Federal Evaluation of the St. Lawrence Action Plan

February 2024

List of tables

• Table 1. Budget estimates by activity, 2016–2017 to 2021–2022
• Table 2. Difference between ECCC planned and actual expenditures, 2016–2017 to 2021–2022
• Table 3. Ratio of actual expenditures by St. Lawrence Action Plan partners, 2016–2017 to 2020–2021
• Table 4. Mandates and targets for key federal-provincial freshwater management agreements
• Table 5. Expected St. Lawrence Action Plan outcomes and indicators
• Table 6. Actual expenditures supporting the integrated management of the St. Lawrence, 2016–2017 to 2020–2021
• Table 7. Comparison of support from the ZIP committees and RRTs for the integrated management of the St. Lawrence
• Table 8. Responsibilities and achievements of the Climate Change Committee

List of graphs

• Graph 1. Evolution of ECCC’s actual expenditures for the St. Lawrence Action Plan
• Graph 2. ECCC’s investment in freshwater programs from 2016–2017 to 2021–2022
• Graph 3. Financial contribution of St. Lawrence Action Plan federal partners, 2016–2017 to 2021–2022

List of figures

• Figure 1. The St. Lawrence: current state, trends and key emerging challenges

List of acronyms and abbreviations

Agreement

Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026

CCC

Climate Change Committee

CWA

Canada Water Agency

CIP

Community Interaction Program

CMM

Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal [Montreal Metropolitan Community]

ECCC

Environment and Climate Change Canada

ERAP

Ecological Rehabilitation Action Plan

JAP

Joint Action Program

MELCCFP

Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec [Quebec Department of Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks]

PIP

Performance Information Profile

RIMP

Regional Integrated Management Plan

RRT

Regional Round Table

SLAP

St. Lawrence Action Plan

SLGO

St. Lawrence Global Observatory

ZIP

Zone d’intervention prioritaire [area of prime concern]

Introduction

This document presents the findings of the federal evaluation of the St. Lawrence Action Plan (SLAP), a partnership involving Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec [Quebec Department of Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks] (MELCCFP) and other participating departments and agencies of the governments of Canada and Quebec.

The federal evaluation of the SLAP focuses on issues relating to design and implementation, as well as effectiveness and alignment with government priorities over the 2016–2017 to 2021–2022 period. This evaluation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Board of Canada (TB) Policy on Results (2016) and outlines recommendations on seizing opportunities for improvement.

This federal evaluation complements the parallel joint evaluation of SLAP, which is being carried by an evaluation team consisting of ECCC and MELCCFP staff. The joint evaluation focuses on issues of governance, accountability, and external communications.

1. Background

ECCC’s mandate centres on the protection of nature and the management of freshwater. In 2017, the Government of Canada rolled out a Freshwater Action Plan to protect threatened lakes, rivers, and streams that human communities—along with plants and wildlife, including some species at risk—rely on. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Mandate Letter (2021) reiterates the importance of protecting and restoring priority freshwater ecosystems, including the St. Lawrence.

Constitutionally, the protection of nature and the management of freshwater are shared responsibilities. In 1988, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed the first Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence, also referred to as the St. Lawrence Action Plan (SLAP). SLAP formalizes the commitment of the governments of Canada and Quebec to work in partnership to protect and enhance the St. Lawrence River ecosystem. The Agreement has been renewed each time it has expired. In 2011, the Agreement was renewed for a 15-year period to provide a stable framework for collaboration and long-term orientations for joint actions by the two governments.

The latest environmental quality indicators show that the St. Lawrence continues to require ongoing protection. The St. Lawrence also faces emerging challenges (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The St. Lawrence: current state, trends and key emerging challenges

Sources: State of the St. Lawrence Monitoring Program; Overview of the State of the St. Lawrence (2019) (PDF); Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators – Water quality in Canadian rivers

2. Program overview

SLAP 2011–2026 is an intergovernmental partnership aimed at developing a greater understanding and enabling the integrated management of the St. Lawrence. The program supports the efforts of the parties to work together and concert their long-term efforts in conserving and enhancing the St. Lawrence in a sustainable development perspective. To achieve this, SLAP partners (see Appendix C – SLAP Partners for a list) are involved in the following activities:

• Coordination of the Agreement and communications;
• Integrated management of the St. Lawrence;
• Joint Action Program (JAP);
• Community Interaction Program (CIP);
• State of the St. Lawrence Monitoring Program;
• Numerical Environmental Prediction Program.

Additional information on the program can be found on the SLAP website.

Objectives

The Joint Action Program (JAP) is renewed every five years, and supports knowledge development projects related to the following priority issues:

• Biodiversity conservation;
• Sustainable use;
• Improved water quality.

SLAP partners draw up and review work orientations and objectives for each issue. Projects aimed at contributing to the work orientations are carried out by government partners. While some projects focus on research, others are geared towards developing decision support tools, raising awareness and restoring environments.

Resources

The Government of Canada’s financial resources allocated to SLAP activities are regular budget resources (A-base) supporting national program responsibilities. Table 1 lists the resources allocated to SLAP by ECCC, its federal partners and the Quebec government for the 2016–2017 to 2020–2021 period.

Source: Supplementary Agreement #1 of the Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 and information provided by the program

^* ECCC planned expenditures include transfers to the Quebec government (Appendix G of the Agreement).

^** Prior to 2021, the CCC’s budget was included under Sustainable Use.

3. About this evaluation

The federal evaluation of the SLAP is one component of the ECCC Audit and Evaluation Plan 2022 to 2027. The evaluation addresses ECCC’s role for the six-year period of 2016–2017 to 2021–2022 and focuses on issues of design and implementation, as well as effectiveness and alignment.

The evaluation involved reviewing information from a variety of sources to produce observations and conclusions:

• Review of documents and analysis of program data including work plans, reports, and administrative and financial data.
• Interviews with ECCC staff who played specific key roles within SLAP during the 2016–2017 to 2021–2022 period.
• Survey of government participants (59 respondents) and external partners (64 respondents).
• Comparison of major freshwater management agreements: SLAP, Great Lakes Agreement and Lake Winnipeg Memorandum of Understanding.

Conclusions and observations

4. Achievements

4.1 Effective co-management of the Agreement

SLAP has effectively completed the activities set out in the Agreement and delivered the intended outputs, particularly with respect to the activities and projects associated with the JAP and CIP. Through them, SLAP generates knowledge about water quality, biodiversity and the uses of the St. Lawrence ecosystem, and supports projects that help achieve positive local environmental impacts.

Report on the 2016–2021 phase

SLAP oversees the implementation of a variety of projects and delivery of a number of outputs to fulfill its mandate. Its programming includes projects relating to various SLAP priority issues; the integrated management of the St. Lawrence; State of the St. Lawrence Monitoring Program and numerical environmental prediction activities; and the Community Interaction Program. Outputs include:

• 43 interdepartmental projects aligned with the priority issues;
• 35 external projects funded by ECCC through the CIP;
• 12 ZIP (areas of prime concern) committees and Stratégies Saint-Laurent (SSL) committees funded by ECCC to support the integrated management of the St. Lawrence;
• 4 key reports, including the following:
  • Update of the Sustainable Navigation Strategy for the St. Lawrence (2021)
  • Atlas of Sites of Interest for Conservation along the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence Coastline (2019) (PDF)
  • Atlas of Sites of Conservation Interest in the St. Lawrence Lowlands – Methodology Report version 2, including the Outaouais region (2019) (PDF)
  • Overview of the State of the St. Lawrence (2019)
• 43 additional publications made available on the SLAP website.

A number of JAP projects faced delays during the evaluation period, owing largely to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these delays, 38 projects were completed (88%), while five were cancelled due to a lack of resources or because they ended up being outside the SLAP framework or scope.

Resource usage

The program used 86% of the resources available to deliver on its commitments under the Agreement. The St. Lawrence State Monitoring Program reported the largest discrepancy between planned and actual expenditures: $1.6M in planned expenditures (26%) were not spent, mainly as a result of COVID-19. The public health measures implemented to address the pandemic prevented field monitoring activities from taking place for nearly two years. Table 2 provides an overview of the ECCC resources allocated to SLAP and those used.

Source: Supplementary Agreement #1 (planned) and Five-Year Report 2016–2021 (actual)

^* ECCC planned and actual expenditures include transfers to the Quebec government (Appendix G).

^** Prior to 2021, the CCC’S budget was included under Sustainable Use.

The Numerical Environmental Prediction Program used 44% fewer resources than anticipated, a discrepancy attributable to the fact that all activities and products were delivered more than a year ahead of schedule. The allocation of resources to the CIP was revised downwards year after year over the 2016–2021 period. As a result, actual expenditures were nearly $1M less than the five-year expenditures planned in 2016 (not included in the table) and close to $700K less than expenditures budgeted annually, resulting in fewer projects being funded. The CIP spent all the actual resources allocated to it over the 2016–2017 to 2021–2022 period.

Availability of information on the performance of SLAP and the state of the St. Lawrence

Performance information is available for SLAP’s main activities: programs such as the JAP and CIP, published scientific information, matching funding from the federal partners and the Quebec government, and the description of the state of the St. Lawrence.

Performance information is also available for SLAP’s main outputs: knowledge of the state of the St. Lawrence and predictive information that makes it possible to forecast certain physical, biological and chemical parameters of the St. Lawrence. Information on the state of the St. Lawrence is available and easily accessible in the Overview of the State of the St. Lawrence reports. The 2019 version of the Overview of the State of the St. Lawrence includes information generated from 2013 to 2017. Information gathered between 2018 and 2022 will be available in the next version of the report, scheduled to be published in 2024. SLAP monitors a larger number of status indicators (21) than the Great Lakes Program (9) and the Lake Winnipeg Program (indicators under development).

Additionally, predictive information on the St. Lawrence is available to organizations participating in SLAP through the Working Group on Numerical Environmental Prediction. During the evaluation period, this working group produced numerical models that simulate changes in physical, biological and chemical processes in the St. Lawrence and its watershed, in order to predict the state of the terrestrial and aquatic environment. This predictive information is mainly intended to support decision-making and planning for the management of St. Lawrence ecosystems.

Adjustments as a result of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic had a minimal negative impact on SLAP, which was able to continue delivering its activities and products with only a few adjustments. Specifically, no JAP projects were cancelled as a result of COVID-19, and the 10 projects that were delayed because of public health measures were eventually completed. Some field monitoring activities for the St. Lawrence State Monitoring Program were suspended, causing delays in data acquisition. Despite COVID-19, 90% of the State of the St. Lawrence indicators and JAP projects were delivered on time.

With respect to Agreement coordination activities, the SLAP Secretariat changed the format of the Agreement Steering Committee’s biannual meetings, improved the coordination of online activities and enhanced the support for project proponents and CIP recipients (Indicator 5.4). In particular, the Agreement Steering Committee’s virtual meetings are shorter than those previously held in person. While this facilitates participation, a number of long-standing SLAP participants feel that virtual meetings are not as conducive to the productive conversations and co-operative efforts that have underpinned SLAP’s success in the past. Note that a gradual return to in-person meetings has been under way since 2022–2023.

4.2 The St. Lawrence Action Plan is a valuable collaborative platform

Matching funding

SLAP participants mobilize their respective resources to support the achievement of common objectives. As a result of ECCC’s investment of $17.2M (including the transfer to MELCCFP), an additional $33.3M was leveraged by SLAP partners (CIP expenditures are excluded from these totals). In relative terms, for every dollar invested by ECCC, federal and Quebec government partners collectively invested $1.93 for the 2016–2017 to 2020–2021 period (excluding CIP expenditures, which have an average leverage effect of $0.78). Table 3 shows three alternative calculations of the financial contribution ratio.

Source: Five-Year Report 2016–2021 (actual)

Note: Actual expenditures for the 2021–2022 fiscal year are unavailable.

Note: ECCC’s actual expenditures include transfers to the Quebec government (Appendix G).

Note: Expenditures for the CIP are excluded.

Useful relationships and collaboration beyond the St. Lawrence Action Plan

SLAP fosters the development and maintenance of useful relationships and collaboration in areas other than the implementation of the Agreement. The majority of government participants (82%, N=34) feel that the collaborative relationships established through SLAP are very useful (56%) or moderately useful (26%) in their regular work outside of SLAP activities. Many of them (n=18) report that SLAP strengthens their professional network and fosters collaboration with their counterparts in other federal departments and the Quebec government. In some instances, SLAP has played a facilitative role in maintaining Canada-Quebec collaboration on the St. Lawrence beyond the implementation of the Agreement:

• SLAP has made it possible for the International Joint Commission (IJC) to draw not only on the expertise of ECCC scientists, but also on that of scientists from MELCCFP and the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts [Quebec Department of Natural Resources and Forests] as part of research aimed at exploring the causes, impacts and risks of, and solutions to, flooding in the Lake Champlain-Richelieu River Basin;
• SLAP partnered with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Living Laboratories Initiative (2020–2023), securing additional financial support and building partnerships with agricultural users and the Waban-Aki Nation through two JAP projects;
• Transport Canada rolled out an initiative to assess the cumulative effects of marine shipping as part of the Oceans Protection Plan. SLAP is helping to develop a common framework for assessing the cumulative effects of marine activities on the St. Lawrence.

Data and information available to the public on the St. Lawrence Global Observatory (SLGO) platform

SLAP has worked with the St. Lawrence Global Observatory to make some data and information collected through SLAP activities available to the public. Of the 223 datasets listed in the Observatory’s catalogue, six include data collected in the context of SLAP activities:

• Directory of private protected areas in southern Quebec (1924–2013);
• Inventory of projects to identify natural environments of interest in southern Quebec (2013–2017 data);
• Atlas of Bank Restoration Sites of the St. Lawrence River (2003–2006 data);
• Atlas of coastal environments of interest for conservation in the estuary and gulf of St. Lawrence (2000–2017 data);
• Directory of public access to the St. Lawrence River (1989–2009 data);
• Atlas of territories of conservation interest in the St. Lawrence Lowlands (2014–2019 data).

Three of these datasets have not been updated for 10 years or more.

4.3 Positive impacts beyond the St. Lawrence Action Plan

The program does not provide for the follow-up of external actions made possible or facilitated by the Agreement’s implementation activities. However, the Atlas of territories of conservation interest in the St. Lawrence Lowlands has enabled SLAP to have at least two significant positive impacts beyond its activities and products. The Atlas was developed as part of SLAP’s Joint Action Program, and over the years has become a tool that meets the needs of organizations involved in the conservation of natural environments.

The first significant impact of the Atlas is the identification of the St. Lawrence Lowlands as a priority place under the pan-Canadian approach to transforming species at risk conservation. Determining important habitats for species at risk is a key step in identifying the most relevant conservation actions and drawing up action plans. ECCC’s Canadian Wildlife Service has worked with various partners to develop conservation strategies for the habitats of species at risk identified in the Atlas. These conservation strategies have resulted in a number of projects being financed by the Canada Nature Fund.

The second significant impact of the Atlas is the CMM’s adoption of an interim control by-law (ICB) to protect natural environments (available in French only). The by-law has the effect of prohibiting any construction, work or activity in terrestrial and wetland environments of interest defined by the CMM, and specifically in Western Chorus Frog habitat, with certain exceptions. The by-law defines an additional 12,367 hectares (5.2%) in the Greater Montreal area, which are now subject to conservation measures. The Atlas work also informed the Rapport sur l’état de situation de huit espèces en situation précaire sur le territoire du Grand Montréal (PDF) [Report on the Status of Eight Species of Concern in the Greater Montreal Area], which served as the basis for the CMM by‑law.

5. Main challenges

5.1 The St. Lawrence Action Plan does not contribute significantly to the improvement of the state of the St. Lawrence

The St. Lawrence faces many threats and requires action to improve water quality; protect, conserve and restore biodiversity; mitigate the impacts of climate change on river users and ecosystems; and promote the health and well-being of human populations.

The St. Lawrence State Monitoring Program shows that 85% of water quality and ecosystem health indicators have remained stable or have improved between 2008 and 2019. Despite this trend, the program also indicates that the state of health of the St. Lawrence is in a delicate balance, with most indicators remaining moderate. According to the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region is home to the highest proportion of sites in the country with marginal or poor water quality (29% of sites). The St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes and Lake Winnipeg are subject to similar environmental and anthropogenic pressures that affect the health of their ecosystems, such as the presence of high concentrations of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in water and the presence of substances of concern in water, fish and sediments (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, bisphenol A and perfluorooctane sulfonate) at concentrations that exceed recommended levels.

Under the Government of Canada’s Policy on Results (2016) and the previous Policy on Management, Resources and Results Structures (2010), all program expenditures are expected to contribute directly or indirectly to the achievement of departmental results. These contributions must be measured regularly to ensure accountability towards Canadians and to support decision-making by senior government officials and headquarters organizations.

Weak alignment with departmental results

There is a significant gap between SLAP’s expected outcomes and those of the departmental Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships inventory program. Under its current mandate, SLAP is not making a significant contribution to improving the water quality and health of the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

In the Performance Information Profile (PIP) for the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships program, there are no intermediate outcome indicators associated with SLAP in terms of water quality improvement, biodiversity conservation or sustainable use. Four water quality indicators are linked to the Great Lakes Program and two are linked to the Lake Winnipeg Program—two freshwater management programs whose contribution to departmental results has been proven. No outcome indicators for contributing to climate change adaptation have been developed for these three programs. Appendix A – SLAP and the Expected Outcomes of the Performance Information Profile contains additional information on the poor alignment between SLAP and departmental results as outlined in the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships program.

Lack of a clear mandate to improve the state of the St. Lawrence

Federal freshwater management programs have similar mandates in that they all require collaboration and knowledge development. However, SLAP is the only program that does not have a clear mandate to improve water quality and ecosystem health, dedicated resources to achieve these goals, nor targets for improving water quality and ecosystem health. Table 4 on the next page summarizes the mandates of the main freshwater management programs at ECCC and identifies if they are supported by targets.

SLAP plays a key role in establishing the reference levels for various environmental indicators of the state of the St. Lawrence. For each of these reference levels, SLAP sets suitable or optimal levels for ecosystem health in the St. Lawrence. However, unlike the Canada-Ontario Great Lakes Agreement, SLAP does not establish quantitative targets for improving water quality and ecosystem health. The lack of targets was identified in the previous evaluation of  SLAP (2018). Although the knowledge required to make recommendations for improving the state of the St. Lawrence is available, formulating recommendations for decision-makers currently falls outside SLAP’s mandate. Recommendations of this nature could transform knowledge into action and guide the efforts of the various players involved in the integrated management of the St. Lawrence.

Insufficient information on performance

SLAP develops and implements a joint action program structured around priority issues, orientations and project-specific objectives. While the orientations indicate a contribution to the remediation of the St. Lawrence through water quality improvement and biodiversity conservation, no indicators have been developed to measure the individual and aggregate contribution of joint actions. Additionally, the orientations are not supported by quantitative targets for assessing the achievement of outcomes.

The evaluation is also unable to conclude that information on the state of the St. Lawrence is being used to support decision-making, whether within ECCC, by SLAP government partners or by local water stakeholders. This lack of evidence is a cause for concern given that a significant proportion of SLAP resources are devoted to the development and promotion of two decision-making tools, i.e. the monitoring of the state of the St. Lawrence and numerical environmental predictions.

The Agreement, project sheets and ZIP program terms and conditions set out a number of expectations with respect to activities and deliverables (outputs) and 10 expected outcomes (excluding the expected outcomes of the regional round tables [RRTs], which are the sole responsibility of MELCCFP). Among these, only four expected outcomes are supported by indicators that can be used to monitor their status and measure progress. Table 5 lists SLAP’s expected outcomes and indicators.

Source: Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 (PDF); information provided by the program

^* Expected outcomes from the Agreement text are rephrased to employ the passive voice, which is better suited to expressing factual statements. Activities and outputs are not outcomes.

^** The management and coordination of the Agreement make a general contribution to the achievement of all expected outcomes.

^*** The RRTs are the sole responsibility of MELCCFP.

N/A not applicable

5.2 Declining funding, delays and missed opportunities

Declining funding for the St. Lawrence Action Plan

Unlike the Great Lakes Program and the Lake Winnipeg Program, SLAP did not receive additional temporary funding under the Freshwater Action Plan from 2017–2018 to 2021–2022. The resources available to SLAP have declined substantially over the past 25 years. After peaking in Phase II (1993–1998), ECCC’s actual expenditures for SLAP decreased by $50.4M in 2002 dollars (accounting for inflation) between Phase III (1998–2003) and Phase VI (2016–2021). This represents a 74% decrease in expenditures. Since 2005, SLAP has not secured dedicated resources to contribute to its water quality improvement and ecosystem health objectives. Graph 1 reflects allocated resources and shows the evolution of ECCC’s actual expenditures for SLAP in 2002 dollars, from 1988 to 2021.

Graph 1. Evolution of ECCC’s actual expenditures for the St. Lawrence Action Plan

Sources: SLAP reports, Phases I to VI; Bank of Canada price index

In comparison, and as shown in Graph 2, ECCC invested $118.3M in the Great Lakes Program, $29.6M in the Lake Winnipeg Program and $23.8M in SLAP over the 2015–2016 to 2021–2022 period (permanent and temporary funding). Actual SLAP reported expenditures include CIP expenditures and the transfer to the Government of Quebec.

Graph 2. ECCC’s investment in freshwater programs from 2016–2017 to 2021–2022

Source: Information provided by Corporate Services and Finance Branch, ECCC

Delays, staff shortages, and missed opportunities

Many JAP projects were delayed during the period covered by the evaluation. Of a total of 49 project delays, 20 are attributable to the impacts of COVID-19. Of the remaining 29, 28 project delays were caused by a lack of resources, either in terms of funding not being available on time or staff shortages. With respect to the projects that were cancelled during the five-year program period, SLAP participants said that these cancellations were attributable to a change in departmental priorities and a lack of resources, both financial and in terms of staff with the necessary expertise. COVID-19 has exacerbated the issue of the availability of scientific research staff equipped with the expertise to contribute to SLAP’s scientific activities.

The Working Group on Numerical Environmental Prediction completed its work plan two years ahead of schedule. The integration of water quality and biodiversity activities and data was identified as the next step in developing the predictive tool. However, the working group’s efforts could not progress beyond the original plan, as it was impossible to secure financial resources beyond those initially planned. For this reason, the 2021–2026 phase of the Agreement does not include new work objectives in numerical environmental prediction. According to program participants, it would be useful to continue developing predictive modeling capabilities, especially to support adaptation to climate change impacts on the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

During the evaluation period, six project proposals eligible for the CIP that were recommended for funding by the committee were not selected due to lack of funding. The total ECCC funding requested by these projects was $385,146. These projects could have had beneficial local impacts on the state of the St. Lawrence.

Many SLAP participants (55%, N=29) pointed out ways to improve the program. These included suggestions for enhancing exchanges between monitoring committees, creating suitable tools for documenting and mitigating the impacts of climate change on the St. Lawrence, and strengthening citizen science by involving communities in the St. Lawrence State Monitoring Program. Although the vast majority (81%, N=16) of participants who identified opportunities for improvement communicated them to the members of the Agreement Steering Committee, most (69%, N=13) noted that their suggestions remained unaddressed. Some participants noted that they did not know what came of their suggestions, as there had been no follow-up. Among the reasons given to explain this situation, participants highlighted the lack of financial resources, the difficulty in obtaining the necessary authorizations in a timely manner for staffing and procurement, and the lack of leadership shown by the Agreement Steering Committee, including long delays in decision-making and follow-up.

5.3 Outcomes expected from the integrated management of the St. Lawrence are not clearly defined

The governments of Canada and Québec each have jurisdiction allowing them to act regarding the St. Lawrence. They carry out several activities within the framework of programs under various departments and government agencies. In addition to these activities are those of users of the St. Lawrence. This situation calls for the implementation of an integrated management approach, which aims to reconcile these activities and ensure their coherence. Since the coming into force of the Quebec Act to Affirm the Collective Nature of Water Resources and To Promote Better Governance of Water and Associated Environments (Water Act) in 2009, the implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM) has redefined the roles and responsibilities of St. Lawrence water stakeholders. In this context, SLAP partners contribute to the implementation of IMSL through financial support for ZIP committees (ECCC) and regional round tables (RRTs, MELCCFP), financial support for the overall implementation of IMSL (MELCCFP), and the Forum on the St. Lawrence (MELCCFP and ECCC).

Initially launched in 2011, the implementation of the integrated management of the St. Lawrence is still not complete more than 10 years later. The establishment of RRTs, under the responsibility of the Quebec government, is not complete, with only six of the 12 planned RRTs in place. Of these, only four RRTs have developed a regional integrated management plan (RIMP), the RRTs’ main tool for integrated water resource management. Additionally, since their creation between 1993 and 1998, the 12 ZIP committees have developed ERAPs in consultation with local stakeholders. The ERAPs are updated regularly based on changes to the issue sheets (which are either reviewed, withdrawn or added) as a result of the ZIP committees’ concertation activities. All strategic ERAPs are expected to be reviewed by 2026. Together, these findings show that the integrated management is not fully implemented.

Resources allocated to the integrated management of the St. Lawrence

The integrated management of the St. Lawrence is one of ECCC’s most significant expenditures (30%) under SLAP for the 2016–2021 period, as it is for the Quebec government (32%). Most of these expenditures take the form of contributions (ECCC) and grants (MELCCFP) to predetermined recipients, i.e. not-for-profit organizations mandated to form ZIP committees under the ZIP Program (ECCC) and organizations mandated to operate RRTs established under the Quebec Water Act (MELCCFP). Table 6 shows the actual expenditures supporting the integrated management of the St. Lawrence from 2016 to 2021.

Source: Five-Year Report 2016–2021: SLAP Achievements and Overview (PDF)

* For the purposes of this calculation, program expenditures for joint actions have been considered as a whole, rather than disaggregated by priority issue.

Expected outcomes of the integrated management of the St. Lawrence

In terms of expected outcomes relating to the implementation of the integrated management of the St. Lawrence, there are no indicators for measuring these effects beyond the activities and deliverables (see Table 5. Expected SLAP Outcomes and Indicators). Therefore, it is impossible to know what concrete impacts the ZIP Program (ECCC) achieved by consensus-building, nor is it possible to know how the ZIP Program contributes to the intervention logic that supports departmental results. SLAP does not specify how integrated management contributes indirectly—including to what extent and over what timeframe—to improving water quality and the ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence.

The program would benefit from identifying the contribution of the ZIP Program (ECCC) to departmental results. In co-operation with Quebec government partners, the program would also benefit from defining the main outcomes expected from the integrated management of the St. Lawrence under SLAP. An action-oriented approach to consensus-building should be considered in identifying these outcomes. Future work should strive to empower water stakeholders to carry out environmental actions with well-defined targets for improving the state of the St. Lawrence.

Given the lack of tangible outcomes delivered by water stakeholders, the question arises as to whether the current form of IMSL can contribute to improving water quality and the health of the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

Insufficient information on performance

The integrated management of the St. Lawrence is a key aspect of SLAP, and the PIP indicator table confirms its relevance to SLAP. However, the Logic Model of the Performance Information Profile (PIP) for the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships Program does not recognize SLAP as one of the ECCC programs contributing to the integrated management of priority ecosystems (ultimate outcome 4b) (for additional context, consult Appendix A – SLAP and the Expected Outcomes of the Performance Information Profile, and Appendix B – Logic Model of the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships Program).

Despite the availability of an indicator allegedly related to the integrated management of the St. Lawrence ecosystem, it does not accurately reflect the integrated management approach adopted by SLAP participants and reflected in the Agreement. In its current wording, the indicator reports whether activities completion and products delivery are carried out in accordance with the work plan set out in the appendices to the Agreement. This does not enable program leaders to determine whether the integrated management of the St. Lawrence is delivering the expected outcomes. The indicator should be reviewed and adjusted to (1) specifically target the outcomes of the integrated management of the St. Lawrence and (2) reflect clearly defined measures of success, as suggested in the previous subsection.

5.4 Integrated management support programs are not effectively integrated

The ZIP Program (ECCC), established in 1993, was the main support for the integrated management of the St. Lawrence for 20 years. In 2009, the adoption of the Water Act confirmed the Quebec government’s interest in the ongoing implementation of the integrated management of the St. Lawrence initiated by the ZIP Program. The Water Act also introduced a new approach to the governance of water resources in Quebec (PDF) (available in French only) and established the St. Lawrence RRTs. Two years later, the 2011–2026 Agreement was negotiated and signed. The ZIP Program remains in effect, and the RRTs have been added as key elements of the program to ensure the integrated management of the St. Lawrence.

Program representatives (ECCC) acknowledge that the relationship between the ZIP committees and RRTs has not been formally defined. The Quebec model of integrated water resource management has therefore been added to the federal consultation model established by the ZIP Program, without any steps being taken to ensure complementarity. In appreciation of their extensive networks and expertise, a number of ZIP committees have been mandated to support the establishment of RRTs.

Significant overlap between ZIP committees and RRTs

ZIP committees and RRTs have the same mandate. They have similar objectives, activities, and products and their areas of intervention overlap. Table 7 provides a comparison of these factors.

Following reflection on the future of the ZIP Program, ECCC has decided not to renew the program beyond the 2011–2026 Agreement. This decision could ultimately be beneficial to the alignment of resource allocation with departmental results.

Sources: Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 (PDF), Cadre de référence de la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau (PDF) [Terms of Reference for Integrated Water Resource Management], information provided by the program.

*RRTs are the exclusive responsibility of MELCCFP.

6. Opportunities

Given that the SLAP mandate was negotiated for the 2011–2026 period and future activities were negotiated for the 2021–2026 period, the opportunities for improvement described in this section are mainly to be pursued during reflections and discussions on the renewal of SLAP beyond 2026.

6.1 Building on the integrated management framework to improve the state of the St. Lawrence

In the current context of integrated management, the responsibility for acting to improve the water quality and ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence is delegated by the Government of Quebec to regional and local water stakeholders. They are responsible for developing and implementing regional integrated management plans (RIMPs) through the RRTs. During RRTs, communities and water stakeholders define priority issues and develop action plans. The impact of water stakeholders’ actions on the water quality and ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence is neither known nor measured.

What role should ECCC and SLAP play in integrated management?

To the extent that actions related to the water and ecosystem of the St. Lawrence continue to be taken primarily by local stakeholders, ECCC and its SLAP government partners have no assurance that the water quality and ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence will be improved.

Implementing RIMP and ERAP action plans are the shared responsibility of many water stakeholders spanning the municipal, business and community sectors. The actions taken by water stakeholders are expected to have a variable impact and are most often conditional on receiving funding. These actions are not universally subject to aggregate performance measurements, either in the regions or the St. Lawrence as a whole, which has led to a set of interventions that are somewhat inadequately coordinated and funded, and whose overall impact on the water quality and ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence is neither known nor measured.

In the context of reflecting on and discussing SLAP renewal after 2026, ECCC and its government partners might consider the possibility of building on integrated management to generate positive outcomes for the St. Lawrence. For example, technical, scientific, administrative and financial support could be offered for the implementation of RIMP and ERAP action plans. ECCC and its SLAP partners could also take part in defining objectives and targets, prioritizing actions, and measuring performance from a broad perspective.

The uncertain future of RRTs

In 2020, SLAP partners negotiated Phase VI of SLAP (2021–2026), the third and final five-year period of the 2011–2026 Agreement. In this document, the Government of Quebec committed to finalizing the establishment of 12 RRTs, although only six RRTs had been created since 2011, three in 2014 and three in 2015. Eight years later, in December 2022, MELCC’s integrated water management directorate, which was previously responsible for supervising the establishment and operation of RRTs, was abolished. This was part of the organizational realignment of MELCC embedded into its mandate expansion to include wildlife and parks (after which MELCC became MELCCFP).

These circumstances raise doubts about whether the RRT network will ever be established as initially planned in 2009. This is a key aspect to consider when reflecting on the possibility of improving the water quality and ecosystem health of the St. Lawrence by building on integrated management.

6.2 Strengthening the Community Interaction Program’s contribution to improving the state of the St. Lawrence

The Community Interaction Program (CIP) provides financial support to project proponents aiming to conserve biodiversity, encourage sustainable use, and improve the ecosystem and water quality of the St. Lawrence. Public awareness projects, study projects, study-action projects and restoration or protection projects are eligible for CIP funding. The maximum amount of financial support available ranges between $25,000 and $200,000, depending on the type of project. Projects must also have received community support and demonstrate matching funding to be eligible. ECCC and MELCCFP provide independent funding envelopes for this program and collaborate at the project review, selection, and recommendation phases. The other stages of the program—day-to-day program administration, the funding approval process, support of funded projects and reporting—are administered independently by the two levels of government.

A local contribution with no known impact on departmental results

The CIP aims to improve and protect the ecosystems of the St. Lawrence, but no specific quantified targets or indicators are defined for the program. The expected outcomes of the CIP are determined by project using performance indicators set out in the contribution agreements. In addition to quantifying some activities and outputs, many of these indicators report on the outcomes generated by the projects. Although the results of the actions carried out by CIP beneficiaries are documented at the local scale, their collective impact on the quality of water and the health of the St. Lawrence ecosystem and their collective contribution to achieving departmental results are not known.

In the Performance Information Profile for the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships Program, CIP performance is reported in terms of the number of partners and leverage (for additional context, see Appendix B – Logic Model of the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships that refers to outputs rather than outcomes. For these reasons, it is not known whether and how CIP-funded projects contribute to achieving departmental results.

Strengthening program administration

During the period covered by the evaluation, the CIP spent all available contribution funding (federal share). Administrative expenditures made up 15% of total expenditures during the period covered by the evaluation, which is in line with good practice. However, CIP administration could be strengthened in a number of ways:

• The CIP experiences significant approval delays following program administrators’ funding recommendations. To date, however, all recommended projects have been funded in modest amounts. For seasonal field projects, late approval has caused significant delays in carrying out activities.
• The CIP does not have a centralized database for managing contributions. Information is compiled manually, and reporting on the CIP’s overall outcomes is labour intensive.
• Current eligibility criteria exclude some project proposals that could have a positive impact on the state of the St. Lawrence, including those that fall within the applicant organization’s mission, or involve government responsibilities or recurring activities.
• The CIP administration spends more time on selecting project proposals than on supporting the projects that are approved for funding. An opportunity exists to try out an agile approach based on an active partnership, which could enhance funded projects and improve outcomes. This opportunity could be seized if sufficient resources were available, in compliance with policies, guidelines and standards for making and managing transfer payments.
• Administering the CIP’s joint components is difficult due to the imbalance in resources provided by ECCC and MELCCFP, which causes delays in day-to-day management. It may be beneficial to review roles and responsibilities to provide better service to recipients.
• The selection criterion related to community involvement is not clearly defined and has unexpected negative effects: to date, applying this criterion has disqualified a number of quality projects, in the opinion of proposal evaluators, while qualifying projects have not always led to long-lasting outcomes due to community support, contrary to expectations.

Insufficient resources to contribute significantly to departmental results

SLAP does not have a clear mandate to improve the state of the St. Lawrence, nor does it have targets to that effect. The CIP is the only component of Agreement programming through which ECCC can contribute directly to its departmental results. However, the contribution funding envelope administered by the CIP is insufficient to make a significant contribution to the achievement of departmental results targeting the improvement of water quality and the health of the St. Lawrence ecosystem. CIP funding amounts are modest and are not clearly aligned with the environmental issues facing the St. Lawrence.

During the six-year period extending from 2016–2017 to 2021–2022, $3.1 million in federal contribution funding ($0.51 million a year on average) was disbursed under the CIP. In comparison, during the three-year period extending from 2017–2018 to 2019–2020, the funding programs of the Great Lakes Protection Initiative and the Lake Winnipeg Basin Program disbursed $4.8 million each ($1.6 million a year on average). Therefore, on an annual basis, SLAP had three times less funding available to support community projects than comparable federal water management programs.

During Phase VI of SLAP (2016–2021), annual departmental resource allocation decisions reduced the CIP allocation by $984,261 over five years, a 30% reduction in the planned allocation. Pointing to a disconnect between the available funding and project proponents’ interest in the CIP, a total of four out of 13 calls for projects were cancelled because the available funding had already been directed towards multi-year projects. The CIP also received six eligible project proposals judged by the evaluators to be of satisfactory quality that were not recommended for funding because there was no more left in the envelope. The funding requested from ECCC for these six project proposals totalled $385,146.

Missed opportunities for carrying out projects likely to improve the state of the St. Lawrence may also be underestimated. According to program representatives who are very familiar with the CIP, many potential recipients do not submit project proposals because the funding caps are too low. This is mainly why the CIP does not attract proposals for structuring projects, i.e. projects that involve multiple stakeholders, cover a wider geographical area and target meaningful outcomes.

6.3 Supporting the greater participation of federal partners

Under the 2011–2026 Agreement, government partners provide their own resources to support their participation in SLAP. These resources are most often drawn from the department’s or program’s operating envelope (permanent resources), which means that their allocation is decided annually based on situational priorities.

Aside from ECCC, ten other Government of Canada organizations contribute to SLAP as partners: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, the Canadian Space Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard (DFO), Health Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Shared Services Canada and Transport Canada. Except for ECCC and DFO, the resources made available by the other federal partners are very modest, averaging around $17,800 annually per organization. Graph 3 shows the financial contribution of the SLAP federal partners.

Graph 3. Financial contribution of St. Lawrence Action Plan federal partners, 2016–2017 to 2021–2022

Source: Information provided by the program

Although these government partners’ mandates and expertise are aligned with SLAP priorities and, more broadly, with the governance issues associated with the St. Lawrence, a number of participants feel that it is difficult to foster an interest in and a commitment to SLAP within these organizations. This is partly because organizations have numerous departmental and governmental priorities for which results must be achieved and for which they receive additional temporary financial resources in many cases. Under these circumstances, they do not see making an active and significant contribution to SLAP as a priority.

A recent experience of the Working Group on Numerical Environmental Prediction provides a path worth exploring in strengthening the participation of federal partners. As part of an interdepartmental collaboration on water modelling and ocean topography, the Canadian Space Agency transferred approximately $150,000 to ECCC to support its participation. Receiving this interdepartmental funding along with the obligation to produce results led to the mobilization of nearly 10 times this amount in internal resources to support the project.

This example suggests that awarding funding for specific purposes can, in similar contexts, create considerable leverage, which allows internal resources to be reallocated to collaborative projects. ECCC could consider making financial resources available to federal partners with a matching requirement, to strengthen their participation in SLAP projects and governance.

6.4 Supporting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

In 2018 the Government of Canada adopted Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples. To the extent that the integrated management of the St. Lawrence ecosystem coordinates and supports the Government of Canada’s and the Government of Quebec’s collaborative effort in (public) decisions affecting the St. Lawrence, the rights, interests and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples and their governments must be recognized.

The 2011–2026 Agreement was negotiated prior to the adoption of the principles governing Crown–Indigenous relations. As SLAP continues, ECCC should create opportunities to strengthen the alignment of the Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence with the principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and the Action Plan.

The St. Lawrence Action Plan offers little support for First Nations’ participation

Unlike the Great Lakes Agreement and the Lake Winnipeg Basin Memorandum of Understanding, SLAP does not formalize or encourage the participation of riverside Indigenous communities, including in the administration of the Agreement and in delivering JAP activities.

First Nations and their governments or communities are not represented in the SLAP governance structure. However, First Nations are represented on provincial RRTs and their representatives are invited to attend the Forum on the St. Lawrence.

The National Issues Report has pointed to the consideration and integration of Indigenous knowledge, including traditional knowledge, as an important component of adapting to climate change. Indigenous knowledge, including traditional knowledge, has not been considered or integrated in any of the JAP projects. Furthermore, none of these projects invites or encourages the participation of First Nations partners at any stage of the project.

Some First Nations communities have expressed an interest in taking a meaningful part in planning SLAP activities, in receiving funding to support this involvement and in sharing their traditional ecological knowledge.

Strengthening First Nations’ participation through the ZIP Program

ZIP (area of prime concern) committees are independent organizations with a charter and a Board of Directors appointed in accordance with not-for-profit organization standards. Although some ZIP committees acknowledge that they are active on First Nations’ territory, Indigenous representation on ZIP committees is not required.

ZIP committees do not appear to consider the First Nations communities in the vicinity of their operating area as partners and collaborators with which they can work in remediating and enhancing the St. Lawrence, either regularly or in action projects. For example, the Haut Saint-Laurent ZIP committee has no First Nations communities among its over 70 collaborative partners. The ERAPs developed by ZIP committees make no systematic reference to Indigenous groups in the issues and cases they handle.

To the extent that the ZIP committees are funded by ECCC, continuation of their funding could be made conditional on establishing, maintaining and strengthening collaborative relationships with First Nations communities present in their operating area. Communities could also receive funding for regularly participating in activities related to the integrated management of the St. Lawrence.

Strengthening First Nations’ participation through the Community Interaction Program

Between 2016 and 2021, five projects proposed by representatives or members of Indigenous communities were funded by ECCC under the CIP, out of a total of 47 funded projects. Starting in 2022-23, the management of contributions with Indigenous communities has provided the flexibility to carryover unspent funds to the following fiscal year. The CIP also now participates in the Initiative on Strategic Partnerships with Indigenous Communities. The initiative is led by Indigenous Services Canada and aims to reduce barriers to Indigenous participation in economic development opportunities. Specific measures would strengthen the participation of First Nations communities in the CIP:

• Allowing for full funding of activities (100%) without a matching requirement;
• Providing long-term financial support for monitoring and maintaining restored sites;
• Simplifying the call for projects process and templates;
• Providing better adapted and more flexible support for designing and developing project proposals;
• Improving how the program is promoted among First Nations communities.

6.5 Supporting adaptation to climate change

Canada’s climate is warming rapidly, two times faster than the global average and three times faster in Canada’s North. Canadians are already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, flooding, wildfires and coastal erosion. The science is clear: doing too little too late will be very costly. Even though we are already taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to make a greater effort to adapt to and prepare for the effects of climate change.

The St. Lawrence ecosystem is already being adversely affected by climate change: along with the clearly visible consequences of coastal erosion, the ecosystem is experiencing a steady decline in oxygen levels and an increase in temperatures, two long-term phenomena that have already had, and will continue to have, an impact on biodiversity.

Role and capacity of the Climate Change Committee

Given the importance of climate change and its expected impacts on the St. Lawrence, it would be beneficial for SLAP to raise the importance of the issue in the text of the Agreement. One option worth considering would be to strengthen the role of the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

Although the Climate Change Committee collaborated specifically with the Sustainable Use Issue Committee during the 2016–2021 period, during the 2021–2026 period, it was transformed into an advisory committee that reports directly to the Agreement Steering Committee. The CCC advises the issue committees and working groups during project planning periods to ensure that climate change is considered across all SLAP projects. The CCC also coordinates events to share knowledge and best practices with its stakeholders on adaptation to climate change for the St. Lawrence. During the evaluation period ending on March 31, 2022, which was the first year of the committee’s new mandate, it partially fulfilled its responsibilities. Table 8 presents the CCC’s responsibilities and achievements.

Source: Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 (PDF), information provided by the program

* The number of participants in these webinars and the knowledge they acquired are not known.

As shown in the table above, the committee did not demonstrate that it stayed informed about issues related to the impacts of climate change on the St. Lawrence and the need to develop knowledge about its impacts and adaptation solutions. SLAP must develop options for building the committee’s capacity, including improving the alignment of the committee co-chairs’ expertise with the responsibilities of their position, so that the committee can fulfill all of its responsibilities. To be sure, the CCC has recognized that it does not have the knowledge or expertise required to carry out its duties. It may be useful to draw on complementary expertise, in particular that of the staff at the Canadian Centre for Climate Services (CCCS), to support the committee’s work.

Expected outcomes and responsibilities

Currently, the integration of climate change considerations in JAP projects is optional and the Climate Change Committee’s role is limited to informing and advising. Therefore, successful integration depends on the project leaders’ voluntary participation. It would be helpful to define other governance bodies’ roles and responsibilities in order to strengthen the integration of climate issues in all SLAP activities and outputs.

In addition, the objective of integrating climate change considerations in projects is too broad. Without well-defined indicators of success, it is difficult to evaluate whether integration is achieving its objectives and creating benefits for the St. Lawrence ecosystem, its riverside communities and its users. Without these indicators, it is also difficult to communicate the successes of SLAP in this area and the appropriateness of allocating resources to the Committee’s activities and to the climate change components of projects.

The CCC’s responsibilities in supporting the integration of climate change considerations in SLAP projects are currently limited to JAP projects and do not extend to CIP projects. CIP projects have a direct local impact on the state of the St. Lawrence and thus represent an opportunity to encourage achieving the benefits of climate change adaptation.

6.6 Supporting better outcomes for disadvantaged groups

Science plays a key role in the progress achieved in improving environmental justice. Environmental justice can be defined as a process that seeks to mitigate or eliminate the disproportionate health, environmental, economic and climate impacts on marginalized communities.

Since 2016, Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) has applied to all Government of Canada policies, programs and initiatives, including scientific and environmental programs. This is because the impacts of environmental conditions differ not only by gender, but also by socio-economic status, racialized status, Indigenous status, place of residence or work, and other factors. The quality of the environment also has a direct impact on the quality of life for individuals and population groups. In a recent interim report (2023) (PDF), the Senate of Canada’s Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology emphasized that there is still much work to be done to fully implement GBA Plus system-wide.

Applying GBA Plus to environmental programs takes two main forms. First, environmental programs with a scientific research mandate can enhance their research agenda by adding a component that characterizes environmental risks and benefits. This generates disaggregated information to provide insight into different levels of exposure to risk and different abilities of population groups to access environmental benefits. Second, environmental programs with a mandate to take action to improve the quality of the environment must seek to mitigate or eliminate the disproportionate exposure of certain population groups to environmental risks, and to mitigate or eliminate the barriers that disproportionately limit the access of certain population groups to environmental benefits.

The Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 was negotiated in 2010, a number of years before the adoption of GBA Plus and its requirements for disaggregated impact analysis based on identity factors. In 2010, gender-based analysis had already been required in all federal government departments and agencies for 15 years, under The Federal Plan for Gender Equality (PDF) (1995), but its application to environmental programs seemed more limited. As a result, in current SLAP activities, the scientific information generated on water quality and ecosystem health is not systematically linked to environmental risks and benefits for the population groups concerned. Issues of access to natural environments, exposure to substances of concern, and inclusion and representation of diversity in ecosystem remedial actions and in the governance of freshwater resources—including First Nations communities—are not taken into account.

According to the Performance Information Profile (PIP), GBA Plus was considered for all programs grouped under the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships program, which is part of the Departmental Results Framework. While SLAP belongs to this group of programs, it would be inaccurate to state that GBA Plus has been fully applied to SLAP. The expected renewal of the Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence provides a good opportunity to integrate environmental justice considerations in SLAP, by specifically quantifying the intentional contribution required to the acquisition of information disaggregated by identity factors.

Recommendations and management response

The following recommendations are intended for the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Canada Water Agency, as the senior departmental official responsible for the St. Lawrence Action Plan for ECCC.^{Footnote 1} Since the SLAP mandate for the 2011–2026 period and future activities for the 2021–2026 period have already been negotiated, the recommendations in this section aim to foster reflection and discussion on the renewal of SLAP after 2026.

Recommendation 1

Recommendation 2

Recommendation 3

Appendix A – St. Lawrence Action Plan and the expected outcomes of the Performance Information Profile

Sources: Performance Information Profile of the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships Program; Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence (2011–2026) (PDF)

* The departmental result indicator is currently being redefined.

** The PIP logic model does not identify SLAP as one of the ECCC programs contributing to the integrated management of priority ecosystems, yet the integrated management of the St. Lawrence is a central component of SLAP, as reflected in the PIP indicators table. The logic model should be revised to correct this factual error.

*** This indicator is misleading since SLAP does not directly help to maintain or improve the state of the St. Lawrence; it is not a program outcome.

Appendix B – Logic model of the Water Quality and Ecosystems Partnerships Program

* Priority ecosystems are: Great Lakes (GL), St. Lawrence River (ST.L), Atlantic (ATL), Lake Winnipeg (LW), West and North (WNR)

Appendix C – St. Lawrence Action Plan partners

The participating departments and agencies that have signed the SLAP are listed in the table below. ECCC and MELCCFP co-lead the Agreement and are responsible for its coordination.

Source: information provided by the program

* Department names in effect when the Agreement was signed and used on the Oproma reporting platform.

Appendix D – References

Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (2022). La CMM prend les grands moyens pour accélérer la protection des milieux naturels et des espèces menacées. Press release, April 28, 2022.

Government of Canada (2016). Water governance and legislation: shared responsibility.

Government of Canada (2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report.

Government of Canada (2021). Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples.

Government of Canada (2021). National Issues Report.

Government of Canada (2022). Government of Canada's approach on Gender-based Analysis Plus.

Government of Canada (2022). Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy: Building Resilient Communities and a Strong Economy.

Gouvernement of Québec (2022). Cadre de référence de la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau (PDF).

Jobin, B., Gratton , L., Côté, M.-J., Pfister, O., Lachance, D., Mingelbier, M., Blais, D., Blais, A. and Leclair, D. (2020). L’atlas des territoires d’intérêt pour la conservation dans les basses-terres du Saint-Laurent : un outil pour orienter la conservation des milieux naturels dans le sud du Québec. Le Naturaliste canadien, 144(2), 47–64.

St. Lawrence Action Plan (2011). Canada-Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011–2026 (PDF).

The Senate of Canada (2023). All Together — The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process: reducing barriers to an inclusive intersectional policy analysis (PDF).