Ministry review of the 1 Port Street East proposed marina environmental assessment

Read our evaluation of the environmental assessment for a proposal to relocate the existing marina, while creating additional public space and enhancing access to the Lake Ontario waterfront.

On this page Skip this page navigation

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, subsection 17.11(1)

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. This paragraph and the giving of the notice of completion are the notices required by subsection 17.12(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

This review documents the ministry's evaluation of the City of Mississauga's 1 Port Street East proposed marina environmental assessment and takes the comments received by the ministry into consideration.

Summary of our review

Who

City of Mississauga (City)

What

The City is undertaking an environmental assessment (EA) of the 1 Port Street East proposed marina (the project). The project includes relocating and replacing an existing private marina with a new public marina, continuing its function and service at the project site. The City is also expanding the land base around the eastern breakwater to create additional marina infrastructure and a new waterfront parkland for public access to Lake Ontario.

When

The EA was submitted on October 18, 2024. The comment period for the EA ended on December 6, 2024. The EA was amended by the City to address the comments received.

Where

1 Port Street East, Mississauga, Ontario.

Why

The proposed project:

provides an opportunity for the continuation of the site's historic marina function
creates a new waterfront parkland with safe public access
allows improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat

As part of the EA process, the City considered and compared the benefits and effects of a range of design alternatives for the proposed marina and parkland as per the approved terms of reference (ToR).

Conclusions

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (ministry) concluded that the City has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. The ministry is satisfied that the City used a clear and logical decision-making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was selected from the alternatives considered. Standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the project.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out a proponent-driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of a project on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general contents for the preparation of a comprehensive EA, as well as the ministry's evaluation process. For those projects subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before those projects can proceed.

Proponents are required to address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to assist in the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. The EA helps decision-makers to determine, based on the environmental effects, if a project should proceed, and if so, how the potential environmental effects can be managed.

An EA may:

identify a problem or opportunity
consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity
evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and
select a preferred project from the alternatives

A proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, a proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders, including government agencies, known as the government review team (GRT), the public and affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred project. If a project is approved, a proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with the standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

Pursuant to the transition provisions under the February 22, 2024, EAA amendments, if a proponent has given a ToR to the ministry under subsection 6(1) of the previous EAA in respect of a project and no decision has been made under the previous EAA, the project is now deemed to be a Part II.3 project (comprehensive EA project). As this is the case for this project, pursuant to these transition provisions, the proposed project is deemed to be a Part II.3 project.

1.1. Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves 2 separate steps - the ToR and the EA. On September 16, 2021, the former Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (minister) approved the ToR for the project. The ToR sets out how the City would prepare the EA, which includes:

a description of the purpose and rationale for the project
how specific alternative methods are identified including consideration of various footprints (sizes and locations for marina facilities and lake filling) for the marina and parkland
evaluating potential environmental effects (both positive and negative)
mitigation measures
a consultation plan for obtaining input from Indigenous communities, GRT and the public

1.2. Environmental assessment

After receiving the former minister's approval on the ToR, the City proceeded to prepare the EA for the proposed project, in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA.

The City began its consultation on the EA through a Notice of Commencement and undertook consultation from winter 2022 to spring 2023. The City held 3 public information centres (PIC), provided the draft EA to all interested stakeholders, GRT and Indigenous communities for review and comment, and made the draft EA publicly available for review from September 14 to October 31, 2023.

On October 18, 2024, the City submitted the final EA to the ministry, commencing the 7-week EA submission comment period, which ended on December 6, 2024.

During the EA submission comment period, concerns were raised by Indigenous communities and they requested that the comment period be extended so concerns could be addressed with the City. The ministry extended its review until June 27, 2025.

Based on the submissions that were received during the EA submission comment period, the City revised its EA and submitted an amended EA and record of consultation to the ministry in June 2025. All comments sent to the ministry will be considered by the minister before a decision is made on the project.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA. The ministry review (review) sets out the ministry's evaluation of the EA, including whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR, meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the minister to decide about the proposed project.

The review comment period provides an opportunity for the GRT, the public and the Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed project have been considered. Refer to Section 5 of this review for Next Steps.

2. Purpose and description of the proposed project

The City is proposing to construct a new public marina and create a new land base along an existing breakwater located to the east of an existing private marina in Lake Ontario. The proposed project area is approximately 21.4 hectares, located along the Lake Ontario waterfront just east of the entrance of the Credit River in Port Credit in Mississauga. The project is in a built-up area of the city, adjacent to commercial and residential development, and open space along the waterfront.

The proposed project will provide public access to the shoreline, create parkland and associated marina infrastructure (parking and boat storage areas), including connection from the boat slips to the proposed land base. Marina facilities and required servicing (for example, washrooms, club house, amenity spaces) would be located on the land available on the shoreline at the 1 Port Street East address, between Stavebank Road and Helen Street South.

The proposed new location of the marina is intended to replace the existing Port Credit Harbour Marina, a full-service marina privately operated by Centre City Capital Limited. According to the EA, the existing marina is located on a portion of the 1 Port Street East address (adjacent to the existing wharf) on an existing water lot and the mainland, leased out by the Canada Lands Company (CLC). The lease expired in 2023 and the portion of CLC land with the current marina is not part of this EA and is planned for future development.

The project is a key element of the City's master planning for this area and is included in a master plan for the site as well as the Inspiration Port Credit - Charting the Future Course Master Plan (2016). Inspiration Port Credit is a city-building initiative that guides the transformation of Port Credit into a high-quality waterfront village.

The proposed project includes 24 hectares of lakefill to create a new 1.8 hectares land base, replacing the existing breakwater, and will:

allow the continuation of marina functions and services at the site
create safe public access to the waterfront
include new waterfront parkland including park pathways and trails and marina infrastructure such as parking, boat storage and a floating main dock connecting the various elements
enhance the site's aquatic and terrestrial habitats

In 2018, the City purchased the eastern portion of the 1 Port Street East property from CLC, which includes the basin water lot, the eastern breakwater water lot, and 2 acres of land transferred to the City's ownership.

The second conveyance (refer to figure 1 below) that is needed for the Project's future marina area will take place once the City:

obtains approvals for the project (including for the EA and City Council approval)
engages a contractor to undertake the marina construction and issues a "Ready to Commence Construction" notice to CLC

Map of proposed project location in the existing marina in Port Credit — **Figure 1: Project location**
This map displays the proposed project location in the existing marina in Port Credit.

Conceptual design of the proposed project — **Figure 2: Preferred alternative**
This map is a conceptual design of the proposed project, depicting the preferred lakefill expansion to the existing breakwater.

3. Results of the ministry review

The review provides the analysis of the EA. The review is not intended to summarize, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision-making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outline the EA planning process and demonstrate how a proponent selected the preferred project and made the final decision.

3.1. Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1. Ministry analysis

The ministry concluded that the EA (as amended) followed the framework and commitments made in the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

Appendix A provides a summary of this analysis.

3.1.2 Consultation

Section 17.3 of the EAA states:

"When preparing proposed terms of reference and an environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested."

One of the key requirements of the EAA is consultation. The City consulted with Indigenous communities, GRT and the public as part of preparing and finalizing its EA. A summary of the consultation undertaken is provided in Appendix C. Below is a brief description of the consultation.

The City documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA. Section 9 in the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation documented in its Record of Consultation.

The City's consultation program included:

publishing and circulating the Notice of Commencement for the EA (Feb 3, 2022) as well as the Notice of Submission of the EA
updating the City's project webpage with notices and relevant EA documentation
distributing notices of and hosting the 3 public information centres (PICs) via emails to those on the project mailing list, GRT and the Indigenous communities
circulating notices in news outlets, eBlasts to the project's email list, social media advertising and posts, roadway signage and posters at the Port Credit Harbour Marina
hosting 2 pop-up events for the public and interested stakeholders to present information about the project and gather comments
making hard copies of documentation available at the Port Credit Library as well as making copies available for mailing upon request
meetings with stakeholders and Indigenous communities
publishing the draft EA for review and comment

The ministry provided the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities an opportunity to review the EA and the project, and to submit their comments to the ministry during the 7-week EA submission comment period.

3.1.3 Comments received

Government Review Team

The GRT reviewed the EA to confirm that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid. During the EA submission comment period, the ministry and 5 other government agencies provided comments. The ministry requested changes to address the EAA requirements, including updating the consultation record for Indigenous communities and administrative revisions to the EA to address changes made as a result of amendments to the EAA in February 2024.

The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and federal agencies Transport Canada and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) requested amendments to the EA to address their respective mandated areas of interest. This included comments on:

how built heritage and cultural heritage resources were described in the EA
potential effects related to flooding associated with lake filling
potential need for MNR authorizations and permits
acknowledgement of other federal permits that may be required (Navigable Waters Act, Fisheries Act)

All comments were addressed by the City through amendments made to the EA.

Public comments

In general, there is support for the project. Five members of the public submitted comments on the project related to the design, amenities and operations of the proposed new marina. Issues related to the design will be considered by the City during the detailed design phase for the project. Operational issues will be given consideration as part of the project implementation.

Indigenous community comments

In June 2019, the ministry provided the City with a preliminary list of Indigenous communities as potentially being owed a duty to consult related to the EA for the project, and in November 2023, the ministry officially delegated the procedural aspects of consultation. As a result, the City consulted with the following communities:

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN)
Six Nations of the Grand River (both the Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council)
Huron Wendat Nation (HWN) (archaeology only)

The record of consultation documents all the consultations with Indigenous communities and will be reviewed and considered by the ministry when assessing the Crown's obligations to consult before making decisions about the proposed project. Appendix C of this review provides a summary of the consultation undertaken, including Indigenous consultation. Below is a brief description of the Indigenous comments received during the EA submission comment period.

The Six Nations of Grand River Elected Council (SNGREC) and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), represented by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), requested additional time to review the EA after the seven-week EA submission comment period. The ministry extended the review deadline to June 27, 2025. Upon further consultation with the City and further review of the additional information provided by the City, the SNGREC informed the ministry that they had no further comments about the EA.

HDI identified that it was concerned about its rights being impacted by the project. As a result, the City met with HDI on March 4, 2025, and HDI agreed to submit questions and concerns specifically about the EA or the project to the City. Since the meeting with HDI, the City followed up with HDI numerous times to understand HDI's concerns. HDI has not provided any further information other than general comments that they feel their rights will be impacted. HDI also had questions about the transfer of CLC lands to the City and whether federal EA requirements apply to the project. CLC is not a federal authority and the lands to be transferred are not federal lands, as such, there are no federal impact assessment requirements. Further questions about the conveyance of land should be directed to the CLC.

According to the EA submitted by the City, there are no archaeological resources associated with the project and wildlife and terrestrial habitats along the shoreline are limited and disturbed in an urban setting. The construction of the project may temporarily disrupt fish habitat, but mitigation measures (meaning offset plan, timing windows for fish, removal of entrapped fish in fill) have been proposed to address the disruption. The final EA also identifies opportunities for improvements to lake access and increased opportunities for fishing, as well as improvements to fish and aquatic habitat associated with the project.

Tables 1- 3, Appendix B of this review, provide a summary of all comments received, the City's responses, and the ministry's position on responses related to the comments received during the EA submission comment period. The ministry is satisfied that the City's responses address comments provided.

3.1.4 Conclusion of consultations

Overall, the ministry believes that the City adequately documented consultation and provided appropriate opportunities for the public, GRT and Indigenous communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA, including at key milestones during the process. The City has committed to continuing to engage with Indigenous communities, the public and the GRT during the implementation of the proposed project.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation that was undertaken is consistent with the Codes of Practice for Consultation in Ontario's EA Process and best practices, meets the requirements of the EAA and followed the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR. Refer to conclusions provided in Appendix A and C with respect to consultation undertaken.

3.2 Conclusions of the EA process

The City followed a logical and transparent decision-making process to select the preferred method for the proposed project and considered the benefits and effects of the range of design alternatives for the proposed marina and waterfront parkland along the eastern side of the Port Credit Harbour marina basin in Mississauga.

A large lakefill footprint was selected as the preferred alternative, as it best met the project's purpose and objectives, including providing the desired amount of marina facilities and parkland while minimizing environmental effects.

The ministry is satisfied that the assessment considered the broad definition of the environment, the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with each of the alternatives, and the potential effects after mitigation (net effects). The ministry is also satisfied that the process to identify, consider and evaluate alternatives was consistent with the approved ToR and the EAA.

Refer to Appendix A of this review for the ministry's analysis of how the EA has met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

3.2.1 Monitoring and commitments

The City has committed to developing an ongoing monitoring plan during the design, construction and establishment phase, which includes strategies and a schedule for completing the plan as described in the approved ToR. Chapter 8 (Monitoring and Adaptive Management) in the EA provided a general plan for the EA compliance monitoring program to confirm compliance with EA commitments and the effectiveness of the Project's design and mitigation measures. The EA also developed an environmental performance monitoring plan that would be implemented after the establishment phase of the project. This is to help determine whether the predicted outcome of the project is functioning as intended.

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry's analysis of the EA, and the following is a summary of this analysis.

The ministry is satisfied that the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.
The ministry is satisfied that the City has provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, members of the public, other stakeholders and Indigenous communities to provide input into the EA. The results of the consultations have also been clearly documented in the consultation record provided in the EA.
The ministry is satisfied with the City's responses to the comments submitted by the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities.
The City used a clear and logical decision-making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was chosen in accordance with the approved ToR.
The ministry has enough information about the potential environmental effects as documented in Appendix A to enable a decision to be made about the proposed Project. Proposed conditions of approval will ensure that environmental effects can be verified and that mitigation of effects is achievable.

4.1 Proposed conditions of approval

If the project is approved under the EAA, several standard conditions are proposed to be imposed. These conditions include:

documentation requirements for the public record
compliance monitoring provisions for the City
requirements to prepare a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received
amending procedure
an expiration date on the EA approval

This list is not exhaustive and additional conditions may be proposed subject to further review and consultation prior to a decision being made.

5. What happens now

The review is available for a 5-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed project, the EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing if their environmental concerns have not been considered.

When making a decision, the minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the minister may consider relevant.

The minister will make one of the following decisions:

give approval to proceed with the project
give approval to proceed with the project subject to conditions
refuse to give approval to proceed with the project

Prior to making that decision, the minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision. The Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the minister's decision.

5.1 Modifying or amending the proposed project

Given the adaptive management approach detailed in this EA, it is anticipated that there could potentially be proposed changes to the design and implementation of the project. Chapter 10 of the EA identifies amending procedures for this EA. The City will prepare an assessment to document the proposed modifications and their potential effects. The assessment will include input from the ministry, affected stakeholders and Indigenous communities. The documentation provided will be used to determine the magnitude of the modification (major or minor).

Notwithstanding the provisions in the EA, the ministry shall be responsible for determining the magnitude of any changes, reviewing and approving any modifications and confirming the appropriate use of these amendment procedures. A condition of approval is recommended to reference these amending provisions.

Making a submission

A 5-week public review period will follow the publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed project, the EA, or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please email: Jordan.Hughes@ontario.ca and address it to:

Kathleen O'Neill, Director
Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
RE: 1 Port Street East Proposed Marina Environmental Assessment
Attention: Jordan Hughes, Special Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission-such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester-is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry's Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-314-4075.

Public record location

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed upon request or during normal business hours at the following location:

Port Credit Library
20 Lakeshore Road East,
Mississauga, ON
L5G 1C8

To request an electronic copy, contact:

Jordan Hughes
Special Project Officer, Environmental Assessment Branch
Email: Jordan.Hughes@Ontario.ca

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

Requirements in O. Reg. 53/24: General and Transitional Matters

Summary of the EA

O. Reg. 53/24: s. 4(1)

EA should contain a brief summary of the EA organized in accordance with the matters set out in subsection 17.6 (2) of the Act.

Analysis of the EA

Section 1 of the EA provides an overview summary of the EA.

1. List of proponent-led studies

O. Reg. 53/24: s. 4(1) (b)

EA should contain a list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent, and which were done in connection with the project or matters related to the project.

Analysis of the EA

The list of studies and reports that are under the control of the proponent and were undertaken in connection with the EA are discussed in Section 2.2 of the EA. Appendix B and C in the EA contained the studies and reports done in connection to the project.

2. List of additional studies

O. Reg. 53/24: s. 4(1) (c)

EA should contain a list of studies and reports done in connection with the project or matters related to the project of which the proponent is aware and that are not under the control of the proponent.

Analysis of the EA

Section 2.2 in EA contained the studies and reports related to the project, of which the proponent is aware but not under the control of the proponent.

3. Maps

O. Reg. 53/24: s. 4(1) (d), 4 (2), 4 (3)

If the EA is for a project with a fixed location, at least 2 well-marked, legible and reproducible maps showing the location of the project and the area to be affected by it.

Of the maps referred to above, one shall be a simplified base map suitable for reproduction in any notices that may be published and the other may include more detail such as a 1:10,000 scale Ontario Base Map.

The maps referred to may show alternative proposals.

Analysis of the EA

Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 of the EA shows the wharf, lands, and water lots of the project study area.

Figures 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 in Chapter 2 of the EA contain maps of the project study area, local study area and regional study area used in the EA's evaluation of the environmental effects.

Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 in Chapter 5 of the EA contain maps of the project alternatives used in the EA's discussion of the proposed alternative footprints of the Project.

The maps included in the EA are legible and they include a base map that is suitable for reproduction in notices or publications.

Problem or opportunities

1. Identify an existing problem or opportunity and purpose of the project:

Environmental Assessment Act Sections 17.4(2)(c), 17.6(2)(a)

The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity.

If a specific project has been identified, provide a brief description.

Analysis of the EA

The EA must be consistent with the approved ToR. Table 1.1 in the EA provides a summary list of the ToR commitments and where they are addressed in the EA.

Section 2.3 of the EA discussed the problem and opportunity of the project. The purpose of the project is to provide an expanded land base for additional waterfront parkland and marina alternatives at the 1 Port Street East site. The Project is a key element of Inspiration Port Credit's 1 Port Street East Comprehensive Master Plan (2016).

The expansion of the land base also creates an opportunity to:

Create new waterfront parkland with safe public access:
- There is no public access to Lake Ontario associated with the existing privately-owned marina.
- The public increasingly seeks access to the water's edge through public parkland and along continuous trails and this project provides an opportunity to create access where none currently exists.
Provide opportunities for the creation and restoration of aquatic and terrestrial habitat:
- The existing breakwater was constructed in the late 1950s when the provision of quality aquatic habitat was not part of the project planning. The project provides an opportunity for the creation and restoration of aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the vicinity of the breakwater in a manner that achieves an overall ecological gain that is consistent with the stated objectives of Credit Valley Conservation.

Alternatives

1. Description and statement of the rationale for the alternatives methods

Environmental Assessment Act Section 17.6(2)(b)(ii).

"Alternative methods" include a description of different ways of implementing the project (locations and designs).

A reasonable range of "alternative methods" should be identified and outlined.

While this is an assessment which is focused on alternative methods, the "do nothing" 'alternative to' should be included in the evaluation and will represent the "benchmark" situation.

Analysis of the EA

The different ways of evaluating the preferred "alternative methods" are outlined in section 5.1 in the EA:

There is a 4-step process that was outlined in the ToR, which is used to identify and evaluate the Alternative Methods which were incorporated into the EA as follows:

Step 1 - Determination of Footprint for Alternatives. (section 5.1.1)

Three "alternative methods" have been provided as follows:
- Alternative 1: Small Lakefill Footprint (Figure 5.1)
- Alternative 2: Medium Lakefill Footprint (Figure 5.2)
- Alternative 3: Large Lakefill Footprint (Figure 5.3)

Step 2 - Identification of Desired Design Elements; parkland, trail, marina elements. (section 5.1.2)

Involves the key elements included in the design.

Step 3 - Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives (section 5.1.3)

Evaluates the alternatives methods to choose the preferred alternative.
The evaluation method used criteria and indicators to structure information and facilitate the comparison of alternatives against each other. The evaluation criteria and indicators were refined through consultation with a wide range of regulators, stakeholders and members of the public.
The comparative evaluation of alternatives involved 3 tasks as detailed below:
- refinement of comparative evaluation criteria and indicators originally presented in the ToR
- assessment of effects
- comparative evaluation to identify the preferred alternative
The effects and benefits of each alternative were measured in the effects assessment (Table 5.1).

Step 4 - Confirm and refine the Project and complete the Detailed Assessment of the Preferred Alternative (Section 5.1.4)

A detailed analysis of the preferred alternative includes consideration of environmental effects using the broad definition of the environment, effects after mitigation (net effects) and includes consideration of costs.

The decision-making process explains how the City of Mississauga evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed Project.

The 'Do Nothing' alternative was brought forward as a benchmark or base case comparison.

The ministry is satisfied that the City followed a clear and logical decision process to select its preferred alternative consistent with the EAA and approved ToR.

Evaluation

1. Description of the environment for the project and alternatives

Environmental Assessment Act Sections 17.6(2)(c)(i).

Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions.

The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area.

The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed project and or the alternatives.

Analysis of the EA

The EA describes the broad definition of the environment as physical, atmospheric, biological, socio-economic and cultural in section 3. This is consistent with the approved ToR and the EAA.

Section 3.1 of the EA outlines the existing conditions of the physical environment.

Section 3.2 of the EA outlines the existing conditions of the atmospheric environment. This pertains to the climate, where the project area (Port Credit) has its micro-climate caused by the proximity to the lake, which is different than that of Mississauga. This includes warmer winters, cooler summers, and more fog. In terms of noise, sources include the lake itself and human activity.

Section 3.3 of the EA outlines the existing conditions of the biological environment in the study area.

Section 3.4 of the EA outlines the existing conditions of the socio-economic environment.

Section 3.5 of the EA identifies the Indigenous communities that may be impacted due to land and treaty rights. The local study area is within the traditional territory of the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation. Huron Wendat Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River (Elected Council and Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council) were also consulted in this EA.

Section 3.6 of the EA outlines the existing conditions of the cultural environment.

The EA considered 3 study areas identified in the approved ToR when identifying and assessing potential impacts from the Project: the Project Study Area, Local Study Area and Regional Study Area.

The project study area (shown in Figure 1) is the site where the project is being proposed and includes the land (yet to be transferred to the City) and water lot/breakwater, with an area of approximately 21.4 hectares. The location study area is described as a larger area within the Port Credit community and Old Port Credit Village. This includes the primary access roads from the Queen Elizabeth Way to the project site. The regional study area is used to assess the broader settings and for the discussion of any potential cumulative effects of the project. This includes portions of the Credit River watershed, the Lake Ontario shoreline and shoreline neighborhoods within the boundaries of the City. Much of the shoreline in the regional study area is protected with either formal or informal shoreline protection structures, and the shoreline in the project study area is 100% man-made (artificial).

The ministry is satisfied that the City has adequately described the environment to be affected by the project.

2. Description of the potential environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act Section 17.6(2)(c)(ii).

Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed.

The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project.

Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified.

The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Analysis of the EA

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the EA.

Both positive and negative environmental effects are discussed in Section 7 of the EA and listed in Table 7.1. The effects are discussed under the physical, atmospheric, biological, socio-economic and cultural environment, as well as costs. Additionally, section 11 of the EA highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the Project, where the advantages are net positive effects, disadvantages are net negative effects to the human and natural environment.

In accordance with the approved ToR and the codes of practice for EAs and the ministry's climate change guideline, the City considered the impacts of climate change on the project as well as the impacts of the project on climate change as documented in section 3.1.4 of the EA and throughout the EA when considering potential effects. The "Approach to Assessment" column in Table 7.1 highlights the methods used to analyze each of the potential environmental effects of the project.

The impact assessment methods were clearly outlined in section 5.1 and 5.2 of the EA.

Section 5.1 mentions the 4-step process that was outlined in the ToR, which is used to identify and evaluate the Alternative Methods:

Step 1 - Determination of Footprint for Alternatives (Section 5.1.1)
Step 2 - Identification of Desired Design Elements; parkland, trail, marina elements (Section 5.1.2)
Step 3 - Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives (Section 5.1.3)
Step 4 - Confirm and refine the Project and complete the Detailed Assessment of the Preferred Alternative (Section 5.1.4)

Additionally, Table 5.1 of the EA illustrates the criteria and indicators for each aspect of the environment (physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural) as well as cost. The criteria are the potential environmental impacts and the indicators are the consequences of these effects.

Section 5.2 of the EA illustrates the comparative evaluation of the alternatives and the conclusions of this evaluation. Table 5.2 illustrates the comparison of the alternatives for the main potential environmental impacts associated with the physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural environment.

In accordance with the approved ToR and the ministry's EA code of practice, the proponent considered the risks to existing and future municipal drinking water systems and source protection in section 6.6.2 of the EA. The project is subject to salt management and fuel spills from the marina and as such will adhere to the policies of the Credit Valley Source Protection Plan to mitigate and manage any potential effects.

There is enough information about potential effects for the minister to make a decision about the EA.

3. Description of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects

Environmental Assessment Act Section 17.6(2)(c)(iii).

A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

Analysis of the EA

Chapter 10 of the EA outlines the amendment process if the City wants to make changes to the project post EA modifications.

The ministry is satisfied that mitigation measures are in place to address and manage potential environmental effects. The ministry is also satisfied that potential effects after mitigation (net effects) were considered as part of the amended EA.

4. Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Environmental Assessment Act sections 17.6(2)(d).

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Section 5.2 of the EA clearly states which alternative was preferred. Table 5.2 demonstrates the results of the comparative evaluation. The large lakefill footprint alternative was the first ranked alternative, and therefore the preferred alternative.

Through the evaluation provided in the EA, the ministry gained an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment for each alternative and the preferred alternative method for the project.

5. Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act Section 17.6(2)(e).

A description of consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include:

consultation methods used
frequency of consultation
dates that events occurred
target audience
descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input
comments received

The EA must identify any Indigenous consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations.

The EA should outline conflict resolution techniques used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders and Indigenous communities. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Analysis of the EA

A record of consultation is provided and a detailed consultation section was outlined in Chapter 9 of the EA. The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA adequately documented the consultation that was undertaken for the project.

Section 9.1 of the EA outlines consultation methods used:

To meet the consultation and engagement requirements for a provincial Individual EA.
To provide opportunities to participate in the consultation and engagement processes to anyone interested.
To provide clear, concise information about the project that is easy for the public to understand and to clearly communicate the potential adverse impacts and benefits.
To create opportunities for meaningful two-way exchange of information between the proponents, their consultants, Indigenous communities, regulatory agencies, marina users, the public and other interested parties.
To produce accurate and comprehensive reports that capture all feedback and advice received.
To thoroughly review and consider all feedback and advice received through the consultation and engagement, demonstrating how that feedback and advice has influenced the project and its EA.

Frequency of consultation and key milestones are discussed in section 9.2 in the EA, with the mention of the public and agencies' opportunity to provide their feedback at the key points in the EA:

development and evaluation of 'alternative methods'
selection of preliminary preferred alternative
confirmation and refinement of preferred alternative
assessment of impacts and mitigation measures
recommendations regarding monitoring and adaptive management plans

The target audience is also mentioned in section 9.2, including:

the local community
the City of Mississauga
the federal and provincial government
agencies such as the Credit Valley Conservation Authority

Section 9.3 of the EA outlined dates events occurred:

a virtual Public Information Centre (PIC) #1 took place online from February 17 to March 17, 2022
a virtual EA PIC #2 was held for a month starting on August 25, 2022
a project EA "Pop-up Event" took place on Saturday, August 27, 2022, at Credit Village Marina
the City held EA PIC #3 virtually from September 14 to October 31, 2023
the City also held a second "Pop-up Event" on Saturday, September 30, 2023, at Credit Village Marina

A summary of the comments provided by the stakeholders are highlighted in section 9.3.5 of the EA.

Indigenous consultation efforts that have been made are outlined in section 9.4, including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations.

The following Indigenous communities were contacted during the EA process:

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN)
Six Nations of the Grand River (Elected Council and Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council)
Huron Wendat Nation (HWN)

Indigenous communities were consulted by an open invitation to meet with the City's project team to discuss the proposal in greater detail and discuss issues of interest. Letters and emails were sent prior to each PIC to inform the Indigenous communities of the PICs as well as to invite the communities to meet with the City.

Section 9.4 in the EA provides details on the City's engagement efforts with Indigenous communities with substantial details regarding engagement with MCFN and its outcome.

The consultation process and comments received are summarized in Appendix B and C of the review.

The consultation undertaken is consistent with the consultation plan provided in the approved ToR.

The City was responsive to the comments provided and the EA was amended to address issues raised. The ministry and other government agencies were satisfied with the amendments made to the EA and that their respective comments were addressed.

There were multiple methods used to contact interested parties. The consultation undertaken is consistent with the EAA and the ministry's consultation codes of practice (guidelines).

The EA includes additional opportunities for continued consultation as part of project implementation.

The ministry is satisfied that there were sufficient opportunities for consultation.

Selection process

1. Proposed project

Description and statement of the rationale for the project:

Environmental Assessment Act sections 17.6(2) (b) (i).

The description of the project should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA.

The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions, etc.

The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred project.

Analysis of the EA

The specification of what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA is highlighted at the beginning of Chapter 2.

The description is framed in terms of both the "problem" (expanding the land base on the east side of the breakwater to provide continued marina function on the site) and the "opportunity" (enhancing access to the waterfront and increased parkland), which the project presents.

Section 2.4 outlines the details of the location, attributes and dimensions of the project. This includes the project study area:

the Breakwater & Ridgetown Water Lot (7.9 hectares)
Elizabeth and Helene Street Rights of Way (0.8 hectares)
the Basin Water Lot (12.7 hectares)
the local study area and the regional study area

Section 5.2 clearly states which alternative was preferred in the conclusion. Table 5.2 demonstrates the results of the comparative evaluation. The large lakefill footprint alternative was the first ranked alternative, and therefore the preferred alternative given it offer best option for marina and access to the Lake Ontario while minimizing potential effects.

Prior to the commencement of the EA, the proponent consulted and conducted various planning studies which confirmed an interest in continuing marina operations in this location.

Next steps and additional commitments

1. Additional EA commitments

Outline any further commitments made by the proponent in the EA.

The ToR indicates cumulative effects will be considered in the regional context and that the detailed assessment for the preferred alternative will also give consideration of potential for cumulative effects with existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the study areas.

Analysis of the EA

Table 1.1 of the EA outlines the commitments made in the ToR which were to be addressed in the EA. A commitment was provided to develop an ongoing monitoring plan during the design, construction and establishment phase, which includes strategies and schedules for completing the plan as described in the approved ToR. The City has committed in the amended EA to obtain all necessary permits and approvals required by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the ministry during the design phase.

The City has committed to continue working with Indigenous communities during the design phase of the project.

Table 9.4 in the EA outlined additional commitments made by the City to MCFN regarding its involvement with the project.

In the amended EA, the proponent considered the cumulative effects in discussing the regional study area (Chapter 3) environment that could be potentially affected by the project. Section 7.2 in the amended EA discussed how the City considered the cumulative effects in relation to the project.

For the preferred alternative, the City has determined that adverse cumulative effects for the project are not likely due to the lack of geographic and temporal overlap with other major waterfront and construction projects in Port Credit Village. The proponent also considered the cumulative effects of noise, dust and emissions given the proximity to Hurontario Light Rail Transit and Port Credit GO station redevelopment projects. However, due to the distance of these projects, adverse cumulative effects on the atmospheric environment are unlikely since they are too far away.

2. Additional Approvals

Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Analysis of the EA

Section 1.3 of the EA outlines other federal or provincial approvals.

Other provincial approvals

MNR: Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Conservation Authorities Act

MNR: Permit under Public Lands Act. A permit may be required under the Public Lands Act for constructing a building, trail, or water crossings on public lands and/or dredging or filling shore lands.

MNR: Permit under Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. A permit is required and potentially a license to collect fish under the act.

Federal approvals

DFO: Fisheries Act, Transport Canada's Canadian Navigable Waters Act, igratory Birds Convention Act, federal Species at Risk Act. A request for review form is required for any planned works that may cause prohibited effects under the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act.

Transport Canada: Application for Approval for Navigation Protection Program. Permit may be required for proposed work on navigable water, Lake Ontario, listed in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the comment period

Table 1: Agency comment summary table

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Comment #1

DFO has received the final EA. However, please note that the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program is not able to provide comments regarding general planning. If planned works may cause any of the prohibited effects under the Fisheries Act or Species at Risk Act, a Request for Review form should be completed for the works and submitted to fisheriesProtection@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

Proponent's response

The City intends to submit a "Request for Review" form to DFO after the completion of the EA process and during the detailed design stage of the project. The updated EA has added this as a commitment in Section 6.6 and Table 8.1.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA has been amended to address this issue.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

Comment #1

Mapping indicates that the project will occur entirely within the existing 1 Port Street Waterlot. Any work resulting in occupation beyond the waterlot boundary will require occupational authority under the Public Lands Act (PLA).

Under the PLA, constructing a building, trail, or water crossing on public lands and/or dredging or filling shore lands requires authorization from the MNR. A work permit may be required for work being undertaken on shorelands (such as a lakebed) which includes private or Crown land.

There is mention that the project might require authorization under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA). A preliminary scan of the project by MNR suggests that approval under the LRIA doesn't apply in this case.

A license to collect fish under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act issued by MNR may be required.

Proponent's response

S3 6.6.1 of the EA indicates that the City shall seek authorization under the PLA should the lakefill go beyond the City's existing water lot or future conveyances to the City. This commitment has been added to Table 8.1. The need for a work permit and potentially a license to collect fish under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act issued by MNR will be added to Section 6.6. and Table 8.1. Reference to authorization under the LRIA will be removed.

Status

MNR reviewed the proponent's response to their comments and was satisfied.

MECP is satisfied with the proponent's response and that the EA has been amended to address this comment.

Transport Canada - Navigation Protection Program (NPP)

Comment #1

It has been brought to our attention through a referral from Transport Canada's Ontario Regional Environmental Programs team dated October 29, 2024, that you propose the above-described works on a navigable water. Lake Ontario is considered a navigable waterway which is listed in the schedule of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA).

Under the CNWA, owners who propose works in a waterway listed on the schedule to the CNWA must submit an application for approval to the Navigation Protection Program if the work, or its construction, placement, alteration, rebuilding, removal or decommissioning, may interfere with navigation. As your work may interfere with navigation, you must submit an application for approval.

You are reminded that failure to comply with the requirements of the CNWA prior to commencing the proposed works may result in enforcement actions by Transport Canada.

Your NPP file number is 2024-413688. Please ensure to include this file number in all future correspondence.

Proponent's response

Comments noted with thanks. The EA indicates that the project will not interact with federal property and identifies the CNWA as a potential permit that may be required.

The EA assessed the potential impact of the project on navigation in Chapter 4 and concluded that impacts to navigation in Lake Ontario are not likely. The EA acknowledges that the creation of land under the CNWA requires formal approval under the Act. The City intends to submit a "application for approval" to the Navigation Protection Program after the completion of the EA process and during the detailed design stage of the project. Reference will be made to NPP file number 2024-413688. The updated EA includes this commitment in Section 7.5.1 and in Table 8.1.

Status

MECP has contacted with Transport Canada and followed-up for their comments. There have been no further updates.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA has been amended to address this comment.

Transport Canada - Environmental Assessment Program, Ontario Region

Comment #1

Please note that the Canadian Navigation Act (as mentioned in the provincial EA documents provided) was amended many years ago and is now called the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA). The new Act has quite a few changes. To that end, please note that it seems very likely that the subject project will require a CNWA approval as it involves in-water works and structures in Lake Ontario, which is a navigable waterway (also called a "scheduled" waterway under the CNWA). Additional CWNA information is provided below, along with generic information about other regulations that Transport Canada administers (that may or may not be applicable to the project).

We request that project proponents self-assess whether their project:

Will interact with a federal property and/or waterway by reviewing the Directory of Federal Real Property, available at Directory of Federal Real Property
Will require approval and/or authorization under any Acts administered by Transport Canada available at Acts and regulations.

Proposed projects that will occur on federal property (including reserve lands or lands owned by federal departments other than Transport Canada) will be subject to an Impact Assessment per Section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act, 2019 prior to exercising a federal power (including full or partial funding), and/or performing a function or duty (e.g. regulatory approval or issuance of a lease) in relation to that project.

The most common Acts that apply to projects in an EA context are:

Canadian Navigable Waters Act
Railway Safety Act
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
Aeronautics Act

Proponent's response

The EA indicates that the project will not interact with federal property and identifies the CNWA as a potential permit that may be required. The EA assessed the potential impact of the Project on navigation in Chapter 4 and concluded that impacts to navigation in Lake Ontario are not likely. The EA acknowledges that the creation of land under the CNWA requires formal approval under the Act. The City intends to submit a "application for approval" to the Navigation Protection Program after the completion of the EA process and during the detailed design stage of the project. Reference will be made to NPP file number 2024-413688. The updated EA includes this commitment in Section 7.5.1 and in Table 8.1.

Status

MECP has contacted with Transport Canada and followed-up for their comments. There have been no further updates.

The updated EA clarifies the change over time to EA terminology in Section 1.2. References to EAA Section 6.2c and 6.1(3) have been removed.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this comment.

Comment #5

While going through the 1 Port EA, it was noticed that the final EA is missing information regarding the cumulative effects as provided for in the ToR commitments.

The ToR specified that cumulative effects would be assessed in a regional context; this was discussed in Section 2.4.3 and Chapter 3 in the final EA. The ToR has also committed that the detailed assessment for the preferred alternative will also consider cumulative effects by the proponent from existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities within the study areas. However, this discussion was not covered in the final EA. It would appear that Table 1.1 in the final EA is missing the ToR commitments with respect to cumulative effects.

As the City of Mississauga continues its consultations with Indigenous communities and addresses comments in a revised EA, could you please include a discussion on how the cumulative effects were assessed and considered in relation to existing, planned and future planning projects and activities for the preferred alternative? Please kindly include the commitments for assessing cumulative effects in Table 1.1 and ensure all the ToR commitments are reflected in the Table.

Furthermore, could you please provide an update on the disposition tables for the comments received during the comment period of the EA? As a reminder, MCM's request to include the screening checklist in the appendix and MNR's comment regarding the consideration of possible project impacts under the Public Lands Act requiring other permits should be included in Table 8.1 of the revised EA.

Proponent's response

The City did not commit to undertaking a cumulative effects assessment in the ToR. Section 5.4 of the ToR states that the assessment will "give consideration to the potential for cumulative effects with existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities in the study areas". There are no cumulative effects given the lack of geographic and temporal overlap of other waterfront projects. The timeline of the 1 Port Street East wharf redevelopment is unknown, and the Brightwater and Lakeview Village redevelopments are already underway. The only potential cumulative effect may have been traffic, which we addressed in the attached correspondence. Table 1.1 has been modified to reflect the actual commitment and Section 7 of the updated EA describes the City's approach to the consideration the cumulative effects.

The updated EA addresses the outstanding comments from MCM and MNR in Tables 5.1, 7.1 and 8.1.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to clarify this issue.

Comment #6

Additional comments were provided to the City on May 14, 2025:

The City is proposing amending procedures in the EA, these are the procedures that will govern any changes after an approval. Because the City would be relying on these procedures, it is not appropriate to include provisions under Section 17.24 (previously 11.4) of the EAA. It should be noted that your EA would likely result in mostly standard conditions, so it is highly unlikely these conditions would change.

As noted, provisions under section 17.24 of the EAA or any language referencing this provision should not be included in the EA. Instead, the EA should set out a general process for changes that are being proposed or contemplated post-EA, and the ministry will reference the change provision as a condition in the ministry's approval and will approve any proposed changes as appropriate.

The ministry has made edits to section 10 of the EA, which is attached. If the changes to the project design will not result in new net effects, the ministry generally considers those as minor changes, and a technical memo would just document it. The City will need to notify MECP if any subsequent approvals may result in changes to the mitigation measures or construction activities.

Proponent's response

The proposed text from the ministry has been added to Section 4.1.7 in the "Town of Blind River Municipal Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment Report, October 2024".

Status

The ministry has indicated that it is satisfied with the proponent's response and has no further comment.

The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment #7

Could you advise whether the City reviewed the ministry's climate change guide while preparing the EA? See below:

Considering Climate Change in the Environmental assessment process.

Proponent's response

The City responded to this request on December 5, 2024, indicating that the City reviewed and considered the Ministry's climate change guide while preparing the EA. The City's response included text that was previously provided as part of a disposition table in response to comments provided by the Adaptation and Resilience Branch and Climate Change Policy Branch, and text from the final EA which references the Considering Climate Change in EA Process guide.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the proponent's response.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) - Program Support Unit

Comment #1

Missing emails from August 11, 2023, to Six Nations of Grand River (SNGR), Huron Wendat Nation (HWN). Update record for any communication after August 31, 2023, for HW, SNGR, HDI up until Notice of Submission and responses received as a result. Update summary to include Notice of Submission date.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this issue.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) - Conservation and Source Protection Branch

Comment #1

On page 13, please make revisions to this sentence within the bullet point that discusses the Clean Water Act (CWA), 2006 as follows: "Both the CWA and Regulation 287/07 require Source Protection Committees to prepare source protection plans (SPP) with policies to address drinking water threat activities within all source protection vulnerable areas."

Proponent's response

Text in Section 1.3.2 has been corrected within the updated EA as suggested.

Status

The technical staff has reviewed the proponent's responses and is satisfied. The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this comment.

Comment #2

The following sentence," and have regard for policies addressing moderate and low drinking water threats," also on page 13, has duplicated text which should be deleted.

Proponent's Response

Text in Section 1.3.2 has been corrected within the updated EA as suggested.

Status

The technical staff has reviewed the proponent's responses and is satisfied. The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this comment.

Comment #3

We thank the proponent for incorporating and addressing our previous comments that were submitted in September 2024.

Proponent's response

Comments noted with thanks.

Status

We thank the proponent for incorporating and addressing our previous comments that were submitted in September 2024.

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) - Drinking Water and Environmental Compliance Division

Comment #1

As per the previous ministry's comments, a rationale in Section 7.3 "Atmospheric Environment" was added to clarify why the EA did not quantify the marina boats fueling emissions. Basically, the marina fueling operations at 1 Port Street East may or may not continue in the future as there are City-operated fueling services elsewhere. In addition, the proposed future marina is expected to host the same number of boats as the existing marina. For these reasons, the EA did not assess the marina fueling operations for the proposed undertaking.

The proponent has addressed the ministry's air quality comments, and no additional comments are offered at this time.

Proponent's response

Comment noted with thanks.

Status

MECP Air Quality Analyst reviewed the proponent's response and has no further comments.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) - Heritage Planning Unit

Comment #1

Approach to assessment has not been updated per our comment. For built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, the field still says "Presence of cultural heritage resources in the project footprint" rather than noting methodology or screening/assessment tools as with the other rows. For the archaeological row, it still excludes the marine archaeological assessment.

Proponent's responses

The updated EA includes the revisions to the text in Table 7.1.

Status

MCM has reviewed all responses provided by the proponent and is satisfied with their responses.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this comment.

Comment #2

As with the tables noted above, the first criterion table in this section should be revised to consistently include both built heritage landscapes (BHLs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), effects other than displacement (including indirect effects) and effects resources outside the project footprint.

The paragraphs under the "effects assessment" and "mitigation measures" headings should be reconsidered in light of these changes. If they are to remain substantially the same, the phrase "built cultural heritage resources" should be revised to "built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes."

We further recommend that the effects assessment paragraph, or some other appropriate section of the report, specify what "immediately adjacent to the project site" means.

Proponent's response

The updated EA includes the revisions to the text in Section 7.6.1.

Status

MCM has reviewed all responses provided by the proponent and is satisfied with their responses.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this issue.

Comment #3

The definitions of "archaeological resources", "built heritage resources" and "cultural heritage landscape" are based on out-of-date policy documents. We recommend the glossary use the definitions of these 3 terms found in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2020 or the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

Proponent's response

The criterion as stated reflects the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological study where there are no built heritage resources of cultural heritage landscapes adjacent to the site and no temporary staging areas are anticipated for the project. The updated EA includes the revisions to the text in Table 5.1.

Status

MCM has reviewed all responses provided by the proponent and is satisfied with their responses.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA has been amended to address this comment.

Comments #4

The stage 1 archaeological assessment and the marine archaeological assessment are included in the appendices. However, there is no screening checklist or memorandum for potential effects on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

The stage 1 (terrestrial) archaeological assessment remains the only technical cultural heritage study cited in the References.

Proponent's response

The City had completed the requested screening using the checklist for non-specialists and the "criteria for evaluating potential for build heritage resources and cultural landscapes". This screening resulted in a "no" response to each of the screening questions in the checklist. It was based largely on the 2 archaeological stage 1 assessments completed for the Project and other field observations. The completed checklist has been summarized in the text of Section 3.6.2 and the form has been added to the updated EA.

An updated EA added the marine archaeological assessment to the reference list in Section 12.

The screening checklist has been added to the report appendices, Appendix C, referenced where described in the "screening" heading of Section 3.6.2.

Status

MCM has reviewed all responses provided by the proponent and is satisfied with their responses.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA has been amended to address this comment.

Comment #5

This submitted version of the EA report now describes screening for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and in several places has been revised to reflect the approved terms of reference (ToR), thus responding to our most substantive recommendations.

Proponent's response

Comment noted with thanks.

Status

Response is acknowledged.

Comment #6

On May 1, 2025, MCM submitted additional comments requesting minor changes to the EA:

A sentence be added to the "screening" heading (new addition) in Section 3.6.2 explicitly stating that the screening determined low potential for impacts to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

The 2 paragraphs at the end of this addition pertaining to Indigenous knowledge and archaeological assessment be deleted.

That referenced where described in the "screening" heading of Section 3.6.2.

Proponent's response

A sentence has been added to the "screening" heading in Section 3.6.2 explicitly stating that the screening determined low potential for impacts to built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

The 2 paragraphs at the end of this addition pertaining to Indigenous knowledge and archaeological assessment have been deleted.

The completed screening checklist itself has been added to the report appendices, Appendix C, referenced where described in the "screening" heading of Section 3.6.2.

Status

MCM has reviewed all responses provided by the proponent and is satisfied with their responses.

Comments noted with thanks.

Status

The City's response is acknowledged.

Conceptual Design

Comment #1

It is a very good design that the 'east wall' is being shored up with parkland - protecting also against the heavy east winds the marina waters and boats (currently at high water level times, the waves from the east break into in the marine and create uncomfortable motions to the docked vessels.)

Proponent's response

Comments noted with thanks.

Status

The City's response is acknowledged.

Comment #2

Consequently the 'relocation of the docks' / replacement along this 'east wall' is also an excellent idea.

The proposed location and configuration of parking facilities are noted on Figure 6.1 of the EA.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #6

What will be the winter-storage facilities and where?

Proponent's response

The use of the parking area for winter storage of boats is illustrated on Figure 6.7 of the EA. The City is also exploring off-site storage options.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Marina Operation

Comment #1

Given the 'shoreline' is to begin in 2027 when will the 'docks' replacement take place - for which 'summer season availability'?

Proponent's response

Comment noted with thanks. This is an operational issue that is beyond the scope of this EA.

The public will have future consultation opportunities during the detailed design phase of the project." This has been added as a commitment in Section 6.6 and Table 8.1.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #2

What provision will be given to existing tenants of PCHM in obtaining / securing slips in the new dock / marina environment?

Proponent's response

Comment noted with thanks. This is an operational issue that is beyond the scope of this EA.

The public will have future consultation opportunities during the detailed design phase of the Project." This has been added as a commitment in Section 6.6 and Table 8.1.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #3

Who will be the Marina Management?

Proponent's response

Comment noted with thanks. This is an operational issue that is beyond the scope of this EA. The City intends to own and operate the proposed marina.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #4

Just a few comments on the EA submission, I will preface by saying I may have misunderstood or just frankly missed provision already catered to in the proposal, and so if these considerations are already in place - pardon my negligence.

A general comment/consideration that seems to be missing. These (boats) are people's homes, and many have no where to go.

The boating life is not just one of pure recreation, it satisfies basic needs of many individuals - a home/shelter - these are tenants.

Most people live on these boats (especially the larger ones) full-time in the spring, summer and fall months, and many all-year round - even during the winter.

Design seems to exclude amenities for boaters - for this size of a marina this may not suffice. It seems very little consideration is given to the welfare of the individuals who will be generating the revenue for the marina consistently vs those individuals in the community who will visit purely for ad hoc inconsistent recreation. Individuals paying for the service would not be adequately serviced and this is no longer a full-service marina, which then presents new challenges.

Proponent's response

The issue of accommodating "live-aboards" and other long-term marina users is a matter of City policy which will need to be considered more directly once a more detailed design has been developed. Two points that need consideration is that the EA is about the creating a new land base to accommodate a new marina and that the design presented in the EA is conceptual in nature. Operational aspects of the marina are not part of the EA scope but will need to be addressed in any detailed design for the project, subject to provincial EA approval and City approval to move forward with the project.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #5

Having boaters displaced with such a drastic change (see below) to their living situation when they return, may result in many boaters not returning.

Interim plans for boaters & businesses

adequate notice period given to boaters - time to find alternative spots
alternative location options for boaters during the construction - with the closure of Ontario Place there are very few if any options for boaters during this period
alternative boat storage options for boaters - if there is no slip available for them to access is there a place to store the boats during this construction
any guarantee given to the current boaters that they will have a slip in the new marina and some idea of the rates
a significant amount of revenue for businesses in the area is from the boating community and their families and friends and cannot be recouped from the construction staff

New marina

this marina currently supports repairs on boats at multiple neighboring marinas in the area (including the nearby current city marina):
- is there a repair garage - boat maintenance is a part of the boating world and is becoming very difficult to find options and locations for repair
- is there an option for boat maintenance facilities - and possible renting to qualified people - can that be considered as a part of the business model
this marina currently provides amenities for use, what are the plans for these in the new plan:
- boat lift - how do boats get in and out of the water
- storage for marina equipment and boats - currently boats that are typically docked even at the city marina are now on this property for the winter which means a potential displacement for them as well. Where would boats be stored in the winter months
- laundry facilities
- garbage disposal
- shower and bathroom facilities for smaller boat owners who live on their boats but have no bathrooms on board (that said even for visitors)
- security gates to each dock (as mentioned these are people's homes)
- dedicated parking for boaters - Port Credit is home to a vibrant recreational community - housing many events throughout the year - without dedicated parking people will be displaced from getting to their homes/boats
plans for upgrades for boaters - a bit of an audacious ask when the plan currently is missing the basic replacement of the existing amenities but regardless:
- access to water during winter for live-aboards especially
- metered power - each boater pays solely for usage rather than flat fees
- proper waste and recycling facilities and regular collection plans
- toilet waste pump-out stations - extremely important as without an option, there may be a significant risk of pollution
- laundry facilities - upgraded
- shower and toilets.
- fuel dock

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Biological Environment

Comment #1

The EA of 1 Port Steet East failed to notice and account for the colony of approximately 2500 barn swallows. These barn swallows have approximately 500 nests in the buildings rafters of 1 Port Street East. These birds are migratory and return every year to nest. The barn swallow is protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994), which also protects their nests and eggs. What are your plans to accommodate these birds?

Proponent's response

Section 7.4.1 of the EA notes that "Existing structures with barn swallow nests and the nests themselves are not located on the project site, but rather on nearby properties that are not part of the planned works. The planned works are approximately 50 m away from these structures and are unlikely to disturb nesting barn swallows".

The City responded to the commenter indicating that "The barn swallow colony you reference is in the existing Port Credit Harbour Marina building which will not be impacted by this project. Canada Lands Company owns that site which is proposed for redevelopment in the future." Chapter 4 has been modified to be clear regarding barn swallows.

Status

The proponent's response was shared with the ministry's Species at Risk Branch. Barn swallow was reclassified as Special Concern in 2021. Special Concern species do not receive species or habitat protection under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

This species is still protected under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

MECP's Species at Risk Branch has no further comments on the proponent's response.

The ministry is satisfied with the City's response.

Comment #2

I am concerned that the new 1 Port Street East Proposed Marina project overlooks the protection of the barn swallows that migrate to and nest in the existing marina each year. The old marina is on private land and will be demolished for a mixed-use neighborhood (as stated in the EA Final Summary Report). The proposed new marina project by the City does not take these birds into account and includes a plan to provide a home for them once the old marina (with their nests inside) is destroyed, and they are displaced.

The EA plan for the area talks about providing parkland and vegetation for general wildlife but does not specifically address the habitat requirements of barn swallows.

I am very concerned that these protected birds are being overlooked in the development plans. I note that in Canada, barn swallows and their nests and eggs are protected under the Migratory Birds Convection Act, 1994, and are also listed as "Threatened" federally, under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2019), along with in several provinces, including in Ontario.

Proponent's response

The project will not be the cause of any displacement impact to this species nor responsible for any mitigation in the project. Moreover, any proposed buildings structures on the project site would not be suitable for this species and artificial structures would not be feasible.

Status

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Table 3: Indigenous Community comment summary table

Mississsaugas of the Credit First Nation

MCFN did not submit any comments during the final EA review as all comments were previously addressed by the City during the draft EA review. The City undertook extensive engagement with MCFN and incorporated all comments received into the final EA. No further edits have been made in the updated EA.

Status

MECP received an email from MCFN on December 5, 2024, that they will not be providing comments on the EA at this time.

Given the City had extensive consultation with MCFN throughout the preparation of the final EA, MECP does not have concerns.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Huron Wendat Nation (HWN)

The Huron-Wendat Nation would like to review the archaeological assessment report for this project to ensure that our heritage is protected. I have attached a cost estimate to support the work of our analysts. Please return it signed if these fees are accepted and I will initiate the review process.

Annex 1 - Specific comments on the consultation. The report's recommendations do not raise major concerns and are adequate. However, the Huron-Wendat Nation asks that some incorrect and problematic information contained in the report be corrected. First, the use of the concept of Glen Meyer and Pickering cultures in section 3.1.2 is outdated and problematic. Secondly, there seems to be confusion between the terms Iroquois and Iroquoian which are not synonym. Lastly, the source for the map titled Early 1800s map (illegible for author) is Reddit. A legitimate source would be more appropriate.

Proponent's response

The City thanks the Nation for your comments and corrections. The Nation's letter and report will be appended to the stage 1 archaeological assessment contained in the Appendix to the EA.

Status

No further comments were provided to the City or the ministry about this matter by HWN.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA was amended to address this comment.

Six Nations of the Grand River

Comment #1

We have been unable to consult with the city on this EA.

In a letter sent to Chief Hill last month, MECP asserts "Whether or not a project is subject to an EA process, it is expected that municipalities will take appropriate steps to engage Indigenous communities and to make environmentally responsible decisions that consider cumulative impacts." But Mississauga has steadfastly refused to send SNGR its development applications and only engages/consults SNGR on land use planning matters when there's direct Crown oversight.

For this project, we need to understand the cumulative effects of Mississauga's waterfront development, and determine potential impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights, but it's impossible to do so because of the city's refusal to abide by Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 1.2.2.

Proponent's response

The City responded to the SNGR on November 5, 2024, indicating that the "City is happy to provide any documents related to the 1 Port Street East Proposed Marina EA and have a meeting with Six Nations of the Grand River about the Project. Regarding consultation with SNGR on other City projects, John Dunlop, Indigenous Relations, Heritage & Museums, will be reaching out to you to discuss".

Status

SNGR has not provided further comments on the EA or the project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #2

To begin consultation, we require a much better understanding of past and future waterfront developments. One step towards that will be the receipt of all waterfront development applications received or approved by Mississauga since the PPS 1.2.2 came into effect on May 1, 2020, and a commitment by the city to adhere to the PPS going forward.

Proponent's response

On November 27, 2024, the City provided the SNGR the EA summary document and summarized key conclusions of the EA, namely "The project will build out an existing breakwater with lakefill to permit the relocation of the Port Credit Harbour Marina. The only portion of the site that is currently on land is an existing parking lot. As such, there are no negative impacts to the terrestrial environment and no potential to discover archaeological resources. Lake filling will result in the loss or alteration of 29,000 m² of common aquatic habitat will be offset by the creation of 2,400 m² of higher quality aquatic habitat and additional habitat will be created off-site to compensate for habitat loss."

The updated EA has been modified to address this issue in Section 11 and Table 11.1

Status

SNGR has not provided further comments on the EA or the project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #3

We would like more time to understand this EA. Per the below, we first need to understand this project in relation to other waterfront plans and developments. As you may be aware, our meeting with Mississauga isn't until December 19th.

We've previously had trouble viewing the EA documents, though Mississauga didn't bother including that in the consultation record. As it stands, we don't have time to review them prior to Dec. 6th.

We request the deadline be extended until such time SNGR has an opportunity to be meaningfully consulted on this EA.

Proponent's response

On December 16, 2024, representatives from the City of Mississauga (the City) met with members of the SNGR to present findings from the EA, to seek feedback on this project continue discussions regarding other developments in the City of interest to the SNGR.

The updated EA includes the results of this meeting in the Record of Consultation and in Table 9.2

Status

SNGR has not provided further comments on the EA or the project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #4

Meeting on December 16, 2024. SNGR requested additional information regarding baseline conditions for fish and fish habitat in the study areas, lakefill materials, the ability of the lakefill to withstand storms, fish and fish habitat compensation, and placemaking.

Proponent's response

The City followed up on February 14, 2025, and thanked SNGR for taking the time to hear directly from the City on these matters and for the dialogue that took place. The City provided a memo that included the information requested by SNGR. The updated EA includes the results of this meeting in the Record of Consultation and in Table 9.2.

Baseline (existing conditions) for fish and fish habitat in the study areas

SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) was retained by our lead EA consultant (Shoreplan Engineering Inc., (Shoreplan) to investigate and address the aquatic ecology and habitat conditions within the project study areas in support of the Project EA. Baseline (existing conditions) for fish and fish habitat are described in Section 3.3.1 (Fish and Fish Habitat) and related matters in Sections 3.1.8 (Lake and River Water Quality) and 3.1.9 (Sedimentation and Sediment Quality).

In addition, Appendix B-2 to the EA provides a memorandum prepared in support of the EA that describes existing aquatic habitat conditions based upon the compilation of secondary source material and underwater field investigations performed by SLR ecologists. We attach this memorandum to this letter to facilitate your review. Key findings include:

Historically, the Lake Ontario shoreline in Mississauga was composed of a mix of natural habitats: deciduous and mixed forests, open savannahs and coastal wetlands. Aquatic habitats have undergone a substantial change from their historic conditions. Land use change, filling, dredging and disturbance are the most notable historic and current threats to aquatic habitats along the shore of Lake Ontario. The Credit River and Lake Ontario are home to at least 65 cold, cool and warm-water fish species.
Studies suggest that potential suitable habitat for American Eel is present at the Project Study Area. The American Eel, a unique species, has been characterized as a habitat generalist, yet only limited research has been undertaken into American Eel habitat relationships, particularly for lakes.
Habitat alteration, periodic dredging and the presence of Carp in the Project Study Area have contributed to the absence of aquatic vegetation. Algae and Zebra Mussels were documented in places along the shoreline, the existing eastern breakwater and hardpan area.
Substrates in the Project Study Area are generally finer sands and silts that have been carried as bedload by the river and deposited into the river mouth. No areas of critical habitat for potential aquatic Species at Risk were documented during the field investigation.

Lakefill materials

The SNGR had questions regarding the nature of the lakefill materials and the safeguards to be implemented regarding fill quality. Relevant information is provided in the EA in Section 6.2.1 (Armour Stone Revetments), Section 6.5.1 (Stage 1 - Land Creation), and Section 6.6.3 (Confirmation of Fill Material Quality). We point out the following information from Section 6.6.3:

"The MECP regulates the management of soil and excess soil quality through Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 406/19 and MECP's Rules for Soil Management and Excess Soil Quality Standards and "subject waste" through the O. Reg. 347 (General - Waste Management). However, O. Reg 406/19 and associated rules do not apply to the final placement of excess soil on the bed of a surface water body as is proposed by the project. Since that regulation does not apply, the City will need to demonstrate that the material being used as lakefill meets the definition of "inert fill" in O. Reg. 347, having regard to relevant MECP lakefilling guidance, including the MECP document entitled "Fill Quality Guide and Good Management Practices for Shore Infilling in Ontario" (2011)."

We note that the detailed design of the Project will confirm and refine design elements described in the EA. The City shall consult with MECP's Regional Technical Support and the local District Office to review matters related to fill material quality to help confirm that all relevant criteria can be met, and to develop an appropriate testing process during construction.

The ability of the lakefill to withstand storms

The City's lead EA consultant (Shoreplan Engineering Inc.), was retained to lead the EA and to prepare a conceptual design of the lakefill structure. Section 6.2.2 (Shoreline Configuration and Protection Features) and Section 7.2.2 (Physical Environment, Effects of Establishment) of the EA describe the conceptual design of the lakefill and its ability to withstand storms. In addition, Appendix B-1 to the EA provides a memorandum prepared in support of the EA by Shoreplan that describes existing coastal conditions and how the conceptual design meets the requirements of the PPS regard land management and conservation to ensure public safety. We note that regardless of the design, access to the lakefill may be limited at times during severe weather conditions to ensure public safety. We attach this memorandum to this letter to facilitate your review. Please note the following text in Section 7.2.2:

"In developing the conceptual design, consideration was given to the MECP document entitled "Considering Climate Change in the Environmental Assessment Process" (MECP, 2017). The coastal engineering and associated modelling recognized climate change scenarios and applicable changes for Lake Ontario to design the lakefill such that it will be resilient to climate change impacts. The conceptual design of the lakefill has taken into consideration the ability of lakefill to withstand changing lake levels (i.e., flooding hazards) and coastal processes (wave action, shoreline erosion) including future changes associated with climate change. The modelling concluded that the lakefill design makes the structure resilient to changing lake levels and a wide range of coastal processes. Modelling also shows that the marina basin will be more resilient coast process in the future than it is today."

Fish and fish habitat compensation

SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) was retained to investigate and address the impacts of the conceptual design on fish and fish habitat and to identify the need for any habitat compensation that may be required to obtain a Fisheries Act Authorization from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Section 6.2.2 (Aquatic Habitat) quantifies the amount of existing aquatic habitat on the lake bottom that would be removed (Table 6.1) and the describes the enhanced fish habitat areas at the south part of the preferred alternative that have been incorporated in the conceptual design. Section 7.4.1 (Biological Environment, Effects of Construction) concludes that "…a total of approximately 29,000 m² of aquatic habitat will be removed as lakefill construction occurs and approximately 13,000 m² will be altered. This includes the east side of the expanded lakefill and the underwater portion of the aquatic habitat feature at the south end. The proposed lakefill will replace the existing bottom strata." As such, habitat compensation will be required to obtain a Fisheries Act Authorization for the Project. With respect to habitat compensation the EA includes the following commitments:

"The City will create and enhance aquatic habitat at the southern (lakeward) terminus of the proposed lakefill. Here, the proposed shoreline will be sculpted westward to create a lakeward facing embayment that will be protected by an armour stone island to be created further out into the lake adjacent to the headland. The proposed feature will create approximately 2,400 sq. m of semi-sheltered moderately shallow water area where substrate can be selected, and structural habitat provided at varying depths. The east side of the lakefill may permit additional opportunities to flatten the side slope and /or create a shallow underwater terrace along portions of the wall to be sheltered by the island and create littoral areas to provide productive areas for forage fish reproduction and feeding.

An offset plan shall be developed, in conjunction with DFO, and in consultation with MCFN and other interested parties, as part of the Fisheries Act Authorization to provide suitable habitat offsets to counterbalance total aquatic habitat removal. This entails investments in the creation of fish habitat off-site. The offset plan will also detail post construction monitoring techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of the offset strategies."

The City welcomes the participation of SNGR in the process of developing its detailed design and offset plan. The City would be pleased to discuss how best the SNGR could be involved in these processes.

Placemaking

The SNGR noted that they desire "equity for placemaking" along with other Nations. The City's approach to placemaking for this project is not currently described in the EA. The City's approach to placemaking for this project would be determined during the detailed design stage and in consultation with other interested Indigenous Nations. The City would be pleased to discuss how best SNGR could be involved in these processes.

Status

SNGR has not provided further comments on the EA or the project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent and that the EA documentation has been amended to address this comment.

Comment #5

On February 18, 2025, SNGR responded to confirm they would like to be involved in the detailed design and the offsetting plan.

SNGR asked "As approximately 29,000 m² of aquatic habitat will be removed, and approx. 13,000 m² is being altered, what was the rationale for providing the 2,400 sq. m habitat enhancement (with the possibility of more on the east side)?"

SNGR noted the City agreed to equity for placemaking. SNGR believes a portion of the city's approach to place keeping has been described in the EA.

Proponent's response

On March 11, 2025, the City responded to SNGR stating the project is predicted to result in approximately 29,000 m² of aquatic habitat being removed, and approximately 13,000 m² being altered. The habitat enhancement feature at the end of the lakefill is intended to provide some offset of these losses and alterations, but will not be sufficient to offset everything. The enhancement feature was included in the conceptual design to take advantage of the deeper waters and existing habitat condition in the area to provide some fish nursing and foraging habitat not possible elsewhere in the City's waterlot. This feature also will connect with the onshore parkland to provide some linkages for shorebirds and other wildlife that is not present at this site currently. Through detailed design and further off-site (i.e. outside the current waterlot) compensation measures, the City is confident that the losses and alterations causes by the project will be adequately offset to achieve a no-net-loss for the project as a whole. The City welcomes the SNGR's involvement in detailed design stage and offset planning following EA approval, should this project proceed.

Status

SNGR has not provided further comments on the EA or the Project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Comment #6

On March 11, 2025, SNGR confirmed they do not have any additional comments related to the EA.

Proponent's response

The City thanked SNGR for their comments.

Status

SNGR has no further comments on the EA or the project.

The ministry is satisfied with the response provided by the proponent.

Haudenosaunee Development Institute

Comment #1

We can advise that is categorically false to state that the City of Mississauga has engaged in any capacity.

We have asked time and time again for the City of Mississauga to engage and it has refused and failed to engage in any meaningful way.

The exchange of emails is not engagement. The application fee was merely to review the Project. Mississauaga did not follow up on any of the documents that we requested.

We can advise that we oppose the project where it will impair infringe and interfere with rights and interests. We do not consent to the Project proceeding.

We know that Mississauga did not comply with any of the obligations on the Master Plan and refused to allow us to participate. Mississauga completely ignored the engagement obligations in the MCEA and the MCEA user guide.

As this project requires federal approval the UNDRIP Act must be complied with and this has not occurred.

We would like an in person meeting to review the steps that the City did not follow and at the same time determine how the gaps in engagement to date can be fixed moving forward.

I have attached my email from August 31, 2022 for which we did not receive a response.

As stated by Aaron in the prior email, we have concerns regarding the ongoing EA for the project and the engagement process associated with it. We are keen to arrange a meeting to discuss the steps that have been taken and any future actions that may be necessary to address outstanding concerns.

Could you kindly advise on who would be the appropriate contact within MECP for further discussions on this matter? We would appreciate any assistance in scheduling a meeting to explore these issues in more detail.

Thank you for your attention to this request. I look forward to your response and to facilitating a productive conversation moving forward.

Proponent's response

The City emailed HDI on October 17, 2024 to inform HDI of the final EA submission for the proposed lakefill alternatives for additional waterfront parkland and marina services at 1 Port Street East. The City also included a download link with the final EA documents and indicated they would also be available on the project starting on October 18, 2024. The City sent HDI a memo with additional details, and acknowledgement form, which was to be returned to the Environmental Assessment Branch by December 6, 2024. The City asked if HDI had any questions or would like a mailed copy of the final EA documents. The updated EA includes this correspondence in Table 9.2.

At MECP's request, the City emailed HDI on November 27, 2024 to follow up on the final EA review as the comment deadline is Friday December 6, 2024. The email indicated the City would like to hear from HDI with any further questions or concerns to be addressed through the EA process. This would allow MECP to complete their review of the EA and allow the City to plan next steps.

The City emailed HDI on October 17, 2024 to inform HDI of the final EA submission for the proposed lakefill alternatives for additional waterfront parkland and marina services at 1 Port Street East. The City also included a download link with the final EA documents and indicated they would also be available on the Project starting on October 18, 2024. The City sent HDI a memo with additional details, and acknowledgement form, which was to be returned to the Environmental Assessment Branch by December 6, 2024. The City asked if HDI had any questions or would like a mailed copy of the final EA documents. The updated EA includes this correspondence in Table 9.2.

To support the final EA review, the City attached an EA summary document describing the project to build out an existing breakwater with lakefill to permit the relocation of the Port Credit Harbour Marina. The only portion of the site that is currently on land is an existing parking lot. As such, there are no negative impacts to the terrestrial environment and no potential to discover archaeological resources. Lakefilling will result in the loss or alteration of 29,000 m² of common aquatic habitat will be offset by the creation of 2,400 m² of higher quality aquatic habitat and additional habitat will be created off-site to compensate for habitat loss.

The City offered to meet with HDI, either virtually or in person, or have a phone call to discuss the Project. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

The City responded to HDI on January 6, 2025 thanking HDI for their emails and expressing concerns regarding the City's engagement with HDI on this project. The City has engaged and communicated regularly with HDI during the EA stage since February 1, 2022 when the City issued a Notice of Commencement of EA and Notice of Public Information Centre #1. Correspondences are documented in the Record of Consultation on the EA. The City has met with HDI and has repeatedly welcomed discussions with HDI regarding the project. The City provided HDI with funding to review the project information, but HDI provided no input to the EA. We note that a cheque #6749 dated February 10, 2022 for the HDI requested amount of $7,000 was issued and delivered by Purolator on February 11, 2022. This cheque was cashed by HDI on February 24, 2022.

Throughout subsequent months HDI and the City had exchanged emails, whereby HDI continued to request more information from the City regarding the Inspiration Port Credit Charting the Future Course Master Plan and indicated that the Project will impair infringe and otherwise interfere with Haudenosaunee rights and interests. HDI indicated that Haudenosaunee rights and interests were not considered or incorporated into the current Individual EA ToR for the Project. Despite following HDI's protocols and application process, informing HDI on opportunities to participate in the EA, opportunities to review the EA, and offering to continue dialogue regarding the EA, no information has been received by the City for consideration in the EA since mid-2022 or during the MECP review period commencing October 16 and ending December 6, 2024. HDI has not provided any information to the City to support their contention that the project will impair infringe and interfere with established treaty rights and interests. Should you wish to provide further information on how the Project would adversely impact hunting or fishing, we welcome you to do so.

The City welcomes the opportunity to meet with HDI to discuss any outstanding concerns with the Project.

MECP also responded to HDI on December 18, 2024 thanking HDI for their emails with respect to HDI's concerns on the EA. MECP indicated we are reviewing the emails and will be providing a response as soon as we can.

The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

The City responded to HDI's January 27, 2025 email on February 7, 2025 indicating a response email was sent by the City on September 19, 2022 and the City did not receive a response from HDI. The City provided payment and all documents requested by HDI, both in hard copy and in digital form. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

The City can meet with HDI to discuss the EA. To ensure we have a productive meeting, please provide the City with HDI's questions related to the Project and let us know if you needs any additional documents. The City provided availability for an in-person meeting on the following dates:

afternoon of Tuesday, March 4
all day on Wednesday, March 5
morning on Thursday, March 6

The City asked HDI if any of the above dates work for HDI or if there is another date and time the City can try to accommodate. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

Status

The City has follow-up with HDI numerous times for the community's specific concerns regarding the EA or the project. Besides indicating general infringement of their rights, HDI has not provided any specific concerns about the EA or the project.

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #2

Thank you for your email. We would like to confirm that the afternoon of Tuesday, March 4 works best for us to meet in person.

If any additional documents are needed prior to the meeting, we will follow up to ensure everything is in place for a productive discussion.

Looking forward to the meeting.

Proponent's response

The City responded on February 13, 2025 thanking HDI for confirming HDI is available on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 4. The City asked if HDI could accommodate the meeting virtually from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. If an in-person meeting is preferred, the City is happy to meet at City Hall (300 City Centre Drive, Mississauga, ON L4W 0E9). The City asked for HDI's preference. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

Status

The City has follow-up with HDI numerous times for the community's specific concerns regarding the EA or the project. Besides indicating their general infringement of their rights, HDI has not provided any specific concerns about the EA or the project.

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #3

HDI emailed the City on February 13, 2025 asking whether the City will be providing requested information prior to the meeting. HDI indicated that while they are happy to schedule a meeting, it is going to be somewhat meaningless if HDI does receive the information that has been requested for over 2 years. This includes all of the information that was gathered at phase 1 and phase 2, which required the assessment and determination of all environmental factors, which includes treaty rights. HDI is concerned to date that no one has done an assessment of Haudenosaunee treaty and other rights. This includes riots associated with UNDRP.

HDI wants to see how the EA process has included those rights as part of the environmental Matrix that needs to be contemplated with respect to this project. HDI also asked the City to advise on any federal contacts that have participated in this process to date and whether they will be attending the March 4, 2025 meeting.

Proponent's response

On February 14, 2025, the City shared links to the EA project documents, which have also been previously provided to HDI at the time that they were requested:

EA Summary Final EA
Final Record of Consultation
Technical Memorandum: Coastal Design and Hazards Considerations
Technical Memorandum: Aquatic Ecology

The City asked HDI to let the City know let me know if there are any other documents HDI needs.

The City confirmed DFO will not be in attendance at the March 4 meeting. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2

Status

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #4

On February 14, 2025, HDI replied thanking the City for their your email. HDI asked the City to advise who the contact is for DFO as HDI wants to get in touch with them to make sure they are at any future upcoming meeting as well as any federal agency responsible for the federal land holdings that are involved in this project.

On March 4, 2025 HDI emailed the City requesting the in-person meeting planned for that day be moved to a virtual format via Zoom. The City accommodated this request.

Proponent's response

The City responded to HDI on February 28, 2025, confirming DFO has received the final EA. DFO advised that the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program is not able to provide comment regarding general planning. Following EA approval and should City of Mississauga Council approve the project to proceed, the City will be contacting DFO to seek Fisheries Act Authorization. The City's contact at DFO has been Chris Strand (Chris.Strand@dfo-mpo.gc.ca). The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2

Status

The City has follow-up with HDI numerous times for the community's specific concerns regarding the EA or the Project. Besides indicating their general infringement of their rights, HDI has not provided any specific concerns about the EA or the project.

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #5

On March 4, 2025 HDI emailed the City requesting the in-person meeting planned for that day be moved to a virtual format via Zoom. The City accommodated this request.

Proponent's response

On March 4, 2025, the City circulated a Zoom link for a virtual meeting at HDI's request.

During the meeting, the City asked HDI to provide a list of all comments and questions so they could be addressed and the City would have a subsequent meeting with HDI after that information was provided and reviewed. Consultants responsible for that work would be available to address questions. HDI agreed with the City's suggestion and agreed to provide comments in writing. The City is still awaiting HDI's written response. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2

Status

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #6

On March 4, 2025, the City hosted a virtual meeting with HDI. In attendance were: Nicolle Pallotta, Todd Williams and Aaron Detlor (AD) from HDI. City of Mississauga representatives were Beata Palka (BP), and John Dunlop (JD). Shoreplan representative was Jane Graham (JG). Comments by HDI at the meeting were:

AD stated he does not think HDI was consulted.
AD said that the 7K paid by the City was not enough to review the documents.
Treaties should be referenced in the EA. The EA does not mention the treaties pertaining to HDI
AD expressed HDI's position that the PPS applies to the project because this is a planning exercise - JD did not agree
AD stated that Indigenous rights are part of the environment, and this is not covered in the text
AD referred to Mitchell Map and Treaty from early 1700s (1702)
AD asked who had read the treaties, JD replied he had read the treaties.
AD stated there is no federal engagement or consultation with HDI
AD asked who prepared the EA - JG stated that Shoreplan prepared the EA but that the sections regarding FN were prepared by SLR and Anneliese Grieve
AD stated that he believed this project was on Federal land (CLC) and Mississauga does not have the right to plan a project or prepare an EA for it.
AD requested all documents for the project.
AD mentioned that he would go to the Star with this.

Proponent's response

The City asked if HDI would like a brief presentation or go directly to comments on the EA document. HDI wanted to go directly to comments and questions. The City notes that they has paid HDI 7k at beginning of EA to provide their review but received no comments on the EA. The City's response to HDI comments are below.

The City respectfully disagrees with HDI's position that the PPS applies to the Project because this is a planning exercise.
The City has updated the EA document in Section 3.5.4 to reflect Treaties that pertain to HDI and other information mention by HDI regarding Indigenous Rights.
The City had involved federal agencies throughout the EA process and had contact DFO for input during the EA. DFO advised that the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program is not able to provide comment regarding general planning. Following EA approval and should City of Mississauga Council approve the project to proceed, the City will be contacting DFO to seek Fisheries Act Authorization.
The City reiterates that the project is located on lands and water lot conveyed to the City by Canada Land Company by agreement with the City. The City notes that the lands owned by Canada Lands Company are not considered federal lands and that their conveyance to the City does not require Canada Lands Company to undertake a federal EA as they are a non-agent commercial crown corporation. Refer to page 20 of the ToR.
The City confirms that all EA documentation has been provided to HDI throughout the EA process as is available on the project website.
The City asked that HDI provide a list of all comments so they could be addressed and would have a meeting after that information was provided and reviewed. Consultants responsible for that work would be available to address questions. The updated EA refers to this correspondence in Table 9.2.

Status

The ministry has reviewed the Record of Consultation and is satisfied with the responses and consultation effort provided by the proponent.

Comment #7

The City followed up with HDI after the March 4, 2025 meeting, requesting a list of the community's concerns and questions specific to the EA or the project. The City also provided a preassessment that speaks to potential impacts to fishing, hunting and gathering rights of Indigenous communities.

June 1, 2025:

HDI reiterated their concerns about the project and that it will impair and infringe on their established treaty rights.
HDI continued to reiterate that they have not been engaged and that there are deficiencies in the consultation process.

After the City's response to HDI providing additional time for their comments until June 4, 2025, HDI further responded on June 3 indicating that their rights to harvest over that area will be interfered by the lakefill and ask that the lakefill be removed so that they can exercise their rights. HDI indicated that they are available to meet to discuss these issues and will ask Mr. Skye to set up a meeting with the City as soon as possible.

Proponent's response

The City thanked HDI for their response and stated that:

Attached is a chronology of the City's efforts to engagement with HDI with respect to the 1 Port Street East Proposed Marina EA. As noted in the chronology, HDI has promised to send project specific comments on a number of occasions, including most recently during the March 4, 2025 meeting when HDI committed to providing comments in writing. No project specific comments have been received to date from HDI. The City recognizes that HDI has comments and concerns with respect to planning decisions that predate this EA or relate to other projects. We are seeking confirmation on comments with respect to the 1 Port Street East Proposed Marina EA. As noted in the summary provided with the City's emails on May 22 and May 30, the site is lakefill so there are no archaeological resources, which has been confirmed through studies. The site is currently a secured paved storage area with no availability for traditional uses, and the only impacts are related to aquatic habitat. Should you have any project specific comments or questions, please submit them to the City in writing by Wednesday, June 4. The City is proceeding with the EA and there will be future engagement opportunities as part of detailed design and permitting.

Status

The ministry reviewed the Record of Consultation and acknowledged that the City has provided numerous opportunities for HDI to provide specific comments and concerns about the project and the EA.

The City has not received any specific questions regarding the project or the EA other than comments about general infringement of treaty rights.

The ministry is satisfied with the City's consultation effort provided to HDI and the proponent's responses.

Appendix C: Consultation

The City of Mississauga (City) consulted with Indigenous communities, the public and government agencies. The City's consultation program included:

publication and circulation of the Notice of Commencement for the Environmental Assessment (EA)
updating the City's project webpage with notices and relevant EA documentation
distributions of notices of and hosting the 3 public information centres (PICs) via emails to those on the Project mailing list, the Government Review Team (GRT) and the Indigenous communities
circulating notices in news outlet, eBlasts to the project's email list, social media advertising and posts, roadway signage and posters at the Port Credit Harbour Marina
hosting 2 pop-up events for the public and interested stakeholders to present information about the project and gather comments
making hard copies available at the Port Credit Library and available for mailing upon request
meetings with agencies and Indigenous communities
publishing the draft EA for review and comment from September 14, 2023 to October 31, 2023

The EA was circulated for review to the GRT and Indigenous communities. The GRT included the federal, provincial and local agencies. The GRT reviewed the EA to ensure the information and conclusions were valid.

The Notice of Submission of the final EA was issued on October 18, 2024. The notice and the EA were available electronically on Ontario.ca and the City's project website.

In accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), the ministry began its consultation on the EA by providing an EA submission comment period beginning on October 18, 2024 and ending on December 6, 2024. The GRT, the public and the Indigenous communities had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry regarding the fulfillment of the Terms of Reference requirements, the EA and the proposed project. All comments received by the ministry during the EA submission comment period were forwarded to the City for response.

Summaries of the comments received are provided below. All comments received, along with the City's responses, are included in Tables 1-3 of Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT occurred throughout the EA process. This included pre-submission discussions and technical meetings with ministry staff and key members of the GRT. A draft EA was prepared and reviewed by the GRT. A summary of the consultation with the GRT is included in section 9 and Table 9.5 of the EA and the consultation record. A table of the comments raised and the City's responses during the review of the draft EA was provided in Appendix D1 in the EA and the consultation record.

Following the formal submission of the EA to the ministry, the following GRT members were provided with a copy of the final EA for review:

Conservation Ontario
Credit Valley Conservation (CVC)
Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)
Ministry of Municipal and Housing (MMAH)
Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Ministry of the Solicitor General (SOLGEN)
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Gaming (MTCG)
Ministry of Sport
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Transport Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (DFO)
Peel Region

This ministry requested revisions to the EA to reflect the changes made to the EAA in February 2024 and that the EA should discuss how the overall cumulative effects were considered during the preparation of the EA. The ministry also reminded the City to include all copies of correspondence received in the consultation records.

MCM requested that the EA to be revised to include additional resources in determining cultural heritage resources in the EA and the appendices.

CVC had concerns related to flooding and erosion hazards from the impacts of lakefilling work. They have requested that the City review the breakwater lakefill design as per 'MNRF Technical Guide for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System, Part 4 - Erosion Hazard, and Part 7 - Addressing the Hazard'. CVC also had concerns about slope stabilization and requested that the City consider completing an analysis of the slope and factors of safety.

MNR concerns are related to water lot boundary and advised that the occupational authority under the Public Lands Act (PLA) may need to be consulted if the impacts occur beyond the current boundary of the water lot area. MNR also reminded the City that a licence is required for work associated with shorelands or lakebeds under MNR's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to collect fish.

The City engaged with the federal agencies (DFO and Transport Canada) during the preparation of the EA. Both agencies provided general comments about the Project and advised the City that various permits or approvals under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, and/or the Fisheries Act or Species at Risk Act may be required.

The amended EA noted that the effects on navigable waters have been considered as part of its assessment and the City will submit an 'Application for Approval' to Transport Canada - Navigation Protection Program for review, after the completion of the EA process.

All comments received were subsequently addressed in an amended EA. The responses and the amended EA were reviewed by the agencies that provided comments, and they are satisfied with the revision and responses provided by the City.

The ministry is satisfied that the comments from the GRT have been addressed by the City. Table 1, Appendix B of this Review provides a summary of all comments received from the GRT, the City's responses and the ministry's position on responses related to the comments received during the EA submission comment period.

Public Consultation

The City consulted with the public by distributing public notices, establishing a project website, conducting 3 PICs and 2 'pop-up' events, as well as direct community engagement via mail-outs and newspaper publishing. The Notice of Commencement of EA was issued on February 3, 2022. The PICs were held on:

February 17 to March 17, 2022
August 25 to September 22, 2022
September 14 to October 31, 2023.

The draft EA was available to the public for review and comments from September 14 to October 31, 2023, at the third PIC and was posted on the City's project website. Hard copies were made available at the Port Credit Public Library as well.

In general, the public is supportive of the project. Five members of the public provided comments to the ministry during the EA submission comment period. Most comments received on the project were about the design of the new marina (parking, boat turning ratios to get out of marina, etc.) which will be addressed by the City during the detailed design phase as part of project implementation. Other comments received were about future marina operations or Canada Lands marina sites which are outside the scope of this EA.

The ministry is satisfied with the responses to comments provided to the public by the City.

Table 2, Appendix B of this review, provides a summary of all the comments received from the public during the EA submission comment period, including the City's responses to the comments.

Indigenous Community Consultation

Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN)
Six Nations of the Grand River (SNGR) as represented by the Elected Chief and Council
Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) as represented by Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI)
Huron-Wendat Nation (HWN)(archaeology only)

The proponent had to maintain an accurate and up to date record of consultation for each Indigenous community, containing all related communications including:

letters, emails, phone calls
public notices
meetings
issues raised and how they have been addressed
evidence of follow up responses
documentation of any follow up responses
comments from the Indigenous communities.

The record of consultation will be reviewed and considered by the ministry when assessing the Crown's obligations to consult before making decisions about the proposed project.

Communities were consulted on the draft and final EA, provided all project notices and circulated a copy of the final and draft EA. The City also had meetings with communities.

The City engaged with MCFN throughout the EA process and had addressed all MCFN's comments and concerns at the draft EA stage. MCFN shared with the ministry that they will not be commenting on the EA during the final EA comment period.

SNGR, HWN and HCCC (as represented by HDI) had concerns regarding the EA, archaeology and the consultation process. They requested additional time to review the final EA so that they could submit their comments to the City. The City continued its consultation process after the final EA comment period had ended. The City responded to comments/concerns and provided information requested by the Indigenous communities during this time.

SNGR and HWN were satisfied with the City's responses to their concerns and comments and confirmed that they have no further comments about the EA or the Project.

HDI expressed concerns about the City's engagement process and asked the City to engage with HDI in a meaningful way. HDI is concerned that the project will impair, infringe and interfere with their rights and interests.

The City met with HDI and requested that the Community provide a list of their comments and questions about the EA so that the City could address their specific concerns. The City followed up with the community 3 separate times, requesting a list of specific questions and concerns related to the EA and the proposed project. HDI has not provided any specific information related to the EA or the project, nor have they provided further information regarding specific impacts to their rights due to the proposed project.

According to the EA submitted by the proponent, there are no archaeological resources associated with the project, and wildlife and terrestrial habitats along the shoreline are limited and disturbed in an urban setting. The construction of the project may temporarily disrupt fish habitat, but mitigation measures (i.e. offset plan, timing windows for fish, removal of entrapped fish in fill) have been proposed to address the disruption. The final EA also identifies opportunities for improvements to lake access and increased opportunities for fishing, as well as improvements to fish habitat associated with the Project.

All Indigenous community comments are summarized in detail in Table 3 of Appendix B of this review.

Updated: November 14, 2025

Published: November 14, 2025