Evaluation of the Official Languages Support Programs

Period from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017
Evaluation Services Directorate
May 16, 2017

Cette publication est également disponible en français.

This publication is available in PDF format.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Catalogue N^o CH7-18/2017E-PDF

ISBN 978-0-660-08791-7

Table of contents

• List of acronyms
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. OLSP profiles
  • 2.1. Development of official-language communities
  • 2.2. Enhancement of official languages
  • 2.3. OLSP logic models
  • 2.4. Governance structure
  • 2.5. Program resources
• 3. Methodology
  • 3.1. General considerations
  • 3.2. Evaluation questions
  • 3.3. Evaluation methods
  • 3.4. Methodological limitations
• 4. Findings - relevance
  • 4.1. Core issue 1: continued need for OLSPs
  • 4.2. Core issue 2: alignment with government priorities
  • 4.3. Core issue 3: alignment with federal roles and responsibilities
• 5. Findings – performance
  • 5.1. Core issue 4: achievement of anticipated outcomes
  • 5.2. Core issue 5: demonstration of efficiency and economy
• 6. Conclusion
• 7. Recommendations and management response
• Appendix A: OLSP logic models
• Appendix B: OLSP funding options
• Appendix C: OLSP financial data
• Appendix D: service standard for acknowledgement of receipt
• Appendix E: evaluation matrix
• Footnotes

List of acronyms

ADM

Assistant Deputy Minister

CADMOL

Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages

CCAF

Community Cultural Action Fund

CMEC

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada

DOLC

Development of Official-Language Communities

EOL

Enhancement of Official Languages

FCFA

Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada

FNCSF

Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones

LGBTI

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex

OLB

Official Languages Branch

OLMC

Official Language Minority Community

OLSP

Official Languages Support Program

QCGN

Quebec Community Groups Network

Summary

Description of OLSPs

The Official Languages Support Programs (OLSPs) are made up of two main programs, the first of which is the Development of Official-Language Communities Program, whose objective is to help official language minority communities (OLMCs) develop and build a support network. The funding consists of two components:

• The Community Life component allows the federal government to work with partners to provide OLMCs with access to services in their own language, as well as the infrastructure necessary for their growth and development. It includes the following four sub-components: Cooperation with the Community Sector, Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Services, the Community Cultural Action Fund and the Strategic Fund.
• The Minority-Language Education component is intended to enhance the delivery of provincial and territorial programs and activities providing education to OLMCs in their own language at all levels of instruction. It includes the following three sub-components: Intergovernmental Cooperation, Complementary Support for Language Learning and Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector.

The second major program is the Enhancement of Official Languages Program, which is designed to recognize and support linguistic duality in Canada as a fundamental Canadian value. The funding provided through this program consists of two components:

• The Promotion of Linguistic Duality component is intended to help organizations in various sectors undertake or continue activities that promote greater understanding and appreciation of linguistic duality and build stronger ties between members of both official language groups. It includes the following three sub-components: Appreciation and Rapprochement, Support for Interpretation and Translation and Promotion of Bilingual Services.
• The Second-Language Learning component aims to enhance the delivery of provincial and territorial programs and activities for learning English and French as a second official language at all levels of learning. It includes the following three sub-components: Intergovernmental Cooperation, Complementary Support for Language Learning and Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector.

Evaluation objectives

The evaluation of the OLSPs was undertaken within the parameters set out in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on Evaluation. It includes a review of the relevance of the programs as well as their performance in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and economy. It covers four fiscal years, namely, the period from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. This evaluation is also used to evaluate the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018.

Methodology

The evaluation is based on data obtained from the following: preliminary consultations held with OLSP senior managers in order to fully grasp the scope of the evaluation and stakeholder expectations; a review of the relevant documents; a public opinion survey of perceptions of and attitudes toward official languages; a review of administrative data; a review of administrative files; 78 interviews; nine case studies; and an expert panel.

The following are the four main methodological limitations that arose during this evaluation: the main outcomes of the OLSPs will only materialize over the medium to long term; some of the data related to OLSP activities cover only the first two or three years of the evaluation period; the Community Cultural Action Fund (CCAF) case study was not conducted; and the number of books and articles on topics directly related to the activities undertaken by the OLSPs is limited. Note that mitigation strategies have been developed to limit the impact of these constraints and ensure the validity of the findings and conclusions of the evaluation.

Findings

Relevance of the OLSPs

The evaluation first examined the relevance of the OLSPs. Overall, the evaluation confirms that the OLSPs are responding to Canadians’ considerable needs regarding official languages and are making a significant contribution to the federal government’s official languages development policy in accordance with the commitments set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

Development of the official-language communities program

The Cooperation with the Community Sector and the Community Cultural Action Fund sub-components respond to needs directly related to the development and vitality of OLMCs. As this report illustrates, each OLMC in Canada has its own characteristics and challenges, and the OLSPs can provide significant support in this regard. The evaluation indicates that English-speaking communities in Quebec are currently facing a unique situation that deserves ongoing attention, especially with respect to the capacity of OLSPs to maximize their contribution to supporting the vitality and development of these communities.

The evaluation also confirms that intergovernmental cooperation on services remains a relevant intervention, particularly given the increasing number of provincial and territorial governments adopting statutes, policies and programs that recognize the contribution of OLMCs and enhance their vitality. This intervention is directly related to the federal government’s objective of supporting the delivery of provincial and territorial programs for OLMCs, while fully respecting the provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

The support provided by the OLSPs in the areas of minority-language education reflects a historical commitment and well-defined constitutional objectives. Major progress has been made over the years in providing education to OLMCs in their own language from kindergarten to the post-secondary level. Such progress is the result of ongoing efforts in this regard by the provinces and territories and of the strategic support offered by the OLSPs in key areas. This long-standing collaboration continued throughout the period covered by the evaluation and will be used to address new challenges in the coming years. We note that while Francophone communities are still facing challenges largely related to the growth and expansion of the minority-language education continuum (including, for example, daycare and post-secondary education services), English-speaking communities in Quebec are currently dealing with falling student enrolment.

Enhancement of official languages program

This evaluation indicates that the results associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component should be better articulated to maximize the contribution of this component to the federal government’s official language priorities. This is made all the more necessary by the fact that the objective of all of the activities funded by the OLSPs is to promote certain aspects of bilingualism or linguistic duality. Therefore, it is important to specify the niche area addressed by this component of the OLSPs, whose financial resources for all components are equivalent to 1% of the total budget of the OLSPs.

As it does for minority-language education, the evaluation confirms the relevance of the Second-Language Learning component, which has a solid historical foundation and is based on commitments set out in the Official Languages Act. Although no constitutional obligations apply in this case, all of the provinces and territories allow their students to participate in courses in their second official language, including immersion programs. Through its targeted investments, the federal government continues to support the provinces and territories to enable them to innovate and better respond to the needs of their respective students. The significance of this intervention can be seen in the fact that, at the time of the evaluation, student enrolment in immersion programs was growing, while the opposing trend could be seen in student enrolment in core programs, which was decreasing.

Performance

With respect to OLSP performance, the evaluation confirms that the activities undertaken as a result of the OLSPs are a major contributor to the achievement of the immediate outcomes associated with them. However, it remains difficult to measure the medium- and long-term outcomes of these activities, particularly with respect to minority-language education and second-language learning. The nature of this federal intervention, the evaluation cycle that the OLSPs must respect and time frames related to the submission of reports by the provinces and territories contribute to this issue. The evaluation does, however, suggest some courses of action that could be taken to better understand the impact of the OLSPs.

Community life component

Under the Community Life component, the OLSPs provide funding to about 340 community organizations, allowing them to operate and implement their programs and one-time projects. This network contributes to the establishment of an institutional space enabling members of OLMCs to mobilize in order to celebrate, promote and enhance their language and identity. At the regional and national levels, the network also enables community leaders to cooperate and mobilize. One challenge facing organizations working with OLMCs is accommodating emerging needs or the addition of new community partners. The evaluation confirms that, in its current form and given the financial parameters within which it operates, the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component cannot meet all of the needs of the country’s OLMCs.

In the area of services provided by the provinces and territories in the minority language, the evaluation highlights the significant progress that has been made over the years and the major contribution these services have made to the development and vitality of OLMCs. Because the constitutional, legislative and policy framework for official languages in each province and territory is unique, the OLSPs are called upon to provide support tailored to the priorities established by each government.

With respect to the Community Cultural Action Fund, there is broad interest in this sub-component, which contributes directly to the vitality of the OLMCs. It is a program that occupies a well-defined niche area, namely, community mobilization through cultural activities. In this context, the evaluation confirms that the CCAF does not necessarily respond to the needs of organizations focusing on the direct development of professional artists. The evaluation also indicates that, in some regions of the country, an effort needs to be made to raise awareness of the CCAF and that certain OLMCs do not necessarily have the institutional capacity required to undertake these types of projects.

Minority-language education and second-language learning components

Regarding the two OLSP components directly related to education (Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Learning), the evaluation allows for a more accurate understanding of the nature of the activities undertaken through the OLSPs. Provinces and territories plan, manage and oversee education offered to their respective school populations, in accordance with the parameters established by the Canadian Constitution, including section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In this context, the OLSPs support the provinces and territories in implementing targeted activities, which are found under the six areas of intervention described in the protocol for agreements and intergovernmental agreements signed with each province and territory. Even if the provinces and territories are sometimes late in delivering their reports, the evaluation indicates that they have the capacity to implement the activities listed in their respective action plans. The same can be said for the language bursary and language monitor programs and for cooperation with the non-governmental sector, which, in both cases, supports the delivery of minority-language education and second-language learning programs.

The field of education is continually evolving and being faced with new challenges. Minority-language education and second-language learning are no exceptions. The evaluation allowed for a number of these challenges to be documented, thereby confirming the relevance of these two components.

From a more operational perspective, a number of questions were raised during the evaluation regarding the negotiation of the protocol for agreements and the resulting intergovernmental agreements. Given that it is up to the stakeholders to establish a process that best meets their needs, the evaluation does not indicate that a substantial change to the existing approach is necessary. In fact, the changes sought by certain stakeholders could further weigh down an already laborious process.

Promotion of linguistic duality component

The evaluation indicates that the performance of the Promotion of Linguistic Duality Program has been mixed. On the one hand, the support for programming and projects offered through the Appreciation and Rapprochement sub-component enables organizations to undertake large-scale activities with the objective of encouraging young Canadians to become more familiar with and more fluent in their second official language. Support for interpretation and translation, while modest, also enables recipients to incorporate official languages more easily into their activities. Activities funded under the Promotion of Bilingual Services sub-component and the achievement of anticipated outcomes are so limited that no significant impact can be detected.

Efficiency and economy

On the whole, the evaluation confirms that there is a limited amount of information with regard to a systematic demonstration of the efficiency and economy of the OLSPs. It is noted, however, that the operating expenses of the Development of Official-Language Communities Program represent 2.9% of the total budget of the OLSPs, while the operating expenses of the Enhancement of Official Languages Program represent 0.9% of the total budget of the OLSPs.

The evaluation also notes that the Department has developed service standards that contribute to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current OLSP delivery structure. At the time of the evaluation, the Department had documented two of the three standards (only the standard pertaining to the issuance of payments has yet to be documented). This information helps provide a better understanding of the challenges faced by the Department, particularly with respect to funding decisions.

Lastly, it should be noted that, although the Department developed a performance measurement strategy covering the various aspects of the OLSPs, the evaluation indicates that this strategy has provided limited support for the management of the OLSPs’ components and sub-components.

Recommendations

In light of the findings and conclusions arising from the evaluation, this section lists the five following recommendations:

Relevance and alignment

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Biannual meetings between the QCGN and the Liaison Committee on the priority needs of Quebec’s English-speaking communities	Summary of commitments made for the next six months	Nov. 2017 May 2018 Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Annual business meeting between the QCGN, the FCFA and the program	Summary of discussions	May–June 2017	Director, Operations and Regional Coordination
1.3 Four annual meetings of the O.L. Committee of the Quebec Federal Council	Summary of discussions	June, Sept. and Dec. 2017	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office
1.4 Annual meeting of the Working Group on Arts, Culture and Heritage on challenges and opportunities	Inventory of challenges and opportunities	1 st quarter 2018	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office
1.4.1 Analysis of the program’s capacity to respond to the identified challenges/opportunities and, where necessary, taking of appropriate actions.	Identified action plan	March 2018	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office

Date of full implementation
March 2018

Measurement of performance and long-term impacts

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Update of Program Information Profile (PIP)	PIP 2018-2019	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Update of OLSP guidelines	Revised guidelines	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2.1 Internal meeting at OLB to discuss necessary changes to guidelines	Revised guidelines	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.3 Evaluation of appropriateness of updating the terms and conditions of the OLSPs	Table comparing new guidelines with program terms and conditions	Dec. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
December 2018

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Specific measures by OLSPs to support communities under the new plan	TBD following announcement of the new multi-year action plan	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
May 2018

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Development of new performance management tools for the OLSPs	Performance Information Profile (formerly Performance Measurement Strategy)	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Preparation of the terms of reference of the impact assessment	Terms of reference	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.3 Recruitment of outside consultant	Consulting contract	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.4 Performance of impact assessment	Final report of the assessment	Nov. 2019	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
November 2019

Efficiency: service standards

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Continuous improvement in program delivery to ensure compliance with service standards	Achievement of service standards (see published statistics relating to OLSP service standards)	May 2018 Sept. 2018	Director, Operations and Regional Coordination

Date of full implementation
September 2018

1. Introduction

This document is the evaluation of the Official Languages Support Programs (OLSPs) which covers four fiscal years, from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. The Department of Canadian Heritage administers the different OLSP components, which involve the various provincial and territorial governments in addition to a wide range of community and non-profit organizations. OLSPs represent the most significant federal investment made in the official languages field.

Evaluation context

The OLSP evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Policy on Evaluation of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. ^{Footnote 1} Thus, the evaluation explores the relevance of these programs as well as their performance with respect to effectiveness, efficiency and economy.

Furthermore, the OLSP evaluation contributes to the evaluation of the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018. This horizontal initiative represents a $1.12 billion investment over five years. It supports 14 other federal agencies and departments in their implementation of 28 official-languages initiatives in areas of education, immigration and community development. Several OLSP components and sub-components are included among these initiatives and represent nearly half of the investment in the Roadmap.

Scope and objectives of the evaluation

As mentioned in the introduction, this evaluation covers four fiscal years, from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. However, since the evaluation process occurred in the 2016-2017 fiscal year, most of the data on which the evaluation’s findings are based cover the three first fiscal years of the intended period.

There are several components within the OLSPs, and although most of the components are covered by this evaluation, two of these components are, however, excluded:

• Young Canada Works: This program was formally evaluated in 2015 and was excluded from this evaluation.
• Language Rights Support Program: This program was also formally evaluated in 2015 and was not covered by this report.

The fundamental goal of this evaluation is to provide an analysis of the relevance of the OLSPs and the progress achieved in the anticipated outcomes. In past evaluations of the OLSPs, a specific emphasis was placed on the two components related to education (minority-language education and second-language learning). This approach was based in part on the fact that 80% of the financial resources allocated to the OLSPs support these two components. The methodological approached used for this evaluation attempts to cover each of the OLSP components more systematically, regardless of the level of financial resources they were attributed.

Note that this OLSP evaluation was conducted in conjunction with the horizontal evaluation of the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018 and with the evaluation of the horizontal coordination of the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018. In this context, some of the data collection activities were performed jointly and thus served the purposes of both evaluations.

Report structure

This report is divided in six main sections, including this introduction. Section 2 includes a relatively succinct description of the OLSPs, with some additional information found in the appendices. The methodology used for this evaluation is described in Section 3. Section 4 of the report summarizes the key findings that emerged from all the sources of information and from the data that were considered and analyzed. Finally, section 5 presents the evaluation’s main conclusions, and section 6 includes the resulting recommendations.

Acknowledgements

The contribution and collaboration of a number of people played a crucial role in completing this evaluation. We would like to thank all those who participated in the data collection, who provided information and data and who responded to requests and questions raised throughout the evaluation process.

2. OLSP profiles

All of the elements of the OLSPs are found under two main programs:

• Development of Official-Language Communities, including the Community Life and Minority-Language Education components
• Enhancement of Official Languages, including the Promotion of Linguistic Duality and Second-Language Learning components

Figure 1: overall view of the OLSP programs and components covered by this evaluation

*Only the components of the OLSPs that are covered by this evaluation are included in this diagram.

2.1. Development of official-language communities

The Development of Official-Language Communities program aims to help official language minority communities (OLMCs) to develop and build a support network. Funding offered through this program is available in two components and several sub-components.

2.1.1. Community life component

The Community Life component enables the federal government to work with partners to offer OLMCs access to the services and community infrastructure necessary to ensure their growth and development. This component of the program seeks to encourage the emergence, growth and maintenance of conditions favourable to the development and vitality of OLMCs.

The Community Life component includes the following four sub-components:

• Cooperation with the Community Sector: These activities aim to support engagement by community organizations and strengthen their ability to act and therefore contribute to the vitality of OLMCs while encouraging innovation and excellence.
• Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Services: These activities aim to support provincial and territorial governments in providing provincial, territorial and municipal services in the OLMC language, including the necessary infrastructure to provide these services.
• Community Cultural Action Fund: These activities aim to support and strengthen OLMCs’ cultural, artistic and heritage activities and ensure the outreach of the wealth and diversity in their cultural, artistic and heritage expressions.
• Strategic Fund: These activities aim to promote OLMC vitality though major projects or strategic initiatives related to, for example, improving community-life spaces, developing new areas of intervention, or encouraging the concerted effort and cooperation of several partners.

2.1.2. Minority-language education component

The Minority-Language Education component aims to improve provincial and territorial government programs and activities offered for education in the language of OLMCs at all levels of education. It also aims to increase the production and dissemination of knowledge and innovative methods and tools to support education in the minority language.

More specifically, this component includes three sub-components:

• Intergovernmental Cooperation: These activities aim to help provincial and territorial governments, directly or through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), provide members of OLMCs with the opportunity to be educated in their own language and to experience cultural enrichment through exposure to their own culture.
• Complementary Support for Language Learning: Through bursary (Destination Clic) and monitor (Odyssey) programs, these activities aim to support the development of the first language.
• Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector: These activities support the production and dissemination of knowledge, methods and tools to support education in minority environments.

2.2. Enhancement of official languages

The goal of the Enhancement of Official Languages (EOL) Program is to recognize and support linguistic duality in Canada as a fundamental Canadian value. It creates opportunities for Canadians to get to know and understand each other better.

2.2.1. Promotion of linguistic duality component

The goal of this component is to help organizations in various sectors to undertake or continue activities that promote better understanding or appreciation of linguistic duality and build stronger linguistic and cultural links among members of the two official-language communities. This component also aims to promote the provision of services in both official languages in order to build a bilingual capability within non-governmental organizations.

The Promotion of Linguistic Duality component is divided into three sub-components:

• Appreciation and Rapprochement: These activities promote a better understanding of linguistic duality and create stronger ties between Canadians from both linguistic groups through activities that promote the learning and use of the second language, promote the value of linguistic duality, encourage dialogue between members of the two official language communities, increase the visibility of linguistic duality, or provide opportunities to experience this linguistic duality.
• Support for Interpretation and Translation: These activities aim to encourage the participation of Canadians in both official languages at public events and to increase the number of documents available in both official languages (simultaneous interpretation and document translation).
• Promotion of Bilingual Services: These activities encourage non-governmental organizations to provide services in French and English and to share their best practices through innovative projects or initiatives.

2.2.2. Second-language learning component

The Second-Language Learning component aims to improve the provision of programs and activities offered by provincial and territorial governments for the learning of English and French as second official languages at all levels of education. It also aims to increase the production and dissemination of knowledge, methods and innovative tools to support second-language education.

The Second-Language Learning component includes the following three sub-components:

• Intergovernmental Cooperation: These activities aim to support provincial and territorial governments, directly or through CMEC, to provide the residents of each province or territory with the opportunity to learn English or French as a second language and opportunities for cultural enrichment through knowledge of the cultures of the other official-language community.
• Complementary Support for Language Learning: Through bursary (Destination Clic) and monitor (Odyssey) programs, these activities aim to support second-language learning and skills development.
• Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector: These activities aim to increase the production and dissemination of knowledge, methods and tools to support second-language education.

2.3. OLSP logic models

Appendix A includes the logic models of the two main OLSP programs. The identified outputs and immediate outcomes largely reflect the activities described in this section, while specifying the funding mechanisms used to offer these different types of support.

For the purposes of this section, it is particularly useful to recall the intermediate outcomes for each of the two programs, since these outcomes will be addressed throughout this report:

• Intermediate outcomes for the Development of the Official-Language Communities program:
  • Increased OLMC access to quality education in their language and in their community;
  • Increased OLMC access to programs and services provided, in their language, by community organizations, the provinces, territories and their creations;
  • Increased ability of OLMCs to live in their own language, to participate in Canadian society and to ensure their long-term development;
  • Better cooperation among multiple partners to foster the development and vitality of OLMCs.
• Intermediate outcomes for the Enhancement of Official Languages program:
  • More Canadians have a working knowledge of both official languages;
  • More Canadians have a better understanding and appreciation of the benefits of official languages.

2.4. Governance structure

As shown in Table 1, in conjunction with the Official Languages Branch (OLB), the Department’s headquarters is primarily responsible for the management of the OLSP components and sub-components.

The “X” indicates whether the components of the OLSPs are under the roles and responsibilities of headquarters and/or regional offices.

Table 1: distribution of OLSP roles and responsibilities

OLSP components	Headquarters	Regional offices
Development of Official-Language Communities	-	-
Community Life	X	X
Minority-Language Education	X	-
Enhancement of Official Languages	-	-
Promotion of Linguistic Duality	XTable 1 Note 1	XTable 1 Note 1
Second-Language Learning	X	-
Table 1 Notes Table 1 Note 1 The funding offered to Canadian Parents for French is managed by headquarters and by the Department’s regional offices regarding the regional chapters of the organization. Return to first table 1 Note 1 referrer

The Department’s regional offices also support the administration of these programs and, more specifically, the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component.

The funding mechanisms the Department uses to provide financial support through OLSPs vary depending on the components of the OLSP:

• The process for the Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Learning components starts with the negotiation and signature of a five-year protocol for agreements between the Department and CMEC, which is followed by signed intergovernmental agreements between the department and each of the provincial and territorial governments. These agreements are accompanied by action plans describing the activities that will be undertaken during the period concerned (five fiscal years). The Department can also sign agreements to support complementary and one-time projects that respond to emerging priorities. The Department also signs a contribution agreement with CMEC regarding the bursary and monitor programs.
• The Department signs agreements with the provincial and territorial governments under the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority Language Services sub-component to provide support contributions for the provision of provincial or territorial services in the minority language.
• The Department provides grants and signs contribution agreements with the recipients of the other OLSP components, who are usually non-profit organizations but who could also be private or professional organizations in case of the Support for Interpretation and Translation sub-component.

Appendix B includes a table that specifies the funding options for each of the components of the OLSPs.

2.5. Program resources

The Department invests nearly $350 million yearly in the OLSPs. Table 2 presents the actual expenditures for each of the OLSP components for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. As the table shows:

• Nearly two thirds of OLSP financial resources are invested in the Development of Official-Language Communities while the other third is invested in the Enhancement of Official Languages Program.
• Although the resources are distributed between the two main programs, the financial resources related to education (minority and second languages) represent 80% of the total budget for OLSPs.
• Promotion of Linguistic Duality is the component that receives the most limited budget. It represents 1.2% of total OLSP investment.
• The operating costs of OLSPs are 3.7% of the total budget. They are concentrated on the Development of Official-Language Communities program (2.9% as compared to 0.9% for the Enhancement of Official Languages Program).

Appendix C presents additional financial information for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 fiscal years.

Table 2: actual OLSP expenses for 2014-2015 (amount and proportion of budget)

OLSP components	Amount ($ millions)	% of Total Budget
Development of Official-Language Communities (DOLC)	$231.0	66.2%
DOLC operating costs (Vote 1)	$10.0	2.9%
Grants and contributions (Vote 5)	$221.1	63.4%
Community Life	$53.4	15.3%
Cooperation with the Community Sector	$31.7	9.1%
Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Services	$17.1	4.9%
Community Cultural Action Fund	$1.9	0.6%
Strategic Fund	$2.7	0.8%
Minority-Language Education	$167.7	48.1%
Intergovernmental Cooperation in the area of Minority-Language Education	$163.3	46.8%
Complementary Support for Language Learning (bursaries and monitors)	$2.7	0.8%
Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector	$1.7	0.5%
Enhancement of Official Languages (EOL)	$117.7	33.8%
EOL operating costs (Vote 1)	$3.1	0.9%
Grants and contributions (Vote 5)	$114.6	32.9%
Promotion of Linguistic Duality	$4.2	1.2%
Appreciation and Rapprochement	$3.7	1.1%
Support for Interpretation and Translation	$0.4	0.1%
Promotion of Bilingual Services	$0.1	0.0%
Second-Language Learning	$110.4	31.7%
Intergovernmental Cooperation in the area of Second Language Learning	$88.2	25.3%
Complementary Support for Language Learning (bursaries and monitors)	$21.2	6.1%
Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector	$1.0	0.3%
Total for OLSPs	$348.8	100.0%
Operating costs for all OLSPs	$13.1	3.7%
Grants and contributions	$335.7	96.3%

Sources: Annual Report on Official Languages 2014-2015 and financial data.

3. Methodology

This section describes the methodology used for the evaluation of the OLSPs.

3.1. General considerations

As highlighted in the introduction, the evaluation of the OLSPs covers four fiscal years from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. It was designed to satisfy the requirements of the Policy on Evaluation and the Financial Administration Act.^{Footnote 2}

The methodology used was based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. By triangulating the evaluation data, the methodology attempts a more rigorous analysis of the different OLSP dimensions in terms of their relevance and performance.

Although the evaluation explores the degree to which the anticipated outcomes were achieved, it does not aim to statistically measure these impacts. Such an approach exceeds the parameters of this evaluation. Complementary strategies available to the Department to measure the impact of the OLSPs are, however, explored in this report.

3.2. Evaluation questions

The questions raised by this evaluation allow the relevance of OLSPs to be explored, particularly with regard to the relationships between these programs and the needs of Canadians and the priorities of the Department and the federal government. The evaluation questions also allow OLSP performance to be explored, particularly in terms of the achievement of anticipated outcomes and the efficiency of these programs.

Appendix E includes the matrix that frames this evaluation. The matrix includes 18 evaluation questions along with their respective indicators and the information sources allowing the indicators to be documented. The evaluation findings presented in Section 4 are structured on the basis of these questions.

3.3. Evaluation methods

Several methods were used to collect the relevant OLSP information. This subsection provides a brief description of each of these methods.

• Preliminary consultations: Four preliminary meetings were held in total with OLSP senior managers in order to fully grasp the scope of the evaluation and stakeholders’ expectations regarding OLSPs. Potential stakeholders were identified on the basis of their management responsibilities for some or all of the OLSP components. The key ideas that emerged from these consultations were taken into account throughout all steps of the evaluation process, including the development of the evaluation tools, data collection and analysis. Although they do not change the fundamental purpose of the evaluation, these ideas allowed the efforts to be better calibrated and the analysis to be organized to support the ongoing management of OLSPs as effectively as possible.
• Document review: The document review was a continuous process that allowed the relevant information related to several evaluation questions to be collected. Internal and administrative documents and recent public opinion survey results raising the question of official languages were consulted. This information allowed us to contextualize the findings that emerged from other methods, particularly the interviews. The information collected in the document review was subjected to a technical analysis, the main results of which are included in this report.
• Public opinion survey: To better understand Canadians’ perceptions and attitudes regarding the two official languages, an external firm acting on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage conducted a national public opinion survey (n=1501) between April 27, 2016, and May 26, 2016. The results of this survey are included in the triangulation of the data.
• Review of administrative data: A set of administrative data was analyzed at the same time as the document review. In particular, nearly 1,500 files were funded by components other than those related to the federal-provincial-territorial agreements in education (minority language and second language) and to services in the minority language. The evaluation team collected data recorded in the Department’s database (the Grants and Contributions Information Management System, or GCIMS) to perform certain analyses focusing on the outputs of the programs in question.
• Examination of administrative files: At the time of the evaluation, 919 of the funded files included activity reports available for evaluation purposes. From this set, 350 files were selected for an analysis of reports submitted by recipients, allowing the activities undertaken and results achieved to be better documented. A total of 1,145 documents related to these 350 funding files were analyzed in this step. The analysis of these documents was collated in a database that was shared with OLSP representatives. This was the first detailed analysis of this sort to be conducted within the framework of an OLSP evaluation.
• Interviews: A total of 78 interviews were performed for this evaluation. They were done with OLSP managers (headquarters and regional offices) (n=14), provincial and territorial government representatives responsible for education in the minority or second language (n=12), other education sector stakeholders (minority school board and CMEC groups) (n=3), provincial and territorial government representatives responsible for minority language services (n=12), OLMC representatives (n=30) and linguistic duality and second language group representatives (n=7). The information collected through the interviews was subjected to a technical analysis, the main results of which are included in this report.
• Literature review: A literature review was performed focusing on the relevance of OLSP and the achievement of certain anticipated outcomes. The list of documents analyzed include, among others, studies from government institutions such as the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Statistics Canada and parliamentary committees. It also considers studies by the Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, the University of Ottawa's Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute and the Quebec English-speaking Communities Research Network.
• Case studies: During the last OLSP evaluation performed in 2013, nine OLMC case studies were done. Two main objectives guided this process. First, these studies allowed the impact that the funding offered by the different OLSP components to be described more clearly, particularly through on-site visits. They also allowed a frame of reference for the community's vitality, developed by the Department, to be tested. An update of the data regarding these nine communities using telephone interviews and the analysis of certain documents and statistical data about these OLMCs was performed for this evaluation. The information collected through these case studies was subjected to a technical analysis, the main results of which are included in this report.
• Experts’ panel: An experts’ panel composed of experts in official languages and OLMC development was held to support the analysis and interpretation of the collected data throughout the evaluation. It included five researchers or practitioners who were questioned on the trends they were able to observe in the key findings of the evaluation and the correlations or points of comparison between the findings and other documented research results. These perspectives were considered by the evaluation team and allowed a better understanding of some of the findings that emerged from other sources of data.

3.4. Methodological limitations

Four main methodological limitations arose during this evaluation. Mitigation strategies were developed to limit the impact of these constraints and ensure the validity of the findings and conclusions of the evaluation. These four limitations are as follows:

• By their nature, OLSPs aim to contribute to the development of the two official languages in several areas of intervention. The nature of such an intervention is that the main results only materialize in the medium and long terms. In the context of a five-year evaluation, this measurement of the results must be calibrated. In the case of this study, the analysis was performed on the basis of the theory of change generally associated with activities of this nature. Furthermore, the evaluation explores the options that will allow the Department to measure the impact of OLSPs more systematically.
• This is particularly true of the literature review, where several sources of data only cover the first two or three years of the evaluation period. Adopting a mixed methodology that triangulates several sources of information and data made it possible to collect complementary information, thereby reducing the impact of this limitation.
• Although initially planned in the methodological approach, the Community Cultural Action Fund (CCAF) case study was not conducted. In light of the more detailed analysis of the administrative files, which included projects funded by the CCAF, we agreed that this study was no longer required.
• Finally, regarding the literature review, the number of books and articles on topics directly related to the activities undertaken by OLSPs is limited. This limitation was mitigated by the use of the other methods, in particular the document review and the detailed review of the administrative data and files regarding the OLSPs.

4. Findings - relevance

The key findings that emerged from this evaluation regarding the relevance of OLSPs are described in this section.

4.1. Core issue 1: continued need for OLSPs

4.1.1. General considerations

The analysis of the relevance of OLSPs must first consider the surrounding constitutional and legislative framework. This framework includes a recognition that French and English are Canada’s official languages, as well as a constitutional right to primary and secondary school education in the minority language, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ^{Footnote 3} This framework also includes the federal government’s commitment in the Official Languages Act to enhance the vitality of OLMCs and foster the full recognition and use of the official languages in Canadian society. ^{Footnote 4}

These constitutional and quasi-constitutional provisions form the foundation on which OLSP interventions are built. The programs in this case aim to model some dimensions of the development of the two official languages in Canada. As the consulted stakeholders state, many other programs also contribute to the development of the two official languages in Canada. Such is the case with, for example, the various initiatives that are found in the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018 ^{Footnote 5} or with the programs and activities that some provincial and territorial governments undertake in this domain. The fact remains that, with an annual budget of nearly $350 million, OLSPs represent the largest federal initiative regarding official languages.

4.1.2. The relevance of the development of Official-language communities program

4.1.2.1. Community life component

The evaluation confirms the relevance of the Development of Official-Language Communities components and sub-components. More specifically, regarding the Community Life component, there are four sub-components, the activities of which directly concern the vitality of OLMCs. The Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component, the Community Cultural Action Fund and the Strategic Fund allow a vast network of community organizations to undertake activities creating spaces for expressing the language and culture of OLMCs. The Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority Language Services sub-component, meanwhile, allows provincial and territorial services to be expanded where the language of the OLMC is present.

The analysis of the activities funded by the Community Life component reminds us of the extent to which the vitality of OLMCs is an ongoing dynamic and intrinsically decentralized. Although it is possible to collect administrative or financial data at the provincial, territorial or national level, it is primarily at the local level that community vitality is experienced. Over and above purely institutional considerations, such as the school network, it is through organizing or holding a festival, a singing competition, a heritage celebration, a community consultation or a health workshop in the minority language (to name just a few examples) that a member of an OLMC, either as an individual or part of a family, will see their language and culture manifest in different dimensions. This dynamic is ongoing, insofar as these activities must be sufficiently recurrent to be able to then create a reliable space for the language and the culture of the OLMC to manifest. The relevance of the Community Life component is therefore considered from this perspective. Conversely, the absence of community activities would contribute to ghettoizing the OLMC language and culture.

In particular, the evaluation confirms that the network of OLMC community organizations would be profoundly weakened in the absence of the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component. The funding offered through OLSPs represents, for several organizations, the main resources available to operate and implement their programs and projects.

Although the activities undertaken through the Community Life component respond to the well-established needs of OLMCs, the evaluation shows that English-speaking communities in Quebec are currently facing particularly significant community development issues. This issue is beyond the framework for the Community Life component but is, however, closely related to the objectives it aims to achieve. As stated by the stakeholders consulted for this evaluation, and in comparison with minority Francophone communities, English-speaking communities in Quebec have a relatively less extensive community network and must deal with decreasing enrolment in English schools and a political and legal framework that limits the use of English in public spaces. Furthermore, some key pillars of development, such as immigration, are more limited in their application to English-speaking communities in Quebec. From the perspective of the promotion of linguistic duality, the challenge is to support English-speaking communities in Quebec in their development and vitality while acknowledging the importance of protecting and promoting the French language in that province. For this reason, the evaluation reminds us of the key role that the different OLSP components play in meeting this challenge.

4.1.2.2. Minority-language education component

Nearly half of the financial resources that the Department invests in OLSPs come from the Minority-Language Education component, the relevance of which was confirmed once again by this evaluation.

First, this investment reflects the historical commitment by the federal government to contribute to the additional costs of instituting an education system in the minority language. In particular, the formal recognition of the right to school governance in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms resulted in the development of many educational institutions, along with their governance structures. The identity- and community-building mandate of minority schools also resulted in the development of instructional strategies and the creation of educational resources specific to each OLMC. In this context, and recognizing that primary and secondary school education falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, the vision of language delineated by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms perfectly fits the federal government’s linguistic duality objectives while ensuring access to the most important pillar for the vitality and continuation of OLMCs, their respective school networks.

Although federal investment in the Minority-Language Education component is significant, it represents only a part of the whole invested by the provincial and territorial governments to support minority-language education. For example, in the case of Manitoba, the amounts contributed by OLSPs represent only 8% of the total provincial budget for primary and secondary school education in French as a first language. ^{Footnote 6} In Ontario, this proportion is approximately 4%. ^{Footnote 7} The contribution from OLSPs allows the federal government to be a direct partner in the development of minority-language educational systems throughout Canada through a targeted investment that aligns with the shared jurisdiction between the two levels of government.

We note a contrast in trends between Francophone and Anglophone OLMCs in terms of the needs and challenges they faced with regard to minority-language education during the evaluation period. In Francophone communities, the evaluation shows that the main challenges were related to the management of growth. As illustrated in Table 3, during the period covering the three fiscal years from 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, the number of students in Francophone primary and secondary schools outside of Quebec grew by 3.8% while the number of students in majority schools declined by 0.3%. ^{Footnote 8} Added to this challenge are the services downstream and upstream from primary and secondary school education, such as daycare and preschool services, as well as access to post-secondary education in French.

The trends are reversed for English-speaking communities in Quebec. During the same three years, the number students enrolled in English language schools decreased 5.1% while the drop within Francophone majority schools was 1.3%. ^{Footnote 9} Therefore, the challenges were focused more on the management of the decline in student enrolment in primary and secondary schools and the broader consequences this has on all the efforts related to the vitality and development of these communities.

Table 3: number of students enrolled in minority schools

Communities	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014
Francophone communities	149,920	152,622	155,590
Anglophone communities	90,220	87,851	85,592

Source: Annual reports on official languages by the Department of Canadian Heritage

4.1.3. The relevance of the enhancement of official languages program

The evaluation shows that the enhancement of official languages remains an important objective that responds to well-documented needs. Although second-language learning illustrates this objective particularly well, the outcomes sought by the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component remain less clear in this regard.

4.1.3.1. Second-language learning component

The Second-Language Learning component accounts for nearly a third of total OLSP investment and contributes to objectives that are still relevant. Although second-language learning is central to the vision for official languages development in Canada, ^{Footnote 10} it incorporates a range of activities that are not as well defined as the activities that apply to minority-language education. In other terms, there are no formal obligations for the provincial and territorial governments to offer courses in second-language learning, let alone immersion programs. However, it is only when we consider the joint effect of minority-language education and second-language learning that the significance of the contribution of OLSPs to the enhancement of official languages and linguistic duality among young Canadians becomes clear.

The period covered by this evaluation indicates that a growth-decline dynamic is present in second-language learning, particularly outside Quebec. First, there is a noticeable growth in French immersion enrolments. As shown in Table 4, the number of students enrolled in French immersion increased slightly more than 10% within a three year period from 2011-2012 to 2013-2014. During this same period, the number of Anglophone students outside Quebec that were enrolled in a basic second-language program decreased by approximately 4%. By combining the students in the core and immersion programs, we find that in all, the reduction in the number of students enrolled in one program or the other during this same time period is approximately 1%.

As for the English as a second language program in Quebec, the number of students enrolled has remain stable. It should be noted that Quebec does not offer English immersion programs to its French students, although some intensive English programs are offered on an optional basis. ^{Footnote 11}

Table 4: number of students in second-language learning programs

Students	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	Change
Anglophone students outside Quebec (core programs)	1,338,334	1,313,983	1,283,145	- 4.1%
Anglophone students outside Quebec (immersion programs)	356,580	372,879	392,430	+ 10.1%
Subtotal for Anglophone students outside Quebec	1,694,914	1,686,862	1,675,575	- 1.1%
Francophone students in Quebec (core programs)	684,784	682,251	684,293	- 0.1%

Source: Annual reports on official languages by the Department of Canadian Heritage

4.1.3.2. Promotion of linguistic duality component

Promotion of Linguistic Duality is the OLSP component with the least established relevance. The problem does not reside within the very purpose of the component. The promotion of linguistic duality is indeed an objective that is among the federal government’s priorities and that is based on the solid legislative and constitutional foundations described above. The challenge rather consists of establishing a logical relationship between the activities undertaken as a result of this component and its anticipated outcomes. We can reasonably argue that all the activities undertaken by OLSPs aim to promote some aspect of linguistic duality. The question is to determine how Promotion of Linguistic Duality activities can be distinguished such that they may be included in a specific component for the promoting linguistic duality. The data collected for the purposes of this evaluation do not allow this question to be answered.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the range of activities undertaken by the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component is very limited. As illustrated in Figure 2, this component represents only 1.2% of the entire budget for OLSPs in 2014-2015, or a total of $4.2 million. In this context, it is difficult to see how it could be argued that this component’s activities, considered collectively, should constitute a component on the same footing as the other OLSP components.

Figure 2: distribution of OLSP budgets by components (2014-2015)

Against this backdrop, we note that Canadian support for linguistic duality remains relatively high and that, furthermore, this support has been growing over the last decade. For example, as illustrated in Figure 3, the level of agreement among Canadians regarding the fact that the official languages constitute an important part of Canadian identity was on average 6.7 among Anglophones and 8.0 among Francophones (on a scale ranging from 0 to10) in 2016.

Figure 3: Canadians’ changing perceptions of official languages

Question: The fact that there are two official languages is an important aspect of what it means to be Canadian (scale of agreement from 0 to 10)

The evaluation reveals mixed opinions among the consulted stakeholders regarding whether it is appropriate for the federal government to undertake a more marked promotion of official languages. For some, particularly for stakeholders working with OLMCs, the OLSP component regarding the promotion of linguistic duality should be substantially enlarged to sensitize Canadians more to the importance and social and economic benefits of official languages. For others, the current framework, including in particular all the activities undertaken by the four OLSP components, already contributes sufficiently to promoting official languages. For the latter group of stakeholders, the results achieved to date and the upward trends observed over the past years indicate that the current approach is appropriate and effective.

4.1.3.3. The systematic analysis of needs related to OLSPs

Although the evaluation process provides an opportunity to examine the needs related to the different components of OLSPs, it is useful to remember that there are some structures in place that also offer information on the evolution of these needs. The list of these processes or structures includes, but is not limited to the following:

• The departmental consultations for the development of the five-year plans on official languages, including the current Roadmap for Official Languages 2013-2018. At the time this evaluation was performed, the Department of Canadian Heritage had undertaken these consultations to support the next plan to be tabled by the federal government. Although these consultations touched on several dimensions of official languages, they systematically covered the areas targeted by OLSPs.
• The Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages (CADMOL) is mandated to support the coordination of official languages activities undertaken by federal departments and to consult with OLMCs regarding their needs. It should be noted, for example, that the CADMOL consulted OLMC representatives in 2014 to explore emerging issues and trends related to official languages.
• The House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages regularly examines issues related to official languages and the needs of OLMCs. During the period covered by this evaluation, this Committee produced a report on the place of linguistic duality in celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Confederation, ^{Footnote 12} as well as a study specifically looking at the teaching of French as a second language. ^{Footnote 13} At the time of writing of this report, the Committee had also tabled a report about the renewal of the federal government’s five-year action plan. ^{Footnote 14}
• The Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie offers another platform allowing certain needs related to the development of OLMCs to be explored and documented. Each year, this conference brings together all the provincial and territorial governments and the Department of Canadian Heritage. Its current strategic plan, covering the period from 2015 to 2020, calls for a “greater recognition of the Canadian Francophonie from governments and various sectors of society in order to promote its progress”. ^{Footnote 15} As its name indicates, this group covers only the Canadian Francophonie and not the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec.
• Finally, it should be noted that the organizations representing OLMCs have also implemented processes to identify their respective needs. Such processes include the Forum des leaders, ^{Footnote 16} headed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA), and the 2012-2017 strategic plan for English-speaking communities in Quebec, led by the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN). ^{Footnote 17}

As OLMCs evolve, adapt and transform on a continuous basis, these different processes allow the various interventions for supporting their development and vitality to be documented and informed.

4.2. Core issue 2: alignment with government priorities

In essence and as highlighted above, the activities undertaken by the OLSPs reflect the federal government’s quasi-constitutional commitment under section 41 of the Official Languages Act to “enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society”. ^{Footnote 18} This includes the obligation of all federal departments to “ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments”. ^{Footnote 19}

In a mandate letter given to the Department of Canadian Heritage in November 2015, the Prime Minister of Canada gave the responsibility to “[d]evelop a new multi-year Official Languages plan to support English and French linguistic minorities”. ^{Footnote 20} The OLSP components constitute an important part of these five-year action plans. Then, in December 2015, the federal government used the Throne Speech to reiterate its commitment to foster the use of official languages in Canada. ^{Footnote 21}

With respect to the Department of Canadian Heritage, OLSPs are among the programs that directly support the achievement of the following strategic outcome: “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity”. ^{Footnote 22}

4.3. Core issue 3: alignment with federal roles and responsibilities

In order to implement the obligations and commitments related to official languages that are found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act grants specific powers to the Department. As such, section 4 of the latter grants jurisdiction to the Department to take measures to promote the “advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada”. ^{Footnote 23} The same law states that “in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions under this Act, the Minister may enter into agreements with the government of any province or any agency thereof”. ^{Footnote 24}

In this context, and even if several areas covered by the OLSPs fall under provincial jurisdiction, the required legislative and administrative mechanisms were developed to ensure that this participation complies with the division of powers between the two levels of government. More specifically, no OLSP activities that directly affect an area of provincial jurisdiction, including primary and secondary school education, can be undertaken without the direct and explicit consent of the provincial and territorial governments through agreements signed with the Department of Canadian Heritage. This strikes a balance between the federal government’s objectives of developing the two official languages through the OLSPs and the division of powers established by the Canadian Constitution.

5. Findings – performance

5.1. Core issue 4: achievement of anticipated outcomes

This subsection on OLSP performance examines each of the two main OLSP programs and more specifically the four underlying components, starting with the Community Life component.

5.1.1. Community life component

It should be noted that the Community Life component aims to achieve the following immediate outcomes:

• Provision of activities and services designed for OLMCs by community organizations
• Provision of minority-language services by provincial and territorial governments, in areas other than education
• Provision of activities and services to strengthen and share the cultural, artistic and heritage activities of OLMCs
• Provision of activities with a strategic importance for OLMCs

5.1.1.1. Cooperation with the community sector

The activities undertaken in the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component contributed to the achievement of the associated immediate outcome. The evaluation confirms that financial support provided by the OLSPs allows a network of community organizations to offer services that specifically target the development and vitality of OLMCs.

Distribution of funding

OLSPs currently devote slightly more than $30 million a year to supporting the community sector, and the largest portion of this funding supports programming. In 2015-2016, OLSP investments in support of programming totalled $27.2 million, which represents 84% of the funds dedicated to this sub-component. Support for projects was $5.3 million, which represents 16% of this component’s funds. This same trend is found in the other fiscal years covered by this evaluation. ^{Footnote 25}

Bearing in mind the period covered by this evaluation, approximately 330 community organizations received financial support allowing them to implement their programs and one-time projects. As indicated in Table 5, on average, 267 funding requests for the implementation of recipient organizations’ programming were accepted annually, while 190 requests for specific projects were also accepted annually. Some organizations received both programming and project funding.

Table 5: annual distribution of funding for cooperation with the community sector

	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016
Number of files funded: programming	270	267	265
Number of files funded: projects	186	174	202
Total number of organizations funded	325	320	336
Total investment	$31,565,999	$31,697,971	$32,463,851

Source: OLSP financial data (November 2016)

The vast majority of the projects funded by the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component represent an investment of less than $50,000. As illustrated in Figure 4, 88% of the projects funded in 2015-2016 were below this amount.

With respect to funding for programming, the level of funding offered in 2015-2016 was between $25,000 and $100,000 in 60% of the files, while 21% of the files represented an investment of between $100,000 and $500,000. These proportions are mostly similar for the two previous fiscal years (2013-2014 and 2014-2015).

Nature of activities

An examination of a sample of files funded during the period covered by this evaluation, along with the interviews completed for this evaluation, allowed a better understanding of the types of activities undertaken by the recipient organizations.

First, the evaluation confirms that the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component contributes to the development of an institutional space allowing OLMC members to mobilize locally. This OLSP component has its most direct impact at this level. Although each activity has unique characteristics, they all generally aim to celebrate and promote the identity and cultural dimensions associated with the minority linguistic group. They include activities celebrating the Francophonie, the historical presence of the community, a cultural or folklore festival, a music or film production promotion, a tourist attraction, or the contribution of an OLMC celebrity, to name a few examples. The activities under this OLSP component also aim to offer direct services to the members of the OLMC as needed. These services are often aimed at targeted groups (students and youth, women, seniors, newcomers, etc.) and targeted areas of intervention (homework assistance, job search, outdoor activities, health workshops, etc.).

Not only does the Cooperation with the Community Sector component offer funding to regional, provincial and national communities, it also contributes to mobilizing community leaders. This institutional structure allows regional, provincial, territorial or national priorities to be identified that have, among other things, resulted in comprehensive development plans. This network also gives a regional and national voice to OLMCs, allowing them to participate in current political debates regarding linguistic duality and official languages. This manifests, for example, in appearances before parliamentary committees, meetings with elected officials and senior managers, media interventions and other activities of this nature.

Challenges faced by OLMCs

During the interviews, the stakeholders identified some of the challenges faced by OLMCs regarding the development of their institutional networks. While some of the organizations are able to mobilize resources other than those provided through OLSPs, there are still several organizations that are largely dependent on OLSPs for their operations. The funding for programming offers the resources necessary to operate and implement their programming and special projects. No other program identified in this evaluation offers such funding, as they focus instead on funding for projects.

In its current form, the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component grants a defined amount to each of the provincial and territorial communities, distributed in accordance with the processes described in the cooperation agreements signed by the Department and each OLMC organization’s representative. Although there are some exceptions, on the whole, the funds allocated to communities have been fairly stable since 2004, representing an annual amount between $30.5 million and $32.5 million for all of Canada.

The evaluation indicates that in such a context, it is relatively difficult for a new organization to be added to the institutional network in place if it depends on OLSPs to succeed. Unless certain organizations merge or close down, the allocation system in place tends to support existing organizations, as long as they are able to show that they respond to the needs of the OLMC concerned. In simple terms, the dynamic in place for the Cooperation with the Community Sector funding allocation process tends to favour the status quo. What happens when new issues emerge? An example that stood out from the interviews conducted for this evaluation is the voice given to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) groups within OLMCs. In Canada, the public and political profile of this community has grown considerably over the last decade. Should such groups be formed to represent this community within an OLMC, it is difficult to see how these groups’ programming (or that of any other group that is added to the network in place) could be supported within the present funding framework.

The question that was therefore raised was that of better understanding the parameters involved in the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component’s specific mandate. In this respect, the evaluation confirms that this component can contribute to the development of OLMCs’ institutional networks but cannot accommodate all the institutional needs emerging within these communities. The current process for granting funds allows OLMC community leaders to collaborate with Canadian Heritage’s regional offices to specify funding priorities and thereby guide the investment that is available from this component. It is thus a question of strategic choices that must, in part, take into account the other sources of funding (other than OLSPs) available for the OLMC concerned in order to determine how needs for community institution development can be met.

5.1.1.2. Intergovernmental cooperation on services

The evaluation indicates that the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority Language Services sub-component contributes to the achievement of the associated immediate outcomes. Through this investment, members of OLMCs have access to certain provincial and territorial services (other than education) in their language.

Distribution of funding

As indicated in Table 6, all the provinces and territories receive financial support through this sub-component. The distribution of these resources among the provinces and the territories takes into account a number of factors. We note that the demographic weight of OLMCs is not a main determinant of this distribution. Accordingly, in 2015-2016, more than 40% of the allocated resources were directed to the three territories. The constitutional and political framework with respect to official languages in each province, the unique status of the territories, and the initiatives specific to each government are among the factors that determine the distribution of this component’s funds.

Table 6: distribution of funding granted by the Intergovernmental cooperation on minority- language services sub-component in 2015-2016

Recipients	Amount	Percent
Newfoundland and Labrador	$350,000	2%
Prince Edward Island	$1,562,500	8%
Nova Scotia	$1,301,000	7%
New Brunswick	$1,800,000	10%
Quebec	$400,000	2%
Ontario	$1,770,000	9%
Manitoba	$1,400,000	7%
Saskatchewan	$760,000	4%
Alberta	$650,000	3%
British Columbia	$700,000	4%
Yukon	$1,900,000	10%
Northwest Territories	$4,400,000	23%
Nunavut	$1,625,000	9%
Interprovincial initiatives	$187,000	1%
Total	$18,805,000	100%

Note: This data includes the basic amounts and the amounts for special projects.
Source: Financial data provided by the OLB.

Activities and projects funded

The analysis of the activities and projects funded by the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority Language Services sub-component shows that the impact is felt at two main levels.

First, support for OLSPs allows provincial and territorial governments to strengthen their institutional capacity to offer services in the minority language. For example, some provinces and territories benefited from the support of this sub-component to promote the following initiatives:

• Designation of bilingual positions;
• Promotion and sensitization of employees regarding services offered in the minority language and the concept of active offer;
• Development of annual plans or accountability frameworks for services in the minority language;
• Translation of documents and websites;
• Language training for employees.

Secondly, the provinces and territories benefit from this investment to cooperate with community organizations to support initiatives related to priority areas, such as health, social services, daycare services, integration of newcomers, youth, justice, art and culture, tourism and economic development. In some provinces, this financial support is also used to offer municipal services in the minority language.

Overall, the evaluation indicates that this OLSP component has allowed Canadian Heritage to support the provinces and territories that desire to expand the services they offer in the minority language. At the time of the evaluation, several provinces and territories did indeed have policies and laws in place targeting the offer of services in the minority language, and all provincial and territorial governments participated in the work of the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie. As the consulted stakeholders mentioned, several factors contributed to these outcomes, and one of these factors includes the strategic support of this OLSP sub-component.

Several OLMCs continue to pressure their respective governments to increase the range of services in the minority language. It is important to highlight that the anticipated outcome for this OLSP sub-component is not to dictate to the provinces and territories what services they should offer in the minority language. Rather, it is to provide support when initiatives in this regard are taken.

5.1.1.3. Community cultural action fund

During the period covered by the evaluation, the CCAF contributed to the achievement of the associated outcomes. More than 130 projects aiming to strengthen and share the cultural, artistic and heritage activities of OLMCs were funded throughout the country. Note that the CCAF has replaced the Cultural Development Fund that was created under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013. The change allowed the objectives of this initiative to be fine-tuned such that it is now more directly related to community and one-time projects. For example, the CCAF does not fund the professional training of artists. Instead, it targets activities such as community theatre, or art workshops promoting the history or local heritage of an OLMC.

No CCAF projects were approved in 2013-2014. This component became operational as of 2014-2015.

Project distribution

In the first two fiscal years the CCAF was operational (2014-2015 and 2015-2016), a total of 133 projects were funded, representing a $4.5 million investment. As illustrated in Figure 5, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec participated the most in the CCAF. In all, 30% of the funded projects (representing 22% of the allocated budget) were in the Atlantic provinces, and 22% of the funded projects (representing 21% of the allocated budget) were in Quebec.

The interviews conducted for this evaluation confirm that some organizations, particularly in the West and the North, face barriers that limit their capacity to participate in this component. In particular, we note that the community must already have some capacity to implement cultural activities to be able to promote projects that specifically aim to engage the community in such activities. In the absence of such a capacity, the CCAF becomes essentially less relevant for these communities.

CCAF criteria and implementation

On the whole, the CCAF has been well received by the stakeholders. It is well known that the cultural sector plays a central role in building OLMC identity. The evaluation confirms, however, that the CCAF occupies a niche that responds to some needs, but certainly not all the needs related to the cultural sector. Based on its intervention criteria, the CCAF specifically targets one-time projects, as noted above, that must necessarily and directly involve OLMC members in a dynamic manner. In other words, OLMC members cannot simply be consumers of the cultural products and activities. They need to be directly involved in these activities.

For organizations that work with professional artists, such parameters respond less well to their needs. Since they focus their actions on the long-term, continuous development of the artists of today and tomorrow, these organizations must rely on other programs to meet their needs.

The Canadian Heritage stakeholders consulted for this evaluation, and particularly those working in the regions, confirmed that they encountered challenges in making the community stakeholders understand what the CCAF is able to offer and, by extension, the needs that the program is unable to satisfy. In light of the experience acquired to date, the evaluation indicates that the CCAF is better understood, while recognizing that it is still important to promote this sub-component.

CCAF impacts

Overall, the evaluation indicates that communities that participated in the CCAF received significant benefits. It allows the communities to engage in appealing activities that directly promote their identity and heritage, in addition to facilitating cooperation among the organizations of the same region. We note that these activities allow OLMC members to discover dimensions of the immediate environment that they may not have previously been aware of, in an entertaining and sometimes even fun manner.

For example, the stakeholders consulted for this evaluation mentioned the following projects as being particularly beneficial:

• A project allowed OLMC youth to try their hand at playwriting and thus become familiar with this creative process. A collection of these plays was then published.
• A cultural mediation project was put together to engage various actors working in a single OLMC. This initiative resulted in the establishment of a cultural society that offers annual programming.
• A community created an alphabet book where each letter represents a characteristic of the OLMC’s region and is described with a text and illustrated with a local artist’s graphical representation.

5.1.1.4. Strategic fund

The Strategic Fund is a sub-component with a limited scope. It represents less than 1% of the budget for OLSPs. As its name suggests, it is a particularly flexible component that mostly aims to respond to emergent needs or specific situations that may arise. The Strategic Fund also offers recurrent funding for activities that are not covered by other funding programs.

Over the first three fiscal years covered by this evaluation, between 14 and 17 projects were funded annually. Nearly half the Strategic Fund budget is allocated to one project that occurs every year: Les Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. Other projects of the same nature that have received support from the Strategic Fund are the World Acadian Congress and the New France Festival.

The evaluation shows that community radio regularly receives support from the Strategic Fund. These investments are related to equipment modernization, dissemination of public warnings, promotion of new talent or audience expansion, to name a few examples.

Taking into account its limited scope, the evaluation confirms that the Strategic Fund contributes to the achievement of its associated outcomes by making it possible for OLSPs to support initiatives related to OLMC development on an ad hoc basis.

5.1.2. Minority-language education component

The immediate outcomes that are directly associated with the Minority-Language Education component are as follows:

• Provision of provincial and territorial programs and activities to provide education in the language of the OLMC
• Provision of innovative methods and tools related to minority-language education and dissemination of knowledge
• Provision of French-as-first-official-language monitor positions and summer bursaries to improve proficiency in French

The evaluation shows that the activities undertaken as a result of the Minority-Language Education component contribute to the achievement of its immediate outcomes. The next subsection describes the activities undertaken and the outcomes achieved for each of the three sub-components of this component, which, in itself, accounts for nearly half of the allocated OLSP resources.

5.1.2.1. Intergovernmental cooperation on minority-language education

Context

It is particularly important to contextualize the outcomes achieved as a result of the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Education sub-component.

As highlighted in the analysis of the relevance of OLSPs, each provincial and territorial government is responsible for offering education in the minority language, in accordance with the obligations set out in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the fact that this is an area of intervention that falls under their exclusive jurisdiction.

Consequently, the federal contribution offered through OLSPs specifically aims to minimize the financial impact of additional costs attributed to establishing an education system in the minority language. This core principle is described in the preamble of the protocol for agreements between CMEC and Canadian Heritage, and in the preamble of each of the agreements signed between Canadian Heritage and the provincial and territorial governments under this OLSP component. In keeping with this logic, the contribution of OLSPs represents a limited proportion of the funding given to each province and territory for minority-language education.

As another result of this logic, the protocol for agreements and the intergovernmental agreements related to minority-language education give provinces and territories considerable latitude to develop an action plan that adequately reflects their reality. Indeed, the intervention areas agreed upon between Canadian Heritage and the provinces and territories deal with relatively broad themes: student participation, availability of programs, student performance, enriched school environments, access to postsecondary education and support for educational and research staff. The protocol adds that “each provincial/territorial government will develop its action plan and present this information in the manner considered by the provincial/territorial government to be most appropriate to its particular circumstances”. ^{Footnote 26} Therefore, the goal is not to dictate what a province or territory must do, but rather to specify to what ends the federal contribution will be used, in the context of the federal government’s vision for official languages development.

The analysis of the outcomes achieved with the OLSPs is also limited by the fact that the provinces and territories have difficulty submitting their activity reports within the agreed upon timeframe. Section 8.4 of the protocol for agreements states that the provinces and territories must “produce a periodic report presenting the progress made in each area of intervention funded based on the indicators and targets identified in its action plan” six months following the end of the second year of the period covered by the protocol, which is September 30, 2015. Yet, at the time that this evaluation was conducted, only 4 signatories out of 13 had submitted their periodic report. This is a problem that has persisted for several years and that had already been noted in the OLSP evaluations performed in 2009 ^{Footnote 27} and 2013. ^{Footnote 28}

Investments

Two types of funding are offered through the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Education sub-component. The most significant of these investments aims to support the provinces and territories in implementing their action plan for minority-language education. In accordance with the protocol for agreements between Canadian Heritage and CMEC, a total of $743.5 million was invested through this sub-component for the period from 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. The following table presents the distribution for this investment.

Table 7: distribution of funding granted for the implementation of action plans supporting minority-language education (2013-2014 to 2017-2018)

Province and territories	Annual contributions	Total over 5 years ($)
Newfoundland and Labrador	$1,301,551	$6,507,755
Prince Edward Island	$1,545,732	$7,728,660
Nova Scotia	$3,896,725	$19,483,625
New Brunswick	$16,236,833	$81,184,165
Quebec	$46,525,473	$232,627,365
Ontario	$54,992,678	$274,963,390
Manitoba	$6,774,749	$33,873,745
Saskatchewan	$2,693,018	$13,465,090
Alberta	$5,310,966	$26,554,830
British Columbia	$6,036,572	$30,182,860
Yukon	$1,235,800	$6,179,000
Northwest Territories	$1,382,850	$6,914,250
Nunavut	$772,885	$3,864,425
Total	$148,705,832	$743,529,160

Source: CMEC and Canadian Heritage. 2013. Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction 2013–2014 to 2017–2018.

Furthermore, and as stipulated in section 7.3 of the protocol for agreements, the federal government reserves the right to approve additional contributions that target, among other things, daycare, partnerships between schools and minority communities, postsecondary education, capital projects, interprovincial/territorial or pan-Canadian projects, and projects related to the cultural enrichment of school environments.

During the two first fiscal years covered by the protocol for agreements (2013-2014 and 2014-2015), the Department invested a total of $11.3 million and $14.2 million respectively in complementary projects.

Outcomes

Canadian Heritage and the provinces and territories have agreed that six areas should be given priority within the action plans for the period of 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. As previously mentioned, these areas remain broad, leaving significant latitude to the provinces and territories to invest their OLSP contribution in the dimensions most relevant to minority-language education. A summary of the intervention areas is included in Table 8.

Table 8: areas of intervention in minority-language education for the period from 2013-2014 to 2017 -2018
Primary and secondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Student participation	Recruitment, integration and retention of students in minority-language education programs up to secondary school graduation.
Provision of programs	Maintenance, development and/or enrichment of programs and educational resources adapted to the minority milieu.
Student performance	Maintenance, development and/or enrichment of programs and educational resources adapted to the minority milieu.
Enriched school environment	Cultural enrichment of school environments through curricular and extracurricular initiatives. Closer ties between schools and communities. Language upgrading for preschool-aged minority-language children (e.g., francization, classes for parents).

Postsecondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Access to postsecondary education	Maintenance, development and/or enrichment of postsecondary education programs and educational resources. Improved access for a wide range of student and adult clients to postsecondary programs (e.g., technologies, language upgrading, partnerships between institutions, financial incentives and bursaries).

Primary, secondary and postsecondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Support for educational staff and research	Development, provision and assessment of staff training (initial and continuous) and development programs adapted to the minority milieu. Recruitment and retention of qualified and specialized staff. Research with an impact on minority-language education and dissemination of knowledge.

Source: CMEC and Canadian Heritage. 2013. Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction 2013–2014 to 2017–2018.

The evaluation confirms that the action plans developed by the provinces and territories directly reflect these intervention areas. To illustrate this, here are a few examples of activities undertaken by the provinces and territories for each of the areas:

• Student participation: This type of activity includes promotional products that highlight the merits and benefits of minority-language education, some aimed at target groups such as newcomers; daycare and francization programs to facilitate integration into the minority education system; bursary programs to encourage students to complete all their primary and secondary education in the minority language; training activities for parents to facilitate their active participation in their children's education; and consultations (through surveys for example) with parents to better understand their opinions and their satisfaction with the education offered.
• Provision of programs: This type of activity includes updating the curriculum offered in the minority language, which is also a major activity in the action plans; development of new educational resources; provision of support services, including transition services from secondary to postsecondary; development of distance or online training programs; and the provision of specialized programs, such as the International Baccalaureate program, or new professional techniques.
• Student performance: This type of activity includes initiatives to improve the evaluation of students’ educational performance, including professional development programs for teachers to help them with their performance evaluation work; literacy and numeracy initiatives for students who are behind in these areas; more intensive minority-language programs targeting, among others, newcomers; mentoring programs for teachers; and minority-language initiatives aimed at countering violence and bullying in school environments.
• Enriched school environments: This type of activity basically aims to support the school’s community and identity mandate and includes cultural initiatives, such as visiting OLMC artists and writers; exchanges between minority schools; partnerships between schools and community groups to organize extracurricular activities; the establishment of community learning centres; and additional programs offered in the minority language on weekends and during the summer vacations.
• Access to post-secondary education: This type of activity includes bursary programs encouraging students to continue postsecondary studies in their own language, including bursaries for specific domains (for example, health and education); development of new postsecondary educational programs; provision of online courses or satellite campuses; provision of cultural activities on campus and in student residences; and promotional activities for postsecondary education in the minority language.
• Support for educational staff and research: This type of activity includes professional development programs for teachers, such as participation at national conferences and seminars; training activities targeting specific areas such as the integration of new technologies in the classroom, the specific features of education in minority communities, or methods for teaching students with learning disabilities; teacher recruitment initiatives; hiring of specialists to support the teaching staff; and research activities on the challenges of minority-language education or best practices for this type of education.

As for complementary projects, a total of 26 projects were approved in 2013-2014, with budgets that varied from $36,000 to $2.6 million. A total of 10 provinces and territories received funding from this sub-component, as well as CMEC. These projects covered primary, secondary and postsecondary education and involved capital assets as well as the development of programs, activities or resources. A total of 34 such projects were approved in 2014-2015, with budgets that varied from $12,000 to $2.9 million and covered 9 provinces and territories, in addition to CMEC.

The documentation available at the time of the evaluation and the interviews conducted indicate that the provinces and territories are able to implement the activities described in their action plan. Evidently, given the number and range of activities involved, some challenges are faced when implementing these activities, which can result in delays or adjustments, but nothing indicates that the problems are unreasonable in such circumstances.

As is required by the protocol for agreements, each province and territory describes in its action plan at least one performance indicator associated with at least one performance target for each activity found under the six minority-language education intervention areas. For example, for student participation, a province or territory can choose the change in the number of students or the retention rate of students enrolled in the programs offered as an indicator allowing a better understanding of the impact the activities have in this area. Increases in student enrolment or retention rates are clearly outcomes that can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Accordingly, although a promotional campaign promoting minority-language education can contribute to an increase in the number of students enrolled in minority schools, the campaign cannot in itself explain a fluctuation in this area.

This evaluation does not attempt to document how the multiple performance indicators in the 13 action plans currently in place have evolved, or the degree to which the targets of these plans have been achieved. The scope of this evaluation, the attribution challenges described above and the lack of information make such an exercise impractical. However, measuring the impact of the contribution of OLSPs to minority-language education is a question that merits a more systematic exploration. Subsection 5.1.3 of this report addresses this question more directly.

5.1.2.2. Complementary support for language learning

During the period covered by the evaluation, young Canadians were able to improve their mastery of French as a first language or their second official language. CMEC, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, has implemented three programs for this purpose. Although the data cover the objectives related to the Development of Official Language Communities program and the Enhancement of Official Languages program, the data are all grouped in this subsection since it deals with programs that have an integrated administration.

Destination clic and explore programs (bursaries)

OLSPs granted bursaries through two distinct programs. A total of $84.6 million over five years has been allocated to these two programs.

The Destination Clic program specifically targets young Francophones in Grade 8 and Grade 9 who live in minority communities. The bursaries awarded to the students allow them to take intensive three-week courses to perfect their French at a postsecondary institution (University of Ottawa, University of Moncton, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières, or Western University’s French Immersion School). As shown in Table 9, the demand for this program during the first three first fiscal years covered by this evaluation significantly exceeded the number of available places. Therefore, approximately 60% of the 953 youths applying to the program were offered bursaries.

Table 9: participation in the destination clic bursary program (mother tongue)

	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Applications	304	285	364	953
Offers	171	170	231	572

Sources: Administrative data provided by the OLB.

The second bursary program, Explore, is similar but targets Canadian youths aged 16 years who want to perfect their second official language skills. These young students receive bursaries of approximately $2,000 each to study for five weeks at a designated educational institution to perfect their bilingualism and to gain a greater awareness of the other official language community’s culture. Like the Destination Clic program, the number of applications for the Explore bursary exceeds the number of available places. As shown in Table 10, 57% of the 40,103 youths who applied to the program during the three first fiscal years were offered a bursary.

Table 10: participation in the explore bursary program (second language)

	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Applications	13,738	13,746	12,619	40,103
Offers	7,625	7,625	7,425	22,675

Sources: Administrative data provided by the OLB.

Odyssey program (monitors)

OLSPs also offered monitor positions through the Odyssey program, allowing young Canadians to improve their French as a first language or their second official language. A total of $35.6 million over five years has been allocated to this initiative.

More specifically, the Odyssey program allows young Canadians to work with teachers to enrich and support French as a first language courses or second-language learning courses. The monitors work part-time (25 hours per week) for approximately nine months.

The Odyssey program is very popular, as is the case with the bursary programs. As shown in Table 11, slightly less than 30% of the 3,521 youths having applied for a monitor position during the first three fiscal years were offered a position, either as a monitor for French as a first language or as a monitor for second-language learning.

Table 11: participation in the odyssey monitor program

	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Applications	1,152	1,185	1,184	3,521
Offers (French language)	108	118	115	341
Offers (second language)	209	213	237	659
All offers	317	331	352	1,000

Sources: Administrative data provided by the Official Languages Branch, PCH.

Outcomes

CMEC systematically consults the youths participating in the bursary and monitor programs to better understand the impact of their participation. At the time of the evaluation, the reports from these consultations had not yet been submitted. The interviews conducted for the evaluation show, however, that the participants greatly appreciated their experience and the resulting linguistic and cultural enrichment. The sustained popularity of these programs certainly validates, at least in part, this finding. School boards also appreciate the support they receive from monitors.

A factor that may influence participation in the Explore program (second-language bursary) is the fact that the youths who participate in the program must devote five weeks of their summer to it. For those who count on this period to earn income to, for example, pay for their studies, participation in the program may be difficult, which raises some issues regarding equity and access to the program.

5.1.2.3. Cooperation with the non-governmental sector

The last sub-component of the Minority-Language Education component covers cooperation with the non-governmental sector. During the two first fiscal years covered by this evaluation, a total of $1.7 million was invested annually in this sub-component.

This sub-component basically serves to provide funding for programming or projects to organizations working in the minority-language education sector. During the period covered by the evaluation, OLSPs offered this type of financial support to the following organizations, among others:

• Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française
• L’Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne
• Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne
• Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones
• Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities
• Réseau d’enseignement francophone à distance du Canada
• Réseau des CEGEPs et Collèges francophones du Canada

Although not an exhaustive list, the following examples illustrate the nature of the activities undertaken and the resulting outcomes of this sub-component:

• During the period covered by this evaluation, this financial support allowed the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones (FNCSF) to provide training to school counsellors on the transmission of culture and the sense of belonging. The FNCSF also set up a virtual network allowing the school counsellors to network, share information or discuss current issues. Finally, this financial support allows the FNCSF to host the Table nationale sur l’éducation, a forum uniting 12 organizations with an interest in minority-language education.
• Support for this sub-component allowed the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne to operate and update its Portail de la recherche sur la francophonie canadienne, which allows researchers to advertise events, new publications and other research projects. We note that nearly 2,000 members receive the portal’s Newsletter, which is published monthly.
• The Réseau d’enseignement francophone à distance uses the support from this sub-component to provide a series of professional development workshops dealing specifically with distance learning.
• Finally, the sub-component offers support to the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, allowing the association to update their Voyage en francophonie canadienne educational resources. This online interactive resource supports the teachers’ work and strengthens identity building in youths aged 14 to 17 years.

5.1.3. Achievement of intermediate and final outcomes

Once again, the intermediate outcomes associated with the overall Development of Official-Language Communities program are the following:

• Increased OLMC access to quality education in their language and in their community
• Increased OLMC access to programs and services provided, in their language, by community organizations, the provinces, territories and their creations
• Increased ability of OLMCs to live in their own language, to participate in Canadian society and to ensure their long-term development
• Better cooperation among multiple partners to foster the development and vitality of OLMCs

In addition, the program aims to contribute to the three following final outcomes:

• The sustainability of OLMCs in Canada
• Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity (Canadian Heritage’s Strategic Outcome)
• A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion (Government of Canada’s Results Framework)

5.1.3.1. Nature of the targeted outcomes

The intermediate nature of the outcomes associated with the Development of Official-Language Communities program is unique, given the dynamic of progress on which these results are based. We thus aim for “increased” access of OLMCs to quality education in their language and community, “increased” access of OLMC to the offered programs and services, in their language, and so forth. Insofar as such outcomes serve to orient or guide OLSP activities, they can certainly play a useful role by specifying the ideal to which the program aspires. It is true, for example, that stakeholders can always increase OLMC access to a quality education in their language. Improving programs in place, providing access to new instructional tools, strengthening teachers’ capabilities and facilitating access to postsecondary education or even preschool programs that prepare young Canadians to integrate into the school environment are all objectives that are continuous in nature, insofar as the perfect situation can never be completely achieved.

However, this type of outcome creates challenges when we try to measure it within the framework of a formal evaluation, as in this report. Measuring such increases basically presupposes that there is a sufficiently accurate and documented portrait of, on the one hand, the situation as it were at the start of the evaluation period and, on the other hand, the situation as it was at the end of the evaluation period. The nature of the OLSP and the parameters of the formal evaluation process do not permit such a scenario.

First, the range of activities undertaken through the Development of Official-Language Communities program (and the same finding applies to the Enhancement of Official Languages program) is presently too broad to be able to paint an accurate portrait every five years. Furthermore, as the evaluation process started during the third fiscal year of the five-year period covered by the evaluation, the available data is normally limited to two or three years, depending on the type of activities and data. Finally, as OLSPs fundamentally aim to model the development of official languages in Canada, the outcomes can only be analyzed in the medium and long terms. In other words, it is not realistic to measure, for example, increased OLMC access to an education in their language over a period of two to three years. This is a process that materializes over a much longer period.

5.1.3.2. Measuring the impact of OLSPs

Although there are significant constraints on measuring the medium- and long-term impacts of OLSPs, such investments must be capable of being adequately measured at different levels. With a budget of $1.5 billion over five years, OLSPs are at the heart of the federal government’s interventions in official languages.

This evaluation, along with the previous OLSP evaluations, clearly illustrates the limits associated with these exercises. This type of evaluation allows, among other things, a better understanding of how the relevance of OLSPs evolves, particularly in respect of the Department’s and the federal government’s priorities. These evaluations also allow the activities undertaken by the different OLSP components, and their immediate outcomes, to be documented. Finally, they allow stakeholders to express their opinions regarding the how the implementation of the different components can be improved. As previously highlighted, these evaluations cannot, however, result in an analysis of the medium- and long-term impacts of OLSPs.

It appears much more promising and realistic to undertake a distinct analysis of the impact of OLSPs outside the cyclical framework of a five-year evaluation. Such an analysis, when completed, could be directly integrated to the cyclical OLSP evaluation but would be a truly distinct process. The parameters guiding such an analysis could include, for example, the following elements:

• The process would aim specifically to conduct an impact analysis and, as a result, exclude an analysis of the relevance or implementation of the OLSP components.
• The process would not necessarily target all OLSP components. It could include the components representing the largest investments (Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Learning), or particularly strategic components for the Department.
• The process would cover a sufficiently long period to allow the outcomes to materialize. A period of 10 to 15 years comes to mind, with the end considering the most recent fiscal year in which the recipients’ activity reports were actually submitted.
• Given the central role that census data could play, the relevant period should be structured to coincide with the census cycle rather than the funding allocation cycle.
• Such a process should first include an exploratory study to identify all the applicable methodological implications, including data accessibility and the direct impact on the Department’s Official Languages Branch in terms of mobilizing human resources.

5.1.3.3. Indicators of interest

Although we cannot establish a direct causal relationship, some indicators regarding the development and vitality of OLMCs do nevertheless allow us to better contextualize the immediate outcomes documented in this report.

Access to institutions and services

First, the most recent data from the Department, from 2014-2015, indicate that OLMCs generally have access to school institutions and certain services particularly important for their development and vitality:

• In total, 97% of OLMC members lived within a 25-km radius of a primary or secondary school. This outcome is higher the Department’s target, which is 95%, and has remained stable in recent years.
• Furthermore, 86% of OLMC members lived within a 25-km radius of a regional or local community development organization. This outcome is slightly higher than the Department’s target, which is 85%, and has also remained stable in recent years.
• Nearly 90% of OLMC members lived within a 25-km radius of a cultural or artistic organization. This outcome is higher than the Department’s target, which is 85%, and represents an increase of 2% over the average of 88% for the two preceding years. ^{Footnote 29}

Indicators of linguistic vitality

Furthermore, the Department has done some analyses of OLMC vitality using data from the 2011 Census. Although these data do not cover the period covered by this evaluation, they nevertheless offer a context that gives a clearer understanding of the demographic evolution of OLMCs.

As the data presented in Table 12 show, over a period of 15 years (between 1996 and 2011), the total number of OLMC members increased in several regions of the country, with the exception of the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with Saskatchewan recording the greatest decrease. Alberta and Yukon had, proportionately, the greatest increases. For the three provinces that have the greatest number of OLMC members (New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario), their respective sizes have remained constant or have slightly increased.

Table 12: OLMC demographic vitality (size and proportion)

Provinces and territories	2011, number (size)	1996-2011 growth (size)	2011 proportion	1996-2011 change
NL	2,100	0.93	0.4%	0.99
PEI	4,813	0.90	3.5%	0.87
NS	30,330	0.88	3.3%	0.87
NB	235,698	0.98	31.9%	0.96
QC	1,058,250	1.14	13.5%	1.03
ON	542,383	1.06	4.3%	0.89
MB	41,370	0.89	3.5%	0.82
SK	14,293	0.81	1.4%	0.77
AB	71,368	1.36	2.0%	1.01
BC	62,190	1.10	1.4%	0.94
YK	1,483	1.33	4.4%	1.21
NWT	1,080	1.14	2.6%	1.08
NU	478	1.10	1.5%	0.87

Source: Canadian Heritage. 2016. Composite Indicators for Linguistic Vitality.

During the same period, we note that the proportion of OLMCs to the entire population of the province or territory in which they are found has declined in several regions of the country with the exception of Quebec, Alberta and two territories (Yukon and Northwest Territories). Although several OLMCs experienced net growth in population over the period covered, this was smaller than the growth recorded for the overall population.

More specifically, in terms of demolinguistic vitality, the data presented in Table 13 show that in all OLMCs, except in Quebec, not all OLMC members speak their first language most often at home. The provinces where this level is lowest include Saskatchewan (28%), Alberta (38%) and British Columbia (32%). Several other regions are between 40% and 50%. In Quebec, we note that the number of people speaking English most often at home has surpassed the number of people for whom English is the first language.

Table 13: OLMC demographic and linguistic vitality (linguistic continuity)

Provinces and territories	spoken most often at home	spoken at least regularly at home	spoken most often at work	spoken at least regularly at work
NL	0.47	1.48	0.99	3.01
PEI	0.48	0.98	0.44	1.18
NS	0.52	1.01	0.41	1.11
NB	0.90	1.02	0.74	1.06
QC	1.29	2.04	1.92	4.75
ON	0.59	1.05	0.43	1.29
MB	0.44	0.89	0.29	0.83
SK	0.28	0.78	0.24	0.67
AB	0.38	0.91	0.17	0.61
BC	0.32	0.97	0.20	0.83
YK	0.57	1.06	0.20	1.01
NWT	0.52	1.08	0.24	0.97
NU	0.57	1.16	0.15	0.87

Source: Canadian Heritage. 2016. Composite Indicators for Linguistic Vitality.

Although the first language is not always the one spoken most often at home, we note that it is regularly spoken at home in a greater proportion. Indeed, in all regions of the country, the number of people using the minority language at least regularly is the same or greater than the number of people for whom it is the first language.

It is interesting to note that a significant proportion of OLMC members in the job market often use their first language at work.

Some other trends emerged from the demolinguistic data. In all provinces, with the exception of Quebec and New Brunswick, the majority of OLMCs members who are in a relationship are with a person who does not share their first language. Finally, we note that, with the exception of Quebec and New Brunswick, less than 55% of children with at least one parent who is a member of an OLMC share the first language. Nevertheless, a greater proportion of these children possess a knowledge of the minority language. ^{Footnote 30}

5.1.4. Promotion of linguistic duality component

The immediate outcomes that are directly associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component are as follows:

• Provision of activities and projects to promote official languages and bring Canadians together, in addition to promoting the French language and culture in Canada
• Provision of services in both official languages by non-governmental sector organizations

As for the intermediate outcomes, we expect that this OLSP component will allow a greater number of Canadians to have a greater understanding and appreciation of the benefits of official languages.

5.1.4.1. Appreciation and rapprochement

The activities undertaken through the Appreciation and Rapprochement sub-component contribute to the achievement of the results associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component. Indeed, the evaluation shows that this is the component that contributes the most to the achievement of these outcomes.

During the period covered by the evaluation, approximately 25 organizations received funding for programming or projects under this sub-component. The Department invests approximately $3.5 million annually in this component. The network that figures predominantly in this sub-component is Canadian Parents for French. The head office and the provincial and territorial offices for this organization have received financial support for their programming or specific projects. Another significant recipient for this sub-component is the organization French for the Future, which receives financial support for its programming.

The evaluation indicates that Canadian Parents for French contributes significantly to the promotion of second-language use and, more generally, to the promotion and the use of the country’s two official languages. The promotional work and the studies performed by this network were noted by the stakeholders consulted for this evaluation.

The same can be said for the organization French for the Future. As a result of the support it receives, the organization provides, for example, local forums across the country to allow participants to explore the different dimensions of bilingualism. In 2015-2016, the organization held local forums in 15 towns across the country, mobilizing more than 150 schools and 3,400 youths. ^{Footnote 31} The organization also holds a National Ambassador Youth Forum in different areas of the country. The 2015 edition was held in Moncton, New Brunswick, and was attended by 30 youths from 10 different provinces. ^{Footnote 32} These youths in turn organized activities bringing together young people from different regions of the country.

5.1.4.2. Interpretation and translation

The Interpretation and Translation sub-component contributes in a very narrowly defined manner to the outcomes associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component. Through an annual allocation of approximately $400,000, the OLSPs offer support for recipient organizations to reduce the costs associated with interpretation or translation. During each year covered by the evaluation, approximately 100 organizations received up to $5,000 to cover certain costs related to interpretation or translation.

5.1.4.3. Promotion of bilingual services

The Promotion of Bilingual Services sub-component does not conclusively contribute to the outcomes associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality. With a particularly limited budget in the range of $100,000 to $300,000, this component supports a limited number of projects. During the three first fiscal years covered by this evaluation, fewer than 10 projects were funded with this component. Although related to official languages and linguistic duality, these projects vary considerably in their subject matter, including festivals, promotion to companies, educational resources and outdoor activities. The degree to which these projects contribute significantly to the offer of bilingual services remains tenuous.

5.1.5. Second-language learning component

The immediate outcomes directly associated with the second-language learning component are as follows:

• Provision of provincial and territorial programs and activities for learning English and French as a second official language
• Provision of innovative methods and tools related to teaching French and English as second official language, and dissemination of knowledge
• Provision of monitor positions for official languages and second-language summer bursaries

The evaluation shows that the activities undertaken as a result of this component contribute to the achievement of its outcomes. This component marshals nearly a third of the resources allocated to OLSPs. The next subsection describes the activities undertaken and the results achieved for each of the three sub-components of this component.

It is important to highlight that the considerations discussed in subsection 5.1.1.1 regarding minority-language education also apply to activities related to second-language learning. In short, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to establish (or not establish) second-language learning programs in the country. The objective of the OLSPs is to contribute to the additional costs of providing these programs. Furthermore, the analysis of the results obtained through this component is limited by the fact that, at the time of this evaluation, few provinces or territories had submitted their activity reports regarding Intergovernmental Cooperation.

Investments

As was seen for the Minority-Language Education component, two types of funding were offered through the Intergovernmental Cooperation in the area of Second-Language Learning: funding to support the provinces and territories in implementing their second-language learning action plans and funding for complementary projects.

For the funding of the action plans, the protocol for agreements signed between the Canadian Heritage and CMEC provides a total of $434.1 million in investments for the period between 2013-2014 and 2017-2018. The following table presents the distribution for this investment.

Table 14: distribution of funding granted for implementing action plans supporting second-language learning (2013-2014 to 2017-2018)

Province and territories	Annual contributions	Total over 5 years ($)
Newfoundland and Labrador	$2,639,295	$13,196,475
Prince Edward Island	$1,076,602	$5,383,010
Nova Scotia	$3,761,355	$18,806,775
New Brunswick	$5,465,859	$27,329,295
Quebec	$18,406,662	$92,033,310
Ontario	$24,090,634	$120,453,170
Manitoba	$5,540,451	$27,702,255
Saskatchewan	$4,029,526	$20,197,630
Alberta	$8,894,859	$44,474,295
British Columbia	$10,067,846	$50,339,230
Yukon	$977,100	$4,885,500
Northwest Territories	$1,204,705	$6,023,525
Nunavut	$649,746	$3,248,730
Total	$86,814,640	$434,073,200

Source: CMEC and Canadian Heritage. 2013. Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction 2013–2014 to 2017–2018.

In accordance with section 7.3 of the protocol for agreements, the federal government reserves the right to approve additional contributions that target, among other things, an intensive second-language education and learning approach, participation of youths in authentic second-language learning experiences, and activities that measure second-language proficiency.

Over the two first fiscal years covered by the protocol for agreements (2013-2014 and 2014-2015), the Department invested a total of $3 million and $1.9 million respectively in complementary projects.

Outcomes

The six main areas of intervention for Minority-Language Education also guide the activities included by the provinces and territories in their action plans for second-language learning. However, these areas are defined to take into account the specific context of second-language learning, as the information in Table15 shows.

Table 15: areas of intervention for second-language learning for the period of 2013-2014 to 2017- 2018
Primary and secondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Student participation	Recruitment and retention of students in second-language education programs up to secondary school graduation.
Provision of programs	Maintenance, development, enrichment and/or evaluation of programs and innovative teaching approaches for second-language learning.
Student performance	Acquisition of measurable second-language skills by students.
Enriched school environment	Enrichment of second-language learning through curricular and extracurricular initiatives.

Postsecondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Access to postsecondary education	Maintenance, development and/or enrichment of programs or provision of courses in the second language or supporting second-language learning at the postsecondary level. Improved access for a wide range of student and adult clients to second-language postsecondary programs (e.g., technologies, language upgrading, partnerships between institutions, financial incentives and bursaries).

Primary, secondary and postsecondary

Areas of intervention	Definitions
Support for educational staff and research	Development, provision and assessment of training (initial and continuous) and development programs for staff working in second-language instruction. Recruitment and retention of qualified staff. Research with an impact on second-language instruction and dissemination of knowledge.

Source: CMEC and Canadian Heritage. 2013. Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction 2013–2014 to 2017–2018.

The evaluation confirms that the action plans developed by the provinces and territories directly reflect these intervention areas. Here are a few examples of activities undertaken by the provinces and territories for each of the areas:

• Student participation: This type of activity includes the addition of new classes for core programs or immersion programs; the development of strategies promoting student retention in second-language programs; bursaries for students who continue their postsecondary studies in their second language; strategies targeting recruitment of new students into the second-language programs; and the provision of services and resources for students with learning disabilities registered in immersion programs.
• Provision of programs: This type of activity includes curriculum updates or development for core or immersion learning; training activities for second-language professors; and hiring new second-language teachers and specialists.
• Student performance: This type of activity includes initiatives related to the evaluation of linguistic abilities of students registered in second-language programs, including, in some regions, issuing the Diplôme d’études en langue française, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages; development of educational resources and services such as homework assistance; and training for teachers.
• Enriched school environments: This area includes cultural activities that promote the other cultural community and activities that complement second-language learning, such as initiatives related to the theatre, creative writing, trips to other regions of the country, public speaking competitions or cooperation with community groups.
• Access to post-secondary education: This type of activity includes bursary programs for those who decide to continue their postsecondary education in their second language, sometimes including bursaries targeting specific fields such as teaching; the provision of new postsecondary courses offered in the second language; programs targeting adults wishing to perfect their second language; and support services for students enrolled in postsecondary second-language programs.
• Support for educational staff and research: All the provinces and territories offer training programs for second-language teachers, including initiatives related to literacy, numeracy and the integration of new technologies in the classroom; some provinces also perform research on second-language education, including work regarding the use of a pedagogical approach based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

As for complementary projects, a total of nine projects were approved in 2013-2014, with budgets that varied from $7,500 to $950,000. A total of six provinces and territories received funding under this component, as well as CMEC. These projects covered primary and secondary education, as well as postsecondary education, and concentrated on the development of programs and educational resources. In 2014-2015, a total of 12 such projects were approved. These projects had budgets that varied from $14,000 to $660,000 and covered eight provinces and one territory, plus CMEC.

As was the case with Minority-Language Education, the documentation available at the time of the evaluation and the interviews conducted indicate that the provinces and territories are able to implement the activities described in their action plans. The considerations discussed in subsection 5.1.2.1 regarding the measurement of the impact of OLSPs also applies to activities related to second-language learning.

5.1.5.1. Explore and odyssey

The activities aimed at supporting second-language learning through bursary (Destination Clic) and monitor (Odyssey) programs are described in subsection 5.1.2.2 of this report.

5.1.5.2. Cooperation with the non-governmental sector

The Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector sub-component offers financial support for projects undertaken by organizations working in second-language education. During the two first fiscal years covered by this evaluation, a total of $1 million was invested annually in this sub-component. A list of organizations that received support includes:

• Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers
• L’Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne
• Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne
• Canadian Linguistic Association
• The Canadian Modern Language Review
• Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute (University of Ottawa)
• Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers
• Réseau des CEGEPs et Collèges francophones du Canada
• La Société pour le perfectionnement de l’enseignement de l’anglais langue seconde au Québec

Although not an exhaustive list, the following examples illustrate the nature of the activities undertaken and the resulting outcomes of this sub-component:

• The Société pour le perfectionnement de l’enseignement de l’anglais langue seconde au Québec benefited from this financial support to provide training for teachers, including the development of educational tools and methods and training workshops for teaching English as a second language.
• The Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne initiated a project aiming to recruit Anglophone students from immersion schools. This project relies on, among other things, the granting of study bursaries for students from immersion programs and the development of promotional tools. Note that each student receiving a bursary must complete a community project within a Francophone community, offering the student direct contact with the Francophone culture and identity.
• The Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers also benefited from this sub-component to provide professional development sessions for teachers, including educational development tools and promotional videos dealing with, for example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
• The Canadian Linguistic Association applied to hold a seminar specifically on second-language education of students suffering from learning disabilities.
• Finally, it should be noted that the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers benefited from this sub-component’s support to build a section of its website that is reserved exclusively for its members, allowing them to enrol in workshops and courses dealing with different dimensions of second-language education.

5.1.6. Achievement of intermediate and final outcomes

The intermediate outcome tied to the Second-Language Learning component is to see more Canadians with a working knowledge of both official languages.

Furthermore, the overall Enhancement of Official Languages program aims to contribute to the following four final outcomes:

• Canada is recognized as an officially bilingual country
• Official languages are recognized and supported by all Canadians
• Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity
• A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion

5.1.6.1. Measurement of the targeted outcomes

As was the case for Minority-Language Education, it is entirely reasonable to think that the activities funded by the Second-Language Learning component, and described in this report, contribute to the efforts made to encourage and facilitate second-language learning in Canada, particularly among primary, secondary and postsecondary students. The areas of intervention to guide the action plans cover all the relevant fields. For reasons already noted in subsection 5.1.3.2 of this report, the direct measurement of these outcomes is a question that should be addressed through a distinct study.

5.1.6.2. Indicators of interest

Considering the limitations previously mentioned, the evaluation was able to document some indicators that can contextualize the efforts undertaken regarding second-language learning.

Level of bilingualism

Although the total number of Canadians who are able to hold a conversation in both official languages is still relatively small, it continues to grow. Among linguistic majority members in particular (Francophones in Quebec and Anglophones in the rest of Canada), this level of bilingualism ranged between 3% and 40% at the time of the last census, in 2011. As illustrated in Figure 6, Quebec and New Brunswick have the greatest number of bilingual people among the members of the linguistic majority.

Comparing the numbers from 2006 and 2011, we note that the total number of people that state that they can hold a conversation in both official languages increased by 350,000 people to 5.8 million. Over a longer period of time, we note that the proportion of Canadians able to hold a conversation in both official languages increased from 13.4% of the population in 1971 to 17.5% in 2011. ^{Footnote 33}

Regionally, the census data show that over a 15-year period (1996 to 2011), the proportion of linguistic majority members able to hold a conversation in both official languages increased in all provinces and territories with the exception of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nunavut, where the proportion remained stable or slightly decreased.

Looking more specifically at youths aged 15 to 19 years, the census data show that among young Anglophones outside Quebec, the level of bilingualism dropped from 15.2% to 11.2% over the 15 year period from 1996 to 2011.

Perceptions of linguistic duality

As mentioned in the analysis of the relevance of the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component (see subsection 4.1.3.2), Canadians generally have a favourable perception of linguistic duality, and support for it has grown over the last decade. Canada has found itself in a situation where, even though the population’s bilingualism rate has remained relatively low in general, support for the very concept bilingualism and linguistic duality remains significant.

The most recent survey of Canadians done for Canadian Heritage also shows that the majority of respondents are of the opinion that the relationship between Anglophones and Francophones has improved over the last decade (54% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed), that official languages strengthen national unity (67% agreed or strongly agreed), that the linguistic duality is a source of cultural enrichment (65% agreed or strongly agreed), and that it is important to invest in exchange programs in Canada (78% agreed or strongly agreed). ^{Footnote 34}

5.1.7. Unexpected impacts

The evaluation did not identify any significant unexpected impacts from OLSP implementation.

5.2. Core issue 5: demonstration of efficiency and economy

The last subsection of the report analyzes the efficiency and economy of OLSPs and covers the optimization of resources, risk of overlap, effectiveness of administrative practices and performance measurement approach.

5.2.1. Optimizing outcomes

Generally, it is important to note that the nature of the activities undertaken through the OLSP and the diversity of the sub-parts considerably limit the possibility of performing a systematic analysis of efficiency and economy. Furthermore, the data regarding budgeted and actual expenditures under Vote 1 for OLSPs are not available for each component and sub-component found under the two programs. Finally, during the period covered by this evaluation, the Department did not undertake any analyses specifically to measure the efficiency of these OLSP programs, components and sub-components.

Despite these constraints, it is important to note that approximately 80% of the funds allocated through the OLSPs are invested in education (Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Learning). However, the logic that underlines this contribution is mostly based on historical and political considerations and not on cost-benefit calculations.

Furthermore, the financial data regarding the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 fiscal years (the only complete data available at the time of the evaluation) indicate the following:

• For the Development of Official-Language Communities program, the amounts paid in grants and contributions was slightly less than expected (1.5% and 2% less than expected in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 respectively). Regarding operating costs (Vote 1), the actual expenditures related to this program were more than expected (7.5% and 11.8% more than budgeted in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 respectively).
• We observed that the trend was reversed for the Enhancement of Official Languages program. The amounts given in grants and contributions were more than budgeted (6% and 7.5% more than in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 respectively) while for the operating costs (Vote 1), the actual expenditures were significantly less than budgeted (22.5 % and 30 % less than in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 respectively).
• The data also shows that operating costs (Vote 1) represented 4.4% of the total budget for the Development of Official-Language Communities program and 2.5% of the total budget for Enhancement of Official-Languages program. It should be noted that the Development of Official-Language Communities program includes a higher level of activities and that the Department’s regional offices actively participate in administering the Community Life component, particularly the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component.

5.2.2. Risk of overlap

When first considering the two components for which the Department invests the most, the Minority-Language Education component and the Second-Language Learning component, this evaluation has already noted that financial contributions play a complementary role to the provinces’ and territories’ investments in these areas. From this perspective, the very idea of overlap is not possible since the federal government’s role is limited to a contribution to the additional costs of education in the minority language and second-language learning.

As for the Community Life component, particularly the Cooperation with the Community Sector and the Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Services sub-components, the more sustained involvement of other federal departments, through the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages, for example, results in a greater possibility of complementarity, but also a greater risk of overlap. However, the data collected for the purposes of this evaluation did not identify any direct overlaps.

As for the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component, although the evaluation did not identify any duplication, it is an investment that should be better clarified since its relevance remains uncertain for the reasons described above.

5.2.3. Administrative practices

Service standards

At the time of the evaluation, the Department had developed service standards covering three dimensions of its interaction with the organizations that benefit from the programs: acknowledgements of receipt concerning submitted applications, the period required to issue a notice of decision for funding, and the period required for payments to be issued. At the time of the evaluation, the data on the Department’s ability to meet these standards were available for the first two standards, but not for the third regarding the issuance of payments.

On this basis, the evaluation shows that during the three first fiscal years covered by this evaluation, the Department was able to comply with the standards for acknowledgements of receipt and notices of decision.

As of 2015-2016, the Department was able to meet its objective of sending out acknowledgements of receipt within the prescribed time (two weeks) for at least 80% of submitted applications (see Appendix D for more details).

As illustrated in Figure 7, the Department still has challenges regarding the service standards for notices of decision.

• Regarding Cooperation with the Community Sector, which has the greatest number of applications, the Department’s capacity to meet the service standard is still relatively low—less than 60% for the first three years of this evaluation.
• Regarding the Support for Interpretation and Translation sub-component, for which the volume of applications is significant, the Department’s performance improved over the relevant period and reached 85% compliance in 2015-2016.
• The Department still has more difficulty meeting the applicable standards for the other sub-components. In some cases, performance decreased during the relevant period.

A factor that probably had an impact on levels of service standard compliance for 2015-2016 is the 2015 federal election campaign, which lasted 78 days. It should be noted that the approval process for these files stopped during this period.

Finally, in 2015, the Department published new service standards for some of its programs. An initiative was undertaken in collaboration with OLSP managers to shorten the standard times for decisions and thus improve the services offered to the recipients. On July 1, 2015, the Department tightened up the applicable standards regarding the following OLSP sub-components:

• Strategic Fund (from 24 to 16 weeks)
• Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Education and Intergovernmental Cooperation in the area of Second-Language Learning (from 24 to 20 weeks)
• Appreciation and Rapprochement (from 24 to 20 weeks)
• Promotion of Bilingual Services (from 24 to 20 weeks)

The Department also modified the way of calculating the period for the notice of funding decision service standard as of July 1, 2015. Before that date, the period considered for calculation purposes was from the moment the application was received by PCH to the moment departmental approval was completed. Since July 1, 2015, the period considered is from the moment the application is considered complete and the moment the letter informing the applicant of the decision is sent.

Agreement negotiation process

Another aspect of the programs’ management that was addressed, particularly during the interviews conducted for this evaluation, is the process used to negotiate the protocol for agreements and the intergovernmental agreements in education. Some of the signatories would like to negotiate directly with the federal government, rather than through CMEC, as is traditionally the case. Francophone minority school boards would also like to participate in the negotiations of the protocol for agreements and the intergovernmental agreements in education.

It is up to the stakeholders to determine the process they desire for negotiating the agreements that govern their cooperation. However, given the nature and scope of the protocol for agreements and the intergovernmental agreements, the evaluation was unable to identify an argument supporting these changes. Indeed, such changes risk further drawing out the process, which is already complex and relatively slow.

Taking into account the observations and recommendations contained in this report, the evaluation did not identify any other ways to achieve the same OLSP outcomes more effectively.

5.2.4. Performance measurement

Although the Department developed a performance measurement strategy covering the different OLSP dimensions, the evaluation shows that this has provided only limited support for the management of the various OLSP components and sub-components.

In particular, the Department does not perform systematic and documented data collection regarding several dimensions of OLSP performance that are described in the current strategy.

6. Conclusion

This section of the report summarizes the key findings that emerged from this evaluation. The information is structured on the basis of the major themes addressed by the evaluation.

The relevance of OLSPs

The evaluation first examined the relevance of the OLSPs. Overall, the evaluation confirms that the OLSPs are responding to Canadians’ needs regarding official languages and are making a significant contribution to the federal government’s vision for official language development, in accordance with the commitments set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

Development of official-language communities program

The Cooperation with the Community Sector and Community Cultural Action Fund sub-components respond to needs directly related to the development and vitality of OLMCs. As this report illustrates, each OLMC in Canada has its own characteristics and challenges, and the OLSPs can provide extensive support in this regard. The evaluation indicates that English-speaking communities in Quebec are currently facing a unique situation that deserves ongoing attention, especially with respect to the capacity of OLSPs to maximize their contribution to supporting the vitality and development of these communities.

The evaluation also confirms that intergovernmental cooperation on services remains a relevant intervention, particularly given the increasing number of provincial and territorial governments adopting statutes, policies and programs that recognize the contribution of OLMCs and enhance their vitality. This intervention is directly related to the federal government’s objective of supporting the delivery of provincial and territorial programs for OLMCs, while fully respecting the provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

The support provided by the OLSPs in the areas of minority-language education reflect a historical commitment and well-defined constitutional objectives. Major progress has been made over the years in providing education to OLMCs in their own language from kindergarten to the post-secondary level. Such progress is the result of ongoing efforts in this regard by the provinces and territories and of the strategic support offered by the OLSPs in key areas. This long-standing collaboration continued throughout the period covered by the evaluation and will be used to address new challenges in the coming years. We note that while Francophone communities are still facing challenges largely related to the growth and expansion of the minority-language education continuum (including, for example, daycare and post-secondary education services), English-speaking communities in Quebec are currently dealing with falling student enrolment.

Enhancement of official languages program

This evaluation indicates that the results associated with the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component should be better articulated to maximize the contribution of this component to the federal government’s official language priorities. This is made all the more necessary by the fact that the objective of all the activities funded by the OLSPs is to promote certain aspects of bilingualism or linguistic duality. Therefore, it is important to specify the niche area addressed by this component of the OLSPs, whose financial resources for all components are equivalent to 1% of the total budget of the OLSPs.

As it does for minority-language education, the evaluation confirms the relevance of the Second-Language Learning component, which has a solid historical foundation and is based on commitments set out in the Official Languages Act. Although no constitutional obligations apply in this case, all of the provinces and territories allow their students to participate in courses in their second official language, including immersion programs. Through its targeted investments, the federal government continues to promote and support the provinces and territories to enable them to innovate and better respond to the needs of their respective students. The significance of this intervention can be seen in the fact that, at the time of the evaluation, student enrolment in immersion programs was growing, while the opposing trend could be seen in student enrolment in core programs, which was decreasing.

Performance

With respect to OLSP performance, the evaluation confirms that the activities undertaken as a result of the OLSPs are a major contributor to the achievement of the immediate outcomes associated with them. However, it remains difficult to measure the medium- and long-term outcomes of these activities, particularly with respect to minority-language education and second-language learning. The nature of this federal intervention, the evaluation cycle that the OLSPs must respect and time frames related to the submission of reports by the provinces and territories contribute to this issue. The evaluation does, however, suggest some courses of action that could be taken to better understand the impact of the OLSPs.

Community Life component

Under the Community Life component, the OLSPs provide funding to about 340 community organizations, allowing them to operate and implement their programs and one-time projects. This network contributes to the establishment of an institutional space enabling members of OLMCs to mobilize in order to celebrate, promote and enhance their language and identity. At the regional and national levels, the network also enables community leaders to cooperate and mobilize. One challenge facing organizations working with OLMCs is accommodating emerging needs or the addition of new community partners. The evaluation confirms that, in its current form and given the financial parameters within which it operates, the Cooperation with the Community Sector sub-component cannot meet all of the needs of the country’s OLMCs.

In the area of services provided by the provinces and territories in the minority language, the evaluation highlights the significant progress that has been made over the years and the major contribution these services have made to the development and vitality of OLMC. Because the constitutional, legislative and policy framework for official languages in each province and territory is unique, the OLSPs are called upon to provide support tailored to the priorities established by each government.

With respect to the Community Cultural Action Fund, there is broad interest in this sub-component, which contributes directly to the vitality of the OLMCs. It is a program that occupies a well-defined niche area, namely, community mobilization through cultural activities. In this context, the evaluation confirms that the CCAF does not necessarily respond to the needs of organizations focusing on the direct development of professional artists. The evaluation also indicates that, in some regions of the country, an effort needs to be made to raise awareness of the CCAF and that certain OLMCs do not necessarily have the institutional capacity required to undertake these types of projects.

Minority-language education and second-language learning components

Regarding the two OLSP components directly related to education (Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Learning), the evaluation allows for a more accurate description of the nature of the activities undertaken through the OLSPs. It is still up to the provinces and territories to plan, manage and oversee the education offered to their respective school populations, in accordance with the parameters established by the Canadian Constitution, including section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In this context, the OLSPs support the provinces and territories in implementing targeted activities, which are found under the six areas of intervention described in the protocol for agreements and intergovernmental agreements signed with each province and territory. Even if the provinces and territories are sometimes late in delivering their reports, the evaluation indicates that they have the capacity to implement the activities listed in their respective action plans. The same can be said for the language bursary and language monitor programs and for cooperation with the non-governmental sector, which, in both cases, supports the delivery of minority-language education and second-language learning programs.

The field of education is continually evolving and being faced with new challenges. Minority-language education and second-language learning are no exceptions. The evaluation allowed for a number of these challenges to be documented, thereby confirming the relevance of these two components.

From a more operational perspective, a number of questions were raised during the evaluation regarding the negotiation of the protocol for agreements and the resulting intergovernmental agreements. Given that it is up to the stakeholders to establish a process that best meets their needs, the evaluation does not indicate that a substantial change to the existing approach is necessary. In fact, the changes sought by certain stakeholders could further weigh down an already laborious process.

Promotion of linguistic duality component

The evaluation indicates that the performance of the Promotion of Linguistic Duality Program has been mixed. On the one hand, the support for programming and projects offered through the Appreciation and Rapprochement sub-component enables organizations to undertake large-scale activities with the objective of encouraging young Canadians to become more familiar with and more fluent in their second official language. Support for interpretation and translation, while modest, also enables recipients to incorporate official languages more easily into their activities. Activities funded under the Promotion of Bilingual Services sub-component and the achievement of anticipated outcomes are so limited that no significant impact can be detected.

Efficiency and economy

On the whole, the evaluation confirms that there is a limited amount of information with regard to a systematic demonstration of the efficiency and economy of the OLSPs. It is noted, however, that the operating expenses of the Development of Official-Language Communities Program represent 2.9% of the total budget of the OLSPs, while the operating expenses of the Enhancement of Official Languages Program represent 0.9% of the total budget of the OLSPs.

The evaluation also notes that the Department has developed service standards that contribute to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current OLSP delivery structure. At the time of the evaluation, the Department had documented two of the three standards (only the standard pertaining to the issuance of payments has yet to be documented). This information helps provide a better understanding of the challenges faced by the Department, particularly with respect to funding decisions.

Lastly, it should be noted that, although the Department developed a performance measurement strategy covering the various aspects of the OLSPs, the evaluation indicates that this strategy has provided limited support for the management of the OLSPs’ components and sub-components.

7. Recommendations and management response

In light of the findings and conclusions arising from the evaluation, this section lists the five following recommendations:

Relevance and alignment

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Biannual meetings between the QCGN and the Liaison Committee on the priority needs of Quebec’s English-speaking communities	Summary of commitments made for the next six months	Nov. 2017 May 2018 Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Annual business meeting between the QCGN, the FCFA and the program	Summary of discussions	May–June 2017	Director, Operations and Regional Coordination
1.3 Four annual meetings of the O.L. Committee of the Quebec Federal Council	Summary of discussions	June, Sept. and Dec. 2017	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office
1.4 Annual meeting of the Working Group on Arts, Culture and Heritage on challenges and opportunities	Inventory of challenges and opportunities	1 st quarter 2018	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office
1.4.1 Analysis of the program’s capacity to respond to the identified challenges/opportunities and, where necessary, taking of appropriate actions.	Identified action plan	March 2018	Manager, PCH-QC Regional Office

Date of full implementation
March 2018

Measurement of performance and long-term impacts

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timetable	Program lead
1.1 Update of Program Information Profile (PIP)	PIP 2018-2019	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Update of OLSP guidelines	Revised guidelines	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2.1 Internal meeting at OLB to discuss necessary changes to guidelines	Revised guidelines	Nov. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.3 Evaluation of appropriateness of updating the terms and conditions of the OLSP	Table comparing new guidelines to program terms and conditions	Dec. 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
December 2018

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Specific measures by OLSPs to support communities under the new plan	TBD following announcement of the new multi-year action plan	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
May 2018

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Development of new performance management tools for the OLSPs	Performance Information Profile (formerly Performance Measurement Strategy)	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.2 Preparation of the terms of reference of the impact assessment	Terms of Reference	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.3 Recruitment of outside consultant	Consulting contract	May 2018	Senior Director, Policy and Research
1.4 Performance of impact assessment	Final report on the assessment	Nov. 2019	Senior Director, Policy and Research

Date of full implementation
November 2019

Efficiency: service standards

Action plan

Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Program lead
1.1 Continuous improvement in program delivery to ensure compliance with service standards	Achievement of service standards (see published statistics relating to OLSP service standards)	May 2018 Sept. 2018	Director, Operations and Regional Coordination

Date of full implementation
September 2018

Appendix A: OLSP logic models

Program – Development of official language communities – logic model – text version

Activities (components)	Financial aid for the Community Life component	Financial aid for Minority Language Education component
Sub-activities (sub-components)	Collaboration with the community sector Intergovernmental collaboration, services in the minority language Community Cultural Action Fund (CCAF) Strategic funds	Intergovernmental collaboration (Protocol and supplementary funds) Collaboration with the non-governmental sector
Outputs	Collaboration agreements with the representatives of OLMCs in the provinces and territories in order to better understand the community issues and to establish priorities Grants and contributions for the achievement of activities and projects aiming to ensure the long term development of OLMCs within priority sectors Bilateral agreements with provincial and territorial governments to help with the provision of minority language services to OLMCs Contribution agreements and grants with non-profit organizations and contribution agreements with provincial and territorial governments for projects aiming to strengthen and help spread cultural, artistic, action and the heritage of OLMCs Contribution agreements and grants with non-profit organizations for projects aiming to better the community life milieu (strategic initiatives)	Contributions dispensed within the framework of federal/provincial/territorial bilateral agreements as a result of a Protocol agreement with CMEC targeting all teaching levels, provision of programs and activities in the language of the OLMC Grants and contribution agreements with non-profit organizations and professional organizations that are working within the communities to: Increase and disseminate knowledge Increase access to innovative methods and tools related to teaching in the minority language Signed agreements with CMEC within the same Protocol framework in order to increase the number of Canadians in the minority milieu who are studying in their first official language by supporting: the creation of French first official language monitor positions (Odyssey); and the provision of summer proficiency training bursaries in French (Destination Clic)
Immediate outcomes	Provision of activities and services destined to OLMCs by community organizations Provision of services by provincial and territorial governments in the minority language in domains other than education Provision of activities and services aiming to strengthen and spread cultural and artistic action and the heritage of OLMCs Provision of activities having a strategic importance for OLMCs	Provision of programs and activities by the provinces and territories toward teaching in the language of the OLMCs. Provision of innovative methods and tools related to teaching in the minority language as well as the dissemination of knowledge Provision of French first language monitor positions and summer proficiency training in French bursaries
Intermediate outcomes	Increased access to quality education in their language and in their milieu for OLMCs Increased access to programs and services offered in their own language by community organizations, the provinces and territories and their creations for OLMCs Increased capacity of OLMCs to live in their own language, to participate in Canadian society and to be assured of their long term development Better collaboration among multiple partners with respect to the development and vitality of OLMCs	Increased access to quality education in their language and in their milieu for OLMCs Increased access to programs and services offered in their own language by community organizations, the provinces and territories and their creations for OLMCs Increased capacity of OLMCs to live in their own language, to participate in Canadian society and to be assured of their long term development Better collaboration among multiple partners with respect to the development and vitality of OLMCs
Ultimate outcome	Thriving OLMCs in Canada Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity (strategic result of Canadian Heritage) A diversified society that encourages linguistic duality and social inclusion (Government of Canada results framework)	Thriving OLMCs in Canada Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity (strategic result of Canadian Heritage) A diversified society that encourages linguistic duality and social inclusion (Government of Canada results framework)

Program – Promotion of official languages – logic model – text version

Activities (components)	Financial aid for the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component	Financial aid for Learning the Second Language component
Sub-activities (sub-components)	Appreciation and Rapprochement Support for interpretation and Translation Promotion of the provision of services	Support for second language learning Summer language bursaries Official Language monitors
Outputs	Grants and contribution agreements with non-profit organizations to lead activities and projects that contribute to: Increasing the participation in activities that enhance Official Languages and bring Canadians together Promote French language and culture in Canada Grow the provision of services in both official languages in non-government sectors	Contributions dispensed within the framework of federal-provincial bilateral agreements resulting from a Protocol Agreement conceived with CMEC in order to deliver programs and activities of the provinces and territories with respect to learning French and English second official languages Grants and contribution agreements with non-profit organizations and professional associations in order to: Increase and disseminate knowledge Increase access to innovative tools and methods related to teaching French and English official second languages Agreements signed with CMEC within the framework of this same Protocol in order to increase the number of Canadians who learn French or English as a second official language and for familiarization with the respective culture by supporting: The creation of official language monitor positions (Odyssey) and: The granting of summer language bursaries (Explore) Contribution agreements with enforcement agencies to implement these components Young Canada Works Official Languages (YCWOLB) and Young Canada Works for a Career in French or English (YCWCFE).
Immediate outcomes	Delivery of activities and projects to: Promote Official Languages and bring Canadians together Promote French language and culture in Canada Grow the provision of services in both official languages in non-government sectors	Delivery of provincial and territorial programs and activities toward learning French and English official second languages Provision of innovative tools and methods related to teaching French and English second official languages and the dissemination of knowledge Provision of official language monitor positions and summer language bursaries
Intermediate outcomes	A greater number of Canadians have a practical knowledge of the two official languages	A greater number of Canadians have a better understanding and appreciation of the benefits of official languages
Ultimate outcome	Canada is officially recognized as a bilingual country Official Languages are recognized and supported by all Canadians Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity A diversified society that encourages linguistic duality and social inclusion	Canada is officially recognized as a bilingual country Official Languages are recognized and supported by all Canadians Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity A diversified society that encourages linguistic duality and social inclusion

Appendix B: OLSP funding options

OLSP components	Funding options
Development of official-language communities	-
Community Life component	-
Cooperation with the Community Sector	Cooperation agreements Grants and contributions
Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Services	Federal-provincial-territorial agreements (contributions)
Community Cultural Action Fund	Federal-provincial-territorial agreements (contributions) Grants and contributions
Strategic Fund	Grants and contributions
Minority-Language Education component	-
Intergovernmental Cooperation on Minority-Language Education	Protocol for agreements with CMEC Federal-provincial-territorial agreements (contributions)
Complementary Support for Language Learning (managed by CMEC)	Contribution agreement
Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector	Grants and contributions
Enhancement of official languages	-
Promotion of Linguistic Duality component	-
Appreciation and Rapprochement	Grants and contributions
Support for Interpretation and Translation	Grants and contributions
Promotion of Bilingual Services.	Grants and contributions
Second-Language Learning component	-
Intergovernmental Cooperation in the area of Second-Language Learning	Protocol for agreements with CMEC Federal-provincial-territorial agreements (contributions)
Complementary Support for Language Learning (managed by CMEC)	Contribution agreement
Cooperation with the Non-Governmental Sector	Grants and contributions

Appendix C: OLSP financial data

OLSP allocations and actual expenditures for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: DOLC program

	Allocation 2014-2015	Actual expenditures 2014-2015	Difference 2014-2015	Allocation 2015-2016	Actual expenditures 2015-2016	Difference 2015-2016
Vote 1	9,325,816	9,961,685	(635,869)	9,270,582	10,445,054	(1,174,472)
Vote 5: Grant	33,322,973	6,691,936	26,631,037	33,322,973	6,556,111	26,766,862
Vote 5: Contribution	191,099,017	214,393,218	(23,294,201)	192,599,017	214,683,205	(22,084,188)
Vote 5: Subtotal	224,421,990	221,085,154	3,336,836	225,921,990	221,239,316	4,682,674
Total	233,747,806	231,085,154	2,700,967	235,192,572	231,684,370	3,508,202

Note: 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 are the two fiscal years for which complete data were available.
Source: Approved financial data provided by the OLB

OLSP allocations and actual expenditures for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: EOL program

	Allocation 2014-2015	Actual expenditures 2014-2015	Difference 2014-2015	Allocation 2015-2016	Actual expenditures 2015-2016	Difference 2015-2016
Vote 1	4,073,749	3,109,378	964,371	3,036,897	2,929,700	107,197
Vote 5: Grant	5,599,842	519,359	5,080,483	5,599,842	676,060	4,923,782
Vote 5: Contribution	102,538,289	114,084,271	(11,545,982)	102,538,289	115,524,779	(12,986,490)
Vote 5: Subtotal	108,138,131	114,603,630	(6,465,499)	108,138,131	116,200,839	(8,062,708)
Total	112,211,880	117,713,008	(5,501,128)	111,175,028	119,130,359	(7,955,511)

Note: 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 are the two fiscal years for which complete data were available.
Source: Approved financial data provided by the OLB

OLSP allocations and actual expenditures for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016: OLSPs program

	Allocation 2014-2015	Actual expenditures 2014-2015	Difference 2014-2015	Allocation 2015-2016	Actual expenditures 2015-2016	Difference 2015-2016
Vote 1	13,399,565	13,071,063	328,502	12,307,479	13,374,754	(1,067,275)
Vote 5: Grant	38,922,815	7,211,295	31,711,520	38,922,815	7,232,171	31,690,644
Vote 5: Contribution	293,637,306	328,477,489	(34,840,183)	295,137,306	330,207,984	(35,070,678)
Vote 5: Subtotal	332,560,121	335,688,784	(3,128,663)	334,060,121	337,440,155	(3,380,034)
Total	345,959,686	348,759,847	(2,800,161)	346,367,600	350,814,909	(4,447,309)

Note: 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 are the two fiscal years for which complete data were available.
Source: Approved financial data provided by the OLB

Appendix D: service standard for acknowledgement of receipt

Appendix E: evaluation matrix

Evaluation questions matrix

Evaluation questions matrix: Relevance

Questions	Indicators	Sources/methods
To what degree are the OLSPs responding to Canadians’ needs related to official languages? More specifically: Do the Development of Official-Language Communities program and its sub-components still reflect the needs of the Canadians that they are supposed to serve? Do the Enhancement of Official Languages program and its sub-components still reflect the needs of the Canadians that they are supposed to serve?	Relationships between the OLSP components and the constitutional and legislative framework for official languages Attitudes, perceptions and aspirations of OLMCs regarding their individual and collective development and vitality Attitudes, perceptions and aspirations of Canadians regarding their knowledge and appreciation of the two official languages Progress in community intervention regarding official languages Progress in government intervention (provinces, territories and municipalities) regarding official languages Trends regarding participation in minority-language education and second-language learning programs Level of interest and participation in programs targeting the promotion of linguistic duality	Document review Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with all stakeholder groups OLMC case studies Expert panels
To what degree are the OLSPs, and their respective sub-components, still responding to a demonstrable need?	Perceptions of stakeholders (internal and external) regarding the demonstrable needs for each of the two OLSP programs	Interviews with all stakeholder groups
To what degree do each of the two programs included in the OLSPs, and their respective sub-components, reflect the strategic outcomes of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the government’s overall priorities?	Relationships (perceived and documented) between the Development of Official Language Communities program’s sub-parts and the priorities of Canadian Heritage and the federal government Relationships (perceived and documented) between the Enhancement of Official Languages program’s sub-part and the priorities of Canadian Heritage and the federal government	Document review Literature review Interviews with all stakeholder groups OLMC case studies Expert panels
To what degree are the two programs covered by the OLSP, and their respective sub-components, compatible with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government regarding the delivery of the program?	Level of compatibility between the activities of the two OLSP programs, and their sub-parts, and the division of powers Historic evolution of the federal government’s role in official languages Perceptions of stakeholders (internal and external) working in each area targeted by the two OLSP programs	Document review Literature review Interviews with all stakeholder groups OLMC case studies Expert panels

Evaluation questions matrix: OLSP performance of the Development of Official Languages Communities Program

Questions	Indicators	Sources/methods
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Community Life component contribute to the achievement of the associated immediate outcomes?	Fluctuation and nature of services for OLMCs by community organizations Fluctuation and nature of services for OLMCs by provincial, territorial and municipal governments (in areas other than education) Number and nature of funded activities allowing cultural, artistic and heritage activities to be shared Number of participants in activities funded aiming to share cultural, artistic and heritage actions Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the targeted outcomes through the Community component Perceptions of community representatives regarding the achievement of the targeted outcomes through the Community Life component Perceptions of the P/T and municipality representatives regarding the achievement of the targeted outcomes through the Community Life component	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management PCH regional offices OLMC representatives (national and regional) Cultural groups P/T and municipality representatives OLMC case studies Case study of the cultural sector Expert panels
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Minority-Language Education component contribute to the achievement of the associated immediate outcomes?	Number and type of activities and programs offered by P/T in minority-language education Number and nature of the innovative methods and tools for minority-language education and the dissemination of knowledge Number of positions for monitors of French as a first official language and summer bursaries for perfecting French Numbers and trends in student enrolment in the minority system Numbers and trends in registrations for the bursary and monitor programs Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of P/T representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of representatives of the education field regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of community representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management P/T representatives CMEC representatives School board representatives (L1) OLMC representatives (national and regional) OLMC case studies Expert panels
To what degree did the Development of Official Language Communities program achieve the associated intermediate and final outcomes?	Degree to which the OLMCs have increased access to quality education in their language and in their community Degree to which the OLMCs have increased access to the programs and services offered, in their language, by community organizations and by the provinces, territories and their creations Degree to which the OLMCs have increased the ability to live in their own language, participate in Canadian society and ensure their long-term development Degree to which there is better cooperation among multiple partners to foster the development and vitality of OLMCs Comparison of levels of education using the minority-majority index Indicators of OLMC vitality Percentage of OLMC members living within a 25-km radius of a minority language primary or secondary school Percentage of OLMC members living within a 25-km radius of a regional or local community development organization Proportion of OLMC members living within a 25-km radius of a cultural or artistic organization Linguistic continuity index Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the intermediate and final outcomes Perceptions of P/T representatives regarding the achievement of the intermediate and final outcomes Perceptions of representatives of the education field regarding the achievement of the intermediate and final outcomes Perceptions of community representatives regarding the achievement of the intermediate and final outcomes Degree of satisfaction among OLMC partners regarding their collaboration	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management PCH regional offices P/T representatives CMEC representatives School board representatives (L1) OLMC representatives (national and regional) OLMC case studies Case study of the cultural sector Expert panels

Evaluation questions matrix: Performance of Enhancement of official languages program

Questions	Indicators	Sources/methods
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Community Life component contribute to the achievement of the associated immediate outcomes?	Number and variety of activities enhancing the official languages Number and variety of activities creating a rapprochement among Canadians Number and variety of activities enhancing the French language and culture in Canada Number and variety of organizations providing services in both official languages Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of linguistic duality and second-language groups regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Number of participants in the funded activities Number of participants in events with simultaneous interpretation Number of printed copies of translated documents Average number of visits to translated websites	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Interviews with: PCH senior management Representatives of linguistic duality and second-language groups
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Promotion of Linguistic Duality component contribute to the achievement of the associated intermediate outcomes?	Degree to which more Canadians have a better understanding and appreciation of the benefits of official languages Proportion of Canadians believe that linguistic duality is a source of cultural enrichment Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the intermediate outcomes Perceptions of linguistic duality and second-language groups regarding the intermediate outcomes	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Interviews with: PCH senior management Representatives of linguistic duality and second-language groups
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Second-Language Learning component contribute to the achievement of the associated immediate outcomes?	Number and variety of activities and programs offered by the P/T for second-language learning Number and variety of innovative methods and tools related to teaching French and English as second official language, and dissemination of knowledge Numbers and trends in student enrolment in second-language learning programs Numbers and trends in enrolments in the bursary and monitor programs Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of representatives in the education field regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes Perceptions of linguistic duality and second-language group representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management P/T representatives CMEC representatives School board representatives (L2) Representatives of linguistic duality and second-language groups Expert panels
To what degree did the activities undertaken in the Second-Language Learning component contribute to the achievement of the associated intermediate outcomes?	The degree to which more Canadians have a working knowledge of both official languages Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the intermediate outcomes Perceptions of linguistic duality and second-language groups regarding the intermediate outcomes	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy and surveys conducted with Canadians) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management P/T representatives CMEC representatives School board representatives (L2) Representatives of linguistic duality and second-language groups Expert panels OLMC case studies
To what degree did the Enhancement of Official Languages program achieve the associated final outcomes?	Constitutional, legislative and political framework regarding the official languages Degree to which Canada is recognized as an officially bilingual country Degree to which the official languages are recognized and supported by all Canadians Rate of bilingualism among young Canadians (15 to 19 years of age) Perceptions of Canadians regarding linguistic duality and official languages Perceptions of Canadian Heritage representatives regarding the achievement of the final outcomes Perceptions of representatives of the education field regarding the achievement of the final outcomes Perceptions of the community representatives regarding the achievement of the immediate outcomes	Document review (including sources identified in the performance measurement strategy) Administrative data analysis Literature review Interviews with: PCH senior management P/T representatives CMEC representatives School board representatives (L2) Representatives of linguistic duality and second-language groups Expert panels
Did the two OLSP programs have any unexpected impacts (positive or negative)?	Evidence of unexpected results Perceptions of all the OLSP stakeholders	Document review Interviews with all the stakeholders OLMC case studies Case study of the cultural sector Expert panels

Evaluation questions matrix: Demonstration of efficiency and economy

Questions	Indicators	Sources/methods
Are the resources allocated to the two OLSP programs invested effectively and efficiently to optimize results?	Allocation of the two OLSP programs’ resources in relation to the achieved outcomes Use of resources (comparison of budgeted and actual costs) Administrative cost ratio Comparison between the national and regional levels in terms of administrative costs and efficiency Perceptions of all the OLSP stakeholders	Document review (including verification and evaluation reports) Analysis of the financial data Interviews with all the stakeholders
Do the two OLSP programs and their sub-components complement each other, or do they overlap existing programs?	Data and perceptions regarding the complementarity or overlap of the OLSP programs and other initiatives	Document review Interviews with all the stakeholders
Are there any administrative and management practices promoting more effective program implementation such that they can attain their objectives?	Data and perceptions regarding the effectiveness of administrative and management practices: Eligibility criteria The process for submitting applications The process for assessing applications The approval process Compliance with service standards Perceptions among stakeholders regarding the implementation structure for the programs Level of stakeholder satisfaction with the program delivery model (including the national/regional implementation dimension) Potential improvements to program delivery	Document review Interviews with all the stakeholders
Are there more effective ways to achieve the outcomes?	Evidence of other mechanisms that could help obtain similar outcomes Perceptions of all the OLSP stakeholders	Literature review Interviews with all the stakeholders Expert panels
Is the performance measurement approach adequate? If needed, what changes should be made?	Degree to which the mechanisms and systems in place to support performance measurement are adequate Degree to which the performance measurement strategy adequately covers the activities undertaken by the OLSPs and their outcomes Degree to which performance indicators and reports correspond to the expectations set out in the performance measurement strategy Degree to which the performance data are accurate and complete Degree to which the performance data support program management and accountability Potential improvements to the performance measurement strategy	Document review Interviews with all the stakeholders