Evaluation of the Contraventions Act Program
3. Methodology
The methodology for conducting this evaluation includes several components in order to address the evaluation questions described in Appendix B: a document and file review, key informant interviews, and site visits. The following paragraphs briefly describe these activities.
3.1. Document and File Review
The review of relevant documents and data informed all of the evaluation issues and questions. It offered a common information base for the other lines of evidence (interviews and site visits). The list of documents reviewed includes, but is not limited to the following:
- Documents related to the history of the Contraventions Act were reviewed. Some of these documents are public, such as studies conducted by the Law Reform Commission, whereas others are internal (e.g., briefing notes, memos). They provided critical insights on the rationale of the Act.
- A number of key legislative texts were reviewed. In addition to the Contraventions Act itself, along with its two sets of regulations, a number of federal laws and regulations currently covered by the Act were also reviewed. Provincial legislation on court procedures was also included.
- Current Contravention Act agreements, along with financial and statistical reports, were also reviewed. In some cases, provincial authorities provided additional statistical data on the number and the type of contravention tickets issued in their jurisdictions.
Additional documents were gathered throughout the data collection process, including information provided by key informants.
3.2. Key Stakeholder Interviews, Including Site Visits
Key informant interviews contributed to an in-depth understanding of the Program, the identification of successes, as well as problems and challenges, and potential solutions. Semi-structured interviews with key informants were conducted to measure the opinions, perceptions, and experience of Program stakeholders. While a number of interviews were conducted over the phone, specific site visits in Prince Edward Island and Manitoba were conducted to allow for a more in-depth understanding of the implementation of the Act. Over time, various provinces have been selected for site visits as part of the evaluation of the Program.
A total of 60 individuals were interviewed as part of these interviews and site visits. Table 4 includes the distribution of interviewees per category of Program stakeholders. A few points should be emphasized regarding these interviews:
- Since one of the fundamental purposes of the Contraventions Act is to assist enforcement officers in executing their mandate, particular attention is given to this category of key informants. This explains why 25 of the 60 individuals interviewed were enforcement officers. Enforcement officers are particularly well positioned to provide practical insights on the operation and efficiency of the Act, as currently implemented.
- In a number of cases, individuals who formally participated in interviews consulted some of their colleagues prior to their interview and shared these additional perspectives. For this reason, there are more than 60 individuals who contributed to this evaluation.
- When it comes to prosecuting federal offences designated as contraventions, the Public Prosecution Services of Canada (PPSC) holds that responsibility in all provinces except Ontario and Québec (where provincial or municipal prosecutors undertake that role). In previous evaluations of the Program, individual prosecutors from the PPSC participated in the key informant interviews. During this evaluation, however, only one corporate response from PPSC was provided, and no individual interviews with PPSC prosecutors were conducted. This explains the limited number of ‘Prosecution services’ interviews indicated in Table 4 – the 4 interviews from this category that were conducted were with representatives from Ontario and Québec’s provincial prosecution services. This practice of PPSC has unfortunately limited the range of insights that would have traditionally benefited the evaluation process.
| Categories of key informants | # of individuals consulted |
|---|---|
| Department of Justice Canada | 4 |
| Other federal departments (including legal service unitsTable note i) | 7 |
| Provincial governments | 14 |
| Enforcement officers | 25 |
| Court personnel | 6 |
| Prosecution services | 4 |
| Total | 60 |
- Table note i
-
While legal counsel assigned to legal services units are employees of Justice Canada, they are included in the category of “Other federal departments” for the purpose of this evaluation.
3.3. Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
The evaluation process encountered some limitations, none of which substantially affected the validity of the findings.
- Limited insights from prosecutors
- The views of prosecutors on the impact of the Program are important. As already noted, while some insights were provided by PPSC through a unique corporate response, this approach did not allow for probing and additional views to be gathered. This limitation was mitigated through interviews conducted with non-PPSC prosecutors, and from insights provided by PPSC prosecutors as part of previous evaluations.
- Limited insights from provinces not participating in the Program
- No interviews were conducted with provincial representatives from provinces that are not yet participating in the Program. This was due to the fact that there are no obligations on the part of these provinces to participate in the evaluation process, and the evaluation team did not want to interfere in current negotiations being conducted with these provinces. This limitation was mitigated by conducting interviews with enforcement officers who operate in these provinces.
- Limited data on direct interactions with Canadians
- One central objective of the Contraventions Act is to make a clearer distinction between criminal and regulatory offences, and to lessen the burden on Canadians who are alleged to have contravened regulatory offences designated as contraventions. The scope of the evaluation did not allow for views to be collected directly from Canadians. This was mitigated through the interviews with other key stakeholders, particularly enforcement officers and non-PPSC prosecutors, who could address questions related to the impact of the Program on Canadians.
- Date modified: