Departmental Performance Report (2012-2013) - Supplementary Tables

These tables are provided electronically as part of the Department’s 2012–2013 DPR submission to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Sources of Respendable and Non-Respendable Revenue

• Respendable Revenue
• Non-Respendable Revenue

Respendable Revenue ($ millions)

Note: Totals may differ between and within tables due to rounding of figures.

Top of Section

Non-Respendable Revenue ($ millions)

Note: Totals may differ between and within tables due to rounding of figures.

User Fees and External Fees

• Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act
• New Substances Notification Regulations
• Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area – Admission fees to the NWA
• Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area – Hunting permits
• Migratory Bird Program – Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permit
• Migratory Bird Program – Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp
• Aviculture, Taxidermy or Eiderdown
• Disposal at Sea Permit Application Fee
• Disposal at Sea Permit Fee
• User Fee Totals
• External Fees (Policy on Service Standards for External Fees)

Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act

Fee type: Other products and services (O)

Fee-setting authority: Access to Information Act (ATIA)

Year last modified: 1992

Performance standards:

A response is provided within 30 calendar days following the receipt of a request. The response time may be extended pursuant to section 9 of the ATIA. A notice of extension must be sent within 30 days of the receipt of a request.

The Access to Information Act provides further details.

Performance results:

Environment Canada received 1,827 requests in 2012–2013.

The Department processed 1,810 requests, including some carried over from previous years, and carried 185 requests forward to 2013–2014.

The Department was able to complete 66% of requests within 30 days or less. Of all completed requests, 88% were completed within legislated deadlines.

Other information:

Under the Access to Information Act, fees may be waived when deemed to be in the public interest. Fees waived during 2012–2013 totalled $11,460.

Top of Section

New Substances Notification Regulations

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: New Substances Fees Regulations

Year last modified: 2010

Performance standards:

1. All New Substances Notification submissions received are acknowledged by letter, email or facsimile within 10 days.
2. All New Substances Notification submissions are reviewed (assessed) for their potential adverse effects on human health or the environment and decisions are taken within the regulatory deadline to minimize such effects.

Performance results:

1. 100% of the 504 New Substances Notification submissions received were acknowledged by letter, email or facsimile within 10 days of their receipt.
2. 100% of the 504 New Substances Notification submissions were triaged and reviewed within the established period. Of the 504 New Substances Notification submissions, 28 were assessed as substances of concern. Consequently, the New Substances Program published, in the Canada Gazette, 6 Ministerial Conditions and 22 Significant New Activity Notices.

Other information:

Fees are shared with Health Canada in the following proportion:

• 2/3 for Environment Canada
• 1/3 for Health Canada

Top of Section

Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area – Admission fees to the NWA

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Canada Wildlife Act, section 12; Wildlife Area Regulations

Year last modified: 2003

Performance standards:

The public has access to quality services. The services include access to information on the regulation of the National Wildlife Area (NWA) and the activities that are offered, access to facilities, including an interpretation centre and a 20 km pedestrian trail network, as well as access to interpretation services.

The performance standards are to ensure that access to services is provided to a requester within minutes of the purchase and that visitors appreciate the services that are provided.

Performance results:

In 2012-2013, the access to services has been provided to all visitors (35 000) within minutes after their entry at the Area. The verbal comments gathered from about 50 visitors in 2012 demonstrate a general level of satisfaction with respect to the quality of the services. A survey of 500 visitors will be conducted in 2013–2014 to test our service standards and obtain results regarding the performance of the program. As well, the survey tool will be used to consult stakeholders on various aspect of the program.

Other information:

A comparative study of revenue generated versus costs for reception and interpretation services in 2012–2013 have shown that, despite streamlining efforts, expenses have always exceeded revenues since 2003. This is mainly due to the increase in consumer prices for goods and services, particularly petroleum products, that are required for the operation of the NWA. Also, the number of visitors to the NWA has considerably decreased since 2003, although a rise in the number of youth groups from summer camps was noted.

In 2013–2014, the operation and maintenance costs for the NWA are expected to continue to considerably exceed the generated revenue.

Top of Section

Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area – Hunting permits

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Canada Wildlife Act, section 12; Wildlife Area Regulations

Year last modified: 2001

Performance standards:

The public has access to quality controlled-hunt activities. The activities include hunting site preparation, decoys, training sessions, supervision by qualified staff and access to safe facilities. In order to access the activities, Canadian residents submit a non-refundable application fee and, if they are chosen by lot, a non-refundable hunting permit is issued.

The performance standards are to ensure that following the application process for a hunting permit, the hunters who are chosen by lot are informed within two months after the draw, and that hunters appreciate the services provided.

Performance results:

In 2012–2013, all hunters who were chosen by lot have been informed within two months after the draw. A survey of hunters conducted in 2005 demonstrated that there was a general level of satisfaction, and that many hunters register for the Cap Tourmente Controlled Hunt program year after year. The verbally gathered comments in 2012 from hunters demonstrate a general level of satisfaction with respect to the quality of the services. This is also demonstrated by the constant level of applications to get a permit (between 800-900/year) and by the fact that the 112 hunting packages are sold every year. In 2013–2014, another survey will be conducted with hunters to test our new performance standards and obtain results regarding our performance. As well, the survey tool will be used to consult stakeholders on various aspects of the program.

Other information:

A comparative study of generated revenues versus costs for the Controlled Hunt conducted in 2012–2013 showed that, despite streamlined operational costs and a reduced service offer (the Controlled Fall Hunt Program was restructured in 2001, 2006 and 2010), expenses have always exceeded revenues. In 2013–2014, it is expected that the Controlled Fall Hunt Program’s operation and maintenance costs will continue to exceed the generated revenue. Around 400 people hunted at the Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area in 2012–2013.

From early February to end of April, hunters can send their application fee for participating in the draw. The draw is done in early May (800-1000 applicants) and applicants get their ranking order by regular mail by the end of May. In June the first 150 applicants or so get a phone call to offer a hunting spot. Once their payment is done, the activity is confirmed. There are 112 packages for groups of 4 (the applicant and 3 friends). The hunting permit is given on site in October.

Top of Section

Migratory Bird Program – Migratory Game Bird Hunting Permit

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, section 12; Migratory Birds Regulations, C.R.C., c.1035

Year last modified: 1998 – SOR/98-314

Performance standards:

The total cost of a Migratory Game Bird Hunting (MGBH) Permit is $17.00. Of that amount, $8.50 is the fee for the permit and $8.50 is the cost for the Canadian Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp. This stamp must be affixed to the permit to make it valid. MGBH permits are available for sale as of August 1 at Canada Post offices and from select provincial and private vendors.

The performance standards are to ensure that an adequate number of permits are available for distribution for the open hunting season and that Canadian citizens or other individuals acquiring a permit can obtain one within a reasonable time.

There are currently no talks underway to increase permit prices.

Performance results:

MGBH permits were available by August 1 at Canada Post outlets throughout the country. Permits were also provided to independent vendors upon request.

As the primary vendor of permits, Canada Post provided information and assistance through its helpline for those who wished to obtain permits. Environment Canada also assists Canadians in locating a permit, or in making a complaint about obtaining a permit through Environment Canada’s Inquiry Centre. Private vendors can also obtain additional permits within 3 to 5 days from Environment Canada.

Hunters or their representatives must go to a postal outlet or to a private vendor's location in person to purchase their MGBH permits. The permits are available within minutes after completing the transaction.

* Under review

Other information:

The full cost and estimated full cost include the development, printing and distribution of the permit and hunting summaries. Hunting summaries are one-page summaries of the annual hunting regulations for each province and territory, including season dates and bag limits. Costs also include the National Harvest Survey, a voluntary survey that is completed by hunters (survey stub that is attached to the permit, mailings, data entry, data analysis, etc.). It provides data to help to assess the status of migratory game bird populations in Canada, their productivity, survival rates, and the amount of harvest they can sustain.

A review of the cost of the MGBH permit program will be completed in 2013–2014. An assessment will consider what percentage of the costs for the program should be recovered from the revenue collected via user fees.

In the 2013–2014 fiscal year, income from the sale of MGBH permits will be deposited into Environment Canada’s vote-netted revenue account.

Top of Section

Migratory Bird Program – Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Migratory Bird Convention Act, 1994, section 12; Migratory Bird Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1035

Year last modified: 1991

Performance standards:

The retail value of each Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp is $8.50. For a Migratory Game Bird Hunting (MGBH) Permit to be valid, the stamp must be affixed to it. The stamp is available in philatelic form for collectors.

The philatelic stamp is packaged in a booklet and is not valid for postage. The price of the philatelic Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp ranges from $8.50 for a single stamp, to $34.00 for a block of 4 stamps and $136.00 for a sheet of 16 stamps. A limited number of booklets signed by the artist whose painting was used for the stamp are also available for $20.00 each. The philatelic stamps are available as of April 1 from Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC).

The performance standard is to ensure that an adequate number of stamps are available for both the MGBH Permits and philatelic purposes.

Performance results:

In the 2012–2013 fiscal year, a sufficient number of Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamps were available to satisfy purchases of philatelic products and MGBH Permit requirements. No complaints were received concerning the availability of philatelic stamp products.

Other information:

All revenues generated from the sale of the Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp are directed to Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). The full cost is calculated as the direct contribution to WHC of the actual revenues generated from the stamp sales (those affixed to the MGBH Permit and other philatelic products), plus the costs of producing and distributing those stamps. The cost to produce the stamp is $43,000.

Top of Section

Aviculture, Taxidermy or Eiderdown

Fee Type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, section 12; Migratory Birds Regulations

Year last modified: Prior to 1978

Performance standards:

These permits are issued by Environment Canada regional offices for a fee of $10 each after reviewing applications from the public. To be successful, applicants must meet certain requirements; for example, with respect to aviculture, applicants must demonstrate that they will wing-clip/pinion or keep the birds in an enclosure to prevent mixing with wild populations. Each region can attach specific conditions to each permit. Permits generally expire on December 31 of the year issued. The performance standard is to review all applications received and issue permits, or notify applicants of the reasons for denying a permit, within 30 days of receiving the application.

Performance results: 99% of all applications were processed within the 30-day timeframe.

Top of Section

Disposal at Sea Permit Application Fee

Fee Type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), subsection 135(1); Disposal at Sea Regulations

Year last modified: 2001

Performance standards: Under the application fee, each application is reviewed according to Schedule 6 of CEPA 1999 and the Disposal at Sea Regulations. This involves public notice, an application that provides detailed data, scientific review, and the payment of fees. Each permit is published in the Canada Gazette (now in the CEPA Registry) and is issued to the permit holder within 120 days of applying if the application is complete and there are no issues from other stakeholders.

Performance results:

Met service standard of permit issuance within 120 days of receipt of a complete application on 85% of issued permits. The service standard was met nationally, with 93% of permits nationally issued within timeframes.

For further details, see www.ec.gc.ca/seadisposal/.

*Full cost figures do not include EC indirect and Other Government Department (OGD) costs. An internal exercise is underway to validate the full costs and appropriateness of user fees.

Top of Section

Disposal at Sea Permit Fee

Fee type: Regulatory (R)

Fee-setting authority: Financial Administration Act (FAA), par. 19.1(a); Disposal at Sea Permit Fee Regulations

Year last modified: 2010

Performance standards: The permittee has access to a permitted site and the ability to dispose of 1,000 m³ of dredged or excavated material for each $470 paid. The collected revenue is used by the Disposal at Sea Program to operate a representative national disposal site monitoring program that allows the client group as a whole to continue to have access to suitable disposal sites and to demonstrate to the Canadian public that the resource is being used sustainably. This indicator has found to be insufficiently clear and will be revised for next year.

Performance results:

Met the service standards. Permittees disposed of the dredged and excavated material authorized by their permits. Representative monitoring was carried out in accordance with monitoring guidelines. For further details see www.ec.gc.ca/seadisposal/.

Major projects, particularly on the West Coast, will likely cause higher disposal volumes and increase the costs of monitoring in future years. Following the spike in major development, costs and revenues are expected to return to lower levels. The revenues and costs associated with this user fee are variable and difficult to estimate in advance due to the following: dredging and disposal are cyclical and vary from year to year; the client base is small, consisting of a few clients with very large volumes; there is a requirement for payment of 50% of the Disposal at Sea (DAS) Permit up front; and permits that are refundable, at any time, for the unused part.

Top of Section

User Fee Totals

Subtotal – Regulatory

Subtotal – Other Products and Services

Total

Top of Section

External Fees (Policy on Service Standards for External Fees)

Status Report on Projects Operating with Specific Treasury Board Approval

Details of Transfer Payment Programs

• Contributions in support of Biodiversity – Wildlife and Habitat
• Contributions to support Climate Change and Clean Air
• Contributions in support of Sustainable Ecosystems
• Contributions to support Weather and Environmental Services
• Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk
• Grant to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology for the Next-generation Biofuels Fund™ (NextGen Biofuels Fund^TM or NGBF)

Contributions in support of Biodiversity – Wildlife and Habitat

Start date: June 10, 2010

End date: Ongoing – Evaluation to be completed by March 31, 2015

Description: Contributions in support of Biodiversity – Wildlife and Habitat encourage and support individuals and organizations engaged in activities to maintain or restore wildlife populations, in particular migratory birds and species at risk, to target levels.

Strategic outcome: Canada's natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.

Results achieved:

Projects under Biodiversity – Wildlife and Habitat addressed one or more of the following priorities related to biodiversity conservation:

1. Individuals and organizations are increasingly engaged in priority activities related to the conservation of wildlife, in particular migratory birds and species at risk.
2. There is increased Aboriginal participation in wildlife and habitat conservation. Key areas of focus in this respect include the provision of funding to the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk (almost $1 million annually), and to the Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk ($1.6 million annually).
3. New knowledge and data produced by collaborating organizations contribute to the conservation of migratory birds, species at risk and their habitat. Activities undertaken by partners include monitoring priorities species (notably migratory birds) and supporting organizations such as the conservation data centres across the country that provide important data storage functions.
4. Priority habitats for migratory birds and species at risk are conserved by partners through stewardship and protection. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is a key partnership program that supports this activity. The $2 million in funding provided by the Department acts as leveraged funding that supports a much more substantive investment by federal and non-federal partners (in both Canada and the United States) in habitat conservation efforts.
5. Threats limiting priority species at risk and migratory bird populations are mitigated or avoided by partners.
6. There is increased collaboration within Canadian and international research and policy communities related to Environment Canada's biodiversity priorities.
7. Compliance with the requirements of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards is supported. Annual contributions of just over $250,000 are made to the Fur Institute of Canada in support of this result area.

This work has led to the participation of individuals and organizations in activities contributing to the achievement of shared and important environmental objectives in relation to biodiversity conservation in Canada.

Comments on variances: Not applicable

Audits completed or planned: Not applicable

Evaluations completed or planned: The Evaluation of Species at Risk Program and Biodiversity Policy and Priorities was completed in 2012–2013. Evaluation of other specific programs are planned for 2013–2014.

Engagement of applicants and recipients:

Environment Canada engages applicants and recipients under this program in two ways: applicants through applications related to specific program elements; and recipients through single or named recipients identified on the basis of their unique ability to address targeted program results.

The Department employs one or a combination of the following initiatives to provide access to the program in a clear, understandable and useable manner: publicity in news media, information provided on the departmental website, letter-writing activities, and meetings with targeted recipient communities. Administrative requirements have been tailored to evaluated risk levels, and efficiency is being addressed through simplified agreement templates.

Top of Section

Contributions to support Climate Change and Clean Air

Start date: June 10, 2010

End date: Ongoing – Evaluation to be completed by March 31, 2015

Description: The purpose and overall objective of contributions made under these terms and conditions are to encourage and support international organizations and foreign states engaged in activities that advance international action, improve Canadian air quality, reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and promote change towards sustainable environmental development and policies.

Strategic outcome: Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized.

Results achieved:

Projects under Climate Change and Clean Air addressed one or more of the following priorities:

1. New knowledge and data produced by collaborating organizations contribute to improved air quality and/or reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Verification of environmental claims of Canadian technologies is carried out.
3. Mentoring services are available to small and medium-sized enterprises producing environmental technologies.
4. International organizations that promote the reduction of emissions of air pollutants and/or greenhouse gases are engaged.
5. Partners, in particular the Canadian private sector, are engaged in projects that advance the role of clean technology in addressing emissions of air pollutants and/or greenhouse gases.
6. Canada's environmental interests and priorities are addressed by international institutions.
7. New information and analysis support the development of policy on sustainable development and the effective governance of environmental issues in Canada and internationally.
8. The public has increased access to information and research findings pertaining to sustainable development and environmental governance.

Comments on variances: Not applicable

Audits completed or planned: Not applicable

Evaluations completed or planned: Evaluation of Transportation Sector Emissions was completed in 2012–2013.  Evaluation of other specific program areas is planned for 2013–2014.

Engagement of applicants and recipients:

Environment Canada engages applicants and recipients under this program in two ways: applicants through applications related to specific program elements; and recipients through single or named recipients identified on the basis of their unique ability to address targeted program results.

The Department employs one or a combination of the following initiatives to provide access to the program in a clear, understandable and accessible manner: publicity in news media; information provided on the departmental website; letter-writing activities; and meetings with targeted recipient communities. Administrative requirements have been tailored to evaluated risk levels, and efficiency is being addressed through simplified agreement templates.

Top of Section

Contributions in support of Sustainable Ecosystems

Start date: June 10, 2010

End date: Ongoing – Evaluation to be completed by March 31, 2015

Description: Contributions under Sustainable Ecosystems encourage and support individuals and organizations engaged in activities to manage ecosystem resources in a manner consistent with ecosystem sustainability.

Strategic outcome: Canada's natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.

Results achieved:

Projects under Sustainable Ecosystems addressed one or more of the elements of an ecosystem approach:

1. integrated planning and decision making;
2. action to improve the environment and
3. knowledge generation and assessment for decision making.

Environment Canada (EC) worked with a wide range of recipients to carry out this work.

Several agreements (34 with associated EC spending of $2.7 million) advanced the objective of engaging government, citizens and stakeholders in the management and implementation of ecosystem-based management plans such as those for the Great Lakes (Remedial Action Plans in Areas of Concern and Lakewide Management Plans) and for the St. Lawrence (St. Lawrence Action Plan and the Areas of Prime Concern (ZIP) Program).

Another set of agreements (86 with associated EC spending of $4.6 million) supported projects that were directed to implementing environmental remediation, protection and conservation projects required to meet the goals and objectives identified in ecosystem-based management plans or to achieve ecosystem objectives. These were carried out across the country, often by community groups. The main programs, the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the St. Lawrence Plan Community Interaction Program and the Atlantic Coastal Action Program were all successful in achieving environmental benefits such as fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation, biodiversity conservation, contaminated sediment assessment and remediation, improvements in municipal wastewater effluent quality or nearshore water quality, better understanding the impacts of climate change on coastal zones and sustainable uses of the ecosystem.

A few other agreements focused on the improvement of ecosystem and wildlife science or on Ecosurveillance and education.

This work has led to the participation of individuals and organizations in activities contributing to the achievement of shared and important environmental objectives in key ecosystems in Canada.

Comments on variances: Not applicable

Audits completed or planned: Not applicable

Evaluations completed or planned: An evaluation is planned for 2013–2014.

Engagement of applicants and recipients:

Environment Canada engages applicants and recipients under this program in two ways: applicants through applications related to specific program elements; and recipients through single or named recipients identified on the basis of their unique ability to address targeted program results.

The Department employs one or a combination of the following initiatives to provide access to the program in a clear, understandable and accessible manner: publicity in news media; information provided on the departmental website; letter-writing activities; and meetings with targeted recipient communities. Administrative requirements have been tailored to evaluated risk levels, and efficiency is being addressed through simplified agreement templates.

Top of Section

Contributions to support Weather and Environmental Services

Start date:  June 10, 2010

End date: Ongoing – Evaluation to be completed by March 31, 2015

Description: Contributions in support of Weather and Environmental Services for Canadians are proposed in order to encourage and support individuals and organizations engaged in activities to enable Canadians to access, understand and use information on changing weather, water, climate and air quality conditions.

Strategic outcome: Canadians are equipped to make informed decisions on changing weather, water and climate conditions.

Results achieved: New knowledge and data were produced by collaborating organizations contributing to improved accuracy of weather, climate and air quality information available to Canadians; collaboration increased within the meteorological community in Canada and internationally, with access to foreign meteorological observations and related products; and Canada’s interests and priorities with respect to atmospheric and oceanographic science were addressed by international institutions.

Comments on variances: The variance is due to fast-start financing under the auspices of the WMO (Haiti, Global Framework for Climate Services) that was not included in planned spending.

Audits completed or planned: Not applicable

Evaluations completed or planned: An evaluation is planned for 2013–2014.

Engagement of applicants and recipients: Environment Canada engages applicants and recipients under this program in two ways: applicants through applications related to specific program elements; and recipients through single or named recipients identified on the basis of their unique ability to address targeted program results.

The Department employs one or a combination of the following initiatives to provide access to the program in a clear, understandable and useable manner: publicity in the news media, information provided on the departmental website, letter-writing activities, and meetings with targeted recipient communities. Administrative requirements have been tailored to evaluated risk levels, and efficiency is being addressed through simplified agreement templates.

Top of Section

Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

Start date: August 20, 2000

End date: Program is ongoing. March 2015 is the end date for a portion of the Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP) for Species at Risk funding ($4 million).

Description: The purpose of the HSP is to contribute to the recovery of Endangered, Threatened, and other Species of Concern, and to prevent other species from becoming a conservation concern, by engaging Canadians in conservation actions to benefit wildlife. The HSP fosters partnerships among organizations interested in the recovery of species at risk and provides funding for implementing activities that protect or conserve habitats for species at risk. The Program enables non-governmental organizations, landowners, the private sector, Aboriginal organizations, educational institutions, community groups and other levels of government to plan, manage and complete projects that will achieve the program goal.

Strategic outcome: Canada's natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.

Results achieved: From April 2012 to March 2013, the HSP contributed $9.3 million to 131 new projects, and 50 previously approved multi-year projects, addressing terrestrial and aquatic species at risk issues in all provinces and territories. The HSP directed $33 million (program plus matching funds) to projects addressing both habitat conservation and threat mitigation issues. These stewardship activities benefited more than 300 Species at Risk Act (SARA)-listed or Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)-assessed species through increased awareness of species at risk and through the development of strategies, guidelines and practices or the completion of monitoring, surveying and inventorying studies. A total of 400 landowners participated in conservation activities. These activities led to the securement of 5,398 ha of habitat through legally binding measures, and to the protection of an additional 7,561 ha through newly established non-binding agreements and 3,543 ha through renewed, non-binding measures. Nearly 3,400 ha of habitat and 284 km of shoreline were improved through vegetation planting, alien species removal and other habitat improvement activities.

Overall, since its inception in 2000, the HSP has contributed over $126 million to 2,178 projects, leveraging an additional $307 million in matching funds from project partners.

Comments on variances:

Receiving the renewed $4 million in sun-setting funds through Supplementary Estimates B in fall, 2012 led to delays in the approvals process of some projects.

Additional variance results from normal program operational slippage and the withdrawal or cancellation of some projects in the fourth quarter due to delayed approvals, so that final expenditures can vary yearly.

Audits completed or planned: Not applicable

Evaluations completed or planned: The HSP was incorporated into the larger SARA Evaluation completed in 2012–2013.

Engagement of applicants and recipients:

Environment Canada engages applicants and recipients under this program in two ways: applicants through applications related to specific program elements; and recipients through single or named recipients identified on the basis of their unique ability to address targeted program results.

The Department employs one or a combination of the following initiatives to provide access to the program in a clear, understandable and accessible manner: publicity in news media; information provided on the departmental website; letter-writing activities; and meetings with targeted recipient communities. Administrative requirements have been tailored to evaluated risk levels, and efficiency is being addressed through simplified agreement templates.

Top of Section

Grant to the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology for the Next-generation Biofuels Fund™ (NextGen Biofuels Fund™ or NGBF).

Start date: July 30, 2007

End date: September 30, 2027 (the last appropriation by Parliament will be in fiscal year 2014–2015, with the last disbursement by SDTC by March 31, 2017)

Description: The $500-million NGBF is one of two funds managed by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). It supports the establishment of first-of-kind large demonstration-scale facilities for production of next-generation renewable fuels. As sponsoring departments for the federal government, Environment Canada (EC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) provide federal oversight to SDTC to ensure that it complies with the funding agreements and the founding legislation. Under the NGBF, SDTC provides grants with conditional repayment terms to eligible recipients for the establishment of facilities that involve both non-conventional technologies and non-traditional feedstocks, and that are built in Canada using representative Canadian feedstock. Selection is based on the technology's (rather than the plant's) potential for environmental and other benefits (social or economic).

Of the $500 million in total funding, $200 million is statutory and $300 million is appropriated funding that is spread over 7 fiscal years, beginning in 2008–2009 and ending in 2014–2015. The funding is equally divided between EC and NRCan.

Strategic outcome: Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized.

Results achieved: SDTC is currently supporting 3 projects under contract with $2.45 million approved to date. An amount of $114,000 was disbursed for projects in 2012.

* All amounts in this table represent the amounts transferred to SDTC by EC based on cash flow statements received from the Foundation. An equivalent amount was transferred by NRCan.

Comments on variances: The amount of $62.5 million in 2012–2013 planned spending was not reprofiled to future years because progress in the commercialization of next-generation biofuels projects has been slower than expected worldwide.

Audits completed or planned: There was no performance audit in fiscal year 2012–2013, except for the standard financial audit required for the financial data in the annual report. A value-for-money (performance) audit may be conducted by the government at least once every five years.

Evaluations completed or planned: The first of three interim evaluations that SDTC is required to conduct according to the NGBF funding agreement was officially completed by Robinson Research and was submitted to EC and NRCan on November 30, 2012.

The federal government may choose to evaluate the Foundation at any time to determine whether it is meeting its objectives.

Engagement of applicants and recipients: The funds that have been approved to date are for early project development, well before the construction phase. SDTC is currently supporting 3 projects under contract with $2.45 million approved to date. Should all  projects be approved for full investment, this would represent a $320.9 million SDTC contribution.

Up-Front Multi-Year Funding

• Clayoquot Biosphere Trust
• The Green Municipal Fund (GMF)
• Nature Conservancy of Canada
• Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust

Name of recipient: Clayoquot Biosphere Trust

Start date: February 2000

End date: In perpetuity

Total funding: $12 million

Description: Creation of an endowment fund for the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT), the cornerstone of the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Region Community. The CBT will use the income from the endowment fund to support local research, education and training in the Biosphere Reserve Region.

Strategic outcome: Canada's natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.

Summary of results achieved by the recipient:

• Implemented Youth Voices, a multimedia camp program designed specifically for high school students and focused on Biosphere-related topics such as stewardship and philanthropy.
• Continued the ongoing implementation of a Board-led, multi-year strategy and fundraising campaign to support the establishment of a permanent Biosphere centre. Implemented a $60,000 call for projects.
• Published Vital Signs, a community health snapshot that identifies successes and challenges for the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Region. The report was published in October 2012 and is accessible at http://clayoquotbiosphere.org/web/vital-signs/.
• Maintained the CBT/Genus Scholarship Program.
• Implemented a fund development plan to build endowments and secure donations for CBT priorities.

Comments on variances: Not applicable

Significant evaluation findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: Not applicable

Significant audit findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: Not applicable

Link to recipient’s site: www.clayoquotbiosphere.org

Top of Section

The Green Municipal Fund (GMF)

Name of recipient: The Green Municipal Fund (GMF)

Start date: February 2000

End date: In perpetuity

Total funding: $550 million shared equally between Environment Canada (EC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). EC’s share is one half, specifically $275 million.

Description: The Green Municipal Fund (GMF) is a $550-million revolving fund administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The GMF supports grants, loans and loan guarantees to encourage investment in environmental municipal projects. The Government of Canada (GoC) endowed the FCM with a total of $550 million for this initiative through a series of budget decisions from 2000 to 2005.

The GMF was established to enhance the quality of life of Canadians by improving air, water and soil quality and protecting the climate. Eligible projects may fall into one or more of the following categories: brownfields, energy, transportation, waste, water in the form of sustainable neighbourhoodaction plans, community brownfield action plans, GHG reduction plans, feasibility studies, field tests and capital projects. At least 30% of the value of the Fund Assets^Footnote 1 are dedicated exclusively to supporting brownfield remediation and redevelopment.

The amount of GMF financing available for municipal projects is directly related to the environmental benefits or innovativeness of the project, while taking into account economic and social considerations. Grants are available to cover up to 50% of eligible costs for plans, studies and field tests. A loan for up to 80% of the total and a grant for up to 20% of the loan are available in combination to cover eligible costs for capital projects where environmental, economic and social benefits are deemed exceptional.

As stipulated in the GMF Funding Agreement between the FCM and the GoC, the FCM has created two advisory bodies: the GMF Council and the Peer Review Committee. The GMF Council’s role is to assist the FCM Board of Directors, the decision-making body for the GMF, in approving projects proposed by municipalities. The 15-member GMF Council includes five federal members: 2 from EC, 2 from NRCan and 1 from Infrastructure Canada. All federal members are appointed by the FCM Board of Directors based on recommendations from the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources.

EC peer reviewers provide the GMF and federal Council Members with expert environmental science and technology advice and they evaluate funding proposals.

Strategic outcome: Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized.

Summary of results achieved by the recipient: The 2012–2013 GMF Annual Report is not yet available. It is expected to be available in July or August 2013 on the FCM website.

According to the 2011–2012 GMF Annual Report, since the inception of the GMF in 2000, the FCM has committed to disbursing $613 million to support 934 green initiatives across Canada. These GMF-supported initiatives have the potential to create over 32,000 jobs and generate over $3.7 billion in gross domestic product (GDP). Of the 934 initiatives funded to date, 162 have been capital projects; of these capital projects, 70 have been completed and have reported environmental results. Together, these 70 capital projects have reduced annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 340,000 t per year, reduced air pollutant emissions by almost 450,000 kg per year, diverted over 135,000 t of waste from landfill per year, made over 67 ha of previously unusable land available for use, improved the quality of over 33,000 m³ of soil, treated over 136 million m³ of water per year, and reduced water consumption by over 290,000 m³ annually.

In the absence of the 2012–2013 GMF Annual Report, the GMF’s most recent annual statement of plans and objectives (ASPO), being the 2012–2013 ASPO, provides the expected results for fiscal year 2012–2013.

Grants for sustainable community plans, feasibility studies and field tests

As of March 31, 2009, the FCM has been required to aim to commit $6 to $8 million per year in grants for sustainable community plans, feasibility studies and field tests per year. In fulfillment of this requirement, FCM is aiming to approve $6 million for plans, feasibility studies and field tests in 2012–2013.

Loans and grants for capital projects

The FCM offers a combination of grants and low-interest loans in support of capital projects. Grants are only offered in combination with loans. Under the Funding Agreement, FCM is required to aim to commit $50 to $70 million per year in loans. As of March 31, 2009, the FCM has been required to aim to commit $5 to $6 million per year in grants to capital projects. In fulfillment of this requirement, FCM is aiming to approve $45 million in loans and $5 million in grants for capital projects in energy, transportation, waste and/or water sectors.

Under the 2005 Funding Agreement, the FCM committed to lending or guaranteeing loans totalling $150 million for brownfield projects by March 31, 2012, and at least 30% of the value of the Fund Assets^Footnote 2 thereafter. In fulfillment of these requirements, the GMF is aiming to approve a total of $40 million for brownfield capital projects in 2012–2013. Under the provisions of the Funding Agreement, brownfield projects are not eligible for grants.

Performance measures

To measure and demonstrate the qualitative, quantitative, short-term and long-term success of the GMF, the planned activities outlined in the 2012–2013 ASPO included the following:

• Capacity building: Encourage Canadian municipalities to use the knowledge, networks and tools provided by the GMF to develop their internal capacity to achieve their sustainability goals.
• Leveraging partnerships and brokering: Extend the reach of GMF funding and knowledge to achieve greater overall impact.
• Performance measurement: Establish a rigorous and standardized performance measurement system.
• Risk management: Anticipate and manage risks and drivers for the FCM so that the Federation can use GMF resources effectively and strive for continuous improvement.
• Marketing and communications: Establish the GMF as the preeminent catalyst, collaborator and conduit for municipalities and their partners undertaking environmental initiatives.
• Integrated projects: Explore the feasibility and impacts of funding integrated initiatives through a dedicated GMF funding sector.

Comments on variances: All funds to the GMF were paid out in prior years.

Significant evaluation findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: Section 11.05 of the Funding Agreement stipulates that the FCM agrees to obtain and make public and forward to both Ministers, for tabling in Parliament, an independent review using recognized evaluation standards on the following timelines: an initial review within six months following March 31, 2009; and subsequent reviews every five years from the date of the first review. The next independent review will take place starting in the year 2014.

Significant audit findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: Section 11.07 of the Funding Agreement stipulates that the FCM agrees to have carried out an independent value-for-money or performance audit to ensure the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which funds have been used. An initial review must be carried out within six months following March 31, 2009, and subsequent reviews be conducted every five years from the date of the first review. The next independent performance audit will take place starting in the year 2014.

Link to recipient’s site: www.fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund.htm

Top of Section

Nature Conservancy of Canada

Name of recipient: Nature Conservancy of Canada

Start date: March 2007

End date: In perpetuity (until the total funding is expended)

Total funding: $225 million

Description: The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to ensure the long-term protection of biodiversity by working with private landowners and land managers to secure ecologically significant lands that have been identified as priorities for conservation action. To that effect, the Conservancy acquires and preserves land through any of 4 methods: land purchase, land donations, conservation easements or relinquishment of rights. It also ensures support for the ongoing management and restoration of the habitat it secures. The goal of the program is to secure 200,000 ha of private land for conservation.

Strategic outcome: Canada's natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations.

Summary of results achieved by the recipient: As of the end of March 2013, the Conservancy had drawn the entire $225 million under the federal allocation of the Natural Areas Conservation Program funding available. As of the end of the 5th year of the Natural Areas Conservation Program, the Conservancy and its partners had raised more than $186 million in matching funds and pledges from private and other public sources, and had received donations of conservation lands and easements valued at more than $154 million from private landowners, for a total of over $340 million. The Conservancy and its partners have already reached the goal to match the federal investment of $225 million over the life of the program. The Conservancy and its partners have now secured more than 356,000 ha of land, through more than 1,017 land transactions. These lands are found in every province and provide habitat for at least 148 species at risk.

Comments on variances: This conditional grant was fully accounted for in the 2006–2007 fiscal year. Payments made under the grant are based on the Conservancy's fiscal year, which commences on July 1. Instalments under the grant were $70.2 million in 2007–2008, $46.1 million in 2008–2009, $29.3 million in 2009–2010, $21.7 million in 2010–2011, $33.7 million in 2011–2012 and $24.0 million in 2012–2013.

Significant evaluation findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: The fifth annual progress report spanning April 1, 2007, to June 30, 2012, was received from the Conservancy on March 11, 2013, and was deemed to be satisfactory. As per the requirements of the grant, a program evaluation, covering the dates of initiation until March, 2012, was submitted on June 20, 2012. The objectives of the evaluation were to measure the overall performance of the Conservancy in achieving the outcomes identified in the Agreement and to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the funds have been used. The evaluation found that the program has been successful and several recommendations were directed to the Conservancy for future program implementation in the event that the program is renewed.

Significant audit findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan: A financial audit, dated June 30, 2012, was conducted by Ernst & Young to inform the fifth annual progress report on the program, spanning July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. The auditor's report indicated that "...the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Fund as at June 30, 2012, and the revenue and expenses in the NCC and Other Qualified Organizations (except Ducks Unlimited Canada) columns in the statement of operations and changes in unrestricted net assets for the period from March 30, 2007, to June 30, 2012 and for the year ended June 30, 2012...”. The Conservancy is expecting to expend the remaining funds from the original $225 million federal allocation by October 31, 2013.

Link to recipient’s site: www.natureconservancy.ca

Top of Section

Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)

Name of recipient: Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)

Start date: March 2001 for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund (SD Tech Fund^TM) and April 2007 for the Next-Generation Biofuels Fund (NextGen Biofuels Fund^TM or NGBF)

End date: December 2017 for the SD Tech Fund^TM and September 2027 for the NGBF

Total funding: $1.09 billion ($590 million for the SD Tech Fund^TM and $500 million for the NGBF) shared equally between Environment Canada (EC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). EC’s share is one half of $1.09 billion, specifically $545 million. (Please note that on June 7, 2012, the Treasury Board Secretariat approved the Funding Agreement Four for the SD Tech Fund^TM, which provides the SD Tech Fund^TM with an additional $40 million, raising the SD Tech Fund^TM from $550 million to $590 million)

Description: SDTC is a not-for-profit foundation created by the Government of Canada, with a series of federal grants that now total to $1.09 billion. As sponsoring departments for the federal government, EC and NRCan provide federal oversight of SDTC to ensure that it complies with the funding agreements and founding legislation. NRCan is the federal SDTC lead.

SDTC manages two separate funds:

• the SD Tech Fund^TM ($590 million consisting of $550 million in up-front funding and an additional $40 million in multi-year funding) to provide financial support to projects that have the potential to advance sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change, clean air, and water and soil quality issues; and
• the NGBF ($500 million) to provide financial support towards the establishment of facilities producing next-generation renewable fuels at large demonstration scale.

SDTC-funded projects are active in all major Canadian economic sectors, including energy exploration and production, power generation, energy utilization, transportation, agriculture, forestry and wood products, and waste management.

Strategic outcome: Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized.

Summary of results achieved by the recipient:

SD Tech Fund^TM:

• In 2012^Footnote 3, under the SD Tech Fund^TM, SDTC provided $78 million in funding to 24 projects with a total eligible cost of $290 million, including $224 million in leveraged investment. Disbursements to projects in 2012 were $68 million; it is anticipated that disbursements to projects will increase in the upcoming years with more and more projects approaching completion.
• Since its inception, the SD Tech Fund^TM has awarded grants of $592 million for 245 projects with a total project value of $2.1 billion and the potential for 7 to 17 megatonnes of CO₂ emission reductions annually by 2015. As of December 2012, $381 million have been disbursed. A total of 84 projects have been completed since the Foundation’s inception.
• As required by legislation, SDTC submitted the annual report documents on time to EC and NRCan and posted these on the SDTC website, making them available to the public.

NGBF:

• SDTC’s NGBF is currently supporting 3 projects under contract with $2.45 million approved to date. An amount of $114,000 was disbursed for projects in 2012.

* All amounts in this table represent the amounts transferred to SDTC by EC. An equivalent amount was transferred by NRCan.

Comments on variances:

The amount of $62.5 million of 2012–2013 planned spending was not reprofiled to future years because progress in the commercialization of next-generation biofuels projects has been slower than expected worldwide.

The NGBF consists of $200 million in statutory funding and $300 million of appropriated amounts. There are appropriations for the NGBF in the current year and in future years; therefore, please also see “Details of Transfer Payment Programs (TPP) for the NGBF”.

All funds to the SD Tech Fund^TM were paid out in prior years. All of the above financial data pertains to the NGBF only and represents EC’s share.

No payments were made to SDTC in 2012–2013. SDTC had on hand the funds that it had estimated as its requirement for the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Actual spending by SDTC was significantly less than its estimates in cash flow statements, because the anticipated payments to projects have been delayed by the proponents.

Significant evaluation findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan:

According to the terms of the SD Tech Fund^TM funding agreement, the next evaluation by the recipient is due in 2015.

According to the terms of the NGBF funding agreement, three interim evaluations will be performed by an independent third party selected by the Foundation (November 30, 2012; November 30, 2017; and November 30, 2022). A final evaluation is due by September 30, 2027. The first of the three interim evaluations was officially completed by Robinson Research and was submitted to EC and NRCan on November 30, 2012. The interim evaluation concluded that SDTC has established a rigorous due-diligence process and is engaging with existing and potential industry clients.

Significant audit findings by the recipient during the reporting year and future plan:

A standard financial audit was completed as required for the financial data in the SDTC Annual Report. A value-for-money, or performance audit for the SD Tech Fund^TM was completed by the government in fiscal year 2009–2010 and the final report was issued in July 2011. The report was generally positive but identified two issues that were subsequently resolved through the Funding Agreement Four approved by the Treasury Board Secretariat on June 7, 2012.

Link to recipient’s site: www.sdtc.ca

Horizontal Initiatives

• Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan
• Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Initiative
• Canadian Group on Earth Observations

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP)

Name of horizontal initiative: The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP), approved March 2005 (followed from the two-year Federal Contaminated Sites Accelerated Action Plan (FCSAAP)

Name of lead departments: Environment Canada (EC) and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

Lead departments program: Substances and Waste Management (EC); Financial Management (TBS)

Start date: FCSAP was approved in 2005, with funding of $3.5 billion over 15 years. The first phase of the program ended March 31, 2011. The second phase of the program will run through to March 31, 2016.

End date: FCSAP is expected to continue for 15 years (from 2005) to March 31, 2020. However, the current policy approval for Phase II ends March 31, 2016.

Total federal funding allocation (from start date to end date): $2,737.5 million (including Public Works and Government Services Canada accommodations charges) to March 31, 2016

Description of the horizontal initiative (including funding agreement): The Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) provides a long-term mechanism to address federal contaminated sites posing the highest human health and ecological risks. Although responsibility for the actual management and remediation of federal contaminated sites rests with responsible custodial departments, the overall program is administered jointly by Environment Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Shared outcome: Reduce federal financial liability and risks to human health and the environment, including fish habitat. Increase public confidence in the overall management of federal real property through the effective risk management or remediation of individual federal contaminated sites.

Governance structures: The Federal Contaminated Sites Assistant Deputy Ministers Steering Committee is supported by a Director Generals Committee, the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group (CSMWG) and the FCSAP Secretariat (Environment Canada), which provides overall program coordination.

Performance highlights: In 2012–2013, assessment activities were undertaken at 491 sites, and assessment was completed at 268 of these sites. Remediation activities were undertaken at 350 sites and completed at 36 of these sites.

In its role of managing the FCSAP program, Environment Canada continued to provide program oversight and administration (including reviewing site submissions for eligibility, maintaining the priority list of eligible sites, and tracking program expenditures at mid-year and year-end). Environment Canada also led the FCSAP program evaluation, implemented a performance measurement framework for FCSAP, and continued the development of a new information management strategy for the program. Several key program tools, as well as guidance and training, were developed, including a site closure reporting tool and associated training.

Planned Spending and Actual Spending in 2012–2013

Comments on variances:

In 2012–2013 the FCSAP federal partners spent 54% ($211.1 million) of the available funding; reprofiled, carried forward, or cash-managed 43% ($168.9 million) to future years; and lapsed 3% ($11.8 million). Note that the amount of available funding was $391.9 million while the amount of planned spending was $370.0 million. This difference is due to the fact that the approval of funding transferred forward from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 occurred after the planned spending amount was calculated in the Report on Plans and Priorities.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada – Southern Program: The amount of $50 thousand in funding was internally cash-managed from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 and $6.5 million in funding was received from AANDC– Northern Program and DND. The amount of $5.0 million in funding was carried forward from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada – Northern Program: The amount of $11.1 million in funding was reprofiled from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 and $5.7 million in funding was transferred to AANDC– Southern Program. The amount of $30.0 million in funding was reprofiled from 2012–2013 to 2014–2015 and $4.9 million of funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada: The amount of $261 thousand in funding was internally cash-managed from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014.

Correctional Service Canada: The amount of $626 thousand in funding was internally cash-managed from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $513 thousand of funding was internally cash-managed from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014.

Environment Canada – Custodian: The amount of $943 thousand in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013, of which $590 thousand will be reinvested in FCSAP activities in 2013–2014.

Environment Canada – Expert Support and Secretariat: The amount of $332 thousand in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013 due to delays in staffing some vacant positions, reduced travel, and delays in contracts for some projects.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Custodian: The amount of $498 thousand in funding was carried forward from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014 and $14 thousand in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Expert Support:The amount of $145 thousand in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013. Variance is explained by Work Force Adjustment (WFA) and internal program reorganization.

Health Canada – Expert Support: The $466-thousand variance is due to finding cost savings and efficiencies in the program.

Industry Canada: No variance.

The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated: The amount of $1.1 million in funding was carried forward from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $14.1 million in funding was reprofiled from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014.

National Capital Commission: The amount of $1.7 million in funding was internally cash-managed from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $7.7 million in funding was reprofiled from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014, $2.0 million in funding was internally cash-managed from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014, and $3.8 million in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

National Defence: The amount of $760 thousand in funding was transferred to AANDC– Southern Program. The amount of $29.2 million in funding was internally cash-managed from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014 and $1.2 million in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

National Research Council Canada: No variance.

Natural Resources Canada: No variance.

Parks Canada: The amount of $1.5 million in funding was carried forward from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $5.2 million in funding was carried forward from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014.

Public Works and Government Services Canada – Custodian: The amount of $4.1 million in funding was reprofiled from 2011–2012 to 2013–2014. The amount of $48.0 million in funding was reprofiled from 2012–2013 to future fiscal years and $898 in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

Public Works and Government Services Canada – Expert Support: The amount of $14 thousand in Expert Support funds were lapsed in 2012–2013 due to incorrect identification of expenditures within PWGSC’s financial system.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The amount of $72 thousand in funding was carried forward from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $495 thousand in funding was carried forward from 2012–2013 to 2013–2014. For remediation projects, approximately $96 thousand of the variance is due to 6 projects that came in under budget and approximately $266 thousand of the variance is due to changes in work planned, as planned activities did not move forward due to FCSAP eligibility issues. For assessment projects, approximately $18 thousand was not spent as projects came in under budget.

Transport Canada: The amount of $5.7 million in funding was carried from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013. The amount of $21.9 million in funding was reprofiled from 2012–2013 to future years. Several FCSAP projects planned for 2012–2013 have been moved to future years. For example, the bulk of remediation work associated with the Rock Bay project was initially expected to take place in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, but is now scheduled for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The amount of $5,365 in funding was lapsed in 2012–2013.

Results achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable): N/A

Contact information:
FCSAPSecretariat
Compliance Promotion and Contaminated Sites Division
17th floor, Place Vincent Massey
351 St. Joseph Blvd., Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
FCSAP.PASCF@ec.gc.ca

Top of Section

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GLBEI)

Name of horizontal initiative: Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GLBEI)

Name of lead department: Environment Canada

Lead department PAA Program: Delivery of the Canada–Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

Start dates:
April 1, 2012 – Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative (GLNI)
April 1, 2010 – Great Lakes Action Plan for Areas of Concern - Phase V
(Note: Great Lakes Action Plan V (GLAPV) resources were resources envelope (A-Based) as of Budget 2010)
April 1, 2008 – Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) – Great Lakes sediment remediation implementation

End dates:
March 31, 2022 – CWAP – Great Lakes sediment remediation implementation
March 31, 2016 – GLNI (Resources)

Total federal funding allocation (from start date to end date):
$16 million for GLNI, plus resources envelope A-Base resources; plus $40 million for GLAPV (2005–2010); plus $48.9 million for CWAP – Great Lakes sediment remediation implementation.

Description of the horizontal initiative (including funding agreement):

The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GLBEI) is Environment Canada’s mechanism for coordinating efforts to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and ensure delivery of federal commitments as expressed in the Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Environment Canada (EC) uses the Canada–Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes to engage other federal departments and Ontario in delivering Canada’s GLWQAcommitments.

Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Initiative (GLBEI) reflects Budget 2007 funding of $48.9 million over 8 years (subsequently spread over 14 years) from the Clean Water Action Plan to implement remediation plans for contaminated sediment in 8 Canadian Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes. As well, Budget 2010 investments targeted continuing the work under the Great Lakes Action Plan V to improve the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Every year, $8 million is allocated under GLAPV to continue the environmental restoration of key aquatic Great Lakes AOCs. Additionally, in 2012, the Government of Canada committed $16 million over 4 years to the GLNI to determine phosphorus targets and take action to reduce levels that contribute to harmful algae in the Great Lakes. Federal departments also use resources envelope (A-Base) funding to support their efforts towards achieving COA results.

Shared outcomes: The GLWQA establishes broad, long-term objectives for Canada and the United States in restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. The COA provides a short-term 5-year plan for achieving Canada’s GLWQA commitments. Through the COA, federal and provincial agencies are guided by a shared vision of a healthy, prosperous and sustainable Great Lakes region for present and future generations. The COA also establishes a common purpose and shared goals, results and commitment in 4 priority areas: the restoration of AOCs; the reduction of harmful pollutants; the achievement of lake and basin sustainability; and coordination of monitoring, research and information.

Governance structures: Eight federal departments engaged in delivering GLBEI results under the COA: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, Transport Canada, Infrastructure Canada and Health Canada.

The COAManagement Committee is the senior federal-provincial management body responsible for setting priorities, establishing strategies to ensure delivery of the COA, and developing common positions and joint action plans for representing Canadian interests and engaging in cooperative initiatives with the United States agencies and the International Joint Commission.

Planning, prioritization and allocation of GLAPV monies is managed through the Director General’s office – Ontario Region, Environment Canada, with the advice of the GLAPV Workplan Review Team. Members of the GLAPVWorkplan Review Team consist of representatives from Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada receiving GLAPV funds. The GLAPV Workplan Review Team reviews proposed projects and activities, and develops and regularly updates a coordinated federal workplan based on priorities required to support GLAPV implementation.

Management of the funding for the implementation of the CWAP’s Great Lakes sediment remediation is also assured by the Director General’s office – Ontario Region, Environment Canada, with the development, implementation and monitoring of project plans specific to this work in each of the eight Canadian Great Lakes Areas of Concern.

GLNIfunding is managed by the Director General’s office – Ontario Region, Environment Canada, through a GLNI workplan. The workplan is developed by Environment Canada directorates receiving GLNI funds: the Regional Director General, Ontario Region Directorate and the Water Science and Technology Directorate. The workplan sets out projects and activities that are regularly reviewed and updated.

Performance highlights:

*During the RPP 2012–2013 period, the Government of Canada was in negotiations with the Government of the United States to amend the Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (2012 GLWQA). As well, the 2007–2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem was extended by 15 months, and expired on June 24, 2012. Negotiations are taking place between Canada and Ontario for a new COA to implement the 2012 GLWQA.

Results Achieved in 2012–2013: 

Specific Results by Department:

Environment Canada:

Work continued to achieve progress in the restoration of Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs):

• The Peninsula Harbour Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 report was completed, marking the completion of all Canadian Stage 2 reports. The report identified the goals and actions needed to restore environmental conditions and to enable delisting of the Peninsula Harbour AOC, including implementation of the sediment management plan.
• All restoration actions identified in the St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOC were completed. The Stage 3 report, describing the results of monitoring and the restoration of beneficial uses was circulated to federal, provincial and state agencies for comment. A decision on whether to delist the AOC, or designate it as an Area in Recovery is expected in 2013–2014.
• The St. Clair River AOCRevised Delisting Canadian Criteria, 2010 report was completed. The report sets out the environmental targets to be met that will signal restoration of the AOC.
• An evaluation was completed of two beneficial use impairments for The Toronto and Region AOCRemedial Action Plan: restrictions on dredging and degradation of benthos, with the resulting recommendation that these beneficial uses be considered “not impaired.” Reports on these findings and recommendations are expected to be released in 2013–2014 for public review and comment.

Environment Canada’s efforts to assess and manage the risks posed by commercial chemicals under Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) supported continued work to reduce the release of harmful substances to the Great Lakes:

• A review was done to assess the current state of spill management in the Great Lakes. Past spill incidents were reviewed, interviews were conducted to collect information on the current federal and provincial spill management programs and a workshop was held. The outcome was the collective identification of best practices and a commitment to strengthen federal-provincial spill prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

Work continued to achieve a better understanding of, and to report on, the Great Lakes Ecosystem status and trends. Environment Canada worked collaboratively with universities and other government and non-governmental agencies on many projects, with the following results:

• The annual reports for the Lakewide Action and Management Plan2012 were published for each of the Great Lakes and are available at this website.
• Work began on the development of an integrated nearshore framework with the initiation of a review of existing coastal zone management, determination of engagement and consultation needs, the development of a project charter and consideration of development of a habitat classification framework.
• In Lake Superior, the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program chemical milestones report was finalized, an assessment of biodiversity conservation was begun, climate change adaptation actions were identified, and work continued on aquatic invasive species prevention.

Work continued to determine phosphorus targets and to take action to reduce levels that contribute to harmful algae in the Great Lakes:

• Work began on improving our understanding and management of recurrent toxic and nuisance algae blooms in the Great Lakes. Seven Lake Erie science cruises took place and automated sampling equipment was deployed in watersheds to collect water, plant and mussel samples. This will improve our understanding of factors contributing to algae production and of the impacts of toxic and nuisance algae on water quality and ecosystem health.
• Reviews were also undertaken of best management practices for urban and agricultural areas to manage phosphorus.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Work continued to protect fisheries by protecting fish habitat; to conduct science to support fish habitat protection; to control the established invasive Sea Lampreys to reduce their effects on fisheries and the ecosystem; to protect the Great Lakes from the invasion of Asian carp; and to prevent invasions by other new species. Accordingly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

• Delivered fish habitat protection on the Great Lakes as prescribed in the Fisheries Act.
• Provided monitoring and science to support delisting AOCs, including the Bay of Quinte, Toronto Harbour, Hamilton Harbour, Detroit River, and St. Clair River. The results included
  • indices of biotic integrity and habitat productivity for nearshore fish populations;
  • fish habitat classification and supply models to measure the success of habitat restorations;
  • long-term assessments of lower-trophic levels and food web status; and
  • ecosystem models for evaluating cumulative effects.
• Delivered an integrated program for Sea Lamprey management in the Great Lakes in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the direction of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The results included successful lampricide treatments in tributaries and connection channels in lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior to suppress invasive Sea Lampreys and to protect and restore native fishes. DFO achieved suppression targets for abundances of adult Sea Lampreys in Lake Ontario, made progress toward targets in lakes Superior and Erie, and saw an increase in abundance in Lake Huron. DFO continued research and development of new alternative Sea Lamprey control methods, including field trials of Sea Lamprey pheromones.
• Building on the binational risk assessment of Asian carp, DFO initiated a new science and management program to prevent establishment of Asian carp in the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes in close collaboration with United States agencies.
• Delivered science to monitor the success of ballast water management efforts and to explore new technologies to further reduce the risk of invasion through this vector, and monitored for aquatic invasive species in AOCs and in connecting channels in the Great Lakes.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Work continued to improve beneficial agriculture management practices with involvement of the Great Lakes farming community in numerous projects:

• Canada–Ontario Environmental Farm Plan and environmental cost-shared programs for farmers: under an agreement with Ontario, 805 environmental farm plans were reviewed and deemed eligible for potential cost-shared funding under the Canada–Ontario Farm Stewardship Program in 2012–2013. Additionally, 1,095 projects that implement agriculturally beneficial management practices were funded under the cost-shared program for farmers, with federal expenditures of $4,871,986 in 2012–2013. The Growing Forward 2 bilateral agreement, which funded the Environmental Farm Plan and the cost-shared program for farmers, ended on March 31, 2013.

Natural Resources Canada

Work continued towards the achievement of sustainable development of Canada’s energy, forestry and mineral metals resources within the Great Lakes Basin. Results included

• Assessment of new configurations for riparian (shoreline) forest harvesting under the emulation of a natural disturbance management paradigm.
• Assessment of risks to aquatic and wetland habitats and biodiversity from an invasive forest insect pest (Emerald Ash Borer).
• Assessment of environmental fate and effects of systemic forest insecticides in riparian and aquatic ecosystems.
• Assessment of the role of forests in the recovery and reclamation of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems from mining disturbances.

Parks Canada

Delivers the national parks and National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) programs and works to develop and maintain a viable protected areas network in the Great Lakes Basin that is relevant to Canadians. Accordingly, Parks Canada

• Finalized and implemented the Lake Superior NMCA Interim Management Plan.
• Supported Fisheries and Oceans Canada in aquatic invasive species management in waterways.
• Completed the legal boundary survey for the Lake Superior NMCA.
• Continued research on aquatic invasive plant control in the Trent–Severn Waterway.

Transport Canada

Work continued to ensure compliance with CanadaShipping Act, 2001 regulations related to the ecosystem health of the Great Lakes. Transport Canada (TC) undertook a wide variety of inspection, monitoring and training programs, including projects that involved

• Implementing and enforcing the pollution prevention Conventions of the International Maritime Organization, as outlined in the domestic regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
• Inspecting 100% of the ballast tanks of vessels entering the Great Lakes from outside Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zone in accordance with the Ballast Water Management and Control Regulations to prevent the discharge of aquatic invasive species in the ballast water of ships entering the Great Lakes. This inspection was done under the Great Lakes Seaway Joint Ballast Water enforcement program.
• Conducting research and shipboard trials of exchange plus treatment as a method to enhance the protection of the Great Lakes from ships ballast water discharge. Research and development was carried out in conjunction with Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science.

Infrastructure Canada

Work continued toward providing funding to eligible infrastructure projects in support of federal objectives such as a cleaner environment, including improved wastewater treatment.

• Since 2007, the Government of Canada has announced over $505 million for wastewater infrastructure in the Great Lakes watershed, through the Building Canada Fund, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. Of this amount, approximately $386 million in federal funding has been committed toward treatment projects that result in improved municipal wastewater effluent.
• In October 2012, the Government of Canada announced it would set aside up to one third of the total eligible costs of a wastewater treatment project in Niagara-on-the-Lake, up to a maximum contribution of $14.4 million. This project has been identified as a priority for funding under the Building Canada Fund - Major Infrastructure Component.
• In 2012–2013, Infrastructure Canada continued to focus on moving a number of large-scale projects towards implementation. Including the project recently announced in Niagara-on-the-Lake, this represents a total of nearly $263 million through the Building Canada Fund – Major Infrastructure Component and the Green Infrastructure Fund, in support of 9 major infrastructure projects located in communities near the Great Lakes. Among these initiatives, approximately $178 million is supporting major projects to improve the quality of municipal wastewater effluent in the following AOCs: the St. Lawrence River, Hamilton Harbour and Nipigon Bay.

Health Canada

Work continued to enhance environmental health knowledge within the Great Lakes Basin, so that the knowledge gained can be integrated into policies to address risks to human health by all levels of government.

• Three webinars were held: October (Harmful Algal Blooms), December (Water Fluoridation), and February (GLWQA and Ontario Great Lakes Strategy)
• The Great Lakes Public Health Network (GLPHN) Steering Committee met to prioritize topics, governance, mechanism improvements, and to approve the 2012–2013 path forward.
• Ten e-newsletters were sent to the 260 members of the GLPHN.

Comments on variances (if applicable):

ENVIRONMENT CANADA: Dedicated Great Lakes funding (GLAPV) is received only by Environment Canada and Fisheries and Ocean Canada, which also each contribute departmental resources envelope (A-Base) funding towards achieving results under the COA. All other partners (federal and provincial) to the COA achieve COA results via departmental funding.

PARKS CANADA: Figures for planned and actual spending are not available as Parks Canada financial coding systems are not designed to separate out Great Lakes-specific activities.

HEALTH CANADA: Health Canada supports work for the GLBEI through the joint Environment Canada/Health Canada Chemicals Management Plan. Specific resource figures are not available as this spending is not tracked separately in Health Canada's financial system.

INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA: Federal infrastructure funding programs do not include an allocation specific to COA. Which projects are to be funded may be determined through a competitive, merit-based process, or through joint federal-provincial discussions. Alternatively, the Minister of Transport may accept an annual capital plan describing these projects.

Results achieved by non-federal partners (if applicable):

Contact information:
Jennifer McKay
Great Lakes Environment Office
Environment Canada
416-739-5712

Appendix – Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Results Statements

PRIORITY 1 – AREAS OF CONCERN (AOC)

Result 1.1 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from industrial or municipal wastewater to achieve delisting targets in Nipigon Bay and St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOCs.

Result 1.2 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from rural non-point sources to meet delisting criteria in the St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOC.

Result 1.3 – Contaminated sediment management strategies developed for the Wheatley Harbour AOC and implemented in the St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOC.

Result 1.4 – Plans in place and being implemented to rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitats and populations to meet delisting targets in the Wheatley Harbour and St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOCs.

Result 1.5 – Informed, effective collaboration amongst government, communities and individuals to prioritize and complete actions required for delisting and confirming environmental recovery in Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, Wheatley Harbour and St. Lawrence River (Cornwall) AOCs.

Result 1.6 – Environmental monitoring and reporting to document improvements and track environmental recovery.

Result 2.1 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from municipal sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, urban stormwater and industrial wastewater towards delisting targets in St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, Toronto and Region, and Bay of Quinte AOCs.

Result 2.2 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from rural non-point sources towards achieving RAP delisting criteria in St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, and Toronto and Region AOCs.

Result 2.3 – Progress made in developing sediment management strategies to reduce ecological and human health risk from contaminated sediments in Thunder Bay, Peninsula Harbour, St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, Port Hope and Bay of Quinte AOCs.

Result 2.4 – Long-term management plans being developed and priority actions for delisting being implemented for rehabilitation and protection of fish and wildlife habitats and populations in St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, Toronto and Region, and Bay of Quinte AOCs.

Result 2.5 – Informed, effective collaboration amongst government, communities and individuals to prioritize and complete actions required for delisting and confirming environmental recovery in AOCs.

Result 2.6 – Identify monitoring needs, undertake required studies and evaluate results to assess environmental recovery and support remediation strategies in AOCs.

PRIORITY 2 – HARMFUL POLLUTANTS

Result 1.1 – Reduction in releases of Tier 1 substances beyond the 2005 achievements towards the goal of virtual elimination.

Result 2.1 – Reduction in releases of criteria air pollutants.

Result 2.2 – Coordinated activities to reduce releases from municipal wastewater.

Result 2.3 – Develop and initiate a program for the sound management of chemical substances in the Great Lakes Basin.

Result 3.1 – Improved understanding of the sources, fate and impacts of harmful pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin.

Result 3.2 – Human health risks from harmful pollutants are understood and addressed in the Great Lakes Basin.

PRIORITY 3 – LAKE AND BASIN SUSTAINABILITY

Result 1.1 – Increased awareness and appreciation of the Great Lakes and their contributions to social, economic and environmental well-being.

Result 1.2 – Increased stewardship actions that work towards a balance between human well-being and prosperity, and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Result 1.3 – Sustainable use of land, water and other natural resources to provide benefits from the Great Lakes now and in the future.

Result 1.4 – Enhanced knowledge about beneficial and harmful impacts of human activities on Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems and resources.

Result 2.1 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from industrial and municipal wastewater, combined sewer overflows and urban stormwater sources consistent with actions specified in binational Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and binational lake action plans.

Result 2.2 – Reduce microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients from rural sources by undertaking actions specified in the binational Lakewide Management Plans and binational lake action plans.

Result 2.3 – Identification of contaminated sediment and development of sediment management plans to reduce the release and impact of sediment-bound contaminants on the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Result 2.4 – Enhanced knowledge about beneficial and harmful impacts of human activities on Great Lakes water quality.

Result 3.1 - Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems and habitats are protected, restored and sustained consistent with binational Great Lakes planning.

Result 3.2 – Progress on rehabilitation of Great Lakes native species to restore the health of aquatic ecosystems, consistent with binational Great Lakes planning.

Result 3.3 – Enhanced knowledge about beneficial and harmful impacts of human activities on Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems, habitats and species.

Result 4.1 – Implementation of the “National Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species” in the Great Lakes.

Result 4.2 - Enhanced knowledge about the harmful impacts of aquatic invasive species on Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems, food webs and species.

Result 5.1 – The impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes ecosystem composition, structure, and function, including biodiversity (organisms and their habitat), water quality and quantity, human health and safety (including access to clean drinking water), social well-being and economic prosperity are understood by governments and the Great Lakes community.

Result 6.1 – The potential risks to Great Lakes drinking water intakes are identified and assessed, and early actions to address risks are undertaken.

Result 6.2 – Develop knowledge and understanding of water quality and quantity issues of concern to the Great Lakes as drinking water sources.

PRIORITY 4 – COORDINATION OF MONITORING, RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

Result 1.1 – Responsive and comprehensive monitoring and research programs.

Result 2.1 – Improved reporting on environmental conditions, changes and progress.

Result 2.2 – Increased sharing of data and information among governments, organizations and Basin residents.

Top of Section

Canadian Group on Earth Observations (GEO)

Name of horizontal initiative: The Canadian Group on Earth Observations. This group is a collection of federal departments participating in the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO).^Footnote 1

Name of lead department: Environment Canada (EC) is the lead department by virtue of the identification of the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Meteorological Service of Canada as the GEOPrincipal.

Lead department program: Weather and environmental services for Canadians

Start date: July 2003

End date: Ongoing

Total federal funding allocation (from start date to end date): Provided through the existing resource envelope and in-kind contributions from federal departments

Description of the horizontal initiative (including funding agreement): The GEO is implementing the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which seeks to create free and open access to Earth observations for decision- and policy-makers in all countries. In so doing, users such as Environment Canada and other participating departments will be better able to more accurately predict the future state of planet Earth and better warn citizens of the onset of hazardous conditions. See the GEO website for more details.

Shared outcomes:

• Enhancing access to Global Earth Observation data and science to meet Canadian environmental and socio-economic monitoring requirements.
• Maximizing the effectiveness of Canadian investments in Earth Observation networks, both domestic and international.
• Improving evidence-based decision making in operational and policy domains based on coordinated, comprehensive and sustainable Earth observations.

Governance structures: Coordination is achieved through the ADM-level Federal Committee on Geomatics and Earth Observations (FCGEO); a Director-General-level shadow committee; and ad hoc working-level committees and task groups.

Performance highlights:

Environment Canada and Other Government Departments:

Canada collaborates with the United States Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) on joint projects, such as the binational group for the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS), which is working to improve monitoring and data sharing in the Great Lakes Basin. At the November 2012 GEO Plenary in Brazil, the international community reaffirmed member countries’ commitment to the GEOSS. During 2012–2013, Canada participated as a member of the GEOExecutive Committee, as part of its two-year term representing the GEO Americas Caucus. During 2012–2013, Canada (Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) actively contributed to global efforts in forest carbon tracking through the Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI), and in the G20 GEO Global Agricultural Monitoring initiative (GEOGLAM), in response to the G20 market transparency action plan. In addition, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) led the GEO Joint Experiment for Crop Assessment and Monitoring (JECAM) and was supported by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). AAFC also has the responsibility of Canadian lead in the North American Drought Monitor, a trilateral operational monitoring effort involving Canada, the United States and Mexico; this monitoring is an element of the EC-NOAA bilateral agreement. The CSA assumed the chairmanship of the Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS) in 2012, which acts as the “space arm” of GEO. Fisheries and Ocean Canada is contributing to GEO Blue Planet efforts to coordinate the collection and dissemination of marine observations (with a goal of observations in real-time).

Canada also plays a key role in the GEO Monitoring and Evaluation activities: EC provided a co-chair for the working group, and National Defence served as a co-chair of the evaluation team performing the fourth evaluation of GEO results, which focused on the progress made in the Disasters, Health and Energy strategic targets.

Interdepartmental international activities related to GEO, geomatics and related domains are being better coordinated through the efforts of the Federal Committee on Geomatics and Earth Observations (FCGEO). Co-chaired by AAFC and Natural Resources Canada, this ADM-level committee, which was formed in 2012, is focused on ensuring coherent Canadian positions and representation at related international fora, as well as establishing a federal geospatial platform to increase the interoperability, availability and usefulness of geospatial data for decision and policy makers.

Comments on variances (if applicable): In general, Environment Canada expenditures in terms of Salary and O&M for GEOwere reduced as a result of limited capacity being redirected to other priorities and efforts to reduce travel. In terms of grants and contributions, in the past, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada made a contribution of $50,000 to GEO, which the department stopped doing a couple of years ago.

Results achieved by non-federal partners: Not applicable

Contact information:

Michael Crowe
Director, Strategic Integration Division
Meteorological Service of Canada
Environment Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Blvd.
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3

Top of Section

Greening Government Operations

• Green Building Targets
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target
• Surplus Electronic and Electrical Equipment Target
• Printing Unit Reduction Target
• Paper Consumption Target
• Green Meetings Target
• Green Procurement Targets

Green Building Targets

As of April 1, 2012, and pursuant to departmental strategic frameworks, new construction and build-to-lease projects, and major renovation projects, will achieve an industry-recognized level of high environmental performance.^Footnote 1

Strategies and/or Comments

1. Environment Canada (EC) completed its Green Building Strategic Framework in October, 2011. Under this target, the framework outlines:
   • The minimum level of environmental performance: 3 Green Globes or LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) NC (New Construction) / CI (Commercial Interiors) Silver.
   • The appropriate threshold (dollar value and floor area): $1M and 400 m².
   • The applicable building types: All departmental custodial buildings
   • The Industry-recognized assessment and verification tool(s) to be used: Green Globes or LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).
2. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: 
   • EC has a Green Building Strategic Framework in place that outlines the criteria and thresholds for this target.
   • No projects within the established threshold were planned for completion in 2012–2013.

Top of Section

As of April 1, 2012, and pursuant to departmental strategic frameworks, existing crown buildings over 1000 m² will be assessed for environmental performance using an industry-recognized assessment tool.^Footnote 2

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC completed its Green Building Strategic Framework in October, 2011. Under this target, the framework outlines:
   • The minimum level of assessment: BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) BESt (Building Environmental Standards) Level 1.
   • The appropriate threshold (dollar value and floor area): 1000 m².
   • The applicable building types: All departmental custodial, Crown-owned buildings over 1000 m²
   • The industry-recognized assessment tool(s) to be used: BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) BESt (Building Environmental Standards)
   • That certification will be sought.
2. The percentage identified in 2012–2013 is indicative of the number of buildings assessed in that year, compared to the total number of buildings. In 2012–2013, 13 of 18 buildings were scheduled to be assessed; the remaining 5 buildings will be assessed in 2013–2014.
3. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected:
   • EC has a Green Building Strategic Framework in place that outlines the criteria and thresholds for this target.
   • As of March 31, 2013, 11 of the 13 buildings (scheduled for assessment in 2012–2013) were registered and in the process of being assessed, however the assessments were not yet complete.
   • Assessments at 2 buildings are on hold due to pending decisions on the future use of the site.

Top of Section

As of April 1, 2012, and pursuant to departmental strategic frameworks, new lease or lease renewal projects over 1000 m², where the Crown is the major lessee, will be assessed for environmental performance using an industry-recognized assessment tool.^Footnote 3

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC completed its Green Building Strategic Framework in October, 2011. Under this target, the framework outlines:
   • The minimum level of assessment: BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) BESt (Building Environmental Standards) Level 1.
   • The appropriate threshold (dollar value and floor area): 1000 m².
   • The applicable building types: All departmental custodial, direct leased buildings over 1000 m²
   • The industry-recognized assessment tool(s) to be used: BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) BESt (Building Environmental Standards)
   • That certification will be sought.
2. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected:
   • EC has a Green Building Strategic Framework in place that outlines the criteria and thresholds for this target.
   • No projects within the established threshold were planned for completion in 2012–2013.

Top of Section

As of April 1, 2012, and pursuant to departmental strategic frameworks, fit-up and refit projects will achieve an industry-recognized level of high environmental performance.^Footnote 4

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC completed its Green Building Strategic Framework in October, 2011. Under this target, the framework outlines:
   • The minimum level of environmental performance: 3 Green Globes or LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) EBOM (Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance) Silver.
   • The appropriate threshold (dollar value and floor area): $1M and 400 m².
   • The applicable building types: All departmental custodial buildings
   • The Industry-recognized assessment and verification tool(s) to be used: Green Globes or LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).
2. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected:
   • EC has developed a Green Building Strategic Framework that outlines the criteria and thresholds for this target.
   • No projects within the established threshold were planned for completion in 2012–2013.

Top of Section

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target

The federal government will take action now to reduce levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its operations to match the national target of 17% below 2005 by 2020.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. Targeted GHG emissions sources include facilities and fleet.
2. EC monitors and reports GHG emissions on 93% of owned floor space and the entire fleet inventory. The quantification of emissions for the remainder of the floor space is impracticable due to the effort involved in obtaining complete and accurate data. EC owns many small structures located in remote areas, such as National Wildlife Areas and upper air stations.
3. EC’s implementation plan to reduce GHG emissions includes: site-specific targets and actionable measures focused on specific categories (e.g. operations)
4. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected – As per the mandatory implementation strategies for this target in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS), the Department has:
   • Reported baseline GHG emissions.
   • Set a departmental GHG target.
   • Developed and put into action its Reduction of GHG Strategy and Implementation Plan, which outlines how the Department will achieve its 2020–2021 GHG reduction target.
   • Demonstrated that GHG emissions are on a downward trend.

Top of Section

Surplus Electronic and Electrical Equipment Target

By March 31, 2014, each department will reuse or recycle all surplus electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) in an environmentally sound and secure manner.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. Definition of “location”: For the purpose of this Departmental Performance Report (DPR), departmental locations will be defined as regions.
2. Number of locations: EC is located within 6 regions across Canada.
3. Implementation strategies: A department-wide EEE implementation plan has been developed that outlines all considerations as required by the mandatory implementation strategies for this target in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy
4. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: All departmental locations have the EEE plan fully implemented.

Top of Section

Printing Unit Reduction Target

By March 31, 2013, each department will achieve an 8:1 average ratio of office employees to printing units. Departments will apply the target where building occupancy levels, security considerations, and space configuration allow.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. Definition of “printing units”: For this target for 2012–2013, EC has defined printing units as network printers and multi-functional devices. In upcoming years EC will include all departmental employees, instead of just office employees, and will track its calculation using annual data from a departmental human resource inventory. Printing units will be tracked using departmental inventory data.
2. EC anticipates a number of accommodation moves that will allow implementation of printer rationalization and therefore a decrease in network printers.
3. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: EC is on track and achieved its target.

Top of Section

Paper Consumption Target

By March 31, 2014, each department will reduce internal paper consumption per office employee by 20%. Each department will establish a baseline between 2005–06 and 2011–12, and an applicable scope.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC established a baseline year of 2010–2011, and has established baseline paper consumption quantities, a tracking methodology, and applicable scope. EC has had a number of best practices in use for many years, including default duplex printing (i.e. installation of new printers are set on duplex as default) as well as printer rationalization, which contributes to less paper being consumed as fewer printers are employed and used. Other activities include the use of ECollab, an e-document management and collaboration tool that enables better collaboration, improved information management across the Department and offers significant improvement in how we create, store, organize, find and manage documents electronically.
2. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: The Department has achieved its paper reduction targets.

Top of Section

Green Meetings Target

By March 31, 2012, each department will adopt a guide for greening meetings.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC developed the Green Meeting Guide and has encouraged its use in all types and levels of meetings since it was released. It is also applied to major events hosted by EC.
2. Over 150 videoconferencing locations across Canada are accessible to EC employees to have virtual meetings or presentations with colleagues throughout the Department.

Top of Section

Green Procurement Targets

8.10 As of April 1, 2011, each department will establish at least three SMART green procurement targets to reduce environmental impacts.

By April 1, 2012, Environment Canada will utilize green consolidated procurement instruments for 95% of its standard office desktop computer purchases.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. This target meets all criteria of a SMART target that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.
2. EC buys its standard office desktop computer purchases from PWGSC’s standing offer (SO) for IT equipment. The SO offers equipment that meets internationally recognized and multi-faceted environmental standards such as EPEAT Silver, as well as a number of environmental considerations that include levels of hazardous materials content, energy efficiency, design for end of life/disassembly, reduced packaging, supplier environmental performance and extended life of computer assets.
3. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: For 2012–2013, the Department purchased a total of 2100 standard office notebooks, and 100 ruggedized notebooks, all of which were procured using the NMSO/RVD procurement instruments provided by PWGSC.

Top of Section

By March 31, 2014, Environment Canada will achieve a 90% reduction in bottled water purchases from 2007–2008 levels.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. This target meets all criteria of a SMART target that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. A departmental policy on bottled water has been implemented to support the elimination of supplemental bottled water purchases where potable water is already being supplied through the building’s infrastructure.
2. EC has implemented the departmental Policy on Bottled Water to support the elimination of supplemental bottled water purchases where potable water is already being supplied through the building’s infrastructure.
3. Scope: This target is applicable throughout EC and applies to all buildings where employees occupy a full-time place of work.
4. Exceptions to this target: Bottled water purchased for field work or in remote locations, scientific experimentation, emergencies, travel status as outlined in the National Joint Council Travel Directive and for hospitality as per the Directive on the Management of Expenditures on Travel and Hospitality and Conference.
5. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: The Department has exceed the target in reduction of bottled water purchases.

Top of Section

By March 31, 2014, 90% of copy paper purchases will contain a minimum of 30% recycled content and have a forest certification or EcoLogoM or equivalent certification.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. EC paper purchases are made through Public Works and Government Services Canada Standing Offers.
2. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: The Department copy purchases exceed the target.

Top of Section

As of April 1, 2011, each department will establish SMART targets for training, employee performance evaluations, and management processes and controls, as they pertain to procurement decision making.

Training for select employees

By March 31, 2014, 90% of designated materiel managers and procurement personnel will have taken a recognized training course on green procurement offered by the CSPS, or any other federal department.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. This target meets all criteria of a SMART target that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.
2. A list identifying the total number of procurement specialists has been established.
3. All EC procurement specialists are required to take the green procurement training. Actual targets at March 31st were not met due to high staff turnover through the 2012–2013 fiscal year. There is a commitment that all new staff will be trained within 6 months of accepting a position with EC. All new procurement specialists have completed their training as of June 30, 2013.

Top of Section

Employee performance evaluations for managers and functional heads of procurement and materiel management.

As of April 1, 2014, environmental considerations will be incorporated into 100%of all the performance evaluations of designated functional heads of procurement and materiel management.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. The two positions identified (reported) are filled positions; two others (not reported) are currently vacant.
2. Since March 31, 2012, filled positions have incorporated environmental considerations in their performance evaluations.
3. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: All performance evaluations include environmental considerations.

Top of Section

Management processes and controls.

By March 31, 2014, a minimum of 4 designated management processes and controls, as they pertain to procurement, will have incorporated environmental considerations.

Strategies and/or Comments

1. This will always be a dynamic, variable number as year-round planning and departmental priorities vary from year to year. Increasingly, program areas or enabling services find it necessary to incorporate management frameworks to continually measure and monitor progress in the current results-oriented environment.
2. Management processes and controls identified: IT Assets Management Policy; Integrated Investment Planning process; Accommodations Investment Planning process; Accommodations Framework; and Real Property Framework.
3. Rationale for traffic light indicator selected: The Department has a minimum of five management processes and controls in place, pertaining to procurement, that incorporate environmental considerations.

Response to Parliamentary Committees and External Audits

Response to the Auditor General (including to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

May 2012

Chapter 1 – Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act: examined the government’s progress in implementing its climate change plans, and in meeting Canada’s Kyoto Protocol obligations.

No recommendation was made in this audit. The audit may be found here.

Chapter 2 - Meeting Canada’s 2020 Climate Change Commitments: examined whether Environment Canada had established an implementation plan designed to meet the 2020 national GHG emission reduction target.

Two recommendations were made to Environment Canada in this audit.

The audit and the Department's response may be found here.

Chapter 3 - Federal Contaminated Sites and Their Impacts: examined how the federal government manages and reports actions taken to address the contaminated sites in its inventory, including the financial impact of environmental damage arising from them.

Two recommendations were made to Environment Canada, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Natural Resources Canada.

The audit and the Department's response may be found here.

December 2012

Chapter 1 – Atlantic Offshore Oil and Gas Activities: examined whether the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, along with other federal parties, have managed the environmental risks and impacts of offshore oil and gas activities according to applicable legislation, regulations, directives, best practices, and agreements with other players.

The Commissioner made 11 recommendations to the boards and to various federal departments including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada. Of these 11 recommendations, 3 involved Environment Canada.

The audit and the Department's response may be found here.

Internal Audits and Evaluations

• Internal Audits Table
• Evaluations Table

Internal Audits Table

All approved 2012-2013 audit reports can be found here.

Top of Section

Evaluations Table

All approved 2012–2013 evaluation reports that were led by Environment Canada (EC) can be found here.