (direct and indirect) of the proposal and how they are expected to interact with the environment: Explain the potential positive and negative environmental effects of the proposal. Consider potential cumulative effects due to interaction with other proposals or activities. (Recommended maximum 400 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Use the insights gained from A-311 to inform your response to A-321. If A-311 indicates an improving effect on a specific environmental topic, explain here how the proposal positively influences the environment, addressing the corresponding environmental topic. Conversely, if A-311 reveals deteriorating effects, use this section to explain how the proposal will negatively impact this aspect of the environment. Consider cumulative effects by examining interactions with other proposals or activities. When addressing multiple selected topics, please outline each topic individually, potentially grouping overlapping information for clarity.

A-322

Identify the anticipated environmental risks or benefits of not implementing the proposal: Risks could include that the status quo and its associated problems continue, or negative conditions develop or worsen. Benefits could include not causing environmental damage considered unavoidable from the implementation of the proposal. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] If failure to implement the proposal poses risks to the environment, describe the potential negative consequences associated with maintaining the status quo or allowing existing problems to persist and potentially worsen. Use specific examples to illustrate these risks and highlight the urgency for proposal implementation. Alternatively, if applicable, describe how not proceeding with the proposal could avoid environmental damage that might otherwise be considered unavoidable, providing evidence to support the claims.

A-323

Identify measures planned to mitigate negative and enhance positive environmental effects. Also, consider what additional measures could be taken to improve positive effects further. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Use the insights gained from A-311 and the detailed analysis in A-321 to inform your response to A-323. If A-321 reveals deteriorating effects, provide details of any planned mitigation strategies. When A-321 indicates improving effects, expand on how the proposal plans to enhance them. Include any additional measures which may not currently be planned but could reasonably be introduced to further enhance those improving effects. Describe how measures aimed at mitigating negative and/or enhancing positive environmental effects align with environmental regulations, best practices, and current Government of Canada policies, if applicable. Where possible, provide examples and evidence to support the feasibility and effectiveness of these measures.

A-324

What follow-up and monitoring measures will be undertaken to track the environmental effects? Include when the follow-up will occur and how the follow-up will be implemented and reported. When appropriate, it is z)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] The proposal should consider the need for follow-up measures to monitor the environmental effects of the proposal throughout its implementation. Outline the specific follow-up and monitoring measures planned to track the anticipated impacts of the proposal on the environment, as detailed in A-311 and A-321. Specify when follow-up activities will occur, emphasizing key milestones or intervals. Discuss the methodology for implementing and reporting on follow-up measures. Build upon and make use of existing performance management and reporting mechanisms when feasible and applicable, including environmental monitoring from previously established reporting. Detail any adaptive management strategies to respond to monitoring outcomes. This could involve adjustments to the proposal or additional mitigation measures in response to the observed environmental effects.

[USER RESPONSE]

Section A-400 – Climate change impacts on the proposal and adaptation solutions

Complete this section if you answered "Yes" to preliminary screening Question PS-4.

[USER GUIDANCE]

Warming in Canada is, on average, about double the level of global warming. Northern Canada has warmed and will continue to warm at even more than double the global rate. Canada’s warming climate is driving an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires. Additionally, rising temperatures will drive longer-term changes in the climate, such as permafrost thaw in the North and sea-level changes on the coasts. These impacts are already affecting the economy, communities, human health and well-being, and the environment.

Further warming and associated impacts will occur regardless of whether emissions immediately start to decline. It is therefore necessary that Canada not only mitigate climate change but also adapt and build resilience to the present and future impacts of climate change. Accelerating progress on adaptation through rapid and deliberate plans and actions is vital for Canada’s economic, social, and environmental well-being.

The following guidance is intended to support users in conducting the qualitative assessment of expected climate change impacts, namely:

Throughout section A-400, analysts should build a logical narrative, making connections between climate change hazards which are relevant to the proposal, how these hazards may pose a risk to the proposal or groups of people associated with the proposal (i.e., the vulnerability and exposure of the proposal), and what adaptation solutions have been integrated into the design and implementation of the proposal to respond to/address such risks.

Proposals should identify relevant climate impacts and integrate long-term and evidence-based adaptive solutions to enhance climate resilience, to the extent possible. Proposals that do not consider climate change risks, reinforce the non-resilient status quo, or undermine resilience (i.e., are maladaptive) could lead to continued or increased risk from climate change impacts, diminished performance and greater long-term costs going forward.

The list below provides examples of climate-related hazards. For more information on climate hazards and Canada’s current and future climate change impacts, analysts are encouraged to consult the Canada in a Changing Climate reports and the Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks report.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of important climate change hazards in Canada:

The table below provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of adaptation solutions.

Type of adaptation solutions

Grey (built) infrastructure
Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure
Technological measures
Regulatory and planning instruments
Information and awareness raising

A-410    Identification of potential climate hazards that could impact the success of the proposal

A-411

The proposal faces a specific or heightened risk from the following climate impacts(s) and hazard(s):
(select any that apply)

Current Future
☐   Extreme heat and heatwaves
☐   Drought
☐   Flooding
☐   Coastal erosion
☐   Storm surges
☐   Extreme weather events
☐   Wildfires
☐   Other (specify): _________		 ☐   Extreme heat and heatwaves
☐   Drought
☐   Flooding
☐   Coastal erosion
☐   Storm surges
☐   Extreme weather events
☐   Wildfires
☐   Other (specify): _________
A-412

The proposal is likely to encounter the climate effect(s) identified in A-411:
 (select any that apply)

A-420    Identification of the proposal’s climate change risks

[USER GUIDANCE] Refer to the climate change hazards identified in A-410 to identify areas of risk that the proposal may face. The proposal should consider vulnerability and exposure to climate hazards consistent with the expected life of the proposal – and the proposal’s long-term implications – for the area(s) that the proposal will serve. The climate change risk assessment completed by your department, as per the Greening Government Strategy, should be consulted to assist in identifying the risks relevant to your proposal.

A-421

Current or projected climate change impacts may significantly delay or impede government operations related to the delivery of the proposal.
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE] This question is seeking to identify specific cases where climate change impacts could delay or impede government operations required to deliver the proposal. In this context, government operations should be understood to include federal employees, facilities, vehicles, and equipment necessary to establish or deliver any element of the proposal.

Yes

Government operations necessary to deliver this proposal are subject to negative climate change risks. For example, federal programs in northern regions may be negatively impacted if government airfields are degraded by permafrost thaw. Other examples may include federal search and rescue support programs subject to increased incidence of climate-change driven extreme weather, or federal facilities subject to specific increased risk of floods or wildfires.

No

Government operations associated with this proposal are not subject to any specific climate change-driven risk factors.

Undetermined

The potential impacts of climate change on government operations associated with this proposal are unknown.

A-422

Current or projected climate change impacts may damage new or existing physical infrastructure associated with the proposal: Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE] This question seeks to identify specific cases where the negative impacts of climate change could damage the physical infrastructure associated with the proposal. In this context, physical infrastructure should be understood to include buildings, roads, bridges, railroads, powerlines, ports, and any equipment necessary to establish or deliver any element of the proposal.

Yes

Climate change impacts may damage new or existing physical infrastructure associated with the proposal.

No

Climate change impacts will not damage new or existing physical infrastructure associated with the proposal.

Undetermined

The potential impacts of climate change on new or existing physical infrastructure associated with this proposal are unknown.

A-423

Current or projected climate change impacts may affect the health and safety of the people implementing the proposal: Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

Climate change impacts may worsen existing health (physical, mental, or overall well-being) and may put the safety of the people implementing the proposal at risk.

No

The health (physical, mental, or overall well-being) and safety of the people implementing the proposal will not be affected by climate change impacts.

Undetermined

The potential impacts of climate change on the health and safety of the people implementing the proposal are unknown.

A-424

Current or projected climate change impacts are expected to disproportionately hinder the effectiveness of the proposal for certain groups of people:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

Climate change will impact the effectiveness of the proposal in a way that results in different effects on different groups of people affected or targeted by the proposal. An example would be a federal program to support and upgrade infrastructure at airports across Canada that may have to account for the more pronounced impact of climate change on airports in the North, affecting in a disproportional way the people relying on these airports.

No

Climate change impacts for this proposal are unlikely to have a disproportionate effect on the proposal's effectiveness for different groups of people affected or targeted by the proposal.

Undetermined

It is unknown whether climate change will have disproportionate effects among different groups of people affected or targeted by the proposal.

A-425

If you responded “Yes” to at least one question from A-421 to A-424, are these risks reflected in findings from your departmental climate change risk assessment?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

The risks identified for this proposal in questions A-421 to A-424 reflect the findings of a climate change risk assessment completed by your department, as per the Greening Government Strategy.

No

The risks identified for this proposal in questions A-421 to A-424 are not informed by the findings of a climate change risk assessment completed by your department

Undetermined

Choose this option if it is unknown whether a climate change risk assessment has been completed by your department.

A-430    Identification of adaptation solutions

[USER GUIDANCE] This section aims to assess the climate resilience of the proposal (i.e. if the analysis has considered and incorporated measures to account for and build resilience to climate change impacts).

A-431

Adaptation solutions to avoid or reduce the impacts of climate change on the proposal are integrated in the design and implementation of the proposal:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

The proposal includes specific measures or design features intended to account for and protect against negative impacts of climate change. An example may be a federal infrastructure grant program that requires recipients to identify and design for climate change hazards such as flooding and wildfire.

No

While negative potential climate change effects have been identified in question A-410, no specific measures have been incorporated to address them.

Undetermine

While negative potential climate change impacts have been identified in question A-410, it is unknown whether specific measures will be introduced to address them.

A-432

If you responded “Yes” to A-431, are these adaptation solutions reflecting findings from your departmental climate change risk assessment?
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

The adaptation solutions identified for this proposal reflect the findings of a climate change risk assessment completed by your department, as per the Greening Government Strategy.

No

The adaptation solutions identified for this proposal are not informed by a climate change risk assessment completed by your department

Undetermined

Choose this option if it is unknown whether a climate change risk assessment has been completed by your department.

A-440    Narrative

Describe how the proposal may be vulnerable to climate change impacts as well as any actions taken to adapt to such impacts, referring to the information provided above. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Please explain the relevant impacts of climate change on the proposal, referring to the responses given in section A-410. This narrative should cover the climate change hazards that may affect delivery of the proposal, the proposal’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, and any adaptation solutions that have been or could be incorporated into the design and implementation of the proposal. Refer also to the question prompts in A-440 to help guide your response.

As a starting point, analysts may wish to make a list of the key features of their proposal, including the proposal’s location(s), proposed activities and outcomes, the timeframe or lifespan of the proposal, and targeted clients or populations. Being clear on these features of the proposal can help orient thinking around relevant climate change hazards and impacts.

For each key feature of the proposal, there may be one or more climate hazard that affects the outcomes and delivery of the proposal, each with its own set of consequences and proposed adaptation solution.

If adaptation solutions were integrated into the design or execution of the proposal (response to A-430), please describe them. If adaptation solutions were not integrated, please explain why.

Section A-500 – Effects on Canada’s climate resilience

Complete this section if you answered "Yes" to preliminary screening Question PS-5

[USER GUIDANCE] Resilience refers to the capacity of a system (e.g., community, organization, natural environment) to anticipate, prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a climate change related disruption or impact.

Examples to consider when preparing input to section A-500:

Example: Disaster Relief Fund
As climate change is leading to more frequent extreme weather events, it will be important to enhance the climate resilience of communities. A disaster relief fund that helps homeowners rebuild following a flood, could include a condition to rebuild away from areas prone to floods, such as floodplains, or install flood prevention measures. This further builds fiscal resilience to reduce the risk of future disaster relief funding resulting from increasingly frequent extreme weather events. This proposal would select “results in programs or policies that enhance resilience to climate change hazards and impacts” in response to question A-511, as the proposed policy would enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change in high-risk areas like flood plains by avoiding development in those areas.

Example: Broader Public Access to Flood Maps
A proposal that seeks to ensure Canadians have access to comprehensive flood mapping may not directly improve Canada’s resiliency or adaptability to the impacts of climate change but would allow Canadians to account for flooding risks associated with climate change when deciding where to build housing, commercial real estate, or infrastructure (if the updated flood maps are designed with inclusion of future projected impacts of climate change within their projections and not solely historical data).

A-510    Impact on Canada’s resilience and adaptation

A-511

The proposal results in programs or policies that:
(Select any that apply):

[USER GUIDANCE] The proposal would directly enhance Canada’s resilience to climate change impacts.

[USER GUIDANCE] The proposal would support other policies or programs directly strengthening Canada’s resilience to climate change.

[USER GUIDANCE] This proposal would increase the likelihood or severity of climate related impacts on all or part of Canada's infrastructure, economy, or society. This could be through the introduction of a new project, initiative, or economic activity that is particularly vulnerable to climate impacts. This could also be through reinvesting in existing vulnerable infrastructure or economic activity without addressing apparent climate risks. This may also be the introduction of a policy that undermines existing levels of climate resilience, for example by lowering requirements for climate-damage insurance, lowering the redundancy requirements for interprovincial power or telecommunications infrastructure, or removing a prohibition on development in a flood or fire zone.

A-512

This proposal may contribute to advancing the goals, objectives or targets of one or more of the five systems of the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS):
(Select any that apply):

[USER GUIDANCE]

NAS systems

Disaster resilience

Health and well-being

Nature and biodiversity

Infrastructure

Economy and workers

A-513

This proposal’s impact on Canada’s adaptation and resilience may have a differentiated and disproportionate effect on specific groups of people:
Select one:

[USER GUIDANCE]

Yes

The proposal’s impact on Canada’s resilience to climate change will affect certain groups of people more than others. For example, a proposal to invest in all-weather access roads to remote and northern communities would deliver specific benefits to those typically underserved populations.

No

No differentiated and disproportionate effects are expected across specific groups of Canadians.

Undetermined

While impacts on Canada’s resilience to climate change have been identified, it is unknown whether they have differentiated and disproportionate impacts on specific groups of people.

A-520    Narrative

Describe the proposal’s impacts on Canada's adaptation and resilience, referring to the information provided above. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Please explain the responses given for A-511, A-512, A-513, and A-514. Refer also to the question prompts in A-520 to help guide your response.

Part B – Strategic economic analysis

Section B-100 - Exemption from Economic Impacts Analysis

Per the Preliminary Screening section, proposals that do not involve spending, revenues, or costs to the private sector exceeding $15 million in any year of implementation or that are regulatory proposals are exempt from Part B.

In addition, proposals may be exempt if they involve certain specific actions listed in the check boxes below.

Review each element of your proposal and check the boxes below that apply.  You may check more than one box if the proposal involves multiple of the below actions. Select any that apply:

If any boxes are selected above, please describe the implicated elements of the proposal and how they align with the exempt list of actions above:

[USER RESPONSE]

For the remaining elements of the proposal for which none of the above actions apply, proceed to section B-200.

Section B-200 - Qualitative economic impacts

Please read before proceeding

Complete the online Qualitative Economic Analysis Tool for each element of your proposal that was non-exempt (per section B-100). You may group sub-elements when they warrant the same responses to the Qualitative Economic Analysis Tool’s interview questions.  Consult the tool for details.

The tool will send you an email with the qualitative economic analysis results and your answers to the tool’s questions.   Transcribe the results into the tables below, as applicable, and attach the email(s) to this template when submitting it.

B-210 Local Economic Impacts

For each element (or group of elements) of your proposal that involves a local focus (if any), transcribe the local results from the online Qualitative Economic Analysis Tool email into the table below.  Include also the names of the implicated proposal elements and the affected regions. You may add more rows as needed.

Item / measure Region(s) Implicated Short-term impact Long-term impact
Item 1 Region 1 Enter result Enter result
Item 2 Region 2 Enter result Enter result

B-220 Sectoral Economic Impacts

For each element (or group of elements) of your proposal that involves a sector focus (if any), transcribe the sector results from the online Qualitative Economic Analysis Tool email into the table below.  Include also the names of the implicated proposal elements and the affected sectors. You may add more rows as needed.

Item / measure Sector(s) Implicated Short-term impact Long-term impact
Item 1

Select one:

  • Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
  • Mining and quarrying
  • Utilities
  • Construction
  • Manufacturing
  • Wholesale and retail trade
  • Transportation and warehousing
  • Information, telecomm and broadcasting
  • Finance, insurance, real estate leasing and rental
  • Professional, management and administrative services
  • Education
  • Health care
  • Arts, entertainment and recreation
  • Accommodation and food services
  • Other services (except public administration)
 Enter result Enter result
Item 2 Select a response Enter result Enter result

B-230 National Economic Impacts

For each element (or group of elements) of your proposal, transcribe the National results from the online Qualitative Economic Analysis Tool email into the table below.  Include also the names of the proposal elements along with the results. You may add more rows as needed.

Item / measure Short-term impact Long-term impact
Item 1 Enter result Enter result
Item 2 Enter result Enter result

B-240

(Optional) Please explain any expected economic impacts of the project not captured by the QEAT.

Note: Departmental and externally sourced quantitative estimates of economic impacts (such as job numbers) should not be provided in the CNEL template. You may only provide qualitative narratives explaining any important economic mechanisms or transmission channels through which your proposal is expected to impact the Canadian economy.

[USER RESPONSE]

Section B-300 - Quantitative economic impact assessment (for large proposals)

B-310

Does your proposal involve non-exempt spending of $150 million per year in any year of the proposal’s implementation? Non-exempt spending includes all spending aside from expenditures on items specified in section B-100 above.

Select one:

If you answered YES to the question above, a quantitative assessment of economic impacts needs to be prepared by the Department of Finance. Please contact the SEEA Secretariat to arrange for a quantitative assessment of economic impacts by contacting the Secretariat at ocne-cnel@ec.gc.ca.

Include the following documents in your email to the Secretariat:

Description of funding recipients and activities for each proposal sub-element

B-320     Results of quantitative economic assessment

If your proposal required quantitative economic analysis, record below the following results from the Department of Finance’s modelling:

Employment
Average annual employment impact over the 5 years after initial implementation [USER RESPONSE]
Snapshot employment impact 10 years after initial implementation [USER RESPONSE]
Average annual cost per job over the 10 years after initial implementation [USER RESPONSE]
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Average annual real GDP impact over the first 5 years of implementation [USER RESPONSE]
Snapshot real GDP impact 10 years after initial implementation [USER RESPONSE]
Cumulative real GDP multiplier over the 10 years after initial implementation [USER RESPONSE]

Part C – Cross-cutting considerations

Complete this part if you answered "Yes" to any of the preliminary screening questions.

[USER GUIDANCE] This part of the CNEL covers multifaceted issues intersecting with the strategic environmental analysis (Part A) and the strategic economic analysis (Part B). Part C is mandatory if any portions of Part A or Part B were applicable as per the responses to the preliminary screening questions.

Section C-100 – Indigenous Rights Considerations

C-110

Identify as applicable and describe the positive and negative impacts that this proposal has on Indigenous Peoples, and their lands and traditional territories, and any consultation obligations arising from implications on potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. Consider implications from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan. Where relevant, consider the results of any co-development initiatives undertaken on environmental or socio-economic aspects of the proposal. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

Section C-200 – Indigenous Climate Leadership

[USER GUIDANCE] This section assesses how the proposal supports Indigenous interests and the advancement of Indigenous leadership in climate action, the transition to a net-zero economy, and the responsible stewardship of lands and waters.

The advancement of Indigenous Climate Leadership can take many forms, including distinctions-based approaches, meaningful co-development/engagement, inclusive program governance, dedicated Indigenous carve-outs/set-asides, support for applicants, funding terms and conditions that recognize and respect Indigenous realities, etc.

Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan (SCP) made significant commitments to “work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to co-develop decision-making guidance that will ensure all of Canada’s future climate actions help advance Indigenous climate self-determination, and incorporating inclusiveness-by-design principles in all of Canada’s climate actions.” (SCP, 2020).

The Indigenous Climate Leadership Decision-Making Guidance has been developed in partnership with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, and provides specific guidance to all departments for designing federal climate programs – whether targeted, non-targeted, or national – in a way that will orient programming towards the above stated objectives. Practically, in program design, this means:

The Decision-making Guidance can be found here: Indigenous Climate Leadership Decision-Making Guidance.

C-210

Does the proposal include measures that have the potential to positively or negatively impact Indigenous Peoples, including their lands and traditional territories?

Select one

C-211

If you responded “yes” to question C-210, please identify all of the overarching design principles, as described in the Indigenous Climate Leadership Decision-Making Guidance, that have been integrated into this proposal:

Select any that apply:

Overarching design principles
C-212

For any design principles identified under question C-211, please describe how these principles have been integrated and what engagement processes were undertaken with Indigenous Peoples. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

C-220

Does the proposal establish, renew or modify a transfer payments program (as described in the Policy on Transfer Payments, under section 7 of the Financial Administration Act)?

Select one:

C-221

If you responded “yes” to question C-220, please identify all of the design principles for funding programs, as described in the Indigenous Climate Leadership Decision-Making Guidance, that have been integrated into the proposal: Select any that apply:

Funding programming design principles
C-222

For any design principles identified under question C-221, please describe how these principles have been integrated and what engagement processes were undertaken with Indigenous Peoples. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

C-223

If you responded “yes” to question C-220 and have not identified “Design Principle 9 – Dedicated Indigenous Funding under Non-Targeted and National Programs” under C-221, please explain why. (Recommended maximum 200 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

C-230

If you responded “yes” to questions C-210 and/or C-220 but did not integrate any of the eleven design principles of the Indigenous Climate Leadership Decision-Making Guidance tabulated in questions C-211 and C-221, please explain why. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

Section C-300 – Federal Sustainable Development Strategy

C-310

Do any of the environmental or economic impacts of the proposal identified in previous sections of the CNEL contribute, positively or negatively, to the goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy? (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] In this question, explain how the results of the CNEL demonstrate the proposal's alignment with, support for, or hindrance to the goals or targets of the FSDS, where applicable. Aspects of the proposal outside the scope of the CNEL should not be included in your response.

The 2022 to 2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) brings sustainable development goals, targets, short-term milestones, and implementation strategies from across the Government of Canada together in one place. It provides a whole-of-government view of priorities and actions to advance sustainable development in 101 federal organizations.

Goals of the FSDS
Goal 1: Reduce Poverty in Canada in all its Forms
Goal 2: Support a Healthier and More Sustainable Food System
Goal 3: Support Mental Health and Adopt Healthy Behaviors
Goal 4: Promote Knowledge and Skills for Sustainable Development
Goal 5: Champion Gender Equality
Goal 6: Ensure Clean and Safe Water for All Canadians
Goal 7: Increase Canadians’ Access to Clean Energy
Goal 8: Encourage Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth in Canada
Goal 9: Foster Innovation and Green Infrastructure in Canada
Goal 10: Advance Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and Take Action on Inequality
Goal 11: Improve Access to Affordable Housing, Clean Air, Transportation, Parks, and Green Spaces, as well as Cultural Heritage in Canada
Goal 12: Reduce Waste and Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles
Goal 13: Take Action on Climate Change and its Impacts
Goal 14: Conserve and Protect Canada’s Oceans
Goal 15: Protect and Recover Species, Conserve Canadian Biodiversity
Goal 16: Promote a Fair and Accessible Justice System, Enforce Environmental Laws, and Manage Impacts
Goal 17: Strengthen Partnerships to Promote Global Action on Sustainable Development

For more information on the FSDS, see The Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (fsds-sfdd.ca).

Section C-400 – Public Perspectives

C-410

Describe known or anticipated public perspectives on the environmental impacts of this proposal, as captured in part A. Consulting with the public may offer insight into the potential for environmental effects as well as baseline conditions. Results of previous consultations can be considered. Information for this section may be drawn from the consultation section of the proposal. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] Reference any consultations undertaken during the development of the proposal, acknowledging perspectives from potentially affected individuals and other stakeholders. Provide detail on the methodologies used in these consultations, emphasizing how they were designed. Draw insights from the consultation section of the proposal, integrating relevant information to support your response. If there are known concerns, expectations, or suggestions from the consultations regarding environmental effects, ensure they are highlighted and addressed in this section. When referencing results from previous consultations, ensure relevance to the current proposal and discuss how these findings inform this proposal.

Section C-500 – Fossil Fuels Subsidy

[USER GUIDANCE] Consult the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada – Self-Review Assessment Framework, for the latest guidance and definitions to use in answering these questions.

C-510

Will the proposal introduce or continue a fossil fuels subsidy:

Select one:

C-511

If the response to C-510 is "Yes,” does this subsidy qualify as "efficient" according to the principles of the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada – Self-Review Assessment Framework?

Select one:

Section C-600 – Implications for Sustainable Jobs

C-610

Does some aspect of the proposal facilitate or promote the creation of sustainable jobs in the transition to a net-zero, climate resilient economy, either directly or indirectly?

Select one:

C-611

If you responded “yes” to C-610, please provide a brief outline the sustainable jobs implications, including the timeframe of job creation, if available (i.e. 0-2 years, 3-5 years, 5+ years), and any metrics to track? (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] A sustainable job means any job that is compatible with Canada’s pathway to achieving a net-zero-emissions and climate-resilient future and that reflects the concept of decent work, namely work — including a job in which the worker is represented by a trade union that has entered into a collective agreement — that can support the worker and their family over time and that includes elements such as fair income, job security, social protection and social dialogue.

C-620

Does the proposal include any element or consider support for workers and/or communities in the transition to a net-zero, climate resilient economy (e.g., skills development, training, social supports)?

Select one:

C-621

If you responded “yes” to C-620, select the applicable type(s) of support from the table below:
Select any that apply:

C-630

Does the proposal consider and seek to uphold the sustainable jobs guiding principles contained in the preamble of the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act?

Select one:

C-631

If you responded “yes” to C-630, provide a short narrative describing how it upholds the principles. (Recommended maximum 300 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

[USER GUIDANCE] The Government of Canada’s approach to building a net-zero economy is guided by the following principles:

  1. adequate, informed and ongoing dialogue on a labour force and people-centered sustainable jobs approach should engage relevant stakeholders and partners, including through social dialogue, to build strong social consensus in the shift to a net-zero economy;
  2. policies and programs in support of sustainable jobs should
    1. support the creation of decent work, meaning good-paying, high-quality jobs — including jobs in which workers are represented by a trade union that has entered into a collective agreement — as well as job security, social protection and social dialogue,
    2. recognize local and regional needs,
    3. account for the cultural values, strengths and potential of workers and communities,
    4. provide an environment in which enterprises, workers, investors and consumers can contribute to achieving sustainable and inclusive economies and societies, and
    5. advance the well-being of workers and communities, as well as the achievement of Canada’s nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement;
  3. a sustainable jobs approach should be inclusive and address barriers to employment with an emphasis on encouraging the creation of employment opportunities for groups underrepresented in the labour market, including women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+ and other equity-seeking groups; and
  4. international cooperation should foster strengthened global efforts to advance the creation of sustainable jobs and ensure a level playing field and inform Canadian approaches to support workers and communities in the shift to a net-zero economy.

Part D – Custom Questions

Optionally, departments and agencies under the Directive may choose to add questions to the CNEL under this section to discuss any specific environmental and economic considerations of importance to their mandate and circumstances but not covered by previous parts of the assessment.

[USER RESPONSE]

Summary

This summary serves as foundation to reporting on the findings of this mandatory assessment within the proposal document itself, such as budget proposal, memorandum to Cabinet, Treasury Board submission, or regulatory impact analysis statement (environmental analysis only).

Drafting this summary is only required if any section of Part A – Strategic Environmental Analysis or Part B – Strategic Economic Analysis were completed. The summary should include:

(Recommended maximum 800 words)

[USER RESPONSE]

Approvals

Proposal Title:
Approval order Name Date Signature
SEEA Departmental Enabler
Signature indicates that guidance was provided on the requirements of this Climate, Nature and Economy Lens, consistent with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment.		 To be completed To be completed To be completed
Proposal Lead Approval
Signature indicates approval of this Climate, Nature and Economy Lens.		 To be completed To be completed To be completed

Page details

Date modified: