Home > Proactive Disclosure > Audits and Evaluations > A&E Reports > 2009-2010 > Evaluation of the Enforcement Program

Evaluation of the Enforcement Program

Previous page | ToC | Next page

• 4.0 Findings
• 4.1 Relevance
• 4.2 Success
• 4.3 Cost-Effectiveness
• 4.4 Design and Delivery

4.0 Findings

In this section, the findings of the evaluation are presented by evaluation issue (relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, design and delivery) and by the related evaluation questions. An abbreviated version of the key indicators for each evaluation question is presented with the evaluation question. A full listing of all evaluation questions and indicators can be found in Annex 1. The findings at the overall issue level are presented first, followed by the findings for each evaluation question.

A rating is also provided for each evaluation question. The ratings are based on a judgment of whether the findings indicate that

• the intended outcome or goal has been achieved or met – labelled as Achieved;
• considerable progress has been made to meet the intended outcome or goal, but attention is still needed – labelled as Some Progress, Attention Needed; or
• little progress has been made to meet the intended outcome and attention is needed on a priority basis – labelled as Little Progress, Priority for Attention.

The N/A symbol identifies questions for which a rating is not applicable.

In some instances, the symbol “~” may appear before the rating. The addition of this symbol means that, although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Enforcement Program is doing well or has made progress with respect to a given evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

A summary of the ratings for each of the evaluation questions is presented in Annex 4.

4.1 Relevance

Evaluation Issue: Relevance

Does the Program remain consistent with and contribute to federal government priorities and address actual needs?

Overall findings:

Yes, available evidence shows that the Enforcement Program is aligned with federal government priorities and, through the enforcement of federal legislation and regulations, addresses the need to manage risks to the environment, wildlife and human health.

Numerous sources underline the importance of the federal government’s involvement in environmental and wildlife enforcement.

• According to documents reviewed, there is a clear, legislated mandate for federal government involvement in the enforcement of environmental and wildlife laws.  Furthermore, the enforcement of these laws is necessary for the achievement of the government’s environmental objectives.¹⁹
• The 2007 and 2008 federal budgets and the 2008 Throne Speech provide evidence that the Enforcement Program is aligned with the priorities of the government. A total of $43 million was pledged in the two budgets to directly support the Enforcement Program with the hiring of 106 additional enforcement officers and funding for better laboratory support, training, data collection, analysis and operational procedures to increase their effectiveness. The 2008 Throne Speech supports the mandate of the Enforcement Program, as it flagged then upcoming measures for tougher environmental enforcement to protect Canada’s water and land.
• The mandate of the Enforcement Program continues to be well aligned with Environment Canada’s focus, as the Department’s Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) 2007–2008 specifies that it “is the responsibility of Environment Canada’s enforcement program to enforce the laws administered by the Department” and that “Canadians have a right to expect the government to not only regulate where necessary, but also to ensure that those regulations are adhered to once put in place”.²⁰
• Furthermore, “delivering results on environmental enforcement” is listed among the top eight departmental priorities in Environment Canada’s RPP 2008–2009.

Documentation clearly demonstrates that the Enforcement Program rationale is based on actual societal and environmental needs, as it enables the management of risks to the environment, wildlife and human health through the enforcement of federal acts. Furthermore, Canadians support an active role for government in enforcing environmental laws.

• The Enforcement Program is mandated to enforce six environmental and wildlife protection acts and over 46 regulations that enable the management of risks to the environment, wildlife and human health (CEPA 1999, FA, CWA, MBCA 1994, WAPPRIITA and SARA).
• In addition to these acts and regulations, there are numerous intergovernmental agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with both domestic and international partners that acknowledge Environment Canada’s role in compliance and enforcement activities. These agreements help to clarify the division of enforcement roles and responsibilities between Environment Canada and its partners and ensure efficiency in areas of joint delivery.
• A public opinion survey conducted in 2007 found that a majority of Canadians support an active role for government in enforcing environmental laws, with 20% of respondents indicating that the government is doing the right amount in this regard and an additional 76% who believe the government is not going far enough.²¹

Top of Page

Documentation demonstrates the need for an Enforcement Program that enforces regulations in order to address societal needs to protect wildlife, the environment and the health of Canadians. The activities and outputs of the Program, as outlined in the Program’s logic model, realistically contribute to meeting these needs.

• The Program’s theory is depicted in the logic model developed as part of the Evaluation Plan²². The logic model was approved by the Evaluation Committee for purposes of this evaluation as an accurate depiction of the Program. The model logically and realistically links the Program’s activities and outputs to its intended outcomes.
• The acts administered by Environment Canada provide its enforcement officers with a range of tools for taking measures appropriate to the nature of the violation and the degree of harm to the environment. Depending on which act has been violated, these tools may include warnings, tickets, directions/directives, seizure, ministerial orders, prohibition orders (involving new substances), recall orders, detention orders (for ships), environmental protection compliance orders, and the laying of charges. The use of these tools realistically addresses the following societal needs:
  • biodiversity is conserved and protected;
  • risks to Canadians, their health and their environment posed by toxic and other harmful substances are reduced; and
  • risks to Canadians, their health and their environment from air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
  These needs represent the ultimate outcomes for the Enforcement Program, as identified in the Program logic model, and are also intermediate outcomes in Environment Canada’s 2007–2008 Results Management Structure.
• Furthermore, a research paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcementpresents three case studies that demonstrate that relying on voluntary compliance or peer inspection programs will not produce the desired results in achieving compliance among regulatees. Rather, this research found that conducting compliance promotion combined with the progressive use of stronger enforcement tools was much more successful in leading to compliance with federal environmental legislation. The paper also references a review of 19 different regulatory groups. The review found that those industrial sectors that relied solely on self-monitoring or voluntary compliance had a compliance rating of 60% versus the 94% average compliance rating for those industries that were subject to federal regulations combined with a consistent inspection program. These results further support the need for enforcement of environmental and wildlife laws and regulations.²³
• This is also consistent with public opinion research on the subject. When asked to consider which of the following three approaches would be the most effective in reducing environmental pollution from industry, a plurality of Canadians (44%) chose strict laws and heavy fines to punish polluters. Only 15% thought the best way to get industries to reduce their environmental impact is to rely on public reporting of pollution levels.²⁴

Top of Page

4.2 Success

Evaluation Issue: Success

Has the Enforcement Program achieved its intended outcomes?

Overall findings:

The Enforcement Program has made considerable progress toward its key immediate and intermediate outcomes without any major unintended outcomes. Findings are based largely on qualitative evidence, with some supporting documentation and data where applicable, due to a lack of comprehensive performance information.

Evidence collected as part of the evaluation suggests that some of the immediate and intermediate outcomes of the Program have been achieved. These outcomes include

• increased rates of success for prosecutions;
• more efficient use of resources; and
• more fair, predictable and consistent enforcement of laws and regulations.

In addition, evidence suggests that considerable progress has been made toward the other immediate and intermediate outcomes. A number of MOUs and agreements with external partners and the Program’s acknowledgement of the importance of relationships with its external partners, for example, have contributed to progress toward improved knowledge of and engagement in enforcement issues and strategies among various jurisdictions and toward better integrated strategies with other government departments, partners and stakeholders. Collaborative working relationships have also contributed to progress toward better integrated enforcement strategies with these external partners and a more efficient use of resources. There are, however, some regions within WED where certain provincial and federal partner relationships have weakened and there is an ongoing need to nurture those relationships that are currently strong and work to improve those that are not optimal.

Efforts are being made by the Program to ensure its views are included in regulatory reviews in order to improve the enforceability of regulatory instruments, although this is not always occurring. Evidence indicates that progress has been made toward more strategically targeted enforcement activities, through the use of a consultative annual planning process to identify priorities for enforcement and the use of intelligence to focus efforts on the detection of non-compliance. However, perceived weaknesses in the Program’s coordination with key internal partners—Compliance Promotion, CWS and environmental protection programs—have been limiting the success of these efforts.

Regarding Enforcement staff being more knowledgeable, more skilled and designated to perform their duties safely, evidence indicates that enforcement officers are provided with a solid base of basic skills training. However, there is an overall need for more training in specific regulations and specialized skills and WED would benefit from a formal program similar to the Basic Enforcement Training (BET) taken by EED enforcement officers. Some progress has been made toward having increased knowledge to better inform planning and decision making through the use of intelligence. At the same time, inconsistencies across regions have been identified, along with a need to develop a more strategic approach to the intelligence function in WED. Findings suggest that the use of strategic planning and intelligence has contributed to progress toward improved targeting of high-priority cases for inspections.

Although some efforts have been made to increase awareness, there continue to be gaps in understanding of the Enforcement Program within and outside the Department. More could be done to achieve improved public, regulatee, Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) and departmental awareness of the responsibilities of the Enforcement Program and benefits of enforcement. In the view of a majority of EED interviewees, the Enforcement Program has resulted in increased regulatee compliance with laws and regulations; however, reliable data on compliance rates were unavailable and WED interviewees indicated that it is difficult to know the level of compliance with wildlife regulations.

Finally, resource constraints on Enforcement’s key internal partners (i.e., Compliance Promotion, environmental protection programs and CWS) were viewed as a negative external factor, while an increased interest in environmental and wildlife enforcement was identified as a positive external factor influencing the success of the Program. Looking forward, expected increases in the number of new regulations to enforce are anticipated to pose challenges to the Program’s capacity in the future.

Top of Page

Supported by memoranda of understanding and agreements, the Enforcement Program collaborates with many other enforcement agencies and departments to deliver its mandate, thereby demonstrating progress toward the achievement of improved knowledge of and engagement in enforcement issues and strategies among various jurisdictions. While much of the available evidence suggests that many of these relationships are strong, the findings also indicated that, within some regions of WED, a few have weakened. Program management and documentation note that efforts are being undertaken to maintain the strong relationships and to rebuild those that have declined.

• Delivery of the Enforcement Branch’s mandate relies heavily on the engagement of other departments and agencies across various jurisdictions. Many MOUs and intergovernmental agreements pertaining to environmental enforcement and to wildlife enforcement exist between Environment Canada and other government departments and agencies to help define these working relationships.²⁶
• Program documents indicate that Program management places importance on engagement and collaboration with other jurisdictions. Planning documents and work plans for EED and WED regularly cite the critical role these partners play in the achievement of the Program’s objectives and include plans to continue to nurture these relationships.²⁷
• Most Program interviewees felt that progress has been made toward the achievement of this outcome. A majority of external partner interviewees also expressed the view that progress has been made, citing the existence of MOUs and agreements that the Program has with other federal departments or provincial governments and its participation in international meetings or conventions.
• The quality of WED partnerships appears to vary to some extent by region. On the one hand, WED’s Quebec Region and Atlantic Region indicated that their partner relationships with the provinces and other federal colleagues had suffered over the past few years. In contrast, representatives of WED’s Prairie and Northern Region and Pacific and Yukon Region reported that their relationships with the provinces and territories had remained strong, as had relationships with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (resulting in a number of joint investigations and referrals in 2007–2008). The Prairie and Northern Region noted, however, that their partnership with the RCMP has waned despite officers’ attempts to coordinate activities, and they expressed a need to work more on improving that relationship.²⁸
• With respect to the Enforcement Program’s success at engaging partners at the international level, respondents expressed mixed views, with some identifying this as a particular area of success and others singling this out as an area that has declined in recent years. It was noted that collaboration at the working level has declined since the creation of the Enforcement Branch, as NHQ has primarily had this contact in recent times rather than the regions. Some EED and WED regional management interviewees expressed a desire for more collaboration with their international counterparts at the working level or, at a minimum, more feedback on the results of discussions at international fora, which are typically attended by senior management from NHQ. CWS interviewees indicated that the Enforcement Program has worked well on the international front, particularly with the United States and Mexico on migratory bird issues, but felt that the Enforcement Program’s engagement of provincial and territorial governments has been a weakness, as these jurisdictions act more or less independently from one another.

Top of Page

Although Enforcement is making efforts to ensure its viewpoint is included in the development or updating of new and existing regulations, there is an ongoing need to ensure that Enforcement’s feedback is provided and addressed in order to contribute to improved enforceability of regulations.

• The Enforcement Program is actively involved in contributing to the development or updating of new and existing regulations. For example, ESD leads on the scrutiny of legal instruments for enforceability, working with subject matter experts within EED to ensure the operational viability of an instrument is addressed. Additionally, EED and ESD participate in several regulatory working groups for new and existing regulations and instruments aimed at ensuring regulations are effective.³⁰
• Another example of the Program’s influence to improve the enforceability of regulatory instruments was WED management’s participation in the development of a business case in support of Bill C-15, which amended the MBCA 1994 and CEPA 1999 to better address the issue of chronic oil pollution in the marine environment. The Bill, which was proclaimed in June of 2005, resulted in the approvals to hire additional MBCA 1994 officers in the Atlantic Region and the Pacific and Yukon Region.³¹
• An EED planning document³² identifies three operational objectives aimed at improving Enforcement’s achievement of this outcome. The objectives are to continue to i) contribute in the review of proposed new and amended regulations to ensure that they are operationally enforceable and that the expected enforcement methodology is reasonable, efficient and effective; ii) provide feedback on the practical attempts to apply, in the field, the regulations; and iii) assess the training and resource requirements to enforce/apply the new/updated regulations. As context to these objectives, the document states that the focus at that time in reviewing regulations was to ensure their legal enforceability; there has been a lack of dedicated review for operational enforceability (e.g., to determine whether the required sampling method is too onerous); and there has been no formal feedback loop to regulatory drafters/programs regarding lost prosecutions due to flaws in regulations.
• Although there are mixed views among Program representatives and internal Environment Canada partners regarding the extent of achievement of this outcome, findings suggest that some progress has been made but that there is room for  improvement by better addressing enforceability challenges in regulations as currently written and ensuring that the Enforcement Program is actively involved in regulatory development. There was a perception among some Enforcement Program interviewees that regulatory feedback provided by Enforcement is not always addressed. Some internal partner interviewees noted that there is a lack of input and participation by experienced Enforcement staff during the development and refinement of regulations.
• Findings from case studies support the view that incorporating Enforcement Program feedback could improve the enforceability of regulations. Here are a few findings:
  • The Investigation of Imported Engines case study illustrates the Enforcement Program’s efforts at improving the enforceability of regulatory instruments. While inspecting a shipment of tractors, Enforcement Program staff became aware of the difficulty of enforcing the Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations (ORCIEER) based on the wording of the regulations. Amendments have since been suggested for the regulations by Enforcement to make them easier to enforce.
  • The Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste case study illustrates some enforceability challenges in a situation where this outcome was not achieved. Respondents for this case study noted that the wording and requirements of the regulation limit its enforceability and that, in their view, this has limited the number of prosecutions under this regulation.
• National program management also identified a shortage of regulatory analysts within ESD to provide regulatory review from the perspective of enforceability.

Top of Page

The annual process to consult with partners/stakeholders in the preparation of a National Inspection Plan (NIP) is evidence of progression toward the achievement of this outcome. However, challenges with communications and coordination between the Enforcement Program and its key internal partners (Compliance Promotion, CWS and environmental protection programs), as well as a lack of performance information, result in shortcomings in the implementation of the targeting strategy and indicate that more attention is needed in this area.

• The preparation of annual national inspection plans³³ (NIPs) by both EED and WED illustrates progress toward the achievement of this immediate outcome. The NIPs identify national and regional priority regulations for inspection in an attempt to balance national consistency with regional relevance. These plans are consolidations of priorities for inspection resulting from an analysis of data and the views of Enforcement and other program staff across the Department. A consultation process takes place every year whereby the Enforcement Branch seeks input from programs before deciding on priorities. Program documentation indicates that the process for selection of priorities continues to evolve and improve.³⁴ A review of the 2007–2008 NIPs for both EED and WED reveals that the two directorates choose very different approaches for the identification of priorities. EED identifies regulations or groups of regulations as its identified national priorities, whereas WED’s priorities are a combination of species, activities and history.
• A majority of EED national management interviewees reported that this outcome had been achieved, citing the development of the National Inspection Plan and the use of intelligence. However, overall, only a minority of Environment Canada interviewees (representing both the Enforcement Program and internal partners) held this view. Many of the Environment Canada interviewees who felt this outcome had not been achieved acknowledged the annual priority-setting/planning process, but perceived that this process has been hindered by a number of communication and coordination challenges as well as a lack of performance data.³⁵
• EED regional management interviewees expressed concern over the receipt of different messages on priorities from National Headquarters versus the regions within the Environmental Protection Operations Directorate (EPOD).³⁶ In addition, some EED regional management interviewees argued that strategic targeting of enforcement activities requires a better understanding of compliance than is available with current performance data.
• In WED, generally both national and regional management interviewees felt that this outcome had not been achieved. The view was that WED needs to engage and coordinate better with CWS in the development of the National Inspection Plan (NIP) and to improve strategic targeting and performance measurement. Some WED interviewees also noted that, while the intention to target inspections is positive, the NIP is based on pollution initiatives (relevant to EED) and the fit for wildlife is not as clear. It was recognized by both WED and CWS interviewees, however, that the Enforcement Program is making progress toward improved strategic targeting of activities and coordination, although compliance promotion for wildlife regulations remains an area needing further work.
• Of those who were able to respond, internal partner interviewees expressed mixed views on the achievement of this outcome and identified a need for improved communications and coordination between themselves and the Enforcement Program generally, and in the development of the NIP more specifically. It was also noted that the Enforcement Program often has a different understanding of priorities than other departmental personnel. Both Compliance Promotion and Enforcement Program interviewees suggested a need to improve integrated planning between Compliance Promotion and Enforcement in order to improve targeting, compliance strategies and program delivery. Compliance Promotion interviewees indicated that the process is not truly a joint process.

Top of Page

While the majority of Program interviewees feel that this outcome has been achieved to some extent in terms of ensuring that enforcement officers have a good foundation of skills, gaps exist in areas such as providing formalized basic training for WED enforcement officers and addressing needs for more regulation-specific training and specialized knowledge and skills.

• ESD delivers the Basic Enforcement Training (BET) for new environmental enforcement officers. The course is continually improved and has developed from a seven-week course to a nine-week course that is currently provided through Algonquin College³⁸. WED does not have a similar formalized training program. However, Enforcement Branch representatives explained that WED often recruits experienced officers from other agencies, so their training requirements differ from those of EED, which is more likely to hire new recruits without previous law enforcement experience. In both EED and WED, personal learning plans are developed for all enforcement officers and training is tracked through the use of these plans. Enforcement officers require current legislative training, as well as mandatory training/certification and recertification for various occupational safety and health requirements, and other specific skill learning (e.g., tactical surveillance; total driving control; search and seizure; x-ray identification).
• The majority view among Enforcement Program interviewees is that this outcome has been achieved to some extent in terms of providing a good foundation of skills. Interviewees primarily cited the Basic Enforcement Training (BET) for EED and training provided by experienced enforcement officers for WED as support towards achieving this outcome. However, there was no performance information available on the level of knowledge/skills of staff who had received training to corroborate these perceptions.
• Findings from the CITES Identification Guides case study support the finding that progress has been made in improving staff knowledge and skills through means other than formal training. Most interviewees in this case study felt that the CITES guides contributed to this outcome as they provide enforcement officers with the knowledge and skills to identify species on sight and increase safety as they make enforcement officers aware of species’ attributes before handling them.
• Room for improvement in this area was also noted by interviewees. For example, although there was recognition of the work done by experienced WED officers to train their junior colleagues, WED interviewees felt they would benefit from a formal training program similar to BET to provide a consistent foundation of basic skills for all enforcement officers across the country.³⁹ Furthermore, most Environment Canada interviewees who responded to this question identified a need for more training in the enforcement of specific regulations and more specialized training in such areas as specialized skills for new regulations and advanced investigative skills. The importance of regulation-specific training is noted in WED planning documents,⁴⁰ which indicate that enforcement officers need to have current legislative training. While there is room for specialization, it is increasingly the case that officers must be adequately conversant in all four wildlife acts in order to provide a first response.
• A lack of resources in the Enforcement Services Directorate and in the programs for developing training materials was cited by representatives of environmental protection programs, ESD, and national and regional management of WED as a barrier to providing this additional training.⁴¹

Top of Page

Through the use of intelligence, some progress has been made toward the outcome of increasing knowledge to better inform planning and decision making; however, attention is also needed as there are inconsistencies across regions and an identified need to develop a more strategic approach to the intelligence function in WED. 

• The majority view of interviewees within the Program is that this outcome has been achieved to some extent due to the intelligence function. Increased capacity of the Environmental Enforcement Intelligence Program from Public Safety and Anti-Terrorism (PSAT) funding was also noted.
  • EED interviewees generally expressed the view that progress toward the achievement of this outcome had been made; however, they reported that intelligence function capacity and operation varies by region. Respondents also noted that the intelligence function does not yet have the same level of recognition as inspections and investigations.
  • WED interviewees generally felt more needed to be done in this area and that there was room for improvement. WED interviewees also indicated a need for more strategic intelligence. Technically speaking, intelligence is supposed to feed into and guide the inspections, investigations and management priority-setting functions, but this is not happening. WED planning documentation notes the fragmentation and inconsistencies in the intelligence function across the country and the need to rebuild and develop a national intelligence plan.
• Some internal partner interviewees commented on this outcome from their perspective, indicating a need for more feedback from Enforcement on the results of enforcement actions to improve their own planning and decision making. It was suggested by an interviewee that it would be beneficial to have a discussion between the Enforcement Branch, Compliance Promotion and the environmental protection programs on the purpose and potential uses of the intelligence function.

Top of Page

While the available evidence suggests that some progress has been made toward improved awareness of the responsibilities of the Enforcement Program and the benefits of enforcement within the Department, some internal partners lacked a clear understanding of Enforcement’s role and more could be done to raise awareness among the public and regulatees through increased information sharing about the Enforcement Program’s activities and successes.⁴⁴

• Departmental awareness:
  • Program interviewees generally indicated that this outcome has been achieved to a small extent, but felt there is room for improvement.⁴⁵ Departmental reorganization and the creation of a separate Enforcement Branch were perceived to have brought more visibility to the enforcement function within the Department.
  • As discussed in EQ13b (see Section 4.4), internal partners identified several areas where they lacked a clear understanding of the Enforcement Program’s role, including the division of responsibilities for compliance promotion, among others.
• PPSC awareness:
  • The majority of Program interviewees believe that PPSC awareness has been achieved to some extent through interactions with prosecutors; however, this may vary by region. During the WED interviews, the view was also expressed that the use of victim impact statements has gone a long way to helping prosecutors and the courts understand the role of the Enforcement Program and recognize the impact of violators on species or the environment.
• Public and regulatee awareness:
  • The majority of Enforcement Program and internal partner interviewees who could comment on this outcome perceived that there has not been adequate progress in this area. Interviewees noted some challenges in raising public and regulatee awareness, largely focusing on activities and outputs related to this outcome. An example of a challenge noted was a lack of press releases published on the Enforcement Program’s successes. Some examples of WED-related news releases were found as part of the document review. These news releases draw attention to the fact that Environment Canada enforces wildlife regulations and also educate the public regarding specific acts that have been violated.⁴⁶
  • A majority of respondents in the Lac St-François NWA case study felt that the investigation had resulted in improved public and regulatee awareness of the responsibilities of the Enforcement Program. It was noted that involved parties were more aware of the Enforcement Program and that the public became more aware due to the case being heavily publicized.

Top of Page

Interviewees suggest that strategic planning and the use of intelligence, as well as collaboration with external partners, have resulted in progress toward improved targeting of high-priority cases for inspections. Program data indicate that some inspections and investigations do lead to prosecutions.

• The majority of Program interviewees who responded indicated that progress had been made toward improved targeting of high-priority cases. This progress was noted to be due primarily to strategic planning and the use of intelligence to focus on detecting non-compliance. WED interviewees generally felt there had been less progress on this outcome than EED interviewees; however, they explained (as noted for EQ4e) that WED-related strategic intelligence is less developed and not equally available in all regions.
• Document review and case study findings provide examples of effective targeting of priorities through such means as the use of intelligence and collaboration with external partners (although this does not always lead to prosecutions). Here are some examples:
  • Convictions were brought against two individuals after an 18-month-long investigation involving federal wildlife officers in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, in collaboration with American officers from Florida⁴⁷.
  • In both the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes case study and the Investigation of Imported Engines case study, enforcement officers worked with the Canada Border Services Agency to target shipments that were in possible violation of environmental regulations, holding them at the border until inspections were conducted.
• According to Program data, for the period from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, a total of 237 cases proceeded to court, and 371 tickets were issued based on investigations and inspections (see Table 4). These represented a total of 1,047 counts⁴⁸ over the four-year period. The annual volume of counts declined considerably in 2006–2007 and 2007–2008, dropping by about one third from the levels in the previous two years. No explanation for the data trends was available from the Program.

Table 4: Court Prosecutions and Tickets from Investigations and Inspections⁴⁹

Top of Page

Program data show an increase in the rate of successful convictions from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008 and provide evidence toward achievement of this outcome.

• According to data provided by the Program, over the period from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, 60% of counts⁵⁰ for tickets or court prosecutions resulted in a conviction (convictions were achieved on 631 of the 1047 counts from investigations and inspections). In terms of the breakdown for court prosecutions versus tickets, approximately half (49%) of the counts from court prosecutions resulted in a conviction, whereas 78% of ticket counts resulted in conviction over the four-year period. As noted in Table 5, the rate of successful convictions generally shows an increase compared to conviction levels in 2004–2005, with total convictions per count increasing from 46% in 2004–2005 to 70% and 67% for 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 respectively.⁵¹

Top of Page

• Unfortunately, conviction data at the level of cases as opposed to counts were not available from the Program. As noted, the figures shown in Table 5 above represent the percentage of counts resulting in a conviction. Individual tickets and court prosecutions may include more than one count. On average, 2.7 counts are included per court prosecution and 1.1 counts are included per ticket. The legal process could proceed in a manner whereby there is a successful conviction on some, but not all counts associated with a case or ticket.
• While it is reasonable to expect that the Enforcement Program would have some influence over prosecutions, assessing the incremental impact of the Program on this outcome poses challenges because it has been noted that prosecutions are not entirely under the control of the Enforcement Program.
  • A few Program representatives noted that prosecutions are largely beyond the control of Enforcement and questioned if “increased” successful prosecutions is an appropriate intended outcome for the Enforcement Program.
  • This is supported by documents. For example, the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) notes that “while enforcement officers may lay charges for offences under the Act, the ultimate decision on whether to proceed with prosecution of the charges rests with the Attorney General”⁵³. The Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act also notes that approval of prosecutions resides with the Attorney General⁵⁴.

Top of Page

Environment Canada interviewees (with the exception of WED) and federal and provincial partners indicate that enforcement strategies are better integrated with other government departments, partners and stakeholders as a result of the Enforcement Program. Case studies provide supporting evidence by presenting examples where this has occurred. Some WED interviewees, however, expressed uncertainty as to whether this outcome has been achieved, with WED documentation flagging concerns regarding WED’s ability to participate with partners “in a meaningful way” and identifying the need for a new partnership strategy.

• Most Environment Canada interviewees who were able to comment on this outcome felt that the outcome has been achieved to at least some extent through the formal agreements established with other federal departments/agencies, provincial governments and international partners. This is supported by Enforcement Program documentation that describes shared responsibilities and integrated strategies to carry out the enforcement function across organizations.
• Program documents also identify involvement by the Enforcement Branch in numerous interdepartmental committees and international organizations aimed at improving integration. This involvement appears to have been beneficial as federal and provincial partners report feeling that progress has been made on this outcome as a result of direct contact or communication from the Enforcement Branch.
• A majority of WED interviewees, however, were uncertain as to whether there had been progress towards better integrated enforcement strategies, with a few reporting that the outcome was not achieved. One respondent noted that WED does not work directly with the provinces to determine mutual priorities and felt this would be a positive step. While also acknowledging many examples of positive interaction with its partners, WED documentation flags that the directorate has “not had the staff levels to actually participate in a meaningful way with provincial and other federal colleagues.” The document identifies the need for a new partnership strategy that is “based on current realities” and addresses the “significant changes to wildlife laws and the federal and provincial program capabilities in the past few years”.⁵⁵
• Interviewees also reported that these relationships extend beyond establishing MOUs and agreements. For example, WED interviewees explained that the regions often rely on the long-standing personal relationships of enforcement officers in the field with external partners in order to collaborate effectively on enforcement activities.
• Case study findings provide further support that progress has been made toward the achievement of this outcome. Here are examples:
  • The Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste case study indicated that CBSA informs the Enforcement Branch of suspicious shipments, identifies when containers it is tracking arrive, and holds containers for Enforcement Program inspectors. The Enforcement Branch meets quarterly with CBSA to review files, discuss operational issues and identify opportunities to improve practices.
  • The Investigation of Imported Engines case study noted that, as a result of a briefing provided a week previously by the Enforcement Program, CBSA contacted one of the Program’s intelligence officers to alert him to the arrival of a shipment of tractors that may not have been in compliance with the Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engine Emission Regulations (ORCIEER).

Top of Page

In the view of a majority of EED interviewees, the Enforcement Program has resulted in increased regulatee compliance with laws and regulations, while interviewees representing WED and internal partners generally indicated that it is difficult to know the level of regulatory compliance. Performance data on compliance rates to confirm these views were not available for this evaluation, due to a number of factors related to the Program’s data collection.

• Within EED, the majority of interviewees who could respond perceived that this outcome has been achieved for those regulations or sectors where the Program has systematically carried out enforcement activities.
• Program data to corroborate this view were not available during the period of the evaluation. A number of factors affected the ability of the Program to provide meaningful compliance rates:
  • The computation of precise compliance rates for particular regulations is typically not possible because the size of the regulated population is often not known.
  • Samples for inspection are strategically not randomly selected.
  • NEMISIS is not currently designed to capture complete compliance information (i.e., this database captures suspected and real incidences of non-compliance, but does not necessarily capture conformity except in cases of compliant inspections).
    
  Furthermore, even if data on compliance rates were available, it would be difficult to assess the incremental contribution of the Enforcement Program to regulatory compliance because other factors (e.g., the efforts of programs and Compliance Promotion) also influence this intermediate outcome.
• Most Wildlife Enforcement interviewees were not able to respond to the question. Some interviewees indicated that it is very difficult to measure compliance with wildlife regulations because the extent of illegal trafficking or poaching is not known. In addition, WED’s regulated communities consist largely of small businesses trading in endangered species and hunters, groups that are difficult to identify and to inspect fully and assess for compliance. A majority of internal partners also did not know whether compliance rates had increased.

Top of Page

While efficiency is not formally measured by the Enforcement Program, the Program’s use of strategic targeting to focus on detecting non-compliance and its collaboration with other partners to promote complementarity and avoid duplication indicate that this outcome has been achieved.

• No performance measures are captured that specifically address this outcome. However, due in part to operating within an environment of limited resources for most of the evaluation time frame, the Program has essentially been forced to seek ways to operate while making a more efficient use of resources.
• As noted by a majority of Program interviewees, a key contributing factor to a more efficient use of resources is the Program’s strategic targeting, which utilizes intelligence gathering and analysis to focus Enforcement’s efforts on detecting non-compliance with high-priority regulations.
• In addition, the Enforcement Program collaborates regularly with a number of enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions and with other federal departments and agencies, which further contributes to improved efficiencies. These relationships are defined within the environmental and wildlife acts, and supported by a number of agreements that serve to define roles and responsibilities and contribute to efficiency. For example, Environment Canada and the province of British Columbia share responsibilities for the enforcement of WAPPRIITA to avoid conflicting regulatory programs and a duplication of effort and to make administrative programs efficient. This agreement clearly identifies who should be the enforcement lead in various circumstances but acknowledges that both parties will perform the first response function regardless of the designated enforcement lead.

Top of Page

Available evidence suggests that the Enforcement Program has contributed to more fair, predictable and consistent enforcement of laws and regulations.

• The majority of Environment Canada interviewees able to respond indicate that this outcome has been achieved as a result of factors such as
  • the centralized Branch reporting structure, which helps to ensure consistency across regions;
  • the annual planning process, which develops national priorities, while still supporting regional differences;
  • new policies and staff training which provide enforcement officers across the country with a standard operating base;
  • due diligence in the enforcement of laws and regulations; and
  • WED’s efforts to correct discrepancies in the size of fines issued across regions.

Top of Page

No major unintended negative or positive outcomes appear to have resulted from the Program.

• No major unintended outcomes attributed to the Enforcement Program, either positive or negative, were identified by key informants or in the document review.

Top of Page

An increased interest in environmental and wildlife enforcement was identified as a positive external influence on the success of the Enforcement Program, while the limited resources in environmental protection programs and CWS to support enforcement initiatives were viewed as a negative influence on the success of the Program. Looking forward, expected increases in the number of new regulations are anticipated to challenge the Enforcement Program’s capacity in the future. In addition, many interviewees identified human resources challenges within the Enforcement Branch as an internal factor exerting a negative influence on the Program.

• Interviewees identified positive external factors that have raised the visibility and importance of enforcement activities. For example, interest from the United States in enforcement operations, greater threats to more species, and international pollution and wildlife challenges (e.g., illegal wildlife trafficking involving organized crime, the focus on climate change) have been a positive influence as they have reinforced the importance of the Program’s mandate.
• External factors that currently have or may in the future have a negative influence on the success of the Enforcement Program were also identified. For example, looking forward, interviewees both internal and external to the Program reported that the expected increase in the number of new regulatory instruments being developed (e.g., under the Chemicals Management Plan) will challenge the Program’s capacity in the future.
• The adequacy of resources within environmental protection programs and CWS to support the enforcement function was also identified as a negative external factor influencing the Enforcement Program. EED interviewees indicated that enforcement officers sometimes lack the expertise on regulations required to proceed on a case—knowledge that is supposed to be provided through training offered by internal partners. Likewise, WED interviewees identified gaps in the delivery of compliance promotion by CWS as a particular challenge. This was echoed in interviews with internal partners, who acknowledged that their ability to support enforcement activities is often constrained by their program’s own limited resources, which they understand may have negative implications for the Enforcement Program.
• Some factors internal to the Program are also perceived to have affected its success. For example, human resources challenges were cited by interviewees as having negatively influenced the Program, as they require management time and divert attention from the core work of the Enforcement Program. These include
  • grievances related to inconsistent job classifications across regions;
  • delays in reclassification of wildlife enforcement officers, and recruitment and retention challenges; and
  • the perceived low level and low pay for environmental enforcement officers, which reportedly make the recruitment and retention of qualified officers with the necessary science degrees difficult.

Top of Page

4.3 Cost-Effectiveness

Evaluation Issue: Cost-Effectiveness/Alternatives

Are the most appropriate, cost-effective and efficient means being used to achieve outcomes?

Overall findings:

The available evidence suggests that the Enforcement Program is delivered in a generally cost-effective and efficient manner. The Program has operated under resource constraints for most of the evaluation time frame and strategically targets its activities to focus efforts on the highest-priority areas.

In order to reduce duplication and support cost-effective delivery, the Enforcement Program collaborates with other federal departments as well as agencies and departments in other jurisdictions that have similar objectives and activities. Although a detailed study of the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches was not conducted for this evaluation, no evidence of more cost-effective approaches was provided by representatives of the Enforcement Program, internal partners or external partners interviewed.

Evidence suggests the Program could still benefit from some efficiency improvements. In particular, continued improvements to communications and coordination with internal and external partners may contribute to greater efficiency.

Top of Page

No evidence was found of a more cost-effective alternative approach to achieve the objectives of the Enforcement Program.

• No alternative approaches were identified that were demonstrated to be more cost-effective than Environment Canada’s Enforcement Program.

Top of Page

While several programs exist across multiple jurisdictions that share similar objectives and activities with Environment Canada’s Enforcement Program, the use of MOUs and agreements, policies, and formal and informal communications with these partners ensures that enforcement activities are delivered by the agencies in the best position to carry out the activity in their jurisdiction, and serves to reduce duplication.

• The Enforcement Program is involved in comparable activities and shares similar objectives with a number of other organizations. These include other federal departments and agencies (e.g., Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Health Canada, Transport Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, among others), as well as across jurisdictions, with provincial and territorial environmental and wildlife protection agencies, and provincial and municipal police departments. The Program also shares responsibilities with international governments and agencies, on issues such as the smuggling of endangered species and the transport of banned or hazardous materials.
• For two key pieces of legislation, (the Fisheries Act and CEPA 1999), responsibility for implementing the legislation is shared with another federal government department (DFO and Health Canada, respectively). Furthermore, Environment Canada’s statutes contain enforcement provisions authorizing the Minister of the Environment to designate qualified officials (including employees of provincial, territorial or Aboriginal governments) to enforce Environment Canada’s laws. Environment Canada’s wildlife statutes also provide the authority to delegate specific enforcement powers to another federal or provincial minister (although CEPA 1999 does not).
• In addition to MOUs and agreements that clarify responsibilities with partners and address opportunities for efficiencies in areas of joint delivery, compliance and enforcement policy documents have been prepared for CEPA 1999 and the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. In the policy documents, it is noted that the policy spells out “what is expected” of everyone sharing a responsibility for protection of the environment (in the case of the policy for CEPA 1999) and everyone sharing a responsibility for protection of fish and fish habitat (in the case of the Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act), including governments, organized labour, industry and individuals.”⁶⁰
• Formal and informal communications with these partners are also critical to ensure collaboration and avoid duplication or gaps in coverage. The importance of this communication is recognized by interviewees and acknowledged in planning documents. The degree to which existing communications are effective is addressed under EQ14 in Section 4.4.
• Joint Forces Operations (JFOs) with provincial partners and shared technology with partners (e.g., shared computer system with the Quebec government, CBSA’s single window initiative) were also identified as measures to facilitate complementarity.
• Identified gaps appear to be caused by resource shortages, as opposed to a flaw in program design. Program management has highlighted a shortage of resources for reviewing regulations and developing integrated compliance promotion plans and regulatory enforcement plans for regulations, to ensure a coordinated approach to achieving compliance. Other gaps identified by interviewees were also related to resources and included the following:
  • Migratory bird hunting and black market trade of endangered species under WAPPRIITA – WED regional management and CWS both identified insufficient compliance promotion and enforcement in this area, and provincial wildlife enforcement partners also stated that Environment Canada does not have the resources to enforce the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 without provincial assistance.
  • Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act – Compliance Promotion identified a lack of regulatory program oversight due to resource shortages.

Top of Page

While no evidence was found of a serious need to increase the Enforcement Program’s efficiency, continuing to improve coordination and integration with both internal and external partners may contribute to improvements in this area.

• As of June 2007, the Enforcement Program had 213 enforcement officers in the regions and NHQ, and 74 FTEs responsible for Program management and administration, representing approximately 74% of FTEs in field operations and 26% of FTEs dedicated to management and administrative activities.^{62, 63} In contrast, as a rough comparison, the Enforcement Branch at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has a higher proportion of FTEs in field operations (81% at DFO versus 74% at EC) and a lower proportion in management and administrative activities (19% at DFO versus 26% at EC).⁶⁴ However, these figures should be interpreted with caution as a direct comparison of the two enforcement programs cannot be made due to differences between them (e.g., DFO’s program does not have line reporting and reportedly requires less complex legislative oversight than Environment Canada’s program). Moreover, this simplified comparison considers only field enforcement officers versus staff in management/administration and is not based on a thorough work-breakdown analysis, which would take into account FTEs that may spend a portion of their time on each of the two types of activities, as this level of analysis was beyond the scope of this evaluation.
• As noted previously (see EQ8), the Enforcement Program relies heavily on its relationships with external partners. Again, while these relationships are generally a recognized strength contributing to an efficiently run program, regional and National Headquarters work plans for both EED and WED acknowledged that these relationships require ongoing effort and more could be done to further leverage efficiencies, including collaborating on training.⁶⁵ In addition, a few interviewees identified the need to continue to improve communications with and cross-designate external partners (e.g., provinces) to empower them to investigate complaints related to federal legislation in remote areas, although this would of course be dependent on whether these partners have sufficient resources to take on these responsibilities.
• Additionally, approximately half of Environment Canada interviewees who felt qualified to respond suggested that improvements in coordination and integration with internal partners would contribute to improved efficiency. Two areas in particular were noted for improvement:
  • coordination with Compliance Promotion, environmental protection programs and CWS on the annual planning/priority-setting process, where interviewees felt efficiency would be improved if internal partners were more engaged in the process and better aligned with the identified priorities; and
  • coordination and integration to deliver a more integrated approach to the compliance promotion function.

Top of Page

The majority of Program representatives and internal partners interviewed believe the Enforcement Program has provided good value for the federal investment as a result of coordinating with partners, developing strategic priorities, conducting intelligence and targeting non-compliance.

• A majority of internal partners who responded to the question felt that the Enforcement Program has provided good value for federal dollars received, but suggested that there is a need for more human resources for the Enforcement Program as well as increased resources for the programs in order to address enforcement requirements associated with increases in the volume of regulations.
• Most interviewees representing both WED and EED national management were also of the view that the Program has provided good value for money, stating that the Program manages to accomplish a great deal and fulfill its mandate with limited resources. One interviewee reported that Environment Canada’s Enforcement Program is regarded as a model by a provincial government enforcement agency, and that other agencies are impressed because the Program produces intelligence and covers so many regulations across such a large country with comparatively few staff. A provincial wildlife partner also noted that the Enforcement Program enforces the same legislation and undertakes the same activities as his organization, but recognized that Environment Canada operates with “a limited pool of officers.”
• Coordinating with partners, developing strategic priorities, conducting intelligence and targeting non-compliance were the key activities considered to contribute to cost-effective program delivery. A majority of EED national management interviewees noted that the Program’s “new” emphasis on detecting non-compliance provides improved value for Canadians and allows enterprises in compliance with regulations to operate without interruption. In its 2007–2008 Strategic Direction and Action Plan, WED also indicated that establishing national priorities is essential to “focus its limited human and financial resources.”⁶⁷

4.4 Design and Delivery

Evaluation Issue: Design and Delivery

Is the Enforcement Program designed and delivered in the best possible way?

Overall findings:

Although the Program is being delivered adequately and generally as intended, there are perceived to be a number of areas in need of improvement, including the following:

• Performance measurement: Although basic information is collected, it is inadequate for performance measurement and reporting. It is recognized that the Program is currently taking steps to address this weakness.
• Clarification of roles and responsibilities: There are two key areas where there is a lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities:
  • where the responsibilities of Compliance Promotion, environmental protection programs, the CWS and the Enforcement Program begin and end in the continuum of activities required to support regulatory compliance; and
  • the division of responsibilities within the Enforcement Program between the regions and National Headquarters, particularly regarding the intelligence function.
• Communications, information exchange and coordination between Enforcement and its key internal partners: Compliance Promotion, environmental protection programs and CWS.

Top of Page

The Enforcement Program has made some progress in identifying clear deliverables and expected results and, for the most part, the Program is being delivered as designed. There are areas where delivery is not optimal, however, primarily due to challenges with coordination and integration with key internal partners. Internal partners also expressed a need for greater information sharing and collaboration.

• National inspection plans⁶⁹ (NIPs) are prepared annually for both EED and WED. They are critical documents, as they contain a consolidation of the national and regional inspection priorities and are intended to guide the compliance verification priorities and activities for the coming year. They also include expected results as they identify the number of planned annual on-site and off-site inspections, by region. National inspection plan reports are also prepared that compare completed inspections against those planned.
• Furthermore, both EED and WED prepare work plans for NHQ and all regions, building on the NEP/NIP and identifying more specific deliverables and anticipated results. For example, they may address plans regarding coordinated enforcement policy and program activities with partners, sign-off on new/revised instruments, training sessions, intelligence efforts and communications products. The plans acknowledge national priorities while recognizing regional differences.
• Key deliverables (outputs) and expected results (outcomes) were identified in the Program logic model that was developed with representatives from the Program as part of the Evaluation Plan. Some evidence demonstrating the production of outputs was found in Enforcement Program documentation; however, the Program was only able to provide formal performance information for two output areas—completed inspection and investigation reports (i.e., closed inspections and investigations) and evidence and support for prosecution cases.
  • There were a total of 50,136 closed inspections (including both on- and off-site) and 2,782 closed investigations for the four years from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008.
  • Briefs were prepared for a total of 237 investigations, resulting in 645 counts that proceeded to court.
• Among Program interviewees, the majority view is that the Program is delivered as designed; however, areas where delivery is not optimal were identified. Program interviewees attribute delivery shortfalls to challenges in coordination with key internal partners and resource constraints during the evaluation time frame. The major activities in need of improvement identified by interviewees include
  • ensuring that there is better alignment between the priorities of key internal partners (e.g., Compliance Promotion, CWS, regional management of environmental protection programs) and Enforcement’s priorities and strategies;
  • reviewing instruments for enforceability and influencing new initiatives; and
  • developing communications products and promoting awareness of Enforcement (e.g., Program’s successes).
• In addition, in interviews with internal partners, the perception that the Program does not identify clear deliverables and expected results and the view that there is a need for greater information sharing and collaboration were expressed.
• With respect to delivery of the Environmental Enforcement Intelligence Program, EED representatives who could comment indicated that the Public Safety and Anti-Terrorism (PSAT) funding has been used as intended to enhance the Program’s intelligence capacity and to pursue the intended outcomes of the intelligence function. This is confirmed by PSAT performance reports provided by the Program.

Top of Page

Although basic information is collected by the Program (e.g., number of planned and completed inspections by priority regulation, number of counts resulting in prosecution), it is inadequate for performance monitoring and reporting.

• From the time of the Enforcement Branch’s establishment, there has been a stated acknowledgement of the desire to measure performance outcomes:
  • The regime would be risk-based and assessed regularly to ensure that laws and regulatory instruments are achieving the desired program or policy outcome, and that the rate of compliance is continually improved.⁷⁰
• Despite this recognition, a majority of Program interviewees indicated that there is a definite lack of good performance data and existing information is of only limited use to senior management. Interviewees noted that performance information is rarely requested by senior management for decision making.
• One of the key data sources for the Enforcement Program is the National Enforcement Management Information System and Intelligence System (NEMISIS). NEMISIS is a database that was initially created to support the legislated compliance activities for all enforcement- and intelligence-related activities for the six environmental protection and wildlife acts overseen by Environment Canada. It includes a number of modules that support the recording, tracking and reporting of occurrences, inspections, investigations, persons, organizations and enforcement officers. The NEMISIS database can also be queried to produce ad hoc reports, including statistical reports on enforcement activities.
• The purpose of the database is expanding from supporting enforcement officers’ operational efficiency to supporting performance reporting; however, it has not proved to be a reliable source for performance information, primarily for the following reasons:
  • despite the provision of staff training on how to use NEMISIS,⁷¹ data are not always accurate and reliable due to inconsistent data entry by officers; and
  • NEMISIS cannot provide data on true compliance rates (i.e., the percentage of the regulated population that is in compliance with a particular regulation), as described in EQ4j.
• As evidence to support the present evaluation, the Program was only able to provide formal performance data for two outputs from the logic model (i.e., completed inspection and investigation reports and evidence and support for prosecution cases) and two of the 12 outcomes (i.e., investigations leading to prosecutions and increased successful prosecutions).
• The Program has primarily been reactive to data requests, providing analysis “off the corner of the desk” when asked. Several Program representatives held the perception that compliance rates have improved over time as a result of the Enforcement Program’s efforts, but performance data on compliance rates for high-priority regulations were not available for this evaluation. There appears to be a general sense of frustration among many Program representatives because they believe the Enforcement Program has been cost-effective and quite successful at achieving its intended outcomes, yet this cannot be clearly demonstrated due to a lack of good performance data.
• The Program is currently engaged in improving its performance measurement. A project to improve the measurement of Enforcement’s results was announced by the CEO in October 2008. The Compliance Analysis and Planning (CAP) program is participating in this project, providing advice on how to improve the data quality and reliability of NEMISIS and on the development of performance indicators.

Top of Page

Documentation exists that defines accountability and outlines roles and responsibilities for the Enforcement Program. Program management felt that roles and responsibilities are for the most part clearly defined and implemented as specified but internal partners did not share this view. Two areas where both Enforcement and its internal partners highlighted a lack of clarity were the division of responsibility for compliance promotion and the division of responsibilities between National Headquarters and the regions, particularly for the intelligence function.

• The Chief Enforcement Officer (CEO) is accountable for the management, administration and operation of the Enforcement Program, and reports directly to the Deputy Minister (DM). This direct accountability was an important factor in the design of the Enforcement Program, providing a focused approach to ensure the DM will have senior management support dedicated to directing enforcement activities.
• Documentation exists that contributes to clarifying Program roles and responsibilities, including corporate documents such as the Results Management Structure, Management Accountability Framework and Report on Plans and Priorities. In addition, within the Branch, EED’s Internal Decision-making Process (IDMP) 2007 defines who has accountability, as well as who should be consulted, informed, etc., for key routine enforcement activities. Other key documents include the three compliance and enforcement policies involving i) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; ii) the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act; and iii) wildlife legislation.
• While the majority of Program interviewees indicated that roles and responsibilities are generally clearly articulated, this view is not shared by the internal partners interviewed, the majority of whom were either uncertain or felt roles and responsibilities were not clearly articulated. Two areas were highlighted by both Enforcement Program management and internal partners as areas of particular confusion or ambiguity: i) the precise division of the responsibilities among  Compliance Promotion, the environmental protection programs and the CWS, and the Enforcement Program in the continuum of activities that support regulatory compliance; and ii) the division of responsibilities between NHQ and the regions for the Enforcement Program’s three core functions of inspections, investigations and, in particular, intelligence. These two areas are discussed below.
  • The first area of perceived ambiguity pertains to where the responsibilities of Compliance Promotion, the environmental protection programs and CWS, and the Enforcement Program begin and end in the continuum of activities required to support regulatory compliance. This issue was identified by approximately half of Environment Canada interviewees (both Enforcement Program representatives and internal partners). Although compliance and enforcement policies do address this to some degree, the policy for the habitat protection and pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act is very general in terms of who conducts compliance promotion: “Accordingly, the departments will undertake public education and communication measures,”⁷² as is the policy for wildlife legislation, which states, “EC undertakes activities to educate, inform, consult with and involve the public…”⁷³ The policy for CEPA 1999 is much more specific on this issue, clearly stating that the role of enforcement officers in compliance promotion should be “…limited to providing copies of CEPA 1999, its regulations and this policy”⁷⁴; however, it does not delineate the respective responsibilities of Compliance Promotion and the programs.
  • Whether the cause is a lack of clarity in the definition of roles, or a lack of resources, there are identified gaps where compliance promotion is not occurring.⁷⁵ As well, the Enforcement Program will sometimes conduct compliance promotion if environmental protection programs or Compliance Promotion are unable to adequately educate regulatees about a regulation. Furthermore, there is a gap (possibly due to resource constraints) in that a clear compliance plan and enforcement plan do not exist for each regulation. The consequence is that the approach for compliance promotion is not as clearly articulated and strategic as it could be. Finally, interviewees noted that the structure of Compliance Promotion does not allow it to work on files jointly with the Enforcement Program, adding a further impediment to a coordinated strategy for achieving compliance.
  • Of note, working with Compliance Promotion, EED is in the process of mapping all regulations and tracking the status on the preparation of a compliance strategy and an enforcement plan to ensure available resources are targeted toward the highest-priority regulations,⁷⁶ and CWS is in the process of developing a national compliance promotion framework, with assistance from WED.
  • The second area identified as lacking clarity by interviewees from both Enforcement and internal partners was the division of responsibilities between NHQ and the regions for functional areas of the Program (intelligence, inspections and investigations), but particularly for the intelligence function. It was noted that there have been occasions where it was unclear whether regional managers should take direction primarily from the National Director or from their Regional Director. It was also noted that a document clearly specifying roles and responsibilities for the intelligence function was in progress but not yet completed at the time interviews were conducted. Furthermore, WED regional management reported that the Program has lacked a document clearly specifying WED National Headquarters roles and responsibilities for the intelligence, inspection and investigation functions; however a draft document⁷⁷ outlining these responsibilities was developed in 2008–2009.
• The majority of Environment Canada interviewees perceived that the Program’s roles and responsibilities are for the most part being implemented as specified, with the exception of challenges in the areas noted above.

Top of Page

External (federal and provincial) partners believe they have a good understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Environment Canada’s Enforcement Program. However, Enforcement feels that both its internal and external partners lack a full appreciation of the Enforcement Program’s responsibilities. Internal partners identified several areas where they lacked clarity, including responsibilities for compliance promotion, among others.

• Although a majority of federal and provincial partners interviewed believe they have a good understanding of the Program’s objectives, roles and responsibilities, the majority view among Environment Canada interviewees is that the Enforcement Program’s roles and responsibilities are not fully understood by all partners. Enforcement Program managers do, however, perceive that understanding is stronger among internal and external partners with whom EED and WED have regular interaction.
• Enforcement Program managers feel their internal partners may not fully appreciate all aspects of the Program’s work, including the importance of interacting with Enforcement to help secure compliance, and understanding that the Program has a broader focus than merely pursuing prosecutions—namely, to utilize the most effective tools to enforce regulations and ultimately protect the environment.
• Enforcement Program managers also feel their external partners may not fully understand their respective responsibilities in the joint handling of cases, partially because some agreements are not clear enough.
• Internal partners also identified areas that they do not fully understand, including
  • who is ultimately accountable for achieving the results of regulations: the CEO or the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environmental Stewardship Branch;
  • how the Enforcement Program arrives at its priorities; and
  • what information the Enforcement Program can and cannot share with partners and why.

Top of Page

There is some evidence of positive examples of Program communications, such as participation in working groups and informal communications; however, several challenges and gaps related to communications were identified, particularly regarding communications with internal partners. A need to implement more formal communication mechanisms was highlighted by Program, internal partner and external partner/stakeholder interviewees.

Communications and information exchange with internal partners:

• In preparation for development of the NIP/NEP, the Enforcement Program holds an annual consultation process with its internal partners, seeking their input and views on the establishment of priorities. As noted previously, this process continues to evolve annually. The Quality Management System (QMS) also facilitates information exchange. as it specifies that Enforcement must be consulted as part of regulatory development. Additionally, Enforcement participates in working groups and, more generally, in meetings and committees. Examples of working groups in which Enforcement has been involved are noted in internal Program documentation.
• EED National Management interviewees felt the consultation process and participation in working groups, meetings and committees were examples of effective communication mechanisms, although overall most of these interviewees felt that communication processes are only somewhat effective and there is room for improvement. Both EED national and regional management acknowledged that Enforcement cannot always provide programs with the information they need, due to capacity constraints. In addition, EED regional management indicated that its feedback on regulations being developed is not always taken into account by programs. An additional challenge noted by EED national management was that the CEO was not a member of the EP Board and ES Board (for the time frame of the evaluation), and this was perceived as limiting communications and information exchange at the senior management level.
• Informal communications also occur and interviewees from both the Enforcement Program and partners noted the existence of many strong interpersonal relationships, particularly at the regional level. Both EED regional management and WED interviewees noted that information exchange with internal partners relies heavily on informal communications, and there was an overall acknowledgement of a need for more regular, formalized interactions. EED felt that its communications with Compliance Promotion and the programs at the regional level, which are mostly informal, have been generally effective, while WED interviewees noted that, although formal mechanisms for information exchange vary from region to region, existing mechanisms have generally been inadequate. EED regional management interviewees also cited a need for more formalized, structured (and generally improved) communications between Enforcement and i) the Environmental Emergencies Program and ii) Compliance Promotion. A need to improve communications between EPOD and EED was also noted in internal Program documentation.
• Most internal partner interviewees indicated that communication mechanisms with Enforcement are ineffective and generally indicated that they do not receive adequate information from Enforcement, noting in particular a lack of feedback on the results of enforcement actions. There was a frequently noted perception among internal partners that the Enforcement Branch is protective of its information and reluctant to share results. Internal partners also noted that the coordination with Compliance Promotion for strategic planning and priority setting is not effective and they do not feel adequately engaged with Enforcement in the setting of priorities. Other examples of challenges noted included that capacity constraints can play a role in limiting the extent of communication between Compliance Promotion and Enforcement and that some informal communications/networks had been lost when the Enforcement Branch was created.

Top of Page

Communications and information exchange with external partners/stakeholders:

• Program interviewees generally indicated that communications and information exchange with external partners/stakeholders are at least somewhat effective.
  • Examples of areas in which it was felt that communication has been effective were provided by EED interviewees and included communications between federal and provincial partners through Joint Forces Operations (JFOs), informal communications between enforcement officers and their counterparts in other organizations, the single-window approach agreement with the Quebec provincial government, and communication occurring between NHQ and international partners. Some challenges noted by interviewees included a need for resources/capacity to be able to communicate fully with all external partners and the lack of a forum where the Enforcement Program can share lessons with other enforcement professionals.
  • WED national management interviewees had mixed views regarding the effectiveness of communications with external partners. Communication was reported to be stronger in the field than at NHQ, as field officers in the regions are in touch frequently with external partners and work jointly on projects. It was noted that, in the regions, existing mechanisms for information exchange are adequate for the operations side but not for the strategy side (e.g., there is a lack of mechanisms for discussion with provincial partners regarding what to target together). A lack of existing mechanisms to link with external partners at NHQ was also indicated.
  • WED regional management interviewees observed that external communications are informal and the effectiveness of these communications can vary depending on the individuals involved. It was suggested that additional MOUs with external partners are needed that allow the exchange of information, in conjunction with training to educate officers on what information can be exchanged.
• Many external partner interviewees indicated that communications with the Enforcement Program have been good, with most of the communication occurring informally and relying on strong personal relationships. Some interviewees expressed the desire to formalize some communications.
  • More formalized communication at the local or regional level, and increased communication of information about the Program were examples of suggestions provided by federal partner interviewees.
  • Development of additional MOUs and national information-sharing systems (e.g., a national registry of permit suspensions) were examples of suggestions made by provincial partner interviewees.
• Case study findings also highlight examples of good communications with an external partner.
  • The Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste case study, for example, describes a positive environment for the generation and sharing of information relating to hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials. Enforcement officers work closely with Compliance Promotion and the programs as well as with the Program’s external partner CBSA.  A national working group for hazardous waste⁷⁸ develops work plans and discusses issues and emerging trends from a national perspective.
  • Good communications with an external partner were also noted in the Investigation of Imported Engines and the CITES Identification Guides case studies.
• The lack of finalized Program strategy documents in a standard format may impede Enforcement’s communications with partners. The document review identified a range of different strategy documents that could be used to communicate Enforcement’s direction both within the Program and, as appropriate, with key internal or external partners. The review found, however, no evidence of a governance process for finalization and distribution of documents and it was frequently difficult to determine whether a document had been finalized, as many were labelled “Version 2”, “Draft”, or were presented in track changes mode. Moreover, there was little consistency between EED and WED in the existence or structure of these documents.

Top of Page

This evaluation identifies several best practices and lessons learned from the Enforcement Program.

• Several strengths and best practices of the Enforcement Program have been identified in this evaluation.
  • Program representatives feel that the Enforcement Branch’s adoption of a line reporting structure with the CEO at the head and answering directly to the Deputy Minister has provided clearer channels of accountability and national consistency in enforcement activities.
  • Expertise, breadth of knowledge and professionalism of staff were viewed as strengths of the Enforcement Program. Program interviewees at all levels noted the dedication and motivation of regional officers, who often put in long hours and sometimes put their lives on the line to enforce wildlife legislation.
  • The concept of conducting an annual planning/priority-setting process that engages partners through consultation was noted as a strength and was identified as “the right thing to do”; however, perceived shortcomings with the coordination and information exchange for this process resulted in the strategic planning exercise being noted more frequently as a weakness or lesson learned (see below).
  • The strong working relationships with federal and provincial partners in the delivery of enforcement were viewed by Program interviewees as a strength that increases the Program’s efficiency and effectiveness (see EQ4a, EQ8).
  • Training for new recruits and providing training for internal partners were seen as best practices by some Program interviewees. In particular, the Basic Enforcement Training (BET) program was viewed as providing a solid foundation for new officers within EED. Also, CWS interviewees noted that WED has good training modules on the definitions of laws and regulations that it has shared, and it has also conducted training sessions at times for CWS.
  • Participation of the Enforcement Program in a variety of regulatory working groups (e.g., Chemicals, Fuels, and Hazardous Waste) provides opportunities for the Program to reinforce the message that Enforcement needs to be consulted as part of regulatory development.
• On the other hand, some challenges, limitations and areas for Program improvement have also been identified.
  • Program interviewees, as well as internal partners, reported that the lack of useful performance measurement and reporting is an impediment to the Program, both in terms of supporting decision making and in measuring the Program’s success.
  • As previously noted, interviewees indicated that there are ongoing challenges with the Program’s information exchange and coordination with partners, including a need for improved coordination for Enforcement’s priority-setting process, both between NHQ and the regions and with internal partners.
  • The participation of the CEO on Environment Canada’s boards was viewed as imperative for establishing two-way communications between Enforcement and the rest of the Department, as well as for keeping Enforcement informed of other activities within the Department.
  • There is a need to better communicate the Program’s successes in order to raise awareness of the Enforcement Branch’s mandate and serve as a form of compliance promotion by making regulatees and the public more aware of regulations and the consequences of non-compliance.
  • There is a lack of clarity/understanding of Enforcement’s role in the continuum of activities required to support and achieve regulatory compliance. Senior management interviewees suggested that there is a disconnect between Enforcement’s perception of its role and that of the other partners involved in this continuum of activities to achieve compliance (i.e., environmental protection programs/CWS and Compliance Promotion).
  • Interviews with Program representatives indicate that housing compliance promotion within CWS has not been a successful approach to date and some feel this function should be carried out within Wildlife Enforcement. Enforcement requires an aggressive awareness plan to promote compliance within the regulated community but, in the view of Program interviewees, there has been insufficient compliance promotion by CWS. A loss of resources over the last two to three years for compliance promotion and confusion over where responsibilities lie are perceived to have impeded enforcement activities. CWS interviewees explained that their lack of capacity affects how quickly they can respond to Enforcement’s requests.
  • A shortage of regulation-specific training and specialized skills training for staff has also been identified (see EQ4d).
  • Staffing resource shortfalls are viewed as a challenge overall. For example, EED interviewees noted that recruiting and retaining qualified staff and managers is sometimes difficult because pay-scales for provincial enforcement officers tend to be higher. Other human resources challenges for the Branch vary by region.

Top of Page

The creation of a separate Enforcement Branch with clear lines of authority under the direction of the Chief Enforcement Officer and a centralized reporting structure is generally viewed as an effective and efficient structure for the Enforcement Branch, as is the placement of WED and EED within the same organization. Areas for improvement are primarily related to a need to address the Branch’s resource challenges, improve its coordination and collaboration with internal partners, and ensure that Enforcement’s governance and roles and responsibilities are fully understood.

• A majority of Program interviewees agree that the governance of the Program is now more effective and has a number of benefits compared to the time frame prior to the creation of the Enforcement Branch in June 2005.
  • Clear lines of authority in the line reporting structure, leading from Program staff to regional directors to the national directors and then the CEO who reports directly to the Deputy Minister, have improved efficiency and effectiveness. If a sensitive issue arises that requires a timely response, this line reporting structure allows the National Director to advise the CEO, who can in turn advise the Deputy Minister very quickly.
  • As well, this new governance structure allows for a more efficient, streamlined decision-making process that remains internal to the Enforcement Branch.
  • The centralized reporting structure whereby regional directors report to a national director has improved national consistency in actions and priorities for the Enforcement Branch. The CEO, with the national directors, establishes the Program’s national priorities. Previously, the regions set their own priorities but now they follow those set out under the direction of their national directors and report regularly to National Headquarters (while still allowing flexibility for regional differences, through the addition of some region-specific priorities).
  • Separation of the Enforcement Branch from the environmental protection programs and the CWS provides an arms-length perspective for the objective enforcement of regulations, avoiding the potential for conflict of interest.
• Some areas for improvement to address perceived weaknesses with governance were noted by interviewees. Examples of suggestions from interviewees include
  • ensuring that there is some built-in regional flexibility for Program delivery, given the diverse characteristics of regions;
  • considering merging Compliance Promotion with Enforcement to improve collaboration between the two groups;
  • addressing a need for finalized, written policy documents to clarify the operations of the Branch (e.g., to clarify the responsibilities and relationship between national managers and the regional managers of Intelligence, Inspections and Investigations); and
  • addressing the perceived need for more information to be sent down the chain of command (in addition to information that is already being sent up the chain).
• Examples of benefits to having Environmental Enforcement and Wildlife Enforcement in the same organization noted by Program interviewees include
  • synergies achieved in enforcement activities (e.g., WED and EED working together on regulations on migratory birds and their ecosystems, and sharing lessons learned at regional and national meetings);
  • synergies in management (e.g., joint financial planning and operations to maximize efficiencies); and
  • potential for greater synergies/efficiencies in the future (e.g., co-location and/or cross-designation of officers where this makes sense).
• Some challenges related to having Environmental Enforcement and Wildlife Enforcement in the same organization were also identified by Program interviewees:
  • There have been different HR classification codes for EED and WED.
  • Given that WED and EED are enforcing different legislation and regulations, it is not necessarily appropriate that they be organized in exactly the same way.
• Some Environment Canada interviewees felt the placement of Enforcement under the Departmental Management Services Board (DMS Board) within Environment Canada’s Results Management Structure for the time frame under evaluation was appropriate (if not ideal) because it kept Enforcement separate from environmental protection programs/CWS and allowed the CEO to report directly to the Deputy Minister rather than to Assistant Deputy Ministers. Other Environment Canada interviewees, however, argued that this was inappropriate because Enforcement is different from other management services under the DMS Board. Enforcement and the CEO were excluded from discussions of environmental protection and wildlife/habitat protection at the EP Board and ES Board, and Enforcement’s operational alignment with the EP Board and ES Board needed to be strengthened.

Top of Page

Evaluation findings indicate that the Enforcement Program did not have adequate capacity during the four-year time frame of the evaluation to meet its responsibilities fully. However, additional resources approved in 2007 and 2008, to be allocated over five years, are currently being used by the Program to address some of its capacity challenges.

• Environment Canada’s Enforcement Program operated with approximately 215 enforcement officers for the period from its creation until 2007. According to program documents, the departmental resource allocation exercise reduced the salary allocation of the Enforcement Branch by $2M to $18.6M in 2006–2007, resulting in significant challenges in program delivery. This was subsequently increased to $19.56M in 2007–2008 but this increase in salary dollars was sufficient to cover only the existing Program staff at the time. Additional resources were approved in mid-2007 to increase the number of officers by 50%, to 321.5, as first announced in the 2007 Budget. This is supported by Program documents that describe the allocation of $67M in funding for the five years from 2007–2008 to 2011–2012. The implementation plan involves the hiring of a total of 106 new enforcement officers over 2007–2008 and 2008–2009: 68 officers (64%) for the Environmental Enforcement Program and 38 officers (36%) for the Wildlife Enforcement Program. These resources, however, do not address the increased enforcement required to meet the needs of specific programs or regulations such as the Chemicals Management Plan, the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda, or accelerated species recovery plans under the Species at Risk Act for Environment Canada.
• As noted in the Program’s Integrated Business and Human Resources Plan for the 2007–2008 fiscal year, a 1999 internal analysis recommended an increase to 357 enforcement officers to effectively deliver Environment Canada’s mandate. The analysis also noted that, at that time, there were 20 regulations under CEPA. There are now well over 40 regulations under CEPA 1999 alone, and the regulatory burden on the Enforcement Program continues to expand. The Plan also makes a “cursory comparison” with other enforcement agencies, noting that the Province of Ontario, which was criticized by the provincial Environment Commissioner for lack of capacity to enforce, has approximately 694 enforcement officers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has over 600 fishery officers dedicated to enforcement.⁷⁹
• Interviewees from within the Enforcement Program and internal partners perceived that there has been a shortage of inspectors and intelligence staff in the regions. Interviewees felt that the additional resources received to hire 106 new enforcement officers starting in 2007–2008 will help to strengthen the Enforcement function for the Department.
• Although interviewees from WED regional management were glad to be receiving new resources, they felt that the 38 new officers that WED will receive would “barely scratch the surface” in terms of addressing the number of officers required to provide adequate coverage in a country the size of Canada. Further to this, a 2008 WED planning document identifies how the 38 new resources will be put to use for greatest impact, but identifies an “optimal investment strategy” that requires an additional 80 WED enforcement officers (118 new officers in total) and 36 additional administrative, policy or technical area specialists. The document referenced a number of gaps in delivery:
  • WED is understaffed for inspections in relation to MBCA 1994, SARA and WAPPRIITA;
  • WED lacks capacity for investigations and, therefore, the Department is unable to respond to requests for assistance from partner agencies;
  • intelligence efforts across the country are inconsistent;
  • there is a need for ongoing, nationally consistent training, including training partner agencies in WED legislation;
  • there is a need for clear policies, procedures, guidelines and manuals for inspectors and investigators and for the negotiation of effective partnerships;
  • there is a need for compliance promotion to make the regulated community aware of the consequences of non-compliance;
  • liaison with partners has declined;
  • more research is needed;
  • there is no Enforcement Program representation at negotiations for Aboriginal participation in wildlife management and enforcement;
  • targeted communications for different audiences are needed;
  • coordination and joint operations are needed to curb illegal international trade; and
  • program development, including consistent business planning and reporting, is needed.⁸⁰
  The majority of these gaps are consistent with areas of weakness identified in this evaluation.
• On a related point, interviewees noted that Compliance Promotion and the programs lack the capacity to fully meet Enforcement’s needs. Enforcement Program interviewees indicated that Enforcement needs more support from internal partners in undertaking compliance promotion as well as providing expertise and training in specific regulations. In addition, resources will be stretched again with the anticipated introduction of new regulations. Internal partners corroborated this view, also reporting that they lacked the capacity to fully support Enforcement’s needs.

Top of Page

¹⁹ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA,1999) March 2001; Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act, November 2001; Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation (no date given).

²⁰ Environment Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2007–2008. p. 89–90.

²¹ Ipsos-Reid, Environment Canada Corporate Communications Survey, 2007.

²² Enforcement Program Logic Model, May 30, 2008 (see also Section 2.6 of this report). This logic model is currently being refined by the Enforcement Branch.

²³ Enforcement Versus Voluntary Compliance: An Examination of the Strategic Enforcement Initiatives Implemented by the Pacific and Yukon Regional Office of Environment Canada 1983 to 1998. Research Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, Peter K. Krahn, P. Eng., Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, March 9, 1998.

²⁴ Focus Canada, 2007-1.

²⁵ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

²⁶ Environmental Agreements Chart, May 2006; Wildlife Agreements Chart, May 2006; Environmental Protection Enforcement Agreements (date unclear).

²⁷ For example, the Wildlife Enforcement Division, Strategic Direction and Action Plan, March 31, 2007, and the EED Northern District Action Plan 2007–2008, April 2007.

²⁸ WED Summary Work Plan, Prairie and Northern Region, 2007–2008, p. 5.

²⁹ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

³⁰ EED Working Groups and Committees – August 2007.

³¹ Wildlife Enforcement Division – Atlantic, 2005 Summary Report, p. 3.

³² Environmental Enforcement Operational Planning Framework, Draft, May 9, 2007, p. 6.

³³ Beginning in 2008–2009, the Environmental Enforcement Directorate (EED) renamed its National Inspection Plan as the National Enforcement Plan (NEP), reflecting the addition of priorities and planning for investigation and intelligence.

³⁴ Environmental Enforcement Directorate, National Inspection Plan 2007–2008. As of 2008–2009, EED and Compliance Promotion have collaborated to streamline the Enforcement Program’s priorities submission process. The approach was further improved for the 2009–2010 fiscal year by holding senior-management-level meetings early in the process to coordinate program priorities.

³⁵ Communication and coordination challenges are discussed in detail in the findings for EQ13 and EQ14 and information on challenges related to performance data is provided in the findings for EQ12 (see Section 4.4).

³⁶ The mining sector was cited by interviewees as an example where mixed messages were received by the Enforcement Program.

³⁷ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

³⁸ For the Basic Enforcement Training (BET) course, Algonquin College has provided the components on peace officer law enforcement while senior environmental enforcement officers have delivered the enforcement components, which represent more than half of the course.

³⁹ While Wildlife Enforcement officers did not receive a standardized basic training course during the time frame of this evaluation, the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate recently created and launched Standardized Wildlife Enforcement Officer Training (SWEOT) as a prototype in January 2009.

⁴⁰ Wildlife Enforcement Division, Strategic Direction and Action Plan, March 31, 2007, p.6.

⁴¹ Training has been identified as an area of focus for the incremental funding announced in 2008.

⁴² Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁴³ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁴⁴ As discussed in Section 3.3, evidence for this evaluation relied heavily on qualitative data. It was beyond the scope of the evaluation to collect primary data for specific indicators related to awareness (e.g., overall departmental awareness, PPSC awareness and public awareness). Findings for this immediate outcome are therefore largely based on views and perceptions expressed in interviews, group discussions and case studies.

⁴⁵ While the impact on awareness has not been measured, improvements to the Enforcement Program’s website starting in 2008–2009, as well as an increase in Enforcement-Branch-related articles in the Department’s News@EC Bulletin, may be having a positive impact on the Branch’s visibility within the Department.

⁴⁶ For example, news releases that provided information regarding the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) were reviewed.

⁴⁷ Environment Canada News Release, Two People Convicted and Fined for Their Role in a Major International Endangered Species Smuggling Ring, November 8, 2007.

⁴⁸ A count represents each separate charge or allegation of guilt in a criminal action or each separate cause of action in a complaint.

⁴⁹ Data provided by the Enforcement Program on June 15, 2009. Values indicate the number of sections of an act or regulation for which that response was given by an officer.

⁵⁰ A “count” represents each separate charge or allegation of guilt in a criminal action or each separate cause of action in a complaint.

⁵¹ Data on conviction rates for 2008–2009 do not present a meaningful picture of final conviction rates as many cases are still ongoing and final conviction rates are not yet reflected in the numbers. Court processes usually take a year to a year and a half for simple charges (tickets, summary prosecutions) and two to four years for more serious charges (indictments).

⁵² Data provided by Enforcement Program on June 15, 2009. Convictions are the number of counts for which a conviction was obtained.

⁵³ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999), March 2001, p. 12.

⁵⁴ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act, November 2001.

⁵⁵ 2007–2008 Summary Work Plan: Wildlife Enforcement Division – Headquarters, p. 10.

⁵⁶ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, particularly relating to compliance with regulations enforced by the Environmental Enforcement Directorate, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁵⁷ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program is doing well with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁵⁸ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program is doing well with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁵⁹ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program is doing well with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of the Enforcement Program as compared to that for alternative programs/delivery models.

⁶⁰ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999), March 2001, p. 3; Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act, November 2001.

⁶¹ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program is doing well with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁶² Integrated Business and Human Resources Plan for the 2007–2008 fiscal year, June 2007, p. 5–6.

⁶³ Examples of management and administrative activities include enforcement officer training, development of standard operating policies and procedures, communication coordination, planning, organizational health and safety, and horizontal policy coordination.

⁶⁴ Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Enforcement Branch, June 26, 2009. DFO’s Enforcement Branch has a total of 744 FTEs, 600 of whom are fisheries officers in the field. An additional 50 FTEs are designated as fishery officers, but perform desk jobs.

⁶⁵ EED Northern District Action Plan 2007–08, April 2007, p. 1.; WED 2007–2008 Summary Work Plan, Prairie and Northern Region, March 2007, p. 5.; WED 2007–2008 Summary Work Plan, Headquarters, p. 10.

⁶⁶ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program is doing well with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁶⁷ Wildlife Enforcement Division, Strategic Direction and Action Plan, March 31, 2007, p. 2.

⁶⁸ Although there is compelling subjective evidence that the Program has made progress with respect to this evaluation question, a complete assessment cannot be done due to lack of performance data.

⁶⁹ Beginning in 2008–2009, EED changed the name of its National Inspection Plan to the National Enforcement Plan (NEP), reflecting the addition of priorities and planning for investigations and intelligence.

⁷⁰ Outcome Project Plan Template, Environmental Protection Enforcement Program (3A3h), September 19, 2005, p.16.

⁷¹ Welcome to the Training for NEMISIS, Release 4.5 (officer training deck); NEMISIS Release 4.5 Workbook and Training Exercises, January 2005.

⁷² Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions of the Fisheries Act, p. 12.

⁷³ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation.

⁷⁴ Compliance and Enforcement Policy for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999), March 2001, p.13.

⁷⁵ Lac St-Francois NWA case study; Investigation of Imported Engines case study.

⁷⁶ Environmental Enforcement Directorate – Regulations Process and Approval Flowchart, Draft, June 2008.

⁷⁷ Wildlife Enforcement Directorate – HQ, List of Tasks - Responsibilities, Draft, July 23, 2008.

⁷⁸ The national working group for hazardous waste includes Enforcement and Compliance Promotion representation from each region as well as National Headquarters.

⁷⁹ Integrated Business and Human Resources Plan for FY2007–2008, June 2007, p. 5–6.

⁸⁰ Wildlife Enforcement Division, 2008 National Business Plan and Investment Strategy, V2, May 2008, p. 42–55.

Previous page | ToC | Next page