ARCHIVED - Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

2007-08
Departmental Performance Report

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Supplementary Information (Tables)

Table 3: Sources of Respendable and Non-Respendable Revenue

Respendable Revenue
($000s)	2005-2006 Actual	2006-2007 Actual	2007-2008
($000s)	2005-2006 Actual	2006-2007 Actual	Main Estimates	Planned Revenue	Total Authorities	Total Actuals
Effective and Efficient Environmental Assessment
Cost recovery for environmental assessment services	4,167.7	6,305.1	3,351.0	3,351.0	7,751.0	6,027.9
Cost recovery for publications, training and education materials (federal)	85.8	120.6	75.0	75.0	100.0	109.8
Cost recovery for publications, training and education materials (external)	153.3	166.7	75.0	75.0	150.0	147.9
Total Respendable Revenue	4,406.8	6,592.4	3,501.0	3,501.0	8,001.0	6,285.6
Non-Respendable Revenue
($000s)	2005-2006 Actual	2006-2007 Actual	2007-2008
($000s)	2005-2006 Actual	2006-2007 Actual	Main Estimates	Planned Revenue	Total Authorities	Total Actuals
Effective and Efficient Environmental Assessment	18.4	261.8	—	—	168.0	168.0
Total Non-Respendable Revenue	18.4	261.8	—	—	168.0	168.0
Total Revenues	4,425.2	6,854.2	3,501.0	3,501.0	8,169.0	6,453.6

The Agency has authority to recover costs for environmental assessment services, publications, training and education material. However, it should be noted that the use of this authority is dependent on the level of review panel activity that is eligible for cost recovery. As such, the level of revenue tends to fluctuate from year to year. The Agency has received additional authority in 2007-2008.

Table 4-A: User Fees Act

User Fee	Fee Type	Fee-Setting Authority	Date Last Modified	2007-2008 ($000s)					Planning Years
User Fee	Fee Type	Fee-Setting Authority	Date Last Modified	Forecast Revenue ($000s)	Actual Revenue ($000s)	Full Cost ($000s)	Performance Standard	Perfor�mance Results	Fiscal Year	Forecast Revenue ($000s)	Estimated Full Cost ($000s)
Environmental assessment services	R	Environmental Assessment Review Panel Services Charges Order	2002	7,751.0	6,027.9	8,692.6	An internal review of the existing performance standards, specifically with regard to the sufficiency of the Cost Recovery Order, began in 2007-2008. While in the midst of designing the parameters for evaluation, the Agency underwent a substantial modification to its structure. In order to reflect the new operating environment, the Agency is re-developing its Participant Satisfaction Survey to establish indicators (such as Fairness, Accessibility, Timeliness, Efficiency and Value for Investment) to allow for qualitative performance evaluation within the new structure.	The Agency will use these measures in the 2008-2009 DPR.	2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011	7,751.0 7,751.0 7,751.0	11,006.4 11,006.4 11,006.4
Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act	O	Access to Information Act	1992	0.1	0.1	122.1	Service standards are in the Access to Information Act, section 7: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/a-1/218072.html	Statutory deadlines were met 46% of the time	2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011	0.5 0.6 0.6	116.6 132.5 148.3
			Sub-total (R)	7,751.0	6,027.9	8,692.6			Total 2007-2008	7,751.6	11,123.0
			Sub-total (O)	—	0.1	122.1			Total 2008-2009	7,751.6	11,138.9
			Total	7,751.1	6,028.0	8,814.7			Total 2009-2010	7,751.6	11,154.7

For 2007-2008, environmental assessment services constituted the main source of revenues of the Agency. This amount is subject to variation depending on the level of review panel activity that is eligible for cost recovery. Reflected forecasted revenues of $7,751K are based on authorities. As review panel activity increases additional authorities will be sought. Full costs of environmental assessment services are based on actual revenues for 2007-2008 and forecasted revenues for 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 adjusted for an estimated portion of the cost provided without charge * and other costs that cannot be recovered under the current authorities.

Actual and forecasted revenues for Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) are based on a set fee per request as prescribed in the Access to Information Act . Full costs are based on actual costs related to generating the required information adjusted by an estimated portion of the cost provided without charge.

* Accommodations are provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada. Contributions covering the employer's share of employees' insurance premiums and expenditures are paid by the Treasury Board Secretariat. Salary and associated expenditures of legal services are provided by Justice Canada.

Table 4-B: Policy on Service Standards for External Fees

External Fee	Service Standard	Performance Result	Stakeholder Consultation
Fees charged for the processing of access requests filed under the Access to Information Act (ATIP)	Service standards are in the Access to Information Act, section 7: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/a-1/218072.html	Statutory deadlines were met 46% of the time	The service standard is established by the Access to Information Act and the Access to Information Regulation. Consultations with stakeholders were undertaken for amendments made in 1986 and 1992.
Environmental Assessment Fees	Environmental Assessment Review Panel Service Charges Order	Individual service-level agreements were signed and administered between the Agency and project proponents in support of 93% of the environmental assessments conducted by review panels, in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.	Before the development of the Order, public comments were solicited at stakeholder meetings held across Canada, and consultations were held over the course of several meetings with the Minister's multi stakeholder Regulatory Advisory Committee. All the comments received were considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the design of the Order.
Other Information ATIP requests received by the Agency during the reporting period were more complicated and larger than usual. The Agency was required to request extensions to finalize its work. In addition, consultation with some departments took longer than expected to review and approve the requests.

Table 5: Sustainable Development Strategy

SDS Departmental Goal:
*Federal SD Goal(s) including GGO goals, if applicable:* To promote the full and meaningful application of a results-oriented federal environmental assessment framework.
Department's Expected Results for 2007-2008	Supporting Performance Measure(s)	Achieved SDS Departmental Results for 2007-2008
Governance for Sustainable Development: Federal SD Goal VI	Improved understanding of how the various components of an effective and efficient environmental assessment framework should work together, and of the strengths and weaknesses of the current framework in supporting integrated decision making.	Advancing the science and practice of strategic environmental assessment: The Agency supported the work of the Minister's Regulatory Advisory Committee Subcommittee on SEA as it undertook its mandate to define the broader context for SEA, to explore meaningful linkages between strategic and project-level EA, and to examine the role of the public and Aboriginal groups in SEA. The Agency funded a research project through the Research and Development Program, which advances the science and practice of SEA, entitled Atikamekw Nation Territorial Planning: The Role of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Sustainable and Adaptive Joint Management of Forest Area. The project is underway and the report is expected in 2009. The Agency continued to support the research project, funded in 2006, entitled Extending Models and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, Canada, which is expected to be finalized in 2008. Advancing the science and practice of regional-scale environmental assessment: The Agency has been working with its partners to foster a better understanding and to help generate consensus on common principles for regional-scale environmental assessment. In March, the Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada jointly organized a federal workshop on regional environmental assessment (REA). The Agency also actively participated in work underway through the CCME to develop a common national understanding and conceptual framework for regional strategic environmental assessment. Efforts were also made to explore possibilities for pilot REAs offshore Nova Scotia and in the Beaufort Basin.
	A timelier, coordinated, and consistent approach to the environmental assessment process of major projects is applied.	Promoting and ensuring the implementation of initiatives, which improve the coordination among stakeholders in federal project environmental assessments: Under Agency leadership, a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to the 2005 Cabinet Directive on Implementing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was completed and ratified by five key departments. The Agency continued to chair and support the work of the Environmental Assessment Project Committee (EAPC), which aims to facilitate a whole-of-government approach to the preparation of high-quality environmental assessments in a predictable, certain and timely manner. Gaining a greater understanding of the effectiveness of the Agency and its supporting legislative and policy tools in achieving coordination among stakeholders: The Agency has learned from its experiences as Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator for a number of projects and has gathered data to track improvements in coordination.
	Improved knowledge across government of how to engage the public, including Aboriginal peoples, in high-quality environmental assessments.	Building knowledge and capacity internally and throughout the federal government in the area of engaging the public and Aboriginal peoples in environmental assessment: The Agency developed guidance on meaningful public participation, and policy and skill-building training for engagement of Aboriginal peoples in the federal EA process. Specific examples of this include: the development of a Guide for Meaningful Public Participation in Environmental Assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; the development of a course entitled Engaging the Aboriginal Peoples in Environmental Assessment; and the delivery of a number of other training sessions and workshops for both internal and external audiences, dealing with public or Aboriginal groups' engagement in federal environmental assessment. The Agency worked with other federal departments to develop the Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Interim Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Legal Duty to Consult, released in February 2008. The Agency has been a key player in the development of policy and corresponding operational guidance for the engagement of Aboriginal peoples in the EA process for projects under the Major Project Management Office initiative. Through its Research and Development Program, the Agency funded two proposals aimed at providing new understanding and approaches for the meaningful involvement of Aboriginal peoples in environmental assessment. The projects, Effective Engagement of Aboriginal Peoples in Environmental Assessment: A Case Study of Treaty 8 Nations and Atikamekw Nation Territorial Planning: The Role of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Sustainable and Adaptive Joint Management of Forest Area, are underway and are expected to be finalized in 2009.
	Regular and consistent training in sustainable development tools for planners and analysts across the government of Canada.	Collaborating with other federal departments and agencies to increase awareness and application of the principles of sustainable development and the sustainable development tools: The Agency has joined other government departments and the Canada School of Public Service to design and support the delivery of a new Government of Canada Sustainable Development course (#727). The first French and English sessions, held in February and March respectively, were very well attended. The Agency is also a member of the interdepartmental Awareness, Communication and Training Working Group of the Interdepartmental Network on Sustainable Development Strategies.
	Identification of areas requiring improvement in the application of the Cabinet Directive and the Act.	Evaluating the effectiveness of the SEA and project EA processes: The Agency, in collaboration with the Privy Council Office, is leading a government-wide evaluation of the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. Terms of reference were finalized and a process was established to secure an independent, third-party evaluator. The Agency's quality assurance unit has been working to identify and to analyze aspects of the current EA process that are most likely to lead to favourable environmental outcomes.
	Identification of opportunities to integrate the project-review process across jurisdictions.	Examining how the Agency can move toward better integration of project review at the national level: Through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the Agency has worked with other jurisdictions to identify opportunities to improve the coordination of assessments for projects subject to both provincial/territorial and federal environmental assessment.
	Themes of research and development reflect issues and needs addressed in the Agency's sustainable development strategies.	Ensuring that the research areas promoted and encouraged by the Agency are consistent with, and supportive of, the goal and objectives set out in the Agency's sustainable development strategies: The Agency has used the sustainable development strategy to guide the selection of future research priority areas for the Research and Development Program. Proposed priority areas were assessed against a number of criteria, including the degree of congruence and relevance to program objectives and the Agency's priorities, as well as their ability to contribute to the development and promotion of sound environmental assessments.

Table 6: Response to Parliamentary Committees and External Audits

Response to Parliamentary Committees

During the reporting period, the Agency did not table any responses to Parliamentary Committee reports.

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

The Agency participated in a follow-up audit of the government's performance in implementing the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, completed by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) during the reporting period.
The Agency also participated in a CESD audit initiated during the reporting period of selected commitments contained in its 2007-2009 Sustainable Development Strategy.
No recommendations of the Auditor General or the CESD were addressed specifically to the Agency.

External Audits
(Note: These refer to other external audits conducted by the Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) or the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Government-wide Audit of Executive (EX) Appointments by the Public Service Commission

The objective of this government-wide audit is to determine whether EX appointment activities comply with the Public Service Employment Act and other applicable legislation and policies, and with the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission. The audit covers the period starting January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2006. The Public Service Commission plans to finalize this audit during the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/adt-vrf/cntadt-vrfact-eng.htm

Table 7: Internal Audits and Evaluations

Internal Audits (current reporting period)

During the reporting period, the Agency did not undertake any audits.

Evaluations (current reporting period)

During the reporting period, the Agency did not complete any evaluations.