This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Skip booklet index and go to page content

Evaluation of Freshwater Programs under the Action Plan for Clean Water

Executive Summary

Background

This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Freshwater Programs under the Action Plan for Clean Water. The evaluation is part of Environment Canada’s (EC's) Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan for 2010–2011 approved by the Departmental Evaluation Committee on April 1, 2010. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (TBS) 2009 Evaluation Policy.

Under the Action Plan for Clean Water (2007–2008), the federal government committed over $96.9 million over 8 years to act on water pollution issues in Canadian freshwater systems in the Great Lakes, Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg basins. Managed by Environment Canada, the primary goal of the Freshwater Programs is to improve water quality in three freshwater ecosystems by removing or containing harmful pollutants in priority areas of the Great Lakes and reducing excess nutrients in the Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe basins.

The Freshwater Programs consist of three components: the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative (LWBI), the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund (LSCUF) and the Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Projects (GLSRP).

Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative

Environment Canada committed $17.7 million over 4 years toward cleaning up Canada’s sixth largest freshwater body--Lake Winnipeg--through the LWBI (2008–2009 to 2011–2012). Lake Winnipeg is fed by a vast basin covering  960,0002 extending over 4 provinces and 4 states. The problems facing the lake are the result of excessive phosphorous and nitrogen from farms and municipal wastewater, more than half of which originate outside Manitoba’s borders. The LWBI has 5 goals:

  1. reduce blue-green algae blooms;
  2. ensure fewer beach closings;
  3. keep in place a sustainable fishery;
  4. provide a clean lake for recreation; and
  5. restore the ecological integrity of the lake.

This initiative focuses on cleaning up the Lake Winnipeg Basin through 3 types of activities: scientific research ($12.1 million); community stewardship funding ($3.7 million); and collaboration on watershed governance ($1.9 million).

Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund

Under the Freshwater Programs, $27.05 million was allocated over 4 years (2008–2009 to 2011–2012) to the LSCUF to support priority projects at the community, lake-wide and watershed-wide level. The fund is intended to provide financial and technical support to implement priority projects aimed at reducing phosphorus inputs, restoring fish and wildlife populations, and enhancing research and monitoring capacities that are essential to making progress in relation to the restoration of the Lake Simcoe Basin watershed. The strategic priorities for the fund are reviewed on an annual basis.

Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Projects

Contaminated sediments constitute an ongoing source of persistent toxic substances to the waters and biota of the Great Lakes, impacting ecosystem quality at the local level and contributing to the overall degradation of the Great Lakes. The remediation of contaminated sediment is an essential prerequisite to the longer-term objective of fully restoring environmental quality in a number of Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes, a commitment under the Canada– U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Remedial action plans (RAPs) have been established in each of the AOCs to assess the nature and extent of beneficial use impairments (BUIs) and to develop strategies to restore BUIs, ultimately leading to the delisting of the AOCs.

The GLSRP provides funding ($45.77 million) over 8 years (2008–2009 to 2015–2016) for the implementation of contaminated sediment remediation plans in 8 Canadian AOCs on the Great Lakes--Hamilton Harbour, the Niagara River, the Detroit River, the St. Marys River, Thunder Bay, Peninsula Harbour, the St. Clair River and the Bay of Quinte. Federal funds are utilized to complete sediment remediation actions that may involve constructing containment structures around and over submerged contaminated sediments; capping sediments; removing, treating and disposing of sediments; and following natural recovery with long-term monitoring.

Evaluation Issues

The evaluation covers Freshwater Programs activities from the first year of funding, 2008–2009, through to mid-2010–2011 and examines the following two evaluation issues, as per the 2009 TBS Evaluation Policy:

  • relevance, including continued need for the Freshwater Programs, alignment with federal government priorities, and consistency with federal roles and responsibilities; and
  • performance, including achievement of intended program immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes, and program efficiency (including delivery) and economy.

Methodology

Data were collected from multiple lines of evidence. These included a document and literature review; a file review of 55 contribution agreements funded under the Lake Winnipeg Basin Stewardship Fund (n=13) and the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund (n=42); a review of GLSRP project management reports; a total of 39 key informant interviews with departmental senior management and program managers and staff (n=11), federal and provincial partners (n=7), public advisory committee members (n=4), funded project proponents (n=9), unfunded applicants (n=4) and external experts (n=4); and 9 case studies (3 for each of the Freshwater Programs components).

A number of methodological caveats should be noted for this evaluation. First, much of the information that was gathered for this review is drawn from internal and often qualitative sources. Second, the Freshwater Programs do not constitute a program per se, but rather are a collection of three distinct programs (three distinct sub-activities). This program complexity has strained the resources available for the evaluation to comprehensively assess each program. Overall, conclusions about the Freshwater Programs are difficult to draw. Finally, the achievement of intended program outcomes with respect to restoration/ remediation in the lakes is difficult to measure. It is hard to assess the program contribution, given the ecological complexities of the freshwater systems and the potential influence of external factors.

Evaluation Findings

Relevance

The evaluation results indicate that there is a continued need for restoration and remediation in the Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and Great Lakes freshwater systems. All three lakes targeted by the Freshwater Programs are experiencing continuing pressures and degraded aquatic ecosystem health. The views of key informants and public opinion data are also supportive of efforts to address the ecological health of freshwater systems. There were no significant concerns about overlap and duplication between the Freshwater Programs and other funding sources.

The Freshwater Programs are

  • consistent with current federal and departmental priorities;
  • integral to the Government of Canada’s Action Plan for Clean Water; and
  • well aligned with Environment Canada’s strategic objectives to ensure that Canada’s natural environment is conserved and restored for present and future generations, and to ensure that threats to Canadians and their environment from pollutants are minimized.

Documentary and key informant evidence indicates that the Freshwater Programs are consistent with federal and departmental roles and responsibilities. Legislated mandates for both the federal government and Environment Canada include a measure of responsibility for freshwater quality, which is shared with other jurisdictions and/or departments. The federal mandate is strongest for the Great Lakes AOCs, given the federal government’s clear jurisdictional authority over these transboundary waters and its obligations under international and provincial agreements. There is also a strong mandate for continued federal programming within the Lake Winnipeg Basin, given the transboundary nature of the watershed and the recent Canada–Manitoba MOU Respecting Lake Winnipeg and the Lake Winnipeg Basin. The evidence for a federal mandate in the Lake Simcoe Basin is weaker.

Achievement of Intended Outcomes

Evidence from all lines of inquiry indicates progress toward the achievement of immediate outcomes for the Lake Winnipeg Basin Stewardship Fund (LWBSF) and LSCUF. In particular, the LWBSF and LSCUF have made progress in raising awareness and access by targeted groups to funding, leveraging funds through projects, attaining broad stakeholder support, implementing watershed governance mechanisms in the Lake Winnipeg region, and ensuring that science-based information is available to stakeholders and decision-makers.

With respect to immediate outcomes (as defined in Figure 1 on page 10), funding available through the LWBSF and the LSCUF has been fully committed to projects led by basin groups targeted for funding (albeit, the local conservation authorities have led a substantial portion of projects, particularly in Lake Simcoe). Stakeholder support is evident through the wide array of projects that were established. All LWBSF and LSCUF projects leveraged partner funding and most LWBSF/LSCUF projects leveraged both monetary and in-kind contributions. Project partners were drawn from a broad spectrum of targeted stakeholder groups, although participation from industry was limited.

The evaluation evidence also points to progress toward the achievement of intermediate outcomes, although the progress achieved to date is preliminary in nature and there are challenges in measuring and attributing changes in phosphorous levels in the lakes. In particular, the LWBSF and LSCUF have made progress with respect to nutrient reduction and restoration of aquatic and fish habitat, ensuring that stakeholders take into account the impact of their actions in the Lake Winnipeg basin, although the use of beneficial management practices (BMPs) could not be assessed.

Governance (Lake Winnipeg) and science/research and monitoring (Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe) were addressed under the Freshwater Programs. The key governance achievement for the LWBI was the Canada–Manitoba MOU Respecting Lake Winnipeg and the Lake Winnipeg Basin. Science objectives are being addressed in Lake Winnipeg through a science plan with six objectives and clear deliverables to enhance dissemination (through an information portal) and to support decision making by establishing nutrient objectives and performance indicators for the lake. Research and monitoring projects in Lake Simcoe were designed to address gaps in knowledge, as the science foundation pertaining to this lake is strong overall.

With respect to intermediate outcomes, the evaluation evidence indicates that funded stewardship projects in the Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg basins have contributed to the reduction and/or diversion of phosphorus entering these watersheds. Although the impact of LSCUF and LWBSF stewardship projects is relatively small in relation to the overall volume of phosphorus entering the watersheds, in many instances these contributions are expected to be cumulative over time. The use of BMPs in Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe could not be assessed directly due to limited performance tracking of this activity specifically. However, some initial work was conducted in this area with other stakeholders and reasonable progress was perceived to have been made (e.g., livestock management and sewage treatment plant optimization guidance).

LWBSF public education and communications projects have been funded to contribute to the reduction of phosphorus loading by increasing awareness among the general population of the need to modify behaviours (e.g., the Lake Friendly Campaign). The campaign has been extended geographically and in its scope of activities, which is an indicator of success, though awareness levels and impacts on behaviours have not been measured directly.

Progress in the implementation of sediment remediation projects in the Great Lakes is mixed. There has been significant progress in the management and removal of sediment in three of the eight AOCs targeted by the GLSRP. However, for sediment remediation projects in the remaining AOCs, the original timelines and cost estimates are no longer realistic due to a number of unanticipated challenges, such as the uniqueness of site conditions, the need for additional time to fully characterize the sites, and difficulties in securing funding from a community stakeholder. Addressing BUIs and delisting is a long-term objective in these AOCs, with sediment remediation being only one of many actions required for delisting. The GLSRP contributes to addressing Canada’s international commitments under the GLWQA and gaps noted by the Great Lakes International Joint Commission (IJC) in funding for sediment remediation.

There are many factors external to the GLSRP that have influenced the achievement of intended outcomes, including the dynamic and complex nature of the ecosystem itself; multi-jurisdictional/ownership relationships that must be navigated (especially in the context of the AOCs); and the economic constraints on other stakeholders in sharing the cost burden of restoration.

Other Performance Questions

While a results-based management and accountability framework (RMAF) was prepared for the Freshwater Programs in 2008, there is currently no performance reporting at the program-wide level. The file review and key informant evidence indicates that the performance reporting for contribution agreement funding is adequate, though there are challenges in directly measuring and detecting changes in phosphorous levels and attributing these changes at the project level.

The evaluation evidence indicates that the design of the Freshwater Programs, which is unique for each of the three freshwater bodies, was generally viewed by key informants as appropriate, though a number of limitations in the current approach to stewardship, in particular, were noted.

Key informant and documentary evidence indicates that the allocated program resources for the GLSRP and LWBI may not be adequate to ensure that intended outcomes are achieved.

The estimated costs and timelines of many activities and projects, especially in the Great Lakes, are difficult to predict. Current estimates of project costs far exceed the initial estimates. Further, the current funding terms and conditions of the GLSRP lack sufficient flexibility (e.g., in terms of leveraged funding requirements) to advance many of the remediation projects. Also, in the Lake Winnipeg Basin, current funding allocations are likely insufficient to effectively meet restoration objectives in the lake, given the magnitude of the aquatic health issues and the complexity of the transboundary nature of this aquatic ecosystems. Specifically, progress is evident on the science and governance fronts. If the priority shifts to action to restore and maintain the lake, key informants felt that the current allocation is likely insufficient, given the size of the watershed and the scope of the challenges that have been identified to address point and non-point source nutrient reduction and to restore aquatic habitat.

Funding levels for the LSCUF were considered adequate by key informants.

Roles and responsibilities appear to have been adequately defined and understood. The exception is Lake Simcoe, where there were some initial challenges in clarifying the role of the public advisory committee and lack of involvement of the federal government in provincial governance mechanisms pertaining to Lake Simcoe.

Contribution program project proponents were satisfied with their experiences with the program, and offered some suggestions to improve the timeliness of the funding decisions and the mechanics of the application process.

The key informant and file review data revealed few unintended impacts of the program. However, some LWBSF and LSCUF proponents did identify unintended benefits such as enhanced relationships, spinoffs into other projects and increased public interest or engagement in the issues their project and/or organization are addressing.

Program Efficiency and Economy

The file review data indicate that the LWBSF and LSCUF funding programs have achieved established targets with respect to cost-sharing ratios. The administrative efficiency (i.e., Salary and O&M costs for each G&C dollar spent) of the LWBSF and LSCUF components of the Freshwater Programs ($0.22 and $0.15 for every dollar spent for LWBSF and LSCUF, respectively) are in line with other contribution programs at Environment Canada. The GLSRP sediment remediation projects that are complete or nearing completion have been implemented under-budget and with significant leveraging (between 50% and 84%) from community stakeholders (the amounts leveraged, on average, exceeded the minimum that was required). Efficiency was seen to be enhanced by the Freshwater Programs’ science foundation, delivery with other collaborators and knowledge transfer activities. The contributions made by these programs were seen as extremely valuable, as most projects would either not have gone ahead or would have had to reduce the scope of their planned work significantly. Efficiency improvements to contribution funding programs could be sought through more timely and streamlined administrative processes (e.g., application process).

The evaluation indicated positive views of the cost-effectiveness of the Freshwater Programs generally. However, some concerns were expressed about the absence of a strategic approach in contribution program funding priorities and criteria, and the efficacy of stewardship projects to address the serious ecological challenges in the lakes. Few more effective program alternatives were identified by key informants or in the literature. Among suggested improvements are granting to third-party delivery organizations or utilizing existing provincial/conservation authority funding mechanisms as alternative potential delivery mechanisms for the disbursement of grants and contributions funding.

Lessons learned are being gathered and analyzed (both formally and informally) at the program component level. A number of themes emerged for suggestions for program improvements moving forward:

  • Stewardship activities should be realigned to ensure and strengthen cross-departmental/cross-jurisdictional engagement. Include more strategic and/or pro-active approaches; and be reinforced through complementary policy and/or regulatory initiatives.
  • It was recommended that the program increase the clarity of the application of criteria used to identify priority aquatic ecosystems and priority issues addressed by the Freshwater Programs.
  • Resourcing should ensure the adequacy of funding relative to activities required to achieve the intended outcomes and to ensure sufficient flexibility in maximum federal funding requirements in aquatic areas where the federal government has primary responsibility or where there is insufficient alternative funding available.

Recommendations

Recommendations for the current or future iterations of the Freshwater Programs are based on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation.

1) Explore possible options going forward to ensure that the funding allocations and the funding terms and conditions of the Freshwater Programs are aligned with program objectives and needs:

a. The RDG, Ontario should explore possible options to provide a funding formula for GLSRP to support the achievement of program objectives.

  • To ensure the efficient implementation of GLSRP, more suitable terms and conditions than those currently stipulated are needed.
  • All Freshwater Programs have reprofiled funds. However, for the GLSRP in particular, the estimated costs and funding timelines have been difficult to predict, and current estimates far exceed those established during the design phase of the identified projects.
  • The larger-scale infrastructure investments for sediment remediation require a flexible funding mechanism that ensures the availability of funds for priority projects as they are negotiated. The maximum one-third funding threshold for some projects has proven to be unrealistic in AOCs that do not have the municipal funding base or industry-based parties to deliver a contribution of the required magnitude. To achieve progress toward program objectives, a more flexible approach to the funding formula is required.

b. The RDG, PNR, in consultation with the ADM, S&T should explore possible options to adjust future funding allocations to enhance the proportion of overall funding that is available to restoration projects under the LWBI.

  • In the Lake Winnipeg Basin, the potential future Freshwater Programs funding allocation should be reviewed as the priorities to be addressed in terms of ecological issues in this lake evolve.
  • Science and governance, the two initial priorities of the LWBI, have advanced. Work to restore the lake--given the size of the watershed, scope of the challenges, and the significant associated costs--will require an adjustment to the proportional allocation of funds compared to that which was provided under the current program design.

2) If contribution funding for stewardship programs is renewed, the RDG, PNR and the RDG, Ontario, in consultation with the ADM, S&T, should review opportunities to leverage scientific evidence to ensure funding priorities and selection criteria are strategically focused to maximize the impact of stewardship projects.

In both the LWBSF and LSCUF, program priorities and criteria are broadly cast (e.g., geographically, project type). The funding of stewardship efforts have, typically, been reactive--dependent on the types of proposals that are received. A more proactive funding approach, supported by the existing science foundation, should be explored. Aligning EC efforts with those of other key jurisdictional bodies where priorities and governance are shared within the aquatic ecosystem would strengthen this effort.

3) The RDG, PNR, in consultation with the ADM, S&T, and the RDG, Ontario should continue to work with other federal departments and agencies to promote a cohesive federal approach to addressing issues related to the restoration and maintenance of the Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe basins.

Addressing challenges such as nutrient loading is a complex effort that requires the contribution of many federal partners to achieve objectives. While OGDs were involved to a limited extent in the Freshwater Programs (e.g., participation on technical committees to review applications for stewardship project funding), efforts moving forward would benefit from a more robust involvement of other federal departments (e.g., DFO, AAFC, AANDC) to work together to define priorities and ensure that the full array of policy, regulatory and community-based interventions address freshwater ecological challenges in a coherent fashion.

Management Response

1)  Explore possible options going forward to ensure that the funding allocations and the funding terms and conditions of the Freshwater Programs are aligned with program objectives and needs, notably:

a. The RDG, Ontario should explore possible options to provide a funding formula for GLSRP to support achievement of program objectives.

  • To ensure the efficient implementation of GLSRP, more suitable terms and conditions than those currently stipulated are needed.
  • All Freshwater Programs have reprofiled funds. However, for the GLSRP in particular, the estimated costs and funding timelines have been difficult to predict and current estimates far exceed those established during the design phase of the identified projects.
  • The larger-scale infrastructure investments for sediment remediation require a flexible funding mechanism that ensures the availability of funds for priority projects as they are negotiated. The maximum one-third funding threshold for some projects has proven to be unrealistic in AOCs that do not have the municipal funding base or industry-based parties to deliver a contribution of the required magnitude. To achieve progress toward program objectives, a more flexible approach to the funding formula is required.

Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Projects

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, Ontario agrees that a more flexible funding mechanism and option of increasing the federal contribution to greater than one third of total costs would facilitate increased program results.

Management Action

Terms and conditions will be reviewed and revised to maximize program results.

management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
June 2013EC decision on revised terms and conditionsDirector, Great Lakes Division, RDG–O

b. The RDG, PNR, in consultation with the ADM, S&T should explore possible options to adjust future funding allocations to enhance the proportion of overall funding that is available to restoration projects under the LWBI.

  • In the Lake Winnipeg Basin, the potential future Freshwater Programs funding allocation should be reviewed as the priorities to be addressed in terms of ecological issues in this lake evolve.
  • Science and governance, the two initial priorities of the LWBI, have advanced. Work to restore the lake--given the size of the watershed, scope of the challenges, and the significant associated costs--will require an adjustment to the proportional allocation of funds compared to that which was provided under the current program design.

Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, PNR agrees with the recommendation.

Management Action

Environment Canada is preparing for the renewal of the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative (LWBI) as the funding under the Action Plan for Clean Water expires March 2012. A review of funding allocations for the three LWBI components (science, governance and stewardship) is underway. Consideration of options is being given to the funding envelope for the stewardship pillar, while considering alignment and linkages with federal program priorities and mandates.

management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
June 2012Analysis and recommendations related to funding allocations between the components of the LWBI and within the LWBSF.RDG, PNR

2) If contribution funding for stewardship programs is renewed, the RDG, PNR and the RDG, Ontario, in consultation with the ADM, S&T, should review opportunities to leverage scientific evidence to ensure funding priorities and selection criteria are strategically focused to maximize the impact of stewardship projects.

In both the LWBSF and LSCUF, program priorities and criteria are broadly cast (e.g., geographic location, project type). The funding of stewardship efforts have, typically, been reactive--dependent on the types of proposals that are received. A more proactive funding approach, supported by the existing science foundation, should be explored. Aligning EC efforts with those of other key jurisdictional bodies where priorities and governance are shared within the aquatic ecosystem would strengthen this effort.

Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, Ontario agrees with the recommendation.

Management Action

The terms and conditions of the funding program will be reviewed and revised should the program be renewed.

  • The terms and conditions will be aligned with best available science; and
  • OGDs, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority will be consulted on the revised terms and conditions to maximize alignment of efforts.
Management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
December 2012
  • Pending renewal, a review of science results from LSCUF 2007–2012.
  • Terms and conditions adjusted to reflect best available science, as well as coordination with other provincial and regional entities.
Director, Strategic Integration and Partnerships Division, RDG–O

Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, PNR agrees with the recommendation.

Management Action

Should the LWBI be renewed, gains in scientific understanding delivered by the initial LWBI will be leveraged into more targeted solicitation, assessment and selection processes for stewardship funding. The efforts of the renewed LWBSF will be aligned with those of other key jurisdictional bodies, where possible.

Management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
June 2012Analysis and recommendations on targeting of the LWBSF.RDG, PNR

3) The RDG, PNR, in consultation with the ADM, S&T, and the RDG, Ontario should continue to work with other federal departments and agencies to promote a cohesive federal approach to addressing issues related to the restoration and maintenance of the Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe basins.

Addressing challenges such as nutrient loading is a complex effort that requires the contribution of many federal partners to achieve objectives. While OGDs were involved to a limited extent in the Freshwater Programs (e.g., participation on technical committees to review applications for stewardship project funding), efforts moving forward would benefit from a more robust involvement of other federal departments (e.g., DFO, AAFC, AANDC) to work together to define priorities and ensure that the full array of policy, regulatory and community-based interventions address freshwater ecological challenges in a coherent fashion.

Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, Ontario agrees with the recommendation.

Management Action

For Lake Simcoe, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority will continue engagement in project reviews and recommendations and consultation on terms and conditions to ensure they are harmonized with the programs and initiatives of other federal departments and agencies.

Management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
December 2012Analysis and recommendations on mechanisms to ensure close collaboration with federal departments and Manitoba.Director, Great Lakes Division, RDG–O and Director, Strategic Integration and Partnerships Division, RDG–O

Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative

Statement of Agreement / Disagreement with the Recommendation

The RDG, PNR agrees with the recommendation.

Management Action

Results achieved through the current LWBI indicate that work is still required to restore this priority aquatic ecosystem. Over the last year, the development of the LWBI renewal proposal has included increased coordination with and engagement of key federal departments and agencies. Environment Canada commits to work closely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in the development and delivery of the renewed LWBI and recognizes these government departments are involved in watershed, land stewardship and freshwater science activities related to their mandate.

Environment Canada also commits to continued collaboration with other federal departments through biannual meetings of the Canada–Manitoba (CA–MB) MOU Implementation Steering Committee. Federal members of this committee include AAFC, DFO, Health Canada, and AANDC. The CA–MB MOU Implementation Steering Committee provides the forum for collaboration, information sharing, and priority setting between the provincial and federal governments.

As well, the involvement of other government departments in the technical review process for Lake Winnipeg Basin Stewardship Fund projects will continue.

Management action
TimelineDeliverable(s)Responsible Party
June 2012Analysis and recommendations on mechanisms to ensure close collaboration with federal departments and Manitoba.RDG, PNR

 

Date modified: