Evaluation of Environment Canada’s Aboriginal Consultations on Wastewater

Section 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section of the report presents the compendium of observations that could be drawn from the findings. These are then developed into a set of conclusions which in turn lead to a set of recommendations.

5.1 OBSERVATIONS

5.1.1 ISSUE #1 [IMPLEMENTATION]

Was the consultation process delivered as planned?

The observations for this issue (repeated from the previous section) are:

The shared awareness and desire to address wastewater effluents and clean water issues provides a mutually agreed objective around which future discussions could be held.
The lack of an established definition on consultations is and will likely be a continuing impediment to the eventual implementation of a process that is acceptable to both EC and Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples.
EC is bound by Federal Government policy that states that they must conduct consultations on all proposed regulations.
A consultation plan was submitted to and approved by EC management
EC succeeded in delivering its planned consultations to between 25% and 30% of First Nations communities and 4% of Inuit communities.
A mutually agreed upon definition for consultations or the use of a term other than consultations would most likely be required to resolve the current impasse before the process can continue forward in a significant manner.
First Nations are concerned about how EC’s consultations could be used as a precedent by the Federal Government during future treaty and land claim negotiations as well as court cases.
Aboriginal organizations and community representatives attended the EC led consultations but refused to accept that the EC led sessions constituted consultations.

It is demonstrated that:

DELIVERY: The EC led consultations on the proposed wastewater regulations were delivered as planned. EC was successful in undertaking discussions and receiving feedback from between 25% to 30% of the First Nations and 5% of Inuit communities in Canada. EC received a wide range of technical and socio-economic feedback that will be useful in the preparation of wastewater regulations.
CONTENT: The consultations demonstrated that the majority of the Aboriginal participants supported the overall objective that wastewater regulations (in a form yet to be agreed to) for the management wastewater effluents is important and action (in a manner yet to be agreed to) must be undertaken to protect the environment and improve the quality of drinking water.
DEFINING “CONSULTATION”: Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples and EC do not share a common understanding of what constitutes consultations.
IMPEDIMENT TO FUTURE CONSULTATIONS: EC and Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples will have to resolve their current impasse on what would be the appropriate consultations and/or dialogue process that would allow them to advance the proposed wastewater regulatory process.

5.1.2 ISSUE #2 [RESULTS]

Did the consultations achieve their intended results?

The observations for this issue are:

The workshops resulted in a significant increase in knowledge.
EC did not establish a performance measurement strategy or success targets for Aboriginal participation levels.
The workshop process is a good format for sharing information with Aboriginal participants.

It is demonstrated that:

KNOWLEDGE: The Aboriginal participants have an increased awareness and knowledge and appreciation of the proposed wastewater regulations;
AWARENESS: EC has an increased awareness and knowledge of Aboriginal concerns and expectations;
PROCESS: The workshop process worked well but should have been two days long to allow for more discussion of the proposed regulations; and
DEFINING “CONSULTATIONS”: The Aboriginal organizations and participants do not agree that the EC led sessions were consultations.

5.1.3 ISSUE #3 [COST EFFECTIVENESS]

Were the consultations with Aboriginal partners and stakeholders cost effective?

The observations for this issue are:

While the consultations were cost effective, savings may have been incurred if fewer sessions were held with larger groups.
Cost effectiveness in obtaining Aboriginal support, expressed as a return on EC’s investment, may be calculable after the completion of the next phase of the EC led consultations.

It is demonstrated that:

COST EFFECTIVENESS: EC was cost effective in delivering the consultations. Some additional saving may be possible by having fewer sessions and inviting larger audiences/participants.

5.1.4 ISSUE #4 [RELEVANCE]

Was the consultation conducted in a manner consistent with federal priorities and needs?

The observations for this issue are:

The distinction must be maintained that while EC did meet TB’s 2007 Guidelines, they did not meet the Aboriginal organizations and participants’ expectations with respect to consultations, and therefore did not attain their overall objective of obtaining Aboriginal agreement and participation.
Aboriginal organizations and participants did not agree that EC held consultations and may not agree to participate in near future consultations if EC continues to call the sessions consultations.

It is demonstrated that:

For Environment Canada, the consultations met federal priorities and needs; and
The consultations did not meet the needs of the Aboriginal community being contacted.

5.1.5 ISSUE #5: [OTHER ISSUES]

The observation for this issue is that EC should undertake the steps required to ensure the evaluation of the entire consultative process.

It is demonstrated that Environment Canada has not met all of the evaluation requirements specified in the 2007 TB Guidelines.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion #1: The primary and most pressing question, which is repeated several times during the conduct of this evaluation, is the need to define what a “consultation” is. Environment Canada did meet its obligation to consult based upon the Federal Government’s definition of consultation. The Aboriginal participants to the consultations, including their representative organizations, the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, disagree with Environment Canada and state that Environment Canada’s process of dialogue with them was not consultations. This has resulted in a situation that must be addressed.

Central to the disagreement is the word consultations. Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples employ the term consultations in a very different manner than does the Federal Government. If Environment Canada had employed a term such as public dialogue rather than insisting on using the term consultations, many if not most of the problems would not have occurred.

Recommendation #1a: Before continuing its consultations with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, Environment Canada needs to request that Treasury Board modify its 2007 Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations by replacing the term consultations with a term that is mutually acceptable to the federal government and Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples.

Recommendation #1b: Follow the Assembly of First Nations’ suggestion that Environment Canada sit down with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, before continuing with its consultations plan, and identify a mutually agreeable process to engage in consultations (dialogue) on the development of regulations for wastewater effluent management on Aboriginal lands.

Recommendation #1c: To support Recommendation #1b, Environment Canada needs to establish a team that includes members who are aware of Aboriginal priorities and issues as well as being culturally sensitive. This team should meet with the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to establish protocols for continued dialogue between Environment Canada and Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples.

Conclusion #2: Environment Canada and the Aboriginal participants were successful in terms of delivering and sharing information and knowledge. The knowledge, content and delivery of information during the sessions did positively meet many of the expectations of the Aboriginal participants, and the Session and National Reports accurately captured the essential messages. The need for action in wastewater effluent management is not contested and those opinions have been validated by 40% of the national target audience. However, some future improvements can be considered for the “next round of discussions”.

Recommendation #2a: For future “consultation” processes, Environment Canada should incorporate the use of an "Advisor" to enhance and improve the dialogue process. As well, EC should undertake process adjustments for future dialogue with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples: two day versus one day workshop; incorporate break-out sessions; consider using fewer locations for dialogue; all of which may increase interest and participation as well as improving the cost-effectiveness equation.

Conclusion #3: Treasury Board’s 2007 Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations, which was issued after Environment Canada undertook this evaluation, contains evaluation requirements not addressed by this evaluation.

Recommendation #3: Environment Canada should undertake the evaluation of the remainder of its planned wastewater dialogue with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples to meet the requirements of Treasury Board’s 2007 Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations.

Observation: Environment Canada may want to examine the evaluation requirements specified within Treasury Board’s 2007 Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations on all of the public consultations it is conducting, and not only those with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples.

| TOC | Previous | Next |