Evaluation of the Historical Recognition Programs

Evaluation Division
Research and Evaluation
January 2013

As per a commitment in the Treasury Board submission, an evaluation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) Historical Recognition Programs (HRPs) was required in the final year of operation. Given that the programs were time-limited, a “lessons learned” approach was followed, with the aim to identify lessons that could be used in the development of future similar programs. The evaluation was undertaken by CIC’s Research and Evaluation Branch (R&E) between December 2011 and September 2012.

Evaluation of the Historical Recognition Programs (PDF, 702 KB)


Table of Contents

Technical appendices are available upon request to Research_Recherche@cic.gc.ca


List of acronyms

AC
Advisory Committee
ACE
Acknowledgement Commemoration and Education Program
ADM
Assistant Deputy Minister
AiP
Agreement-in-Principle
CFP
Call for Proposals
CHRP
Community Historical Recognition Program
CIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
DEC
Departmental Evaluation Committee
G&C
Grant and Contribution
GoC
Government of Canada
HRPs
Historical Recognition Programs
IPMB
Integration Program Management Branch
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NHRP
National Historical Recognition Program
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OMC
Operational Management and Coordination Branch
PAA
Program ment Architecture
PCH
Department of Canadian Heritage
R&E
Research and Evaluation Branch
RMAF / RBAF
Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework / Risk-Based Audit Framework

Executive summary

As per a Treasury Board commitment, an evaluation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) Historical Recognition Programs (HRPs) was required in the final year of operations. Given that the programs were time-limited, a lessons learned approached was followed, with the aim to identify lessons that could be used in the development of future similar programs. The evaluation was undertaken by CIC’s Research and Evaluation Branch (R&E) between December 2011 and September 2012.

The Historical Recognition Programs

The HRPs are comprised of two components:

  • The Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) is comprised of an endowment fund with the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko for the recognition of World War I internment experiences (Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund); and a community-based initiative. Both components focus on funding commemorative and educational projects that promote awareness of historical wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions for communities, highlight the contributions affected communities have made to Canada, and educate Canadians about these historical experiences and contributions; and
  • The National Historical Recognition Program (NHRP), which focuses on federal projects to help commemorate the historical experiences of affected communities and educate Canadians, particularly youth, about the history related to wartime measures and immigration restrictions applied in Canada, and highlight and commemorate the contribution affected communities have made to Canada.

The HRPs were originally delivered by the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH), but these programs were incorporated into CIC programming with the transfer of responsibility for the Multiculturalism portfolio in October 2008. The CHRP and NHRP were time-limited programs set to operate from 2006/07 to 2009/10.Footnote 1

Scope and methodology

The evaluation was calibrated in recognition of the fact that the programs were time-limited and their overall level of risk, which was identified in the CIC departmental evaluation plan as “moderate”. The evaluation questions were designed to focus on identifying “lessons learned” from the implementation of the programs and thus no recommendations were put forward. The evaluation relied on four lines of evidence (i.e., interviews, program data analysis, document review and file review) and examined: the rationale behind the development of the HRPs; the role of the federal government; how the HRPs ed with the priorities of CIC and the federal government; and program management and governance. The evaluation was not designed to focus on gathering outcome-related information or examining the efficiency of the program in great depth, and the approaches to data collection were calibrated accordingly.

The scope of the evaluation included program activities between fiscal years 2006/07 and 2011/12. The Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund was not included in the scope of the evaluation.

Limitations

There were two main limitations of the evaluation to consider when reviewing the findings:

  • There were difficulties in obtaining CHRP project files and project information. The evaluation aimed to include a representative sample of projects of various sizes and types for each of the affected communities. However, of the 67 project files, only 14 completed files were made available for the review—others were either still open or could not be located by the program. This reduced the amount of material available for analysis, the representativeness of the results, and the level of rigour possible.
  • A lack of comparable programs found in other jurisdictions prevented the evaluation from drawing on best practices and lessons learned elsewhere. The evaluation examined alternative methods of delivery for historical recognition programs by examining best practices and lessons learned in other jurisdictions. However, no other countries have implemented similar programs. Therefore, the evaluation had to rely on information from interviewees to identify best practices and lessons learned for the delivery of the programs.

Evaluation findings

Relevance

  • The HRPs were designed to address previous actions of the federal government which are no longer consistent with Canadian values and expectations and to address gaps in public knowledge regarding these events. Selected communities had expressed a strong desire for the HRPs and were either signatories to previous agreements to receive historical recognition funding that had not been fulfilled, or had faced historical experiences similar to some communities that had received recognition.
  • The programs are ed with various federal legislation and other agreements and are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities given the national scope of the issues that they aim to address.
  • The programs are ed with Government of Canada priorities to ensure that the historical experiences of ethno-cultural communities impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions are recognized; and with CIC’s strategic objective three, which aims to ensure that newcomers and citizens fully participate in fostering an integrated society.

Management and governance

  • The governance structure of the HRPs altered significantly when the programs were transferred from PCH to CIC. Roles and responsibilities were not well documented or understood within the new CIC environment, which resulted in a lack of clarity between financial and CHRP officers during project review, leading to delays in forwarding projects to the Advisory Committees.
  • Variations in the engagement and organizational capacity among the affected ethno-cultural communities resulted in delays with, and modifications of, the CHRP projects.
  • A variety of promotional and communication tools were used to raise awareness of the programs and engage communities to apply for funding; these approaches were updated over time as needed. There is some evidence to suggest that communications and promotional strategies were effective.
  • As part of strict funding envelopes allocated to each of the communities in CHRP, funds could not be reallocated to different communities when communities with lower capacity and engagement did not have any projects funded.
  • The design and use of ethno-specific Advisory Committees were effective; the committees made recommendations efficiently and collaboratively and in a fair and transparent manner.
  • Program tools, guidelines, and procedures were in place for CIC staff, but these were not always used consistently; and monitoring and reporting on projects has not been effective.

Performance

  • CHRP and NHRP projects have increased the amount of educational and commemorative materials related to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions, and have increased the visibility of affected communities.
  • HRP projects had community support at their outset, as shown by the letters of support on the project files. CIC program staff believe that the satisfaction of community members with the projects varies, however, the evaluation was not able to confirm the level of community satisfaction.
  • Based on the interviews and document review, the evaluation did not identify any alternative methods of service delivery for historical recognition programming given the uniqueness of the HRPs in addressing multiple historical experiences and events.

Lessons learned

Following the findings from the evaluation, there are four key lessons learned that emerged:

  1. The use of advisory committees with stakeholder representation can be an effective mechanism to ensure that communities targeted by a program are included in the decision-making process.
  2. CIC may be required to provide greater support, guidance, and oversight to community groups that may not have the capacity to undertake a project through contribution agreements or grants.
  3. Key documents concerning the governance of programs, including the respective roles and responsibilities of CIC Branches, need to be updated in a timely way to reflect departmental changes in organizational structure, program management and governance.
  4. Having project and financial tracking tools ready in a timely fashion and ensuring their consistent application to project files is necessary to ensure effective management of grants and contributions programs.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context of evaluation

As per a commitment in the Treasury Board submission, an evaluation of Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) Historical Recognition Programs (HRPs) was required in the final year of operation. Given that the programs were time-limited, a “lessons learned” approach was followed, with the aim to identify lessons that could be used in the development of future similar programs. The evaluation was undertaken by CIC’s Research and Evaluation Branch (R&E) between December 2011 and September 2012.

This report presents the results of the evaluation and is organized into four main sections:

  • Section 1 presents a profile of the programs;
  • Section 2 presents the methodology for the evaluation and related limitations;
  • Section 3 presents the findings of the evaluation; and
  • Section 4 presents the conclusions and lessons learned.

This report includes appendices, which are referenced throughout the report and is also accompanied by a supplemental document containing the Technical Appendices cited throughout this report.

1.2. Historical Recognition Program Profile

1.2.1. Program context

On June 22, 2006 the Prime Minister of Canada delivered an apology in the House of Commons to the Chinese-Canadian community for the federal government’s imposition of the Chinese Head Tax and for other exclusionary immigration policies aimed at that community leading up to the mid 20th Century.Footnote 2 To give meaning to this apology and acknowledge similar experiences of other communities in Canada, the Secretary of State of the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) announced that funding would be provided to create two Grants and Contributions (G&C) programs—the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP) and the National Historical Recognition Program (NHRP). These programs sought to fund projects that would help to acknowledge, commemorate, and educate Canadians about the hardships placed on certain groups of people as a result of immigration restrictions and wartime measures previously imposed by the Government of Canada (GoC).

Following successive negotiations over a two-year period with representatives from primarily the Chinese, Italian, Ukrainian, Jewish, and Indo-Canadian communities regarding their wishes and expectations, PCH developed a policy and programmatic approach for the implementation of CHRP and NHRP.

The HRPs commenced in April 2008 with the launch of the first Call for Proposals (CFP). In October 2008, responsibility for the programs was transferred to CIC as part of a broader handover of the Multiculturalism and Human Rights Branch. The HRPs are time-limited programs with a current targeted end date of March 2013, when all remaining projects are expected to be completed (see Appendix A for a timeline of the HRPs).

1.2.2. Community Historical Recognition Program

CHRP program objectives

CHRP made available $25.4 million in G&Cs funding over seven years to organizations or associations to undertake projects aimed at recognizing and commemorating the experiences of certain ethno-cultural communities that underwent hardships as a result of federal immigration restrictions and wartime measures (see Appendix B for further background information on all historical events implicated in CHRP and NHRP). Comprised of three separate components, CHRP on community-level projects that educated and raised awareness among Canadians about historical events and promoted the contributions of participating communities in the shaping of Canada.

  1. The first component was a $10 million conditional grant provided to the Ukrainian-Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko to establish an endowment fund that supported initiatives related to First World War internment involving primarily the Ukrainian, Austro-Hungarian, German, Bulgarian, and Turkish communities. The fund is known as the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund.Footnote 3
  2. The second component was $10 million (up to $5 million each) in G&Cs funding for the Italian-Canadian and Chinese-Canadian communities for projects related to the Second World War internment of Italian-Canadians and various immigration restrictions experienced by the Chinese-Canadian community.
  3. Under the third component, $5.4 million in G&Cs funding (up to $2.5 million per community) was made available for commemorative projects related to historical wartime measures or immigration restrictions that affected other communities not covered by the first two components of CHRP or by any other federal government programs. This primarily included the Komagata Maru Incident involving the Indo-Canadian community and the M.S. St. Louis Incident involving the Jewish-Canadian community.
CHRP governance and delivery framework

With respect to the G&Cs component of CHRP, community organisations and public institutions were invited by CIC to submit proposals during three annual CFP processes from 2008-2010.Footnote 4 Proposals were assessed by CHRP officers within the Integration Program Management Branch (IPMB) to determine their appropriateness in terms of meeting program goals and ment with funding priorities. Concurrently, Finance officers within the G&Cs Financial Management Division reviewed all proposals based on their budgets and financial viability.

Selected projects were then distributed among four separate Advisory Committees (ACs), comprised of representatives from each of the Chinese, Italian, Jewish, and Indo-Canadian communities. ACs were predominantly ethno-culturally homogenous, with each responsible for reviewing and recommending projects dealing solely with that community’s historical experiences. CHRP representatives attended AC meetings and were responsible for bringing information back to CIC regarding the projects recommended for funding. CHRP officers then reviewed the recommendations, which were passed on to the Minister, who held final approval authority over project funding.

In addition, policy development for the HRPs at CIC was managed by the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, while communications strategies were developed and implemented by CIC Communications Branch.

1.2.3. National Historical Recognition Program

NHRP program objectives

NHRP made available $5 million in funding for federal partners to undertake national-level projects that aimed to educate Canadians, particularly youth, about the history of wartime measures and immigration restrictions applied in Canada and the contributions of different ethno-cultural communities during these periods. Ultimately, $3.3 million of the total NHRP budget was provided to Parks Canada to fund a project entitled NHRP-Parks Canada Agency Initiatives to Recognize First World War Internment Operations.Footnote 5 This project consisted of the development of a major public exhibit held at the Cave and Basin National Historic Site in Alberta to tell the internment story of people in Canada during the First World War. A smaller exhibit was also slated for development at the Fort Henry National Historic Site of Canada in Kingston and interpretive panels were to be added to the Citadel National Historic Site of Canada in Halifax.

This project was implemented through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Parks Canada and PCH, beginning in fiscal year 2008/09. The objectives of the Parks Canada project were to:

  • present the story of First World War internment operations in Canada at historic sites and national parks across the country;
  • provide unique and engaging first-hand experiences of these historical events for young Canadians and the general public through diverse media, and stimulate conversations, raise awareness, and acknowledge the contributions of affected ethno-cultural communities; and
  • engage ethno-cultural communities affected by internment camp operations through consultations, partnerships, and joint research, which will help to bring a sense of closure to these historical events for affected communities.Footnote 6
NHRP governance and delivery framework

Horizontal coordination and the transfer of resources between Parks Canada and CIC (originally PCH) were established through an MOU signed by the Secretary of State of PCH. Parks Canada managed the project and reported regularly to CIC on the deliverables of each funding phase, along with copies of risk and environmental assessments undertaken.

1.2.4. Budget for the Historical Recognition Programs

In 2006, the HRPs received a four-year (2006/07 to 2009/10) funding allocation of $34 million ($24 million for CHRP and $10 million for NHRP). Following approval of recommended changes to the HRPs in 2008, the budget allocations were changed (Table 1-1). These changes included the authorization to reallocate funds for the HRPs to create the First World War Internment Recognition Fund, as well as a transfer of $5 million from Vote 1 to Vote 5 [from Operations & Maintenance (O&M) resourcing to G&C funding] to augment the amount of funding available for the affected communities. In addition, due to delays with the implementation of the HRPs, funds were reprofiled to future fiscal years (i.e., 2010/11, 2011/12, and 2012/13).

Table 1-1: Budget for the Historical Recognition Programs, 2006/07-2011/12 (As approved in 2008)

Community Historical Recognition Program
Fiscal year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total
Salary and O&M (Vote 1) 743,287 856,942 879,467 886,942 -- -- 3,366,638
Grants & Contributions (Vote 5) 5,982 110,385 8,731,452 3,552,181 2,000,000 1,000,000 15,400,000
Total 749,269 967,327 9,610,919 4,439,123 2,000,000 1,000,000 18,766,638
National Historical Recognition Program
Fiscal year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total
Salary and O&M (Vote 1) 850,731 310,877 2,010,877 1,260,877 400,000 400,000 5,233,362
Total 850,731 310,877 2,010,877 1,260,877 400,000 400,000 5,233,362
Grant to the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund
Fiscal year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total
Grant 10,000,000 10,000,000
Total 10,000,000 10,000,000
Total Historical Recognition Programs
Fiscal year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Total
Salary and O&M (Vote 1) 1,594,018 1,167,819 2,890,344 2,147,819 400,000 400,000 8,600,000
Grants & Contributions (Vote 5) 5,982 110,385 18,731,452 3,552,181 2,000,000 1,000,000 25,400,000
Total HRPs 1,600,000 1,278,204 21,621,796 5,700,000 2,400,000 1,400,000 34,000,000

Source: Program foundation documents

2. Methodology

2.1. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation followed the scope and methodology established in a planning phase undertaken between September 2010 and March 2011. The evaluation was calibrated in recognition of the fact that the programs were time-limited and their overall level of risk, which was identified in the CIC departmental evaluation plan as “moderate”. The evaluation was designed to focus on examining program management and governance, with an emphasis on identifying “lessons learned” that could be used in implementing future similar programs. Thus, no recommendations were put forward.

The evaluation relied on four lines of evidence (i.e., interviews, program data analysis, document review and file review) to examine: the rationale behind the development of the HRPs; the role of the federal government; how the HRPs ed with the priorities of CIC and the federal government; and program management and governance of the HRPs. The evaluation was not designed to focus on gathering outcome-related information or examining the efficiency of the program in great depth, and the approaches to data collection were calibrated accordingly. For example, no data were gathered from members of the advisory committees or from the affected communities, and by design, an assessment of outcomes was limited to information in the file review. See Appendix C for a complete set of question, indicators, and methodologies that were used for the evaluation (the program logic model can be found in the Technical Appendices).

The scope of the evaluation included program activities between fiscal years 2006/07 and 2011/12. As the Canadian First World War Internment Recognition Fund is subject to a separate funding agreement with its own reporting, auditing and evaluation requirements, it was not included in the scope of the evaluation.

Table 2-1: Summary of evaluation issues and questions
Issue / Question Section Reference #
Relevance
What was the rationale for the recognition and commemoration of initiatives targeting ethno-cultural communities affected by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions?  What needs were the HRPs responding to? 3.1.1
Were the HRPs consistent with federal roles and responsibilities? 3.1.2
Were the HRPs consistent with departmental and government- priorities and commitments? 3.1.3
Program management and governance
To what extent were the HRPs' structures clearly documented and understood by stakeholders?  Were they appropriate?  What, if any, lessons were learned? 3.2.1
Organizational capacity and engagement of communities* 3.2.2
To what extent were promotion and communication strategies effective for:
a) raising awareness of the Programs among eligible communities; and 
b) disseminating Program information to Canadians? What, if any, lessons were learned?
3.2.3
CHRP Funding allocations* 3.2.4
Did the use of advisory committees under CHRP allow for the fair, timely and efficient funding of projects?  Did they support local community needs? What, if any, lessons were learned? 3.2.5
Were the necessary tools and systems in place to enable successful delivery of the programs? 3.2.6
Performance  
To what extent have HRPs' projects increased visibility of affected ethno-cultural communities' historical experiences, achievements, and contributions to building Canada?
To what extent have HRPs' projects increased the body of historical material related to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions?
To what extent are HRPs' projects expected to contribute to increased knowledge and awareness among Canadians, particularly youth, of:
a) Canada's history related to historical wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions
b) ethno-cultural communities' achievements and contributions to building Canada?
3.3.1
To what extent were affected ethno-cultural communities satisfied with official recognition and commemoration efforts? 3.3.2
Are there more efficient/effective means of delivering historical recognition programs in the future? 3.3.3

* While not an explicit evaluation question, issues were identified with respect to community capacity and funding allocations, and therefore, sections were included in the report

2.2. Data collection methods

2.2.1. Interviews

A total of 12 interviews were completed for the evaluation (Table 2-2). Interviews were undertaken with three key stakeholder groups. The interviews were conducted to respond to all of the evaluation questions in the matrix, covering areas of program relevance, management and governance, and performance. A subsequent meeting was held with the G&Cs Financial Management Division to discuss its role in the evaluation of CHRP project proposals and to validate CHRP project financial information.

Table 2-2: Summary of interviews completed
Interview Group Number of Interviews
CIC senior managers 4
Program staff (at both CIC and Parks Canada) 7
Academic expert 1
Total 12

Interviews were conducted both in-person and by telephone. Different interview guides were developed for each stakeholder group and the interview questions were ed with the evaluation questions identified in the matrix (see the Technical Appendices for the interview guides). The results of the interviews were summarized in an interview notes template. Due to the small number of interviews, a summary approach to analysing the information was used.

2.2.2. Program data analysis

An evaluation of program administrative data was conducted to provide evidence regarding the operations of the program. This included project statistics on, for example, the number and type of projects funded. Financial information gathered from the program was also analyzed to establish the overall costs for the program as a whole, and the amounts disbursed into the various streams of the program.

2.2.3. Project file review

Fourteen CHRP project files were reviewed to gather information related to: proposal development, approval timelines, funding disbursements, project descriptions, promotional efforts, financial and performance reporting, and overall administration of the projects by program staff (see Technical Appendices for the elements included in the file review). The file review aimed to have a sample of project files representative of all funded projects (i.e., by community, project size, deliverable type, funding arrangement, materiality). However, of the 67 CHRP projects funded at that time, only 14 were available for review. Table 2-3 provides a breakdown of the project files reviewed, by community.

Table 2-3: Distribution of CHRP projects and files reviewed
Community # of Projects Funded # of Projects Reviewed
Chinese-Canadian 33 9
Indo-Canadian 10 1
Italian-Canadian 12* 1
Jewish-Canadian 9 2
Other 3 1
Total 67 14

*Two of these projects were approved in 2012/13

2.2.4. Document review

A review of program documents was conducted to provide background and to inform an assessment of the relevance, program management and governance, and alternative for the HRPs. Foundational documents, such as the integrated Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework and Risk-Based Audit Framework (RMAF/RBAF) originally developed for the program, were reviewed for information on intended outcomes and governance aspects. Documents such as Speeches from the Throne, budget speeches, and policy and strategic documents were reviewed for contextual background and for information on CIC and GoC priorities. Documents such as the CFPs, communications materials, and monitoring templates were reviewed to gain an understanding of program implementation.

2.3. Limitations of evaluation

As noted in Section 2.1, the evaluation was not designed to gather outcome-information and therefore, there was minimal information to discuss program outcomes. There were two main limitations that should be considered when reviewing the findings and evidence.

There were difficulties in obtaining CHRP project files and project information.

The original intent had been to review a representative sample of projects of various sizes and types for each of the affected communities. However, of the 67 project files, only 14 were available at the time of analysis. The remaining files were either not closed (i.e., the projects had not actually come to an end) or could not be located.Footnote 7 This reduced the amount of material available for analysis, the representativeness of the sample, and the level of rigour possible.

A lack of comparable programs found in other jurisdictions prevented the evaluation from drawing on best practices and lessons learned elsewhere.

The evaluation aimed to assess alternative methods of delivery for historical recognition programs by examining best practices and lessons learned in other jurisdictions. A review of documentation showed that Canada is unique in how it has addressed historical recognition and no other countries have implemented similar programs. Therefore, the evaluation had to rely on information from interviewees to identify best practices and lessons learned for the delivery of the programs.

3. Evaluation findings

This section presents the findings of the evaluation, organized by the themes of relevance, program management and governance, and performance.

3.1. Relevance

3.1.1. Rationale for Historical Recognition Programming

Finding: The HRPs were designed to address previous actions of the federal government which are no longer consistent with Canadian values and expectations and to address gaps in public knowledge regarding these events. Selected communities had expressed a strong desire for the HRPs and were either signatories to previous agreements to receive historical recognition funding that had not been fulfilled or had faced historical experiences similar to some communities that had received recognition.

Respecting Canadian values and expectations

Since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, the GoC has formally committed to fostering a diverse and integrated society where all individuals and communities are equally and fairly treated under the law, regardless of differences in race, ethnic background, culture, or language. As part of this mandate the government aimed to broaden the reach of ethno-cultural and racial communities through targeted interventions and effective partnerships. The government recognized through these legislations that for full integration to occur in a diverse society, all Canadians needed to feel like they had a stake in their communities and in their country, and that their contributions mattered.

A recent literature review of public opinion research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration data suggest that a majority of Canadians are favourable towards this approach, with most viewing multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration as positive and central components of Canadian identity.Footnote 8 Moreover, a majority of Canadians believe that Canada should encourage and facilitate immigrants to integrate and to feel a part of Canadian culture.Footnote 9 Canadians on average also support the idea of universal rights, irrespective of ethnic or racial background and they support some minority rights for communities that have been historically disenfranchised.Footnote 10

Program documents, along with comments from interviewees, point to a divergence between the present approach towards Canadian multiculturalism and past actions and policies of the federal government, which limited the freedoms of certain groups of individuals based on their background. For instance, through former policies and practices, the GoC restricted the immigration of individuals from certain nationalities and used the powers of the War Measures Act during both World Wars to limit the freedom of some Canadians originating from countries that were at war with Canada. The federal government recognizes the inconsistencies between its past actions and current values, expectations, and laws of Canada. This inconsistency stands as the primary reason for the creation of the HRPs.

Addressing expectations of affected communities and knowledge gaps

Spurred by the success of the Japanese historical redress movement of the late 1980s, a number of ethno-cultural groups in Canada, including the Chinese, Italian, Ukrainian, Jewish, and Indo-Canadian communities, were engaged in long-standing campaigns to have their past hardships and historical contributions addressed, solemnized, and promoted by the Canadian government. In the absence of this recognition, program and policy documents describe these communities as having felt excluded from full and equal membership in the Canadian society. Most interviewees, along with documents, also mentioned the perception among program stakeholders that most Canadians, in particular the youth, did not have a clear understanding of the historical experiences faced by these communities and that this knowledge gap needed to be addressed.

As a result, to bring closure and to help educate people about these events, in 2005 the GoC signed Agreements-in-Principle (AiP) with the Ukrainian, Italian, and Chinese-Canadian communities to receive funding for historical recognition initiatives under the Acknowledgement Commemoration and Education (ACE) Program. Although ACE was never implemented due to a change in government, these AiPs generated expectations within the affected communities for a government response. Furthermore, the enactment of legislation such as the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act (Bill C-331)Footnote 11 obligated the GoC to negotiate with the Ukrainian-Canadian community concerning measure that could be taken to recognize the community’s experience related to the First World War internment.Footnote 12 These negotiations formally began in November 2007 and culminated in the creation of the endowment fund within CHRP.

3.1.2. ment with federal roles and responsibilities

Finding: The programs are ed with various federal legislation and other agreements and are consistent with federal roles and responsibilities given the national scope of the issues that they aim to address.

While there was no legal obligation for the GoC to implement the HRPs, the evaluation found that the programs with certain federal acts and agreements. For example, the implementation of the HRPs is in keeping with the Multiculturalism Act and the Multiculturalism Policy, which recognize multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. The policy encourages a vision of Canada based on equality and mutual respect with regard to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religion. A few interviewees specifically made reference to this, indicating that the HRPs were in ment with federal obligations under the Act.

The HRPs are also ed with a number of federal commitments, as noted above, including the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act (Bill C-331), and the AiPs that the federal government made with the Chinese, Ukrainian, and Italian-Canadian communities in 2005—agreements that were never implemented under the previous government.

In addition to these acts and agreements, information from both documents and interviewees suggested that because the original acts and policies during wartime and at other times were the responsibility of the federal government of the day, any redress and/or recognition efforts should be led by the federal government of today. In addition, the affected communities are located across Canada and the information to be distributed to the public about these events is national in scope, thus requiring federal involvement.

3.1.3. ment with CIC and government- priorities

Finding: The programs are ed with Government of Canada priorities to ensure that the historical experiences of ethno-cultural communities impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions are recognized; and with CIC’s Strategic Objective 3, which aims to ensure that newcomers and citizens fully participate in fostering an integrated society.

ment with federal priorities

The announcement of the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement in 1988 demonstrated the government’s commitment to historical redress. Since that time, there have been a number of additional events that showed the government’s commitment to recognizing the historical experiences of ethno-cultural communities impacted by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions. In the 2006 Speech from the Throne, the GoC committed to apologizing for the Chinese Head TaxFootnote 13 and on June 22, 2006 the Prime Minister apologized in the House of Commons for the implementation of the Head Tax. At the same time, he announced that symbolic payments would be made to living Chinese Head Tax payers and living spouses of deceased payers; and that the government would be establishing the HRPs. Following this announcement, the GoC further reaffirmed its commitment to the program by engaging in discussions with representatives of affected communities concerning their expectations and wishes for the new program. Since that time, the Prime Minister made an additional apology to members of the Indo-Canadian community for the Komagata Maru incident and included that community in CHRP.

Many interviewees believed that the HRPs were a clear federal priority, citing the 2006 Speech from the Throne, although some also felt that the programs were created more as a result of political pressures.

ment with PCH and CIC outcomes and priorities

When the program was first announced, it was the responsibility of PCH and was ed with its priorities and strategic outcomes at that time. In its 2006/07 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP), PCH committed to providing historical redress by delivering on government commitments (e.g., the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement, the HRPs).Footnote 14 The HRPs were ed with PCH’s Strategic Outcome 2: “Canadians live in an inclusive society built on inter-cultural understanding and citizen participation” and with Program Activity 7: Participation in Community and Civic Life (PAA sub category 7.1 – Multiculturalism). PCH defined ‘an inclusive society’ as one in which Canadians felt that they had a stake in their communities and their country; and that they could participate and feel that their contribution mattered.Footnote 15 Therefore, through this strategic outcome and program activity, PCH sought to address some of the key impediments to community and civic participation through educating Canadians about their country and their citizenship—something that the HRPs contributed to by educating Canadians about historical wrongdoings.

Following the transfer of the Multiculturalism Program, the HRPs and Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism to CIC, the departmental program ment architecture (PAA) was revised to incorporate these programs. Therefore, the HRPs are currently ed with CIC’s Strategic Outcome 3: newcomers and citizens participate to their full potential in fostering an integrated society (Program Activity 3.3 - Multiculturalism for Newcomers and all Canadians and Program Sub-Activity 3.3.2 -Historical Recognition).Footnote 16 Through this strategic outcome, CIC aims to ensure that Canadians are engaged and have the opportunity to participate in the economic, social, political and cultural aspects of Canadian society.

Views of interviewees were mixed on the ment of the HRPs with departmental mandates, with some saying that the HRPs fit better within CIC's responsibility (i.e., because it is an issue related to immigration and citizenship). However, some also believe that the programs fit better at PCH, although no specific reasons were provided.

3.2. Program management and governance

3.2.1. Clarity of program structure

Finding: The governance structure of the HRPs altered significantly when the programs were transferred from PCH to CIC. Roles and responsibilities were not well documented or understood within the new CIC environment which resulted in a lack of clarity between financial and CHRP officers during project review leading to delays in forwarding projects to the Advisory Committees.

Prior to the transfer of the HRPs to CIC, they were the responsibility of PCH’s Multiculturalism and Human Rights Branch. That Branch was a largely a self-contained unit with policy, operations, research, finance, and communications integrated within one branch. Staff within the Branch worked closely together under one Director General (DG) who reported to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM).

The transfer of the HRPs to CIC led to significant changes in the way the programs had been organized. In 2006, two years prior to the interdepartmental transfer of these programs, CIC began major internal reorganizations in order to strengthen the policy focus within the department. As a result, operational and policy functions were split into different sectors and CIC became more functionally integrated as a whole. During this period, structural changes within CIC were ongoing, with incremental changes to the department being made leading up to and after the transfer of the HRPs to CIC. For example, in 2008, operations for the HRPs were initially moved to CIC’s Operational Management and Coordination (OMC) Branch but, in 2010, it moved to the newly created IPMB, which housed all G&C work at CIC. Likewise, financial responsibilities for the programs were first housed within the Finance Branch but later moved into a newly formed G&Cs Financial Management Division, in 2011.

Program documents for the HRPs were drafted predominantly during the PCH era and were not subsequently updated to reflect these structural changes at CIC. Interviewees expressed a perceived lack of guidelines on how the NHRP should be managed. Interviewees also felt that a lack of guidance in the new CIC environment and the lack of program documentation focusing on the CIC context caused clarity issues in the roles and responsibilities between the G&Cs Financial Management Division and officers within CHRP. During the initial review stage of projects, financial officers were unsure of the degree to which they should be reviewing projects. Some interviewees stated that a significant amount of time was spent trying to resolve disagreements between the G&Cs Financial Management Division and CHRP on the extent to which financial officers could make assessments on the appropriateness of the financial components of project submissions. Furthermore, interviewees contrasted the former, vertically integrated structure of PCH programming, to the functionally integrated CIC structure, citing the close working relationship of different divisions governing the HRPs at PCH and what became a much more separated structure at CIC, which lacked clear avenues for inter-branch coordination.

3.2.2. Engagement and organizational capacity of affected communities

Finding: Variations in the engagement and organizational capacity among the affected ethno-cultural communities resulted in delays with, and modifications of, the CHRP projects.

Both documents and interviewees cited that ethno-cultural communities within CHRP varied in their level of capacity to develop and submit proposals for CHRP projects, and had varying ability to complete projects as planned. These capacity issues led to the postponement of the submission deadline for the 2010 CFP and created delays in the delivery and completion of funded projects.

The Italian-Canadian community, in particular, was highlighted as having relatively low capacity to garner project proposals. For example, in 2008-09, only two proposals were received by CHRP for the recognition and commemoration of Italian-Canadian historical experiences, compared to the seventeen received during the same year from the Chinese-Canadian community, which also had a funding base of $5 million (See Figure 3-1). Both of the Italian-Canadian proposals in 2008 also failed to meet funding requirements at the initial project review stage and were subsequently not sent to the AC. Similarly, in 2009-10, five proposals were received from the Italian-Canadian community with two projects receiving final approval, amounting to only $15,000 in disbursed funding. In comparison, twenty-two proposals were received from the Chinese-Canadian community in the same year, eleven of which were approved, amounting to roughly $1 million in disbursed funding. Similarly, the Jewish-Canadian community only submitted three project proposals in 2008-09 and one in 2009-10—although all four were approved with a total disbursement of $0.4 million.

Interviewees noted that the low number of project submissions from certain communities could have been the result of a lack of interest in the program, low capacity to develop a proposal and undertake a project, or because those with capacity and a clear interest to deliver CHRP projects had already applied and subsequent CFPs required more targeted promotion of the program. The file review provided some evidence that communities were having difficulties developing proposals, as some projects had multiple versions of the proposals on file.

Figure 3-1: Number of CHRP proposals received and funded, by community (2008/09-2010/11)

Number of CHRP proposals received and funded, by community (2008/09-2010/11) described below

Text version: Figure 3-1
    Chinese Italian Jewish Indo-Canadian Other
2008/09 # of proposals received 17 2 3 8 0
# funded  12 0 3 0 0
2009/10 # of proposals received 22 5 1 4 1
# funded  11 2 1 4 1
2010/11 # of proposals received 18 10 7 10 3
# funded  11 8 7 5 2

Source: CHRP program representative

Interviewees also noted community capacity issues throughout the implementation of the projects, suggesting in particular that some communities had difficulties with the contribution agreement process. In addition, interviewees noted that some organizations had difficulties undertaking the projects due to a lack of capacity and the file review showed that some projects had been delayed or funds had not been received and therefore planned resources within the recipient organizations were no longer available. The file review showed that some organizations were not able to produce the deliverables as planned, and that project proponents felt that project approval and funding disbursal delays contributed to this. Deliverables for a few of the projects reviewed were modified or not completed (e.g., three of five workshops were held, a book was not published). Some of the project files did not include the deliverables, so it is unknown whether the deliverable would be completed as planned.

3.2.3. Effectiveness of promotional and communication strategies

Finding: A variety of promotional and communication tools were used to raise awareness of the programs and engage communities to apply for funding; these approaches were updated over time as needed. There is some evidence to suggest that communications and promotional strategies were effective.

CHRP included a comprehensive, multi-phase communications strategy consisting of several outreach activities aimed at increasing the awareness of the program before the CFPs were launched and at improving program coordination within targeted ethno-cultural communities. This included holding meetings and consultations with community organizations; posting program materials online (e.g., application guidelines, forms, and answers to frequently asked questions); organizing information sessions with ACs; and providing updates on the program itself through news releases, newsletters, and notices of Ministerial announcements. This approach was maintained throughout the delivery of the CHRP, with efforts being concentrated around the three CFPs.

As noted in Section 3.2.2, there were challenges in obtaining a sufficient number of proposals from several communities, most notably the Italian-Canadian community, during the first and second CFPs. In response to this, an outreach plan was developed in December 2009 and implemented in early 2010 to promote the third and final CFP to targeted groups which had been under-represented in the funding applications received to date. These outreach activities encouraged the targeted groups to apply to the CHRP. The plan was developed with input from the ACs and included:

  • targeted print/web advertisements and radio public service announcements (PSAs) in Italian, Jewish and Punjabi media;
  • outreach visits to Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver to meet with Italian-Canadian stakeholders;
  • media interviews with an Italian-Canadian AC member in the cities visited;
  • the addition of two members to the Italian-Canadian AC, one in Vancouver and one in Montreal, to garner project submissions from local community organizations; and
  • acceptance of proposals for the Italian-Canadian community after the deadline for the third CFP had lapsed.Footnote 17

Some interviewees felt that these measures were appropriate and effective. Information on the number of proposals received showed that the number of project proposals submitted for certain communities increased between 2009/10 and 2010/11. For example, the number of proposals from the Italian-Canadian community increased from five to ten projects, eight of which received approval. For Jewish Canadian communities, there was an increase from one submission to seven, all of which were approved. Similarly for Indo-Canadians, there was a jump from four submissions to eleven over that same time period, although only six of those eleven were approved.

For NHRP, program officers also undertook communication and promotional activities with a number of federal departments and institutions. However, due to the smaller funding envelope of NHRP and the decision to focus the funding on only one project of national scope, CIC communication resources were steered more actively towards promoting and delivering the CHRP. NHRP communications and promotional materials were therefore largely a result of mandated references to the program within Parks Canada materials highlighting the First World War Internment exhibits.

At Parks Canada, public focus group sessions were coordinated to gauge public knowledge of First World War internment and how Canadians would like to learn about this aspect of Canadian history. Workshops and meetings were also held between Parks Canada, local stakeholders, and affected community members to obtain input regarding the proposed exhibits. Promotional materials in various media also drew attention to the opening of these exhibits and to their content. At this time, it is too early to demonstrate the effect of these endeavours in the promotion of the NHRP as all exhibits are not yet operational, with the key exhibit at the Cave and Basin National Park not slated to open until December 2012.Footnote 18

3.2.4. Funding for the Historical Recognition Programs

Finding: As part of strict funding envelopes allocated to each of the communities in CHRP, funds could not be reallocated to different communities when communities with lower capacity and engagement did not have any projects funded.

Funding envelopes for the targeted ethno-cultural communities within CHRP were amended over the course of the planning phase of the program. This included increasing the amount of money available for the Italian-Canadian and Chinese-Canadian communities from $2.5 million to $5 million each; creating a separate $5.4 million fund for the Jewish-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, and other / multiple communities; and establishing the $10 million endowment fund, managed by the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko. Program documents showed that extensive negotiations and consultations were conducted with program stakeholders to arrive at strict funding amounts and frameworks which were deemed to meet the needs of each community. Documented risk assessment and mitigation strategies also showed the efforts of the programs to achieve a sense of fairness and understanding among communities that received different amounts of funding. As part of respecting the formally agreed-upon allocations of the Programs, funds could not be transferred between different components of CHRP, between different communities, or from the $5 million for NHRP.

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the number of proposals received by each of the communities varied. This meant that the proportion of funding expended from each of the communities’ funding envelopes also varied. As shown in Table 3-1, the Chinese-Canadian community was able to disburse 89% of the funds it had been allotted. The funding for the Jewish-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, and multiple-communities was drawn from the same funding envelope, 96% of which was disbursed. The Italian-Canadian community, by contrast, was only able to allocate 74% of the funding that it had been allotted, even after extensive outreach efforts to garner further proposals (see Section 3.2.3) resulted in two projects being approved for 2012-13.

Table 3-1: CHRP disbursements, by year
Community Total # of Projects Funded Total Allotted* Percentage of Funds Disbursed
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13** Total
Chinese-Canadian 33 $5,000,000 21% 31% 21% 16% 89%
Italian-Canadian 12 $5,000,000 0% 6% 41% 27% 74%
Jewish-Canadian 9 $5,400,000 8% 15% 21% 7% 96%
Indo-Canadian 10 3% 6% 25% 9%
Other 3 1% 1% 0% 0%
Total 67 $15,400,000 11% 20% 36% 20% 87%

* In 2010/11 $1.6 million was transferred from Vote 5 to Vote 1 for CIC’s operation of the program in fiscal years 2010/11 and 2011/12. Therefore the allocations for each of the communities were reduced. The new allocations were: $4.5 million each for the Chinese-Canadian and Italian-Canadian communities; $2.2 million each for the Jewish-Canadian and Indo-Canadian communities; and $360,000 for the other communities. The calculation of percentage of funds disbursed was done using the original allocations, as those were the allocations as per the 2010/11 CHRP Application Guide.
**Figures for 2012-13 include disbursements to date, as well as outstanding payments and commitments.

A few interviewees felt that it would have been more efficient to be able to transfer CHRP funding from communities that were not able to generate project proposals to those that may have been able to undertake more projects. For example, program documents showed that there was a low interest among the Italian-Canadian community, in particular, and members of that community who indicated during consultations that their capacity to deliver projects had already been met. A few interviewees felt that money could have been transferred from this group to the Chinese-Canadian community or to other communities.

3.2.5. Advisory committees and project approval

Finding: The design and use of ethno-specific Advisory Committees were effective; the committees made recommendations efficiently and collaboratively and in a fair and transparent manner.

In designing the AC structure, the use of a single committee for the review and approval of all CHRP proposals had originally been considered. However, it was decided that establishing an AC for each of the targeted ethno-cultural communities would be the most appropriate means of achieving community-level coordination. Detailed guidelines were developed with respect to the establishment and conduct of the ACs. These guidelines contained provisions regarding the size, composition, and membership of the committees, and described the decision-making process and conflict-of-interest guidelines to be respected.

Prospective members of the ACs were selected by the Minister using a detailed set of criteria emphasizing prominence within the ethno-cultural communities, first hand experience of implicated historical events, expertise in the subject material, and a number of other factors. Guidelines for the composition of ACs strived for a balance in gender, regionality, age, and official language representation. In some cases, the names of prospective members were taken from a list prepared by CHRP program staff; in others, the Minister directly selected the prospective members. The Chair of the Chinese-Canadian Committee was appointed in July 2008; the Chair of the Jewish-Canadian Committee was appointed in December 2008; the Chair of the Italian-Canadian Committee was appointed in March 2009; and the Chair of the Indo-Canadian Committee was appointed in January 2009. Biographies of all AC members were published and made available online and it appears that members met the established criteria.

Once the ACs had been established, CIC held information sessions with each of the committees. Each of the committees then met, either in person or via teleconference, following each CFP process to review the projects. One exception to this was the Indo-Canadian advisory committee, which reviewed the proposals from the first and second CFPs in the same session.

A few interviewees raised concerns about the neutrality of certain ACs members and a few others, while recognizing the high profile and politically focussed nature of the HRPs, felt that final approval of some projects, especially those lower in risk, could have been devolved to lower levels of management (i.e., Director-General level). Nevertheless, interviewees generally felt that the ACs and the review and approval process worked well. Most interviewees felt the ACs reached decisions through a fair and collaborative process, based on consensus, and clearly established procedures.

3.2.6. Availability and use of program delivery tools and systems

Finding: Program tools, guidelines and procedures were in place for CIC staff, but these were not always used consistently; and monitoring and reporting on projects has not been effective.

The review of program documents and project files showed that tools, guidelines, and procedures were developed to support the delivery of the programs. For NHRP, this included the detailed tracking of suggested revisions to exhibit text, as well as the processes and reporting associated with the site design. For CHRP, it included the Terms of Reference developed for the ACs; the resources supporting the CFPs (e.g., project summary template, assessment tools, contribution agreement templates), which were all developed in December 2009; project monitoring documents, developed in March 2010; and the close-out documentation, finalized in March 2011.

Although these tools were successfully developed, their deployment and use for CHRP appears to have been inconsistent and not as timely as they could have been. Several issues with the use of these tools were noted during the file review, including: inconsistency in completing monitoring templates, not retaining signed copies of agreements, and releasing final disbursements of project funds in advance of receipt of the final project deliverables by the program. Additionally, the program did not provide the agreed-upon levels of financial reporting assistance to project proponents, which reduced the extent to which proponents were able to build reporting capacity or fulfill reporting commitments in a timely fashion. Project monitoring tools were also developed almost one year after the projects had started, which would have made it difficult to use them effectively.

In addition to these issues, other issues with respect to record-keeping were identified:

  • program records lacked a full list of projects funded;
  • not all completed projects had a completed project file and some files could not be located;
  • the list of projects provided by CHRP program representatives and the amounts disbursed did not with similar information provided by the G&Cs Financial Management Division; and
  • inconsistencies in how the files were maintained, with multiple copies of some documents on hand and other documents that were incomplete (e.g., no dates, no signatures), making it difficult to determine what documents were the correct versions.

These issues could have been related to the transfer of the program from PCH to CIC and the turn-over of CHRP officers. In addition, according to interviewees, resource and time pressures facing the program affected the ability of officers to perform the desired level of oversight, particularly with regards to on-site monitoring.

3.3. Program performance

The evaluation was designed primarily to examine the implementation of the HRPs, with limited data collection to support a comprehensive assessment of program performance. As such, the information in the sections below was drawn primarily from program documents and project files, as well as from interviews.

3.3.1. Increased amount of public material and visibility of affected communities

Finding: CHRP and NHRP projects have increased the amount of educational and commemorative material related to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions, and increased the visibility of affected communities.

Activities funded through CHRP and NHRP

CHRP funded the development of 67 commemorative and/or educational projects (totalling $13.4 million) across Canada and across the affected ethno-cultural communities (see Technical Appendices for a list of funded projects). As shown in Table 3-2, the Chinese-Canadian community had the largest number of projects funded (33) and received the largest amount in total approved project funding ($4.5 million). Conversely, the smallest number of projects and lowest total funding was to multiple communities (3 projects and $124,500).

Table 3-2: Number of CHRP projects funded and amount of funding disbursed (2009/10-2012/13)
Community # of Projects Funded Fiscal Year Total
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13*
Chinese-Canadian 33 $1,094,409  $1,562,796  $1,086,864  $753,818  $4,497,887
Italian-Canadian 12 $15,000  $290,205  $2,031,097  $1,353,785  $3,690,087
Jewish-Canadian 9 $412,452  $831,246  $1,068,791  $483,747  $2,796,236
Indo-Canadian 10 $136,167  $326,995  $1,370,863  $409,678  $2,243,703
Other 3 $45,675  $78,791  $ - $ - $124,466
Total 67 $1,703,703 $3,090,033 $5,557,615 $3,001,028 $13,352,379

*The figures for the 2012/13 fiscal year combine disbursements to date with outstanding payments and commitments

The types of activities undertaken through these projects varied ly and included things such as the production of commemorative statues or monuments, the development of online resources, the production of dramatic and/or musical performances, and the delivery of subject-matter workshops (Table 3-3). In many cases, projects were comprised of more than one activity. For example, projects funded with the Chinese-Canadian community often included the production of documentaries and online resources, the collection of local histories, and the staging of workshops and exhibits. For the other three ethno-cultural communities, the most common project aspect was the exhibition of monuments or other artwork.

Table 3-3: CHRP project activities
Community Project aspects
Video / Docum-entary Online Resources Educa-tional Material Workshop / Other Event Perfor-mance Monument / Exhibit / Art Local History Publi-cation
Chinese-Canadian 9 13 4 7 4 6 7 2
Italian- Canadian 2 3 1 0 2 6 1 3
Jewish-Canadian 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 2
Indo-Canadian 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 3
Multi /Other 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

The NHRP project also included a number of different elements, the main one being the Cave and Basin Historical Site exhibit. The other two exhibits are additions to existing display spaces (Table 3-4). All three projects focus on the internment of Canadians and immigrants from specific national backgrounds (e.g., Ukrainian-Canadians, Italian-Canadians) during World War I.

Table 3-4: NHRP project elements
Location Item Scheduled Opening Expected Opening
(reason for delay)
Halifax Citadel Interpretive Panel May, 2012 May, 2012
Cave & Basin Historical Site Exhibit Building Summer 2012 Summer 2013 (construction issues)
Fort Henry Exhibit Summer 2012 Summer 2013 (construction issues)
Reach of projects

Both the CHRP projects reviewed and the NHRP project sought to maximize the reach of the projects in terms of the number of participants to the project, the level of awareness of the project, and the use of the project deliverables. In the case of CHRP, it was observed that while projects were conceived for and primarily targeted towards specific ethno-cultural communities, they were also open to the general public.

As part of the file review, it was noted that CHRP proponents used a range of media types to gain public interest in their projects. These included posters, newspaper advertisements, online promotion, press releases, and flyers. Examples of outreach strategies employed by CHRP projects reviewed include the distribution of press releases, directly contacting potential project contributors (for e.g. oral histories), and the production of theatrical trailers. Proponents also made use of various forms of ethnic media, including radio, internet, and local newspapers. Although there were no attribution data presented, project proponents and file review officers described the use of ethnic media as having been particularly effective in generating public interest. A few interviewees noted the accessible nature of several of the projects’ deliverables (e.g., internet resources), thus potentially increasing the reach of the project.

According to the files reviewed, the intended reach of the projects varied considerably, with some projects seeking to reach only a few dozen interviewees or workshop attendees, and others seeking to attract thousands of audience members—or even several thousand online viewers of content. The file review was not always able to ascertain the actual reach of projects against the planned reach due to a lack of data on participation and involvement levels. However, where it was possible, the review noted that some projects were able to realize their expected reach, while others had reach levels far below than expected. Some examples of this lower reach include: one project expected to reach an audience of 4,900, however, reached 2,500; another produced 500 CDs, when 1,000 were planned; and seven families were interviewed, instead of the expected 30. Where discussed in the files, these lower reach levels were attributed to factors such as a reluctance of people to participate in the project (i.e., to share stories for oral history projects), and postponement of planned activities (e.g., a film festival that was supposed to screen the results of a project).

In the case of the NHRP project site, the potential number of visitors was bolstered through the site’s location near Parks Canada’s existing Cave and Basin National Historic Site; focus groups suggested that this would likely result in visitors to one site visiting the other. Additionally, two of the items funded under NHRP will be additions to existing display spaces. With the project not yet complete, it is not possible to report on reach level.

Impacts of CHRP projects

The immediate expected outcomes of the HRPs were to raise awareness of the experiences and contributions of specific Canadian ethno-cultural communities; and increase the amount of publicly available historical material describing the wartime measures and immigration restrictions. Given the number and types of projects funded (as described above), there has been an increase in the amount of publicly available material on these subjects and it is likely that this has resulted in an increase in public awareness of wartime measures and immigration restrictions. Interviewees agreed that CHRP projects have produced additional historical material on the ethno-cultural communities’ experiences.

Information from the interviews and file review did not allow for an assessment of whether the materials produced will have a longer-term contribution to Canadian knowledge of these events. Some of the CIC interviewees suggested that the development of project outputs was an indicator that progress is being made; the assumption being that continued uptake of these products over time would contribute to increased knowledge.

One of the specific aims of the program was to support the education of youth on these topics. During the project file review, it was noted that some of the projects developed materials for school use, primarily at the K-12 level. In some cases, project correspondence indicated that there had been attempts made to have the pedagogical materials developed incorporated into one or more school boards’ curricula. However, there was no evidence within the files to determine whether this was done.

3.3.2. Community satisfaction with official recognition and commemoration efforts

Finding: HRP projects had community support at their outset, as shown by the letters of support on the project files. CIC program staff believe that the satisfaction of community members with the projects varies. However the evaluation was not able to confirm the level of community satisfaction.

As a result of the HRPs, and CHRP in particular, it was expected that the affected communities would be satisfied that their experiences had been recognized and commemorated. As part of project proposals, proponents included letters of support from community members. Thus, it is clear that there was support for these projects at their outset. In addition, project file review materials contained correspondence that speaks in part to proponent satisfaction; however, this material is both anecdotal and more closely related to satisfaction with the project management process than with the broader question of commemoration and recognition.

Program staff interviewed for the evaluation said the overall satisfaction levels of the communities varies, with interviewees noting that they had positive feedback from certain communities, but negative feedback from others. Without having gathered information from the members of the ACs, there is no further evidence on the degree of satisfaction of the communities’ representatives.Footnote 19

3.3.3. Alternative means of delivering Historical Recognition Programs

Finding: Based on the interviews and document review, the evaluation did not identify any alternative methods of service delivery for historical recognition programming given the uniqueness of the HRPs in addressing multiple historical experiences and events.

To determine whether there were other methods for delivering historical recognition programming that could be adopted by future programs of this nature, the evaluation examined approaches other countries had taken to make amends for previous internment- and immigration-related actions. This involved a review of the relevant academic literature, as well as internet resources on the subject.Footnote 20 Interview subjects, including an academic expert on political apologies, were also asked for their suggestions.

It was found that, unlike the approach taken for the HRPs, redress initiatives outside of Canada typically focus on a single historical event, and/or the impact on a single group of people. Additionally, it has been more common for reparation efforts to take the form of a publicly delivered apology rather than direct reparations or programming. Where historical recognition efforts have been more overarching, this has often involved a pseudo-legalistic dimension, such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like the one created in South Africa following the end of Apartheid.Footnote 21

Interview respondents made several suggestions, although no clear theme emerged regarding significant alternatives to the delivery of the HRPs. These suggestions (each of which was voiced by only one or a few respondents) included an expanded use of endowment funds, the provision of additional GoC apologies and/or reparations, a greater involvement of staff in the AC or program delivery, a combined AC to approve projects for all of the affected communities, and attempting to work with those organizations with greater capacity.

4. Conclusions and lessons learned

This section of the report presents the main conclusions from the evaluation as well as related lessons learned. As this program is time-limited, no recommendations were made.

Relevance

The creation of CIC’s HRPs was based on the need to address the strong desires and expectations of particular ethno-cultural communities in Canada to have their past experiences dealing with unfair immigration restrictions and wartime measures formally recognized by the federal government. In response to these demands, the GoC recognized that some of its former actions and policies were not consistent with present day Canadian laws, legislation, and commonly held values. The federal government, along with PCH/CIC, recognized that as part of their federal role and departmental mandate, all Canadians across the country needed to be more knowledgeable about historical events which impacted particular Canadians, in order to help create an inclusive and diverse society.

Program management and governance

CHRP projects were selected following annual CFP processes, with reviews completed by ethno-cultural Advisory Committees and CHRP program officers. CHRP projects received final approval from the Minister. Each Advisory Committee was comprised of eminent members from a specific ethno-cultural group, each of whom was selected based on specific criteria and appointed by the Minister. The evaluation found that these committees generally made recommendations collaboratively and in a transparent and timely manner and were viewed by interviewees to be a valuable component of the program.

Lesson learned #1: The use of advisory committees with stakeholder representation can be used as an effective mechanism to ensure that communities targeted by a program are included in the decision-making process.

However, differences in organizational capacity and engagement among the ethno-cultural communities resulted in delays and modifications to project delivery. For example, challenges in generating enough interest and participation from the Italian-Canadian community led to delays with the CFPs and additional time and resources being devoted to promoting the Program within this community. Furthermore, strict funding envelopes allocated to each of the communities involved in CHRP prevented the reallocation of funding from communities with lower capacity and engagement in certain years to those that could have used additional funding to fulfill their allocated budgets sooner, which could have allowed for more efforts on communities with less capacity in future years. Although there is evidence to suggest that ongoing communications and promotional strategies were somewhat effective at increasing interest in the program over time, the program was extended, in part; to allow for funding to be allocated that had not been used in previous years.

Lesson learned #2: CIC may be required to provide greater support, guidance, and oversight to community groups that may not have the capacity to undertake a project through contribution agreements or grants.

Delays encountered in the delivery of the CHRP were also partly exacerbated by the 2008 transfer of the HRPs from PCH to CIC. This transfer resulted in significant changes to the way in which the programs had been organized. The programs also entered into a departmental structure which was itself relatively new and unfamiliar to CIC staff. These changes, coupled with the lack of new program documentation focusing on the CIC context, resulted in issues with respect to the roles and responsibilities between the G&Cs Financial Management Division and officers within CHRP. This created delays during the project review stage following CFPs.

Lesson learned #3: Key documents concerning the governance of programs, including the respective roles and responsibilities of CIC Branches, need to be updated in a timely way to reflect departmental changes in organizational structure, program management and governance.

The evaluation also found that while a number of program tools and guidelines were put in place (i.e., for project assessment and monitoring), they were not consistently used in the delivery of the CHRP projects and they were developed one year following the start of the first CHRP project. This resulted in difficulties with obtaining information on projects and gaining a full understanding of the projects and their related results.

Lesson Learned #4: Having project and financial tracking tools ready in a timely fashion and ensuring their consistent application to project files is necessary to ensure effective management of grants and contributions programs.

Performance

Canada is unique in its delivery of a historical recognition program which aims to address multiple ethnic communities and events. Based on the number and types of projects funded, there has been an increase in the amount of publicly available material on these subjects and interviewees agreed that these projects produced additional historical material on the ethno-cultural communities’ experiences. This increase in material has likely resulted in an increase in public awareness of wartime measures and immigration restrictions. Based on the information from the interviews and file review, no other conclusions with respect to performance could be drawn.

Appendix A: Timeline of key events

Date Event
1988 September Prime Minister announces the Japanese-Canadian Redress Agreement.
1992   Meetings held with Italian-, Jewish-, Ukrainian-, Chinese-, German-, and Indo-Canadians to discuss further potential redress agreements.
1994 December In a letter directed to the communities listed above, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women states that the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made.
2005 February Acknowledgement, Commemoration, and Education (ACE) Program announced, providing $25 million over 3 years.
August Agreement-in-principle signed with Ukrainian-Canadian community.
November Agreement-in-principle signed with Italian-Canadian community.
December Agreement-in-principle signed with Chinese-Canadian community.
2006 April Speech From the Throne commits the Government of Canada to providing an apology to the Chinese-Canadian community for the Head Tax.
June Prime Minister apologizes in the House of Commons for the Head Tax
  • Ex-gratia symbolic payments announced for living Head Tax payers and their partners.
Historical Recognitions Programs are announced, replacing ACE:
  • Consultations held with the three affected communities
  • $24 million for the Community Historical Recognition Program (CHRP)
  • $10 million for the National Historical Recognition Program (NHRP).
August Treasury Board Secretariat approves ex-gratia symbolic payments to living Head Tax payers and their partners; Prime Minister acknowledges the Komagata Maru incident and commits to consultations with Indo-Canadian community on how to recognize this event.
2007 July Treasury Board Secretariat approves the terms and conditions for CHRP, as well as the implementation approach for NHRP.
2008 February Changes made to design and funding allocations of CHRP, NHRP:
  • $10 million conditional grant to the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko, for the First World War Internment Recognition Fund
  • $5 million made available for Italian-Canadian community
  • $5 million made available for Chinese-Canadian community
  • $2.5 million made available for other communities affected by wartime measures and immigration restrictions
  • NHRP funding reduced to $5 million.
May Funding announcements made regarding components of the HRPs
  • Toronto: CHRP, to Chinese-Canadian community
  • Toronto and Winnipeg: CHRP Endowment fund, NRHP funding for Parks Canada Agency
  • Vancouver: CHRP, to Indo-, Chinese-Canadian communities, available funding for other communities.
August Application deadline for first call for CHRP proposals.
October Responsibility for the Multiculturalism portfolio (including HRPs) transferred from the Department of Canadian Heritage to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
2009 March Second call for CHRP proposals.
May Application deadline for second call for CHRP proposals.
2010 January Third and final call for CHRP proposals.
February Outreach visits to Italian-Canadian community: Halifax, Greater Toronto/Niagara, Montreal.
March Outreach visits to Italian-Canadian community: Calgary and Vancouver.
April ‘Soft’ application deadline for third and final call for CHRP proposals
(deadline to be extended if required to expend available funds; principally intended for the benefit of the Italian- and Jewish-Canadian communities).
2012 March Original end date for HRPs.
2013 March Extended end date for HRPs, in order to allow several CHRP projects to finish.

Appendix B: Summary of immigration restrictions and wartime measures

Community Experienced immigration restrictions and wartime measures
Chinese-Canadian 1885: The Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act restricted Chinese immigration to Canada and required Chinese immigrants to pay a $10 head tax. The head tax was increased to $50 in 1896, $100 in 1901, and $500 in 1903. This Act was superseded in 1967, when the federal government instituted a points system to assess the applications of immigrants from all countries.
1923: The Chinese Immigration Act barred all Chinese immigration to Canada, save for merchants, diplomats, and foreign students. This Act was repealed in 1947.

Indo-Canadian

1908: The Continuous Passage Act was passed, requiring that all immigrants arrive on an uninterrupted journey from their point of origin to Canada. This deliberately impeded immigration from Asian countries, as most trips involved stops.
1919: The Komagata Maru, a Japanese ship carrying 376 Punjabi immigrants, arrived in Vancouver. 356 of these passengers were detained for two months while their admissibility was determined (even though they were by rights British subjects); eventually the ship was forced to sail with them to Calcutta.
1952: The Immigration Act favoured immigration by British / French / American applicants, and discriminated against certain groups (e.g., Asians without family members already in Canada). The Act also allowed the government to discriminate against other ethnic groups, leading to orders-in-council placing quotas on immigration from India, Pakistan, and Ceylon (Sri Lanka). These aspects of the Act were dropped by 1962.

Italian-Canadian and Ukrainian-Canadian

1914: The War Measures Act suspended immigration entirely from countries with which Canada was at war, including Italy and Ukraine. Additionally, immigrants from those countries already settled in Canada were classified as “enemy aliens” and required to be registered with the government and to carry identification. Thousands of “enemy aliens” were deported or placed in internment camps across Canada. This Act remained in effect until the formal termination of World War I in January of 1920.
1917: The Wartime Elections Act revoked the right to vote of any “enemy alien” who had been naturalized since 1902. This Act remained in effect until the formal termination of World War I in January of 1920.
1919: The Immigration Act gave the government the right to limit or prohibit immigration from particular sources. This formed the basis for an order-in-council prohibiting the entry of those who fought against Canada in World War I.
Jewish-Canadian 1939: The M.S. St Louis, an American ship carrying 937 refugees from Nazi Germany, was refused entry in Cuba, the United States, and Canada. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where the majority of the passengers found themselves under Nazi rule; it is estimated that one third of the passengers died in the Holocaust.

Appendix C: HRPs evaluation matrix

Question Indicator Data Source
Relevance
1. What was the rationale for the recognition and commemoration of initiatives targeting ethno-cultural communities affected by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions? What needs were the HRP responding to?
  1. Rationale behind the selection of ethno-cultural communities affected by wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions for recognition
  2. Perception of interviewees with respect to gaps: in publicly available historical material; and knowledge among Canadians regarding the history of ethno-cultural communities in Canada
  3. Evidence of similar recognition/commemoration initiatives or programs

Document review (program documents, relevant policy documents, reports on similar recognition/commemoration initiatives or programs, cabinet documents, Ministerial speeches)

Interviews (CIC senior management, Academic expert)

2. Were the HRPs consistent with departmental and government- priorities and commitments?
  1. ment with departmental priorities and commitments
  2. ment with the priorities and commitments of the Government of Canada

Document review (Throne Speeches, Budget announcements, RPP/DPR – PCH and CIC, relevant legislation)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff)

3. Were the HRPs consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?
  1. ment with legislative and federal obligations
Program management and governance
4. To what extent were the HRPs’ structures clearly documented and understood by stakeholders? Were they appropriate? What, if any, lessons were learned?
  1. Evidence that governance structure, roles and responsibilities and accountabilities were documented and understood
  2. Number of formal consultations by stakeholder type
  3. Perception of CIC representatives on the appropriateness of the Program structure, in particular the:
    objectives and target audience;
    focus on community and national projects;
    overall budget and funding allocations;
    timeframe for initiative;
    funding mechanism (i.e., grants, contributions, endowments, MOUs);
    governance and roles and responsibilities; and
    other aspects of Program design
  4. Evidence of adjustments made to program design
  5. Perceptions of lessons learned regarding the program structure

Document review (terms of reference for Advisory Committees, consultation documents, program documents)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

5. To what extent were promotion and communication strategies effective for:
  1. Raising awareness of the Programs among eligible communities?
  2. Disseminating Program information to Canadians?
What, if any, lessons were learned?
  1. Number, types and reach of promotional and communication products developed
  2. Perceptions of interviewees on efficacy of communications, promotional products and outreach
  3. Perceptions of interviewees on the clarity of call for proposals
  4. Perceptions of interviewees of lessons learned about how information was communicated

Document review (program promotional materials)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

6. Did the use of advisory committees under CHRP allow for the fair, timely and efficient funding of projects? Did they support local community needs? What, if any, lessons were learned?
  1. Evidence of a consistent and transparent approach for establishing Advisory Committees
  2. Evidence of a consistent and transparent approach for reviewing and selecting projects
  3. Elapsed time to fund projects (range, median)
  4. Perception of interviewees on fairness, timeliness, and efficiency of advisory committees
  5. Perceptions of lessons learned with respect to the use of an advisory committee

Document review (TORs, committee documents, decision memos, call for proposal documents)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

File review

7. Were the necessary tools and systems in place to enable successful delivery of the programs?
  1. Evidence tools (i.e., guidelines, procedures, protocols) were in place
  2. Evidence data collection system was in place and supporting program delivery (GCiMS, internal monitoring)
  3. Evidence of use and usefulness of tools
  4. Perception of CIC program staff on the efficacy of tools and systems

Document review (guidelines, procedures, protocols, templates, call for proposal documents)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

File review

Performance
8. To what extent have HRPs’ projects increased visibility of affected ethno-cultural communities’ historical experiences, achievements, and contributions to building Canada?
  1. Number and type of projects funded
  2. Reach of projects ( e.g., audience for  funded project, number of copies produced)
  3. Evidence of success in exploiting opportunities to expand reach
  4. Evidence of community support for HRPs’ projects (initial and continuing)
  5. Perception of interviewees on whether HRPs’ projects increased visibility of affected ethno-cultural communities’ historical experiences, achievements, and contributions to building Canada?

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

File review

9. To what extent have HRPs’ projects increased the body of historical material related to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions?
  1. Evidence of increased information (in terms of websites, exhibits, # of educational materials, etc.)
  2. Perception of interviewees on whether HPR increased the body of available material

Document review (websites, news releases regarding funded projects)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

File review

10. To what extent were affected ethno-cultural communities satisfied with official recognition and commemoration efforts?
  1. Perception of interviewees on whether affected ethno-cultural communities’ satisfied with official recognition and commemoration efforts?
  2. Type of feedback received from communities

Document review (correspondence from community groups)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

11. To what extent are HRPs’ projects expected to contribute to increased knowledge and awareness among Canadians, particularly youth, of:
  1. Canada’s history related to historical wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions or prohibitions
  2. ethno-cultural communities’ achievements and contributions to building Canada?
  1. Number of projects targeting youth
  2. Evidence of continued expansion and/or use of materials generated by projects
  3. Perception of interviewees of the expected contribution of HRPs’ projects to increased knowledge and awareness

Document review (review of websites, news releases regarding funded projects)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

File review

12. Are there more efficient/effective means of delivering historical recognition programs in the future?
  1. Best practices identified for historical recognition programs in other countries and jurisdictions
  2. Project costs by cost category and type of project
  3. Perception of interviewees on cost-effectiveness and suggested alternatives

Document review (reports on similar programs)

Interviews (CIC senior management, CIC and Parks Canada staff, Academic expert)

Financial analysis

Footnotes

Footnote 1

The end date of CHRP was extended to March 2013 to allow several funded projects to finish.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

As part of the apology, symbolic ex-gratia payments of $20,000 were given to surviving Head Tax payers or to their family members.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

As the endowment fund is managed by the Foundation and is subject to a separate funding agreement, with its own reporting, auditing and evaluation requirements, this aspect of the program was not included in the evaluation of HRPs. A separate evaluation for this component is to be carried out by a third party in 2013.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

There were three CFPs: August 2008, March 2009, and January 2010.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

The NHRP had its original budget of $10 million reduced to $5 million.  As a result, it was decided that NHRP would streamline its approach and concentrate its resources on delivering fewer projects that could have the most impact.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Memorandum of Understanding between Parks Canada and PCH National Historical Recognition Program: Funding to Parks Canada for Initiatives to Recognize First World War Interment Operations.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The files were subsequently located and work was undertaken to close all of the files for the completed projects.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

A literature review of Public Opinion Research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006-2009. Stuart Soroka (McGill University) and Sarah Robertson (Environics), March 2010. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Ibid.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Ibid.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

The Bill received royal assent on November 25, 2005.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

This included negotiations with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Government of Canada, Speech from the Throne, April 4, 2006. Accessed on-line at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1087.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Canadian Heritage, 2006-2007 Estimates: Part III – Report on Plans and Priorities.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

Ibid.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Program Activity Architecture, April 1, 2011

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

The under-representation of Italian-Canadian projects was redressed in part by a decision to fund two additional Italian-Canadian “Legacy” projects (totalling $455,000) in 2012/13 which incorporated the work of other projects in travelling exhibits and on-line.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

The project will be evaluated by Parks Canada, as per its MOU with CIC.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

The evaluation was not designed to gather any information from community representatives.  Although CHRP began preparing a questionnaire for program recipients in July 2012, to gauge their satisfaction with the program, this questionnaire was determined to be Public Opinion Research and thus no data along these lines were gathered.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

See in particular the site on “Political Apologies and Reparations”, located at http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/index.html.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Date Modified: