Evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program 2011-12 to 2016-17

Period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2017
Evaluation Services Directorate
March 29, 2018

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français.

©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2018
Catalogue No. CH7-59/2018E-PDF
ISBN 978-0-660-26668-8

Table of contents

• List of tables
• List of figures
• List of acronyms
• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Program profile
  • 2.1. Program history
  • 2.2. Program objectives
  • 2.3. Program activities
  • 2.4. Program expected outcomes
  • 2.5. Program management and governance
  • 2.6. Program resources
• 3. Approach and methodology
  • 3.1. Scope and timeline
  • 3.2. Calibration
  • 3.3. Evaluation issues and questions
  • 3.4. Data collection method
  • 3.5. Scale for presenting results
  • 3.6. Constraints, limits and mitigation strategies
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1. Relevance
  • 4.2. Effectiveness: achievement of expected outcomes
  • 4.3. Efficiency: demonstration of efficiency
  • 4.4. Other evaluation issues
• 5. Conclusions
  • 5.1. Relevance
  • 5.2. Effectiveness
  • 5.3. Efficiency
  • 5.4. Other evaluation issues
• 6. Recommendations, management response and action plan
• Annex A: evaluation framework
• Annex B: bibliography

List of tables

• Table 1: program objectives and expected outcomes
• Table 2: multiculturalism Program budgeted and actual expenditures (2011-12 to 2016-17)
• Table 3: evaluation questions by core issue
• Table 4: scale for the presentation of results
• Table 5: approved events by CIC/IRCC Region 2011-12 to 2014-15
• Table 6: approved events by PCH Region 2015-16 -2016-17

List of figures

• Figure 1: Inter-Action: lapsed vote 5 (total $)
• Figure 2: Inter-Action: lapsed grants ($)
• Figure 3: Inter-Action: lapsed contributions ($)

List of acronyms

CAPAR

Canada's Action Plan Against Racism

CERD

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

CIC

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

DPR

Departmental Performance Report

ESD

Evaluation Services Directorate

FAA

Financial Administration Act

FTE

Full-Time Equivalent

FPTORMI

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism Issues

GAC

Global Affairs Canada

GCIMS

Grants and Contributions Information Management System

GCP

Global Centre for Pluralism

GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation

GC

Government of Canada

Gs&Cs

Grants and Contributions

GSS

General Social Survey

ICERD

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

IHRA

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

IRCC

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

LGBTQ+

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans Queer/Questioning, and others

MCN

Multiculturalism Champions Network

NHS

National Household Survey

OARH

Organizing Against Racism and Hate

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

PAA

Program Alignment Architecture

PCH

Department of Canadian Heritage

PDF

Portable Document Format

PRG

Policy Research Group

P/T

Provincial/Territorial

RIPEC

Results, Integrated Planning and Evaluation Committee

RPP

Report on Plans and Priorities

SPPR

Strategic Policy Planning and Research

Ts&Cs

Terms and Conditions

UN

United Nations

UNCERD

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Executive summary

Overview of the Multiculturalism Program

The Multiculturalism Program is one means by which the Government of Canada implements the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and advances the Government of Canada's priorities in the area of multiculturalism. Between 2008 and November 2015, the Program was delivered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)/Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). In November 2015, the Program was transferred to the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH).

At PCH, the Program delivery is shared by three Branches – Strategic Policy, Planning and Research, Citizen Participation and Communications – and the five Regions. In 2016-17, the Program's expenditures were $10.1 million.

The Multiculturalism Program delivers its mandate through 4 key areas of activity:

• Grants and Contributions (Gs&Cs) (Inter-Action). The Multiculturalism Program has an annual budget of $8.5 million in Gs&Cs for projects and events that foster an integrated, socially cohesive society. Inter-Action is administered by both National Headquarters (projects) and the five PCH Regions (events).
• Public outreach and promotion. The Multiculturalism Program undertakes public outreach and promotional activities, including: Asian Heritage Month, Black History Month and the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism.
• Support to federal and public institutions. The Program supports federal institutions to implement their responsibilities under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and to develop their submissions to the Annual Report on the Operation of the Multiculturalism Act. The Program coordinates the submissions and prepares the Annual Report. It also coordinates the Multiculturalism Champions Network (MCN), a Government of Canada community of practice of multiculturalism champions. The Program collaborates with provinces and territories on mutual priorities through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism (FPTORMI) network.
• International engagement. The Program participates in international agreements and institutions to advance multiculturalism, diversity and anti-racism in Canada and internationally.

The Multiculturalism Program's three objectives came into effect in April 2010:

• build an integrated, socially cohesive society;
• improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population; and
• actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level.

Evaluation approach and methodology

The evaluation covered the period 2011-12 to 2016-17 and was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016) and the Financial Administration Act (FAA). The evaluation assessed the Program's relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, including design and delivery.

The evaluation approach involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and primary and secondary data sources to address the evaluation issues and questions.

Findings

Relevance

The Multiculturalism Program remains relevant. While Canadians are generally positive toward immigration, visible minorities and multiculturalism, there continues to be a need to address the challenges associated with an increasingly diverse Canada, including the rise of populism; controversies associated with increased levels of immigration; intolerance toward religious and ethnocultural groups; the persistence of hate crimes; and the underlying factors that contribute to the socio-economic disadvantages experienced by certain groups.

Although Program activities address some of these issues, there were gaps identified by key informants, including a national strategy for racism and discrimination; supporting institutional change to address systemic issues and the availability of project funding to address unique local or regional needs. The Program's ability to address these gaps is constrained by a lack of capacity to achieve the broad policy objectives of the Act; the lack of evidence, including performance data, to inform policy and program development; and the Program's funding and delivery model.

The Program is aligned with the Government's diversity and inclusion priority which has been emphasized in the 2015 Speech from the Throne, in successive Budgets and in the Ministers' mandate letters. However, there is a perception that multiculturalism has been less visible as a result of the emphasis on diversity and inclusion. Multiculturalism is one facet of diversity, and there is a need to clarify the Program's role in advancing the broader scope of the Government's diversity and inclusion priority.

There is a role for the federal government in advancing multiculturalism. Key informants expressed the view that the federal government should take a leadership role, particularly in championing multiculturalism; conveying strong messages against racism and discrimination; and by conducting research, providing data and sharing information.

According to key informants, the Program's objectives are too broad and while this allows for flexibility, they do not align closely to Program activities or priorities, nor do they articulate the intended impact in a changing context or respond directly to key challenges.

Effectiveness

There is limited performance data to conclude that the Program's activities contributed to the achievement of its expected outcomes or that they are the most effective levers to achieve the outcomes.

• Public outreach and promotion activities such as Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month were widely promoted and engaged Canadians. The Paul Yuzyk Award was on hold during the last two years covered by the evaluation. Internal key informants raised issues about the Multiculturalism Policy Unit's capacity and role in delivering public outreach and promotion.
• After the Program's transfer to PCH, activities related to coordination and support to federal and other public institutions were limited in scope due, in part, to a period of inactivity of the MCN and the FPTORMI network following the transfer and the limited capacity of the Multiculturalism Policy Unit . Responses to the MCN members' survey indicated that the network was only moderately effective in contributing to expected outcomes. However, members of both networks consider their network to be relevant but would like to see an expanded mandate that moves beyond information-sharing.
• The Program effectively coordinated input to the Annual Report on the Operation of the Multiculturalism Act. The majority of institutions provided input annually. The number dropped in 2016-17. The Program revised its template to strengthen reporting to be more outcomes focused, which may have contributed to a lower response rate.
• Inter-Action projects did not report against specific outcome indicators in their final project activity reports but provided narrative descriptions of their results. The file review and case studies found that these narratives demonstrated that projects' activities aligned with the objectives and expected outcomes of the Program. The strategic initiatives projects were able to demonstrate that their activities aligned with Government priorities.
• The Program's international engagement activities contributed to the immediate outcome of increasing policy awareness about international approaches to diversity. However, it is not evident that this translated into the implementation of international best practices in the Canadian context and to the achievement of the intermediate outcomes of the Program.

Key informants identified several gaps in terms of the current program activities, among them addressing racism; engaging with communities and the privates sector; forging strategic partnerships to address issues; and conducting or funding research. Some of these gaps align with the policy levers suggested by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as potential measures to implement the multiculturalism policy.

Efficiency

Between 2011-12 and 2016-17, there were two calls for applications. The 2015 intake received 52 applications of which 13 received funding. The number of applications for the 2017 intake increased five-fold to 256, of which 55 received funding.

The efficiency of the Multiculturalism Program has been affected by the lengthy time frames for the approval process for the Gs&Cs for the 2015 and 2017 calls for applications. As a result, the service standard for the notification of funding decisions for projects was not met for the 2015 and 2017 calls, which led to delays in notifying recipients of funding decisions and late start dates for projects.

While at CIC/IRCC, the Program lapsed Gs&Cs funding which affected the efficiency of the Program and the achievement of its outcomes as Gs&Cs were not being used to fund projects and events. Between 2011-12 and 2013-14, the Program lapsed between 21 and 26 per cent of its Gs&Cs budget. This increased to 52.5 per cent in 2014-15. This lapse was attributed to demand being lower than expected. Further analysis showed that the lapse was more pronounced for grants than for contributions.

Design and delivery

The majority of internal key informants identified challenges with communications, coordination and decision-making as a result of the Program's current structure and design and delivery model. The split between policy, operations and communications was created at CIC/IRCC, to align with CIC/IRCC's functional model, and was maintained at PCH. At PCH, this model is unique to the Multiculturalism Program. As a result, several issues have emerged. This includes a lack of clear roles and responsibilities, especially with respect to responsibility for program policy development.

Issues also emerged with respect to the Multiculturalism Policy Unit's capacity to undertake public outreach and promotion. At CIC/IRCC, this activity was the responsibility of the Communications Branch while at PCH, Communications provides advice and the Program is responsible for the activities.

The majority of key informants identified the current funding model and eligibility criteria as having created a gap in terms of project funding to address unique regional and local needs.

Performance measurement

Limited performance information is captured by the Multiculturalism Program, particularly to measure the achievement of outcomes. As a result there is limited evidence to demonstrate if, and to what extent, the Multiculturalism Program is achieving its objectives and expected outcomes, or to identify what works, to support future funding decisions.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this evaluation, the following six recommendations are being made:

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should lead a policy development exercise which, within the context of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, will articulate the Multiculturalism Program's vision, goals/objectives, priority actions, roles and responsibilities and the expected results for the Program going forward. This policy visioning exercise should be inclusive of consultations with internal and external stakeholders, national and local community organizations, its existing networks (MCN and FPTORMI) and others, as appropriate.

Recommendation 2

To address the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions (what works) in support of policy development and program decision-making, the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should examine and implement (for example, through research and experimentation) ways to measure the impact of program interventions, projects and activities.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should:

1. update the Program Information Profile to include indicators measuring immediate, intermediate and long-term program outcomes; and
2. review and revise the data collection instruments and existing mechanisms to ensure outcome data is collected and analyzed for all elements of the program.

Recommendation 4

To address the identified governance challenges, improve communication, collaboration and decision-making the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, and the Director General, Communications should review the Program's structure (which has a wide scope of policy, outreach and operational activities delivered through two sectors, all regions, and one direct report) as well as the roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 5

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should revisit the eligibility criteria for projects to allow for support to address systemic regional and local issues.

Recommendation 6

In order to provide recipients with timely funding decisions the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should implement measures to ensure the Program service standards are met.

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program. The evaluation covers the period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2017. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 2016 Treasury Board Policy on Results.^{Footnote 1} The evaluation provides comprehensive and reliable evidence regarding the relevance and performance of the Multiculturalism Program. The evaluation also examines issues of design and delivery and performance measurement. The results of the evaluation will support accountability and inform decision-making.

The Program was last evaluated in 2012. The Treasury Board Secretariat granted a one-year extension to March 31, 2018 to complete this evaluation in consideration of the transfer of the Program to PCH from CIC/IRCC in November 2015.

In addition to this introduction, the evaluation report has the following main sections:

• Section 2 presents the program profile.
• Section 3 presents the evaluation methodology and methodological limitations.
• Section 4 presents the findings relating to relevance, performance, design and delivery and performance measurement.
• Section 5 presents the conclusions.
• Section 6 presents the recommendations and the management response and action plan.

2. Program profile

The federal government first recognized multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society through the formal adoption of the multiculturalism policy in 1971, by recognizing the contributions made by many ethnocultural groups, beside French and British. The policy encouraged a vision of Canada based on the values of equality, and mutual respect with regards to race, national or ethnic origin, color and religion.^{Footnote 2} The 1971 multiculturalism policy also confirmed the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the status of Canada's two official languages.

The 1980's saw a growing institutionalization of the multiculturalism policy which coincided with a period of difficulty for race relations in Canada. The government first concentrated on promoting institutional change to help Canadian institutions adapt to an increasingly diverse population. During this time, the focus was on the introduction of anti-discrimination programs aimed at removing social and cultural barriers.^{Footnote 3} In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognized the multicultural heritage of Canada. Section 27 states "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."^{Footnote 4} The Charter effectively placed multiculturalism within the wider framework of Canadian society. It also addressed the elimination of expressions of discrimination by guaranteeing both equality and fairness to all under the law, regardless of race or ethnicity.^{Footnote 5}

In 1988, Parliament passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which articulates Canada's multiculturalism policy and gives the Minister the mandate to develop and deliver programs and practices to support its implementation. The Act is designed to further integration by emphasizing the right of Canada's ethnic, racial and religious minorities to preserve and enhance their unique cultural heritage while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canadians.^{Footnote 6} The Act provides the Government of Canada a wide range of policy and program options for addressing issues related to cultural heritage and identity.

2.1. Program history

The Multiculturalism Program is one means by which the Government of Canada implements the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Since 1988, multiculturalism has received continued funding for programming aimed at fostering social cohesion and building an inclusive society that is open to, and respectful of, all Canadians.

Multiculturalism is not just about managing ethnic relations but it is also about producing desirable outcomes like inclusion, equality and equity.^{Footnote 7} Accordingly, multiculturalism must constantly be "re/interpreted according to the times and spaces where the political, economic, social and cultural circumstances change."^{Footnote 8}

Therefore, the focus of multiculturalism policy and programming has evolved over time to reflect the changing Canadian context. Nonetheless, it has consistently promoted the strengths and benefits of diversity while, at the same time, addressed key challenges. In practice, Canadian multiculturalism has five consistent themes. They are: (1) a desire to assist minority communities in their efforts to contribute to Canada; (2) removing barriers to participation; (3) promoting intercultural interaction; (4) encouraging the use of both official languages; and (5) working partnerships (government or federal institutions) to achieve the goals of the policy.^{Footnote 9}

Changes to program objectives over time reflect the policy and program response to a changing context. In 1991, under the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the department had three priorities:

• race relations and cross-cultural understanding – to promote appreciation, acceptance and implementation of the principles of racial equality and multiculturalism;
• heritage cultures and languages to assist Canadians – to preserve, enhance and share their cultures, languages and ethno-cultural group identities; and
• community support and participation – to support the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities from racial and ethno-cultural minorities in Canadian life.

In 1993, with the creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage, multiculturalism program activities were transferred to the new department and the Program was renewed with new objectives and a focus on the following:

• social justice – building a fair and equitable society;
• civic participation – ensuring that Canadians of all origins participate in the shaping of our communities and country; and
• identity – fostering a society that recognizes and respects and reflects a diversity of cultures so that people of all backgrounds feel a sense of belonging to Canada.

In 1997, the Program's objectives were revised again. They reflected a focus on addressing racism and supporting federal departments and agencies to implement the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Specifically, there were four objectives:

• ethno-cultural/racial minorities participate in public decision-making (civic participation);
• communities and the broad public engage in informed dialogue and sustained action to combat racism (anti-racism/anti-hate/cross-cultural understanding);
• public institutions eliminate systemic barriers (institutional change); and
• federal policies, programs and services respond to diversity (federal institutional change).

The Multiculturalism portfolio was transferred to CIC/IRCC on October 30, 2008, and remained at CIC/IRCC until November 4, 2015 ^{Footnote 10} at which point it was transferred back to PCH.^{Footnote 11}

The Program's current objectives were developed while the Program was at CIC/IRCC and were approved by Cabinet in July 2009. These objectives focus on social cohesion, with attention directed to perceived faith and culture clashes and a solution based on shared values, anchored in history as the means to improve social cohesion and integration.^{Footnote 12,Footnote 13}

2.2. Program objectives

The current Program objectives were formally implemented on April 1, 2010. These objectives, guided the Program during the period covered by this evaluation:

• build an integrated, socially cohesive society:
  • building bridges to promote intercultural understanding;
  • fostering citizenship, civic memory, civic pride, and respect for core democratic values grounded in our history; and
  • promoting equal opportunity for individuals of all origins.
• improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population:
  • assist federal and public institutions to become more responsive to diversity by integrating multiculturalism into their policy and program development and service delivery.
• Actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level:
  • promote Canadian approaches to diversity as a successful model while contributing to an international policy dialogue on issues related to multiculturalism.

2.3. Program activities

To advance the objectives and to contribute to the achievement of the program outcomes, the Multiculturalism Program has focused on four programming areas: Gs&Cs (Inter-Action), public outreach and promotion, support to federal and public institutions and international engagement.

2.3.1. Grants and contributions to support projects and events (Inter-Action)

The Citizen Participation Branch manages an annual budget of $8.5 million in Gs&Cs to provide funding to not-for-profit organizations, Crown Corporations, the private sector and non-federal public institutions and First Nations and Inuit governments, band councils and organizations to undertake projects and events that foster an integrated, socially cohesive society. Inter-Action is administered by both National Office (projects) and the five PCH regions (events).

• An annual budget of $5.5 million in funding is available for projects that encourage positive interaction between cultural, religious and ethnic communities. Contributions of up to $2 million are available to organizations for multi-year, long-term community engagement. Inter-Action launches a process by which it issues a call for applications, inviting organizations to submit proposals for project funding. To be eligible for funding, projects must be national in scope.^{Footnote 14} Contribution agreements are administered by National Headquarters.
• An annual budget of $3 million is available for community-based events that foster intercultural and interfaith understanding, and raise awareness of the contributions of minority groups to Canadian society. Grants of up to $25,000 are available to community organizations. Grants are available on a continuous basis and are administered by the Regions.

While the Program resided at CIC/IRCC, projects were also funded as strategic initiatives. Strategic initiatives were intended to respond to community and regional needs by addressing current and emerging priority issues. Applications fell outside the call for applications process and could be submitted at any time.

2.3.2. Public outreach and promotion

At PCH, the Multiculturalism Policy Unit within the Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch undertakes direct public outreach and promotional activities. In accordance with the PCH Communications Branch delivery model, the Communications Branch provides advice and support.

Direct public outreach and promotional activities by the Program are available to the public and are primarily focused on young people. Currently, the unit is responsible for the following outreach and promotion activities: Asian Heritage Month, Black History Month and the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism.^{Footnote 15}

2.3.3. Support to federal and public institutions

Support to federal and public institutions is the responsibility of the Multiculturalism Policy Unit. This unit also coordinates two networks: the MCN and the FPTORMI network.

A key activity undertaken by the unit is the coordination and development of the Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. This includes providing support to federal departments and agencies for the development of their submissions to the report. The unit also assists federal partners to meet their obligations under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act by offering workshops, tools and guidance for implementing and reporting on multiculturalism-related activities.

2.3.4. International engagement

The Multiculturalism Policy Unit is also the locus for Canada's participation in international agreements and institutions with respect to multiculturalism, diversity, and anti-racism, for example, through contributions to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (ICERD) and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The unit ensures that international reporting requirements are fulfilled.

2.4. Program expected outcomes

The immediate and intermediate outcomes associated with each program objective are presented in Table 1 below.^{Footnote 16}

Table 1: program objectives and expected outcomes

Objectives	Immediate outcomes	Intermediate outcomes
Build an integrated, socially cohesive society	Program participants and targeted public gain knowledge, develop strategies and take action toward increasing awareness of: Canadian history and institutions Canadian values Cultural diversity Cultural/racial/ethnic/religious issues affecting full participation in society and economy	Increased civic memory and pride Increased respect for core democratic values Increased intercultural understanding Increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy
Improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population	Targeted institutions have external and internal policies and practices that are responsive to the needs of a diverse society	Targeted public institutions demonstrate an increased responsiveness to the needs of a diverse population Increased intercultural understanding Increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy
Actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level	Increased policy awareness in Canada about international approaches to diversity Increased implementation of international best practices in Canadian multiculturalism policy, programming or initiatives	Increased civic memory and pride Increased respect for core democratic values Increased intercultural understanding Increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy

2.5. Program management and governance

At CIC/IRCC, responsibility for the Multiculturalism Program was dispersed across three CIC/IRCC Branches, including the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, the Integration Program Management Branch, and the Communications Branch.

Similar to the decentralized structure that existed at CIC/IRCC, the delivery model which currently exists at PCH for the Multiculturalism Program involves a number of Branches, including the Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, the Citizen Participation Branch, and the Communications Branch, as well as the Regions. Therefore, responsibility for the Multiculturalism Program is shared by the Director General of Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, who reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy Planning and Corporate Affairs; the Director General of the Citizen Participation Branch and Regional Directors General who report to the Assistant Deputy Minister Citizenship, Heritage and Regions and the Director General Communications who reports directly to the Deputy Minister.

Overall, policy development, advice, direction, performance measurement and reporting responsibilities and some activities associated with international engagement are carried out by the Multiculturalism Policy Unit within the Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch. The Multiculturalism Program's public outreach and promotion activities are also the responsibility of the Multiculturalism Policy Unit. In accordance with the Communications Branch service delivery model, Communications provide advice to the Multiculturalism Policy Unit in delivering its public outreach and promotion activities.

Inter-Action provides organizations with funding to undertake projects and events that support the three Multiculturalism Program objectives. The Director General of the Citizen Participation Branch is responsible for the administration of eligible Inter-Action projects that are national in scope. The Regional Directors General are responsible for the administration of eligible Inter-Action events, which are community-based initiatives.

Given that the Program responsibilities are shared at PCH, effective program governance is important with respect to communication, coordination and decision-making.

2.6. Program resources

Table 2 presents the Program's budget and actual expenditures and full-time equivalents (FTE) between 2011-12 and 2016-17. The Program had a total actual expenditures of approximately $70.7 million of which over half (53%) consisted of Gs&Cs.

Due to the transfer of the Program from PCH to CIC/IRCC in 2008, and the transfer back to PCH (from CIC/IRCC) in 2015, the evaluation relied on financial and human resources data from the CIC/IRCC Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPP) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPR) for 2011-12 to 2015-16; and PCH DPR and RPP for 2015-16 and DPR 2016-17 respectively, as well as the Public Accounts of Canada.

The DPRs and the RPPs do not provide salaries and operations & maintenance (O&M) at the Sub-Program level. Financial information for Sub-Programs in the Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) is available for Vote 5 (Gs&Cs) but not for Vote 1 (salaries and O&M). Therefore, the non-Gs&Cs component below was determined by total expenditures less sub-total Gs&Cs.

The information for 2015-16 is aggregated/combined data for both CIC/IRCC and PCH. This means that the financial and human resources for 2015-16 is grouped under one caption although part of the information is from the CIC/IRCC 2015-16 RPP and other part from the PCH 2015-16 and 2016-17 DPRs. The actual expenditures were $4.16 million and $3.68 million respectively for CIC/IRCC and PCH.

Table 2: multiculturalism Program budgeted and actual expenditures (2011-12 to 2016-17)

	2011-12 budget	2011-12 actual	2012-13 budget	2012-13 Actual	2013-14 Budget	2013-14 Actual	2014-15 Budget	2014-15 Actual	2015-16 Budget	2015-16 Actual	2016-17 Budget	2016-17 Actual	Total Actual 2011-12 to 2016-17
Grants	3,000,000	1,900,000	3,000,000	1,250,352	3,000,000	2,005,634	3,000,000	1,792,227	N/A	653,971	N/A	2,371,607	9,973,791
Contributions	7,800,000	6,600,000	7,800,000	6,673,122	5,600,000	4,576,187	5,521,316	2,251,966	N/A	1,961,377	N/A	5,394,522	27,457,174
Sub-total Grants and Contributions	10,800,000	8,500,000	10,800,000	7,923,474	8,600,000	6,581,821	8,521,316	4,044,193	N/A	2,615,348	N/A	7,766,129	37,430,965
Non-Grants and Contributions components	15,900,000	12,551,465	14,200,000	7,196,760	5,656,922	3,211,794	4,686,716	2,727,411	N/A	5,232,929	N/A	2,300,424	33,220,783
Total expenditures	26,700,000	21,051,465	25,000,000	15,120,234	14,256,922	9,793,615	13,208,032	6,771,604	13,049,066	7,848,277	N/A	10,066,553	70,651,748
FTEs	100	53	52	34	52	29	42	28	52	33*	N/A	22.1	N/A

Source: DPRs and RPPs (CIC/IRCC and PCH)

3. Approach and methodology

The evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program was undertaken in accordance with the 2016–17 to 2020–21 PCH Evaluation Plan and was led by the Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD).

Staff from Office of the Chief Audit Executive supported the evaluation by conducting a review of the Multiculturalism Program's contributions processes and practices. The Policy Research Group (PRG) provided a review of the relevant literature, including a data scan, and implemented a survey of members of the MCN. External consultants provided support for the media analysis, case studies and the expert panel.

The last evaluation was completed in 2012 by CIC/IRCC and had five recommendations:

1. Given that the Multiculturalism Program has broadened CIC's mandate (to include longer term integration) and its clientele (to include all Canadians), CIC should ensure that multiculturalism is fully integrated into CIC policies and programming.
2. With the relatively small amount of funding available for CIC's Multiculturalism Program, the objectives and expected outcomes of the Program need to be better aligned with available resources and strategically focused on core priorities and needs. The department needs to assess how best it can do this.
3. Further efforts are required to improve the transparency and timeliness of the approval process for projects and events.
4. The governance for the Multiculturalism Program needs to be improved to support better communication and coordinated decision-making among the responsible branches and units for the Program.
5. Given the issues identified with respect to performance measurement, the Program needs to implement a robust performance measurement strategy.

3.1. Scope and timeline

As required by the FAA, and in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016) this evaluation examined the relevance and performance (effectiveness and efficiency) of the Multiculturalism Program, as distinct from the multiculturalism policy and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The evaluation was intended to support accountability and inform decision-making. It covered the period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2017.

ESD sought input from senior departmental officials on the scope of the evaluation and to identify their information needs. Following consultations with Program Directors General and their Directors and Managers, among others, three key areas were endorsed as areas of emphasis for the evaluation:

1. the current environment and context under which the Multiculturalism Program is operating, the major issues that have emerged in the past five years, the effectiveness of the Program response and the interventions and levers used to address the issues
2. the alignment of the Program with Government of Canada and PCH direction and priorities
3. an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program design and delivery

Although the evaluation covered the period 2011-12 to 2016-17, to ensure that the evaluation findings would support PCH management decisions, the evaluation focused on the relevance and performance of the Program's activities for the period following the transfer of the Program to PCH.

The Inter-Action call for applications occurred in 2016-17, within the timeframe of this evaluation, but decisions were made in fiscal year 2017-18. While the decision process for the 2017 call was included in this evaluation, an analysis of outcomes for projects occurring in 2017-18 was out of scope.

3.2. Calibration

To mitigate the challenges associated with timely delivery of a high risk and complex evaluation, coverage of program activities was calibrated as follows:

• The evaluation covered all program activities, but with limited coverage of the events component of Inter-Action (grants of low dollar value (less than $25,000) and low risk).
• The file review was limited to the assessment of 11 project files which were transferred from CIC/IRCC and 13 files that were recommended by CIC/IRCC, but approved by PCH.
• As noted above, the evaluation focused on PCH program delivery to ensure that the evaluation would be useful to guide PCH multiculturalism programming going forward.

3.3. Evaluation issues and questions

The evaluation was designed to address the three broad areas of focus, while responding to the issues of relevance and performance. Table 3 presents the evaluation questions that were addressed by this evaluation. These questions were endorsed by the Program's senior management during consultations in May 2017, and by the Results, Integrated Planning and Evaluation Committee (RIPEC) in June 2017.

Details related to the indicators, data sources and data collection methods are provided in the evaluation matrix presented in Annex A.

Table 3: evaluation questions by core issue

Relevance

Core Issue	Evaluation questions
Ongoing need for the Program	What is the current program context and what are the emerging issues? How have Canadians' views of multiculturalism evolved over time? What are the drivers for these changes? How has the Program adapted/responded to the changing context? What have been the levers/instruments used to respond to the changing context? What are the implications of the context for PCH multiculturalism programming going forward?
Alignment with Government priorities and federal roles and responsibilities	To what extent do the program objectives align with the Government of Canada directions/priorities/roles and responsibilities?
Alignment with CIC/IRCC and PCH mandate and priorities	To what extent does the Program align with the CIC/IRCC and PCH mandate and priorities?

Effectiveness

Core Issue

Evaluation questions

Achievement of expected outcomes

What evidence exists as to the effectiveness of the policy instruments and levers used by the Program to achieve the objectives of the Program? public outreach and promotion coordination and support to federal and other public institutions Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act Gs&Cs (Inter-Action) international role Are there other more effective levers/instruments to achieve Program objectives?

Efficiency

Core Issue	Evaluation questions
Demonstration of efficiency	How efficient is Inter-Action? Are resources adequate for delivery of the Program? Are there areas for improvement?

Other questions

Core Issue	Evaluation questions
Design and delivery	Is the current design and delivery of the Program the most effective and efficient? Are there areas for improvement? What has been the impact of the transfer of the Program from CIC/IRCC to PCH?
Performance measurement	To what extent is effective performance measurement in place?

3.4. Data collection methods

The methodology included a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and primary and secondary sources of information to address the evaluation questions and to provide representation and feedback from a range of stakeholders involved in the Multiculturalism Program. The methods are described in the following sections.

3.4.1. Document and administrative data review

The document review collected and analyzed documentation relevant to the Multiculturalism Program. The document types consulted included:

• speeches from the throne, budget announcements
• departmental (CIC/IRCC and PCH) and strategic documents
• legislation (e.g., Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
• PCH and CIC/IRCC RPPs and DPRs, including financial information
• program-specific documents (e.g., Inter-Action Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs), funding guidelines and application and reporting forms)
• project files (applications, contribution agreements, interim and final activity reports)
• presentations
• minutes of meetings of the MCN and the FPTORMI network
• Annual Reports on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act
• public outreach and promotion materials and web statistics
• funding agreements and, memoranda of understanding
• information from the CIC/IRCC and PCH Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS) and administrative data on Gs&Cs, maintained by the Program

3.4.2. File review

A review of 24 files was conducted, in collaboration with the Office of the Chief Audit Executive. The file review was limited to the assessment of 11 project files which were transferred from CIC/IRCC and 13 files from the 2015 CIC/IRCC call for applications that were recommended by CIC/IRCC and then approved by PCH following the transfer of the Program. Grants in support of events were not reviewed as they were of low materiality and risk.

The Office of the Chief Audit Executive examined the compliance of payments with approved contribution agreements and the Program's Ts&Cs; compliance with Treasury Board policy instruments' requirements to include monitoring and reporting requirements in contribution agreements; and the completeness of files transferred by CIC/IRCC to support PCH's administration of payments.

Qualitative performance information for projects funded through Inter-Action was available, but was not analyzed and rolled up. Therefore, ESD examined the contribution agreements and the final activity reports to assess if the funded projects had contributed to the achievement of the objectives and outcomes of the Program and to identify the impact on funding recipients of the transfer of the Program to PCH from CIC/IRCC.

3.4.3. Data scan

PRG conducted a scan of available data to provide an analysis of Canadian' perceptions of immigration, multiculturalism, racism and related topics. This analysis was based on a review of public opinion research over time as well as data published by reputable sources, including Statistics Canada and public opinion research firms.

3.4.4. Literature review

The literature review examined the evaluation questions related to relevance, in particular emerging issues, views on multiculturalism and immigration and evidence of the continued need for the Program. The literature review also provided some evidence of the effectiveness of the policy levers and instruments used by the Program to achieve its objectives.

The review consisted of the collection and analysis of various information such as studies, research reports, scientific journal articles, websites and other sources of recent information (national and international) to answer the evaluation questions related to the relevance and performance of the Multiculturalism Program.

3.4.5. Interviews with stakeholders

The 32 semi-structured interviews conducted with key stakeholders collected opinions and perceptions on relevance and performance and on the design, implementation and efficiency of aspects of the Multiculturalism Program. The interviews also served to identify additional areas for a more in-depth review through other data sources. Key informants included 22 PCH national and regional management and program staff and 10 external stakeholders, including: members of the MCN (n=2); provincial multiculturalism representatives participating on the FPTORMI network (n=4) and funding recipients (n=4).

3.4.6. Survey of members of the Multiculturalism Champions Network

A survey of members of the MCN was conducted to gather input on the effectiveness and levels of satisfaction with the mandate and the role of the Network and to seek input on how the Multiculturalism Program can better support the multicultural champions in implementing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in their departments and agencies. The on-line survey was disseminated to 147 past and current members of MCN. Thirty-three multiculturalism champions participated in the survey for a response rate of 22.5%. While the response rate was low, findings were validated through other lines of evidence, including MCN meeting minutes and key informant interviews.

3.4.7. Case studies

Five case studies were conducted with organizations (1 small, 2 medium-sized and 2 large) that received project funding either through Inter-Action or the strategic initiatives stream during the period covered by the evaluation. The case studies provided information on funding recipients' perceptions of the relevance of the Multiculturalism Program and provided more in-depth insights on the contribution of projects to the achievement of the objectives and outcomes of the Program and the challenges and successes of the projects. The methodology used for each of the case studies included reviews of project documentation and program administrative data maintained by CIC/IRCC and PCH and semi-structured telephone interviews with project proponents, project partners, and PCH program officers familiar with the project.

3.4.8. Media analysis

A search of one national and four regional print media was conducted to support the assessment of relevance. The media analysis sought to identify emerging issues and Canadians' views on multiculturalism and related topics, and to identify regional/provincial differences. Coverage of Canadian multiculturalism and related topics were identified through a keyword search ^{Footnote 17} of MediaScope, a product of the PCH Communications Branch, which provides daily clippings packages comprised of print, web, TV, radio and social media coverage that is relevant to PCH, its ministers and its agencies.^{Footnote 18} The search included The Globe and Mail, The Halifax Chronicle Herald, La Presse, the Winnipeg Free Press and The Vancouver Sun. The analysis covered the last two years of the evaluation period – 2015-16 through 2016-17.

The search returned a total of 143 English-language articles, of which 102 were deemed to be relevant. A systematic random sampling technique was applied for each newspaper in which every fourth article was selected, resulting in 36 English-language articles selected for analysis. The search of La Presse returned 36 articles of which 17 were deemed relevant. Fourteen articles were retained for analysis. In total, 50 articles were reviewed. The quantitative analysis focused on the frequency of the following: type of story (news article, commentary or opinion piece, feature article or letter to the editor), positive, negative or neutral sentiment; the focus of the story; calls for government action; and key themes and emerging issues. A qualitative analysis was conducted which led to the identification of key themes.

3.4.9. Expert panel

An expert panel was held with representatives from outside the Multiculturalism Program's partner and beneficiary circles. Experts included four representatives from academia and one practitioner. The expert panel was held near the end of the data collection phase of the evaluation. The participants in the expert panel served as a sounding board to test the evaluation's preliminary findings. The expert panel was held via WebEx, and a summary of the discussion was prepared.

3.5. Scale for presenting results

Table 4 presents the scale used to present findings.

Table 4: scale for the presentation of results

All	Findings reflect the views and opinions of 100% of the interviewees.
Majority/Most	Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 75% but less than 100% of interviewees.
Many	Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 50% but less than 75% of interviewees.
Some	Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 25% but less than 50% of interviewees.
A few	Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least two respondents but less than 25% of interviewees.

3.6. Constraints, limits and mitigation strategies

The following are some of the constraints associated with the evaluation:

• Historical information and data for the period 2011-12 to November 2015 while the Program was at CIC/IRCC was limited. The mitigation strategy was to interview Multiculturalism Program staff who had migrated with the Program from CIC/IRCC to PCH and to use multiple lines of evidence to gather information on all aspects of the Program.
• Completeness and reliability of the data in the CIC/IRCC Gs&Cs database could not be confirmed. Results obtained through the analysis of data in the CIC/IRCC database were compared with CIC/IRCC's publically reported data (DPR, RPP, Public Accounts etc.).
• Two separate databases for Gs&Cs information. Not all of the information from the CIC/IRCC database was migrated, limiting the depth of analysis.
• The recommendation relating to performance measurement from the 2012 evaluation was not fully addressed. As a result the current evaluation experienced many of the same issues: predominately output data and limited outcome data to assess the Program's performance. Indicators changed across the years covered by the evaluation making trend analysis difficult.
• Challenges associated with measuring the impact of the Program on Canadians and attributing changes to the Program. Gs&Cs funding, and as a result its reach, is limited.
• Observations obtained through interviews, the low response rate for the multiculturalism champions survey and the limited number of case studies and interviews with funding recipients limits the generalizability of results. The latter is mitigated, to a certain extent, through the use of multiple lines of evidence.

4. Findings

4.1. Relevance

This section presents the findings of the evaluation related to the following issues of relevance:

• ongoing need for the Program;
• alignment with Government of Canada priorities; and
• alignment with PCH mandate and priorities.

4.1.1. Relevance: ongoing need for the program

Evaluation questions:

What is the current Program context and what are the emerging issues? How have Canadians' views of multiculturalism evolved over time? What are the drivers for these changes?

How has the Program adapted/responded to the changing context? What have been the levers/instruments used to respond?

What are the implications of the context for PCH multiculturalism programming going forward?

Key findings:

The Multiculturalism Program remains relevant. It is one means by which the Government of Canada implements the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the multiculturalism policy.

While Canadians are generally positive about immigration, visible minorities and multiculturalism, there continues to be a need to respond to the challenges associated with an increasingly diverse Canada, including: addressing the controversies associated with increased levels of immigration; the continued incidence of religious intolerance, racism and discrimination and hate crimes; the rise of populism; and the underlying factors that contribute to the socio-economic disadvantages experienced by certain groups.

The increased number of organizations that sought funding from PCH for multiculturalism programming for the 2017 call for applications, and anecdotal evidence that there is limited funding available through the provincial and municipal levels, further support the continued need for the Multiculturalism Program.

Within the context of limited resources, the Program's activities have addressed some of the issues. However, during the period of the evaluation, the Program did not focus on issues of racism and discrimination, provide support for institutional change to address systemic issues, or provide project funding to address unique regional or local needs.

Evaluation evidence indicates that the ability of the Program to address these gaps is constrained by a number of factors, including the following:

• The capacity to achieve the broad policy objectives of the Act;
• A lack of evidence to inform policy and program development;
• A lack of performance data to provide evidence on whether the Program's activities are effective, or to make programming adjustments; and
• The Program's funding and delivery model.

The extent to which there is a continued need for the Multiculturalism Program was assessed by looking at the Canadians' attitudes toward diversity and multiculturalism, the challenges associated with Canada's increasing diversity, and the extent to which the Multiculturalism Program has responded to these challenges.

The Multiculturalism Program is one means by which the Government of Canada implements the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Act regards race, national or ethnic origin, color and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada."^{Footnote 19} Implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is supported by a range of other legislation and programs, that together aim to address challenges related to diversity and to ensure full and equitable participation of all Canadians in the larger society.

The continued need for multiculturalism programming is supported by data which indicates that Canadian society is becoming increasingly diverse and issues are becoming more complex (e.g., radicalization, religious intolerance against Muslims, anti-Semitism, and rising populism). Furthermore, hate crimes continue to be directed at certain groups and longstanding issues of inequitable treatment of certain visible minority groups persist. As Canada's population becomes increasingly diverse, the need to address the challenges that accompany diversity and the barriers experienced by certain groups becomes ever more important.

Diversity within Canada

Diversity within Canada continues to grow and become more complex with over 250 ethnicities, a larger visible minority population, and increased religious diversity. Canada has always been a country founded on immigration, with a history of ethnocultural, linguistic and religious diversity. However, as the Census 2016 data below shows, Canada is becoming more diverse:^{Footnote 20}

• Over one-fifth (21.9%) of Canada's population was foreign born in 2016, up from 19.8% in the 2006 Census and 20.6% in the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). Statistics Canada projects this could reach between 24.5% and 30.0% by 2036.
• As well as high levels of foreign born Canadians, the source countries have also changed in recent years. In 2016, Canada was home to 250 ethnic origins. European countries accounted for 75% of all Canadian immigrants in 1966, 16% in 2010 and 11.6% in 2016. In 2016, Asian countries accounted for 7 of the top 10 countries of birth of recent immigrants in 2016. 13.4% of recent immigrants were born in Africa.
• While Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are still the place of residence of over half of all immigrants and recent immigrants to Canada, more immigrants are settling in the Prairies and in the Atlantic provinces.
• In 2016, 22.3% of the population identified as belonging to a visible minority, a five-fold increase between 1981 and 2016. Statistics Canada projects that the population identifying as visible minority could reach 34.4% by 2036. The visible minority population is made up of a number of groups, which themselves are diversified in many respects. South Asians, Chinese and Blacks were the three largest visible minority groups, each with a population exceeding one million.

The religious composition of the country is also changing, with the largest increases seen in Muslim, Sikh and Buddhist denominations. In 2011, 7.2% of Canada's population reported affiliation with one of these religions. This was up from 4.9% a decade earlier, as recorded in the 2001 Census. In 2011, people who identified themselves as Muslim made up 3.2% of the population, Hindu 1.5%, Sikh 1.4%, Buddhist 1.1% and Jewish 1.0%.^{Footnote 21}

Tolerance and attitudes

Canada ranked at the top of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries as the most tolerant country in terms of community acceptance of minority groups and migrants - 84% compared to 61% OECD average.^{Footnote 22}

Attitudes toward immigration and immigrants

Views on immigration can often provide insights to how Canadians will respond to cultural diversity and visible minorities. Canadians' attitudes toward immigration and immigrants are generally positive. A 2016 Focus Canada public opinion survey found the following attitudes with respect to immigration:^{Footnote 23}

• When asked whether they are of the view that there is too much immigration in Canada overall, a majority (58%) of Canadians disagree with the statement, a trend consistent over the past decade.
• Eight-in-ten Canadians (80%) believe that immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada overall, a finding consistent with those dating back more than 15 years. Furthermore, that view is shared by at least three-quarters (75%) of respondents in every demographic group across the country. The proportion of Canadians who do not agree that the economic impact of immigration has been positive stands at 16%.
• The number of Canadians expressing the view that too many immigrants do not adopt Canadian values is declining. Just over half (54%) of Canadians agree that there are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values, down 11 points from 2015 and continuing a downward trend starting in 2012. Furthermore, agreement with this point of view is at its lowest point since 1972, when it stood at 72%. Agreement with this point of view is highest in Quebec (57%) and the Prairies (57%).

Canadians are satisfied with how well immigrants are integrating. Two thirds of Canadians (67%) say they are "satisfied" with how well new immigrants are integrating into their communities.^{Footnote 24}

However, a Leger Marketing survey conducted for The Association for Canadian Studies (2017) found that opinions of immigrants decreased from 75% in 2013 to 72% in 2017. ^{Footnote 25}

Attitudes toward Muslims and Jews

The Leger Marketing survey (2017) examined Canadians attitudes toward selected groups. The survey found that Canadians expressed more positive attitudes toward certain groups in 2017 when compared to 2013.^{Footnote 26} Attitudes toward Muslims were more positive in 2017 (55%, up from 50% in 2013) as were views toward Jews (74%, up from 70% in 2013).

Attitudes toward multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is viewed as a core component of our national identity. Public opinion research by Leger Marketing found that overall, Canadians are positive toward multiculturalism (75% overall). Support was strong across all age groups, with the strongest support coming from youth under the age of 24 years (81%) and lowest in the 65+ age group (71%). French speaking Canadians were less supportive (65%) than English speaking Canadians (76%).^{Footnote 27}

When asked what makes them proud to be Canadian, 35% of Canadians selected multiculturalism placing it 9th out of 78 items. Open-mindedness toward people who are different placed third with 49% of respondents selecting this item.^{Footnote 28}

The media analysis supported the finding that Canadians generally have positive views toward multiculturalism. The majority of stories examined (92%) were positive or neutral towards multiculturalism, portraying it as contributing to social cohesion. Stories on relationships between racialized Canadians tended to focus on tensions between groups but also advocated for anti-racist and anti-discrimination perspectives and practices.

A majority of articles (70%) proposed aspects of Canadian multiculturalism as solutions to current issues. These included seeing the integration of immigrants as a means to bolster the economy, strengthen society (through the contributions of successful immigrants), and as a response to an aging population; advancing Canadian multiculturalism, interculturalism, tolerance and respect for others as bound up with Canadian identity and pride, as a means to strengthening Canadian society; and advocating the role of diverse cultural expressions in building greater intercultural and interfaith understanding.

Sense of pride and belonging to Canada

Immigrants

Overall, evidence indicates that immigrants identify with Canadian values. As noted by one observer, there is no reason to fear that the gravitational pull of liberal democracy is weakening in Canada. Recent waves of immigrants are no different from earlier waves in their pattern of convergence toward a shared liberal democratic consensus.^{Footnote 29}

The 2013 Statistic Canada General Social Survey (GSS) on Canadian Identity found: ^{Footnote 30}

• 79% of first generation Canadians (immigrants to Canada) reported being proud or very proud to be Canadian. Second generation Canadians expressed high levels of pride in Canada (86%) compared with 87% of all Canadians age 15 years and older.
• 66% of second generation immigrants (i.e., children of immigrants) were very proud to be Canadian. This was significantly higher than pride among other non-immigrant Canadians (third generation or more) (59%), and slightly higher than the proportion of first generation immigrants (63%).

A 2017 case study of Muslim youth in Montreal, conducted by Hicham Tiflati, a Research Associate at McGill University, explored the latter's sense of belonging to Quebec and to Canada, found that the youth were proud of their Muslim identity and did not view it as incompatible with their identity as Canadians despite some challenges in reconciling certain religious practices with social norms.^{Footnote 31}

Visible minorities

The GSS on Canadian Identity found that those who identify as a visible minority reported the highest levels of sense of belonging to Canada (94%) compared to 93% for Canadians generally.^{Footnote 32}

Evidence from the GSS also found that visible minorities are proud to be Canadian. Pride among visible minorities mirrored patterns observed for immigrants. While visible minorities were equally as likely as other Canadians to be very proud to be Canadian (62% and 61%), overall feelings of pride in being Canadian were higher (91% versus 86%).^{Footnote 33}

Challenges associated with diversity and multiculturalism

Although Canadians have generally positive views toward immigration, visible minorities and multiculturalism, challenges associated with diversity and multiculturalism exist in Canada. Not all Canadians hold positive views toward immigration and visible minorities. Economic differences persist and discrimination and hate crimes remain issues.

Multiculturalism has come under considerable challenge, especially in Europe.^{Footnote 34,Footnote 35} Events like the September 11 attacks and the 2005 London bombings have led to a range of responses at both government and community levels in many countries to address social schisms, particularly those related to religion. These include a reappraisal of previously-held understandings about integration and settlement, and recognition of the need to identify and act on early warning signs of unrest and tension. Some initiatives have been security-focused, while others aim to build cohesion at the community level.^{Footnote 36}

Many key informants noted that Canada needs to be mindful of these developments internationally, and remain vigilant as we are not immune to right wing extremist forces. These views are supported by the literature which provides evidence that extreme right-wing forces exist in Canada and that these forces have tended to center on preserving the Canadian national identity, with an emphasis on race, but that more recently this has changed to include religion, language and values. "The current crop of far-right activists use the term cultural nationalism as a way of muting the impact and minimizing the issue of race."^{Footnote 37} Furthermore, a national study of right-wing extremism in Canada in 2015 identified more than 100 active right-wing extremist groups.^{Footnote 38}

In spite of generally positive views toward immigration and multiculturalism in Canada, multiculturalism is not without its critics. Some of these critics argue that multiculturalism has "undermined Canadian identity and values, created divided loyalties, fostered ethnic separation and prevented the integration of newcomers."^{Footnote 39} Further, some critics suggest that Canadian "multiculturalism encourages immigrants to engage in issues of the motherland, develop dual political loyalties, and import 'old world' conflicts, thus compromising opportunities to develop a strong Canadian identity and a sense of allegiance to Canada."^{Footnote 40}

Canada also encounters challenges associated with increased diversity including: intolerance, prejudice and discrimination which constitute barriers to equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada and threaten social cohesion.^{Footnote 41}

Almost all provincial and PCH regional key informants provided evidence from their respective jurisdictions of tensions, either between ethnocultural communities such as between newcomers and refugees, between minority groups and indigenous peoples and/or between visible minorities and non-minorities. Key informants also provided evidence of religious intolerance in their jurisdictions. Provincial or regional differences emerged in terms of the targets of discrimination and intolerance.

Not all Canadians view immigration levels positively, nor do all Canadians believe in immigrants retaining their own customs and languages. Public opinion survey data conducted by Angus Reid^{Footnote 42} in 2016 found:

• A significant number (37%) agree that immigration levels are too high. Note that a poll conducted by Leger Marketing arrived at a similar result (38%).
• More than two-thirds of Canadians say minorities should do more to fit into mainstream society (68%) rather than keep their own custom and languages.

Although down 11 points from 2015 and continuing a downward trend starting in 2012, over half (54%) of Canadians agree that there are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values.^{Footnote 43}

The majority of Canadians generally agree that multiculturalism contributes to social cohesion, has a positive impact on ethnic and religious minorities, and makes it easier for newcomers to adapt to, and adopt shared Canadian values and promotes reasonable accommodation of cultural practices, including practices about which the respondents might feel uncomfortable. However, the survey also found that in the public's mind, there are limits to reasonable accommodation. When asked, a majority of respondents indicated that multiculturalism appears to open the door to people pursuing certain cultural practices that are not compatible with Canadian laws and norms. Of those who believe this, 46 per cent say the government should discourage such practices, while 28 per cent said the government should not. When asked to provide examples of such practices, 28 per cent identified the wearing of religious garb – hijabs, burkas and turbans – in public or security settings, as well as the wearing of turbans and hijabs by members of the police and RCMP. A further 10 per cent listed religious practices in general, and 8 per cent cited observance of religious holidays as incompatible. In comparison, Sharia law and honor killing scored low, at 5 per cent and 4 per cent, respectively.^{Footnote 44}

These responses to other questions concerning multiculturalism reveal a troubling schism between theoretical acceptance and practical application, indicating a pressing need for an ongoing, national dialogue (i.e. limits to reasonable accommodation).^{Footnote 45}

The media analysis also supported the evidence that not all Canadians support multiculturalism. Half of all the articles that had a positive or neutral overall tone reported on negative attitudes of Canadians towards multiculturalism and related issues. In fact, fully half of the entire media sample reported on the negative attitudes of Canadians. These were primarily concerned with Canadians' frustration with the lack of assimilation of new Canadians.

Religious minorities, including Muslims, Indigenous religions and Eastern religions that practice meditation were discussed in terms of challenges with multiculturalism again posited as a solution, particularly in English Canada (British Columbia and Ontario), where two stories reported on negative attitudes towards the teaching of world religions in public schools, and one story opposed Islamophobia and religious intolerance more generally. In Quebec, articles examined reflect a wider public debate that is taking place in the media as to the best way to integrate religious minorities, particularly Muslims, into the larger social fabric.

Vulnerable populations

Certain groups continue to be particularly vulnerable to systemic issues which continue to exist throughout the policies, practices and programs of all sectors, including housing, health care, education and employment and the criminal justice system, as evident by data related to unemployment, underemployment, income and social segregation.

Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Peoples continue to encounter inequities relative to the general population. Statistics Canada data shows that:

• Indigenous Peoples have an unemployment rate (14%) 2.1 times the national rate; have a median income 60% of the national average.
• In 2015/2016, Indigenous adults were overrepresented in admissions to provincial and territorial correctional services, as they accounted for 26% of admissions while representing about 3% of the Canadian adult population. The overrepresentation of Indigenous adults was more pronounced for females than males. ^{Footnote 46}
• Indigenous females accounted for 38% of female admissions to provincial and territorial sentenced custody, while the comparable figure for Indigenous males was 26%. In the federal correctional services, Indigenous females accounted for 31% of female admissions to sentenced custody, while the figure for Indigenous males was 23%.^{Footnote 47}

Minority groups

The data has consistently demonstrated that certain Canadian minority groups are most vulnerable to being victims of hate crimes – particularly those identifying as Black or Jewish. Blacks were the target of 214 incidents of police-reported hate crimes motivated by race/ethnicity in 2016. In terms of hate crimes motivated by religion, there were 221 incidents of police-reported hate crimes against the Jewish religion. Muslims were also a target, but to a lesser extent, with 139 incidents of police-reported hate crimes in 2016.

Recent literature has continued to draw attention to discrimination against Black Canadians and differences in various outcomes between Blacks and other populations. The literature highlights the challenges that Black Canadians face in accessing mainstream institutions:

Negative portrayals in the media, employment discrimination, racial profiling, negative valuations in social attitude surveys, and disproportionate education outcomes and sentencing rates for violent crime play a role, whether as joint causes or effects, in how black Canadians face steep barriers in accessing mainstream institutions […]. They reflect socio-economic and symbolic disadvantages and capture how being labeled "black" is synonymous with disvalue.^{Footnote 48}

As noted by one researcher, "Hate crimes are direct threats to the principles of Canadian multiculturalism, and have the potential to present obstacles to the ability or willingness of affected communities to engage in civic life."^{Footnote 49}

Anti-Semitic incidents have been on the rise over the past 10 years. Data gathered by B'nai Brith Canada, a Jewish advocacy organization, based on phone calls to their anti-hate hotline and police data, show that in 2016 there were 1,728 anti-Semitic incidents reported, a 26 per cent increase from 2015 and a 6 per cent increase from the previous high in 2014.^{Footnote 50} 2016 also saw a dramatic rise in incidents involving Holocaust denial. In 2015, Holocaust denial made up just five per cent of the total number of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. In 2016, that number increased to 20 per cent.^{Footnote 51}

Statistics Canada publishes annual data on police-reported hate crimes in Canada, providing an important source of information on trends and differences between populations. Key findings from 2016 Statistics Canada data^{Footnote 52} show the following:

• In 2016, police reported 1,409 criminal incidents in Canada that were motivated by hate, marking an increase of 3% or 47 more incidents than were reported the previous year.^{Footnote 53}
• Nearly half (48%) of hate crimes targeted a race or ethnic group and one-third targeted religious minorities (33%).
• The increase was a result of more incidents targeting South Asians (+24 for a total of 72) and Arabs or West Asians (+20 for a total of 112), the Jewish population (+43 for a total of 221) and people based on their sexual orientation (+35 for a total of 176).
• Hate crimes targeting Blacks declined by 4% from 2015 to 2016 but remained the most common type of hate crime related to race or ethnicity (214 of 666 crimes or 32%).
• Increases in hate crimes against the Jewish population were seen in Ontario (+31), Quebec (+11) and Manitoba (+7).
• Hate crimes against Muslims - which had increased in 2015 - declined in 2016. There were 139 targeting Muslims (20 fewer than in 2015). Most of that decline was in Quebec, with 16 fewer reported anti-Muslim hate crimes in the province that year. This decrease follows "a notable increase in hate crimes against the Muslim population" in 2015. That year, there was a 61 per cent increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims, with 159 reported incidents.

Data from an Environics Institute survey in 2016 found that 35% of Muslim Canadians reported experiencing discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years due to their religion ethnicity, language or race,^{Footnote 54} compared to 21% for the Canadian population overall.

Data from the 2014 GSS found that persons who self-identify as belonging to a visible minority were less likely than those who do not self-identify in this way to say that they felt very safe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark (44% versus 54%).^{Footnote 55}

• Among visible minority groups, Arabs (15%) and West Asians (16%) were most likely to say they felt unsafe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark.
• Among West Asian or Arab women, 25% reported feeling unsafe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark. This marks a change when compared with perceptions of personal safety 10 years earlier, when the sense of safety felt by Arabs and West Asians was comparable to that of other visible minorities.

Immigrants

In 2011, the non-immigrant population of Canada earned $1,670 more (on average) than immigrants in Canada. Immigrants also had higher rates of low income (6.8%), lower rates of labor force participation (3.6%) and employment (4.0%), but were more likely to work full-time (1.6%) than the Canadian born population.

Continued need for federal government funding for multiculturalism programming

Another way to look at the need for the Program is to look at the demand for funding, relative to the funding available to organizations for multiculturalism programming. The increased demand for funding resulting from the 2017 Inter-Action call for applications and anecdotal evidence of limited funding available from other sources further support the continued need for the Program.

Inter-Action's 2017 call for applications was significantly oversubscribed, with approximately five times the number of applications received in 2017 compared with 2015 – from 52 applications received in 2015 to 256 applications received in 2017. While the Program budget for the projects stream was $5.5 million, the amount requested for these 256 applications was $59.3 million compared with $42.8 million for the 52 applications for the 2015 call for applications.

Anecdotal evidence from a few FPTORMI network members and from all five case studies and interviews with funding recipients indicated that there is little funding available for multiculturalism programming in their jurisdictions. Provincial key informants noted that provincial and municipal funding has been cut or redirected. Funding recipients for all five case studies reported that their ability to deliver their project without PCH funding was limited. All five agreed that there is an ongoing need for the Program – without the Program, all five organizations would not have been able to implement their projects. In other words, the Program is an important source of funding. Similarly, key informant interviews with funding recipients (3/5) also found that they had a limited ability to implement their projects without PCH funding or that it would take time to find other resources (2/5). The file review of projects funded through the 2015 call for applications showed that PCH was the primary funding source for most of the Inter-Action projects. However, the majority of projects reported receiving in-kind support.

Gaps in the Program's response

Within the context of a broad mandate and limited resources, the Program did address some of the issues through its activities. During the period of the evaluation (2011-12 to 2016-17), activities to address intercultural understanding and issues of racism and discrimination have been part of the Program's Gs&Cs, public education and promotion and part of its international dialogue.

• In its 2015 call for applications, Gs&Cs funding was directed to organizations to facilitate interaction between youth from diverse communities to promote intercultural and interfaith understanding directed to the objective of building a socially cohesive society. In Inter-Action's 2017 call for applications, one of the funding priorities was directed to projects that target anti-racism.
• The Program supported federal institutions to respond to diversity through their policies and programs.
• The Program delivered public outreach and promotion activities through Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month.
• Through membership in the IHRA and the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Program has engaged in international dialogue on issues of racism and discrimination.
• While the Program was at CIC/IRCCs, there was an emphasis on addressing unjust racial and religious discrimination, including anti-Semitism, as well as new approaches to increase community resilience and reduce the potential for radicalization.^{Footnote 56}

The evaluation evidence identified areas where the programming response could be strengthened. The most frequently cited areas were: a national strategy to respond to racism and religious intolerance; funding for regional and local projects; stakeholder engagement; supporting public institutions to address systemic issues; and research to support effective evidence-based decision-making.

A comprehensive national response to racism and religious intolerance

Almost all PCH key informants that responded to the question about whether the Program has responded to the changing context noted a need to better respond to racism and religious intolerance (95%). Since Canada's Action Plan Against Racism (CAPAR) sunset in 2010, a gap has emerged in terms of a coordinated national response to racism. There have also been calls for federal action against racism in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report,^{Footnote 57} the 2017 recommendations for Canada from the UNCERD and from witnesses before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage study of Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination.^{Footnote 58}

Some provinces have recently enhanced efforts to respond to racism. Ontario for example, is taking substantive action, including the creation of an Anti-Racism Directorate, development of a three year Anti-Racism Strategic Plan and a Black Youth Action Plan, the collection of race-based data and the introduction of an Anti-Racism Act.^{Footnote 59} Other provinces, such as British Columbia, have expanded their anti-racism programs. British Columbia's Organizing Against Racism and Hate (OARH) program, initially established to help small communities, was expanded in 2016.^{Footnote 60} The Alberta government has also announced that it plans new efforts to combat intolerance in response to a number of high-profile incidents, including anti-Muslim posters and posters questioning the Holocaust at the University of Calgary, racist graffiti in city Light Rail Transit stations, threats against a Red Deer mosque and alleged threats against Muslim women in Edmonton.^{Footnote 61}

A few key informants noted that while the Program was at CIC/IRCC, the focus for project funding was redirected to projects that promoted social cohesion through interfaith/intercultural understanding and were not directed to combating racism.

Although there is no national action plan against racism, more recently at PCH, Inter-Action is directing funding toward racism and intolerance. Funding guidelines for its February 2017 call for applications includes, among other funding priorities, a priority for long-term multi-year projects that work toward removing barriers and eliminating discrimination, racism and prejudice.^{Footnote 62}

Support and funding to respond to local and regional issues and needs

The majority of newcomers settle in Canada's largest cities, particularly Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. However, greater numbers of immigrants are settling in smaller and rural communities (Statistics Canada 2016).

Almost half of PCH key informants (52%) noted limitations associated with the changes to the funding model in 2015 to limit Inter-Action project funding to projects that are national in scope. Interestingly, half (2/4) FPTORMI network key informants also identified this as a gap, noting that the PCH funding model should take into account provincial demographics and jurisdictional uniqueness.

According to key informants, the funding model has created barriers to addressing local needs, as local or regional projects are ineligible for project funding. However, issues may be unique to one particular province or location. Examples provided by a few key informants to illustrate this point were issues faced by the Black or Micmac communities in Nova Scotia, or by northern communities. Funding to deliver events (<$25,000) is episodic and the short-term nature of events does not address the seriousness of the issues or lead to substantive change. A few key informants suggested that events could be funded through other PCH programs such as the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program.

Engaging with stakeholders

Many key informants (62%) noted that aside from the networks (MCN and FPTORMI), stakeholder and community engagement has been limited in recent years. As a result of the decision to fund only national projects, regional and local stakeholders who had accessed the Program in the past no longer apply for funding or engage with the Program. This has weakened the relationships that the Regions had established with these stakeholders.

Key informants, as well as the expert panel, noted a risk in focusing solely on national groups and indicated the need to seek input from communities and stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments and municipalities to have better understanding of the experiences and the needs of diverse communities and the impact of increased diversity on Canadians; to help identify appropriate solutions; to improve relations; and to develop partnerships to work on multiculturalism-related issues to achieve the objectives of the Program.

Supporting institutions to address systemic issues

Some PCH key informants (48%) noted that there is no longer a focus on supporting institutions and organizations to address barriers to full participation of Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada. Earlier iterations of the Program were more focused on social change/development and the Program partnered with public institutions, as well as communities, to address systemic issues. Regional key informants noted that as a result of the current delivery and funding model, Regions no longer support local or regional organizations to respond to their emerging and evolving local issues or support new and emerging organizations to build capacity to address issues.

Availability of evidence to support policy and program decision-making

The literature, and some PCH key informant (43%) identified gaps in data and research that impact on the Program's ability to develop evidence-based policy and program decisions to respond effectively to diversity issues. A lack of comprehensive data and/or analysis raises a risk that funds will not be directed to the needs/issues. Another gap is that the Program does not have performance data to demonstrate that the funds currently being invested are contributing to the achievement of the outcomes of the Program.

Although not intended as an exhaustive list, a number of research gaps were identified in the literature. The following were identified with respect to an understanding of the experiences of Black Canadians:

• Black Canadians have remained largely absent from critical theorizing and policy analysis, resulting in the absence of a "comprehensive social description of the ways in which the vertical mosaic [i.e. the high correlation of socio-economic opportunities and ethno-racial characteristics] is manifested and perpetuated."^{Footnote 63} As noted by the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, on the conclusion of its official visit to Canada, 17-21 October 2016, there is a lack of race-based data and research that could inform prevention, intervention and strategies to protect the human rights of African Canadians.^{Footnote 64}
• There have been virtually no recent census-based studies on the familial characteristics of Black Canadians, the vast majority of whom are first- or second-generation immigrants.^{Footnote 65}
• "Although many studies have examined lived experiences of racism and resistance in various contexts, relatively little research has examined such experiences among Black youth within the workplace—particularly in the Canadian context. In light of the importance of immigration to Canada's workforce renewal, research such as this points to areas where further research and intervention may be deemed increasingly important."^{Footnote 66}

Crimes motivated by hatred of religious groups have also been the subject of recent literature, particularly violence directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim. However, gaps exist in the literature with respect to the particular vulnerability of women and girls to anti-Muslim hate crime. While the majority of perpetrators and victims of hate crime are men, this is not the case within the Muslim community, partly due to the fact that many women are readily identifiable by their dress. While 'private' (e.g. domestic) violence against women by Muslim men has attracted attention by academics, 'public' violence against Muslim women has not been sufficiently examined in the literature, particularly in North America, nor has it been the subject of much public attention.^{Footnote 67}

Another research gap, identified in the literature, is the quality of life of immigrants in smaller urban places. Most of the research on immigrant settlement patterns and issues concentrates on large urban centres. However, more immigrants are settling in smaller urban areas in Canada, being often the primary source of population growth and, to a certain extent, economic development. However, relatively little is known about the quality of life of immigrants in these smaller urban places.^{Footnote 68}

A few key informants noted that changes are needed to the Census and Statistics Canada data to enable more granular analysis. The term visible minority is too broad to be able examine the experiences of different communities.

4.1.2. Relevance: alignment with Government priorities

Evaluation question:

To what extent do the Program objectives align with the Government of Canada directions/priorities/roles and responsibilities?

Key findings:

Multiculturalism programming aligns with and supports the Government's diversity and inclusion priority.

There is a perception among interviewees that the federal government has not signaled strong support for multiculturalism relative to other priorities, citing decreased funding over time and the prominence of the concept of diversity and inclusion in the current Government's discourse. Multiculturalism is less visible.^{Footnote 69}

Nonetheless, there is consensus among key informants that the federal government and PCH have a leadership role to play with respect to educating Canadians, promoting multiculturalism and delivering multiculturalism programming.

While the Multiculturalism Program has a role in advancing and supporting the Government's diversity and inclusion priority, multiculturalism is but one facet of diversity. There is a need to clarify the Multiculturalism Program's role in advancing the broader scope of the Government's diversity and inclusion priority.

Multiculturalism programming is a Federal responsibility under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It also aligns with other federal legislation that articulate the values held by Canadians, among them the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Employment Equity Act.

There is considerable evidence that the Government of Canada considers diversity and inclusion to be an important federal responsibility. The Prime Minister has regularly emphasized diversity and inclusion in his speeches: "Canadians understand that diversity is our strength. We know that Canada has succeeded – culturally, politically and economically – because of our diversity, not in spite of it."

The Government of Canada's Speech from the Throne and the Budget identify the federal government's priorities for the upcoming year. A common theme in the past three years has been "diversity is our strength." In this context, the 2015 Speech from the Throne^{Footnote 70} referenced relationships with Indigenous Peoples and making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, reunite their families, and contribute to the economic success of all Canadians.

Budget 2016 noted that it "establishes a foundation for a greater Canada, one that embraces diversity and inclusion as unique advantages that contribute to our common prosperity and solidify Canada's place in the world."^{Footnote 71}

Budget 2017 again addresses diversity - "In Canada, we have made the choice to build an economy that works for everyone. We strive to provide equal opportunities to women and men while being open to the world—welcoming new ideas, creative ways of thinking and a diversity of cultures."^{Footnote 72}

The Government's commitment to implement diversity and inclusion extends to all ministers as articulated by two diversity and inclusion-related commitments in all Ministers' mandate letters.

The Government has also created the Cabinet Committee on Diversity and Inclusion with a mandate to "consider issues concerning the social fabric of Canada and the promotion of Canadian pluralism." The Committee examines initiatives designed to strengthen the relationship with Indigenous Peoples, improve the economic performance of immigrants and promote Canadian diversity, multiculturalism, and linguistic duality."^{Footnote 73}

The objectives of the Multiculturalism Program – to build an integrated socially cohesive society, to improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population and to actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level – align with and support the Government of Canada's diversity and inclusion priority.

Although diversity and inclusion is a priority, there is a perception among internal and external key informants that the federal government has not signaled strong support for multiculturalism in recent years. As evidence, they noted the following:

• Multiculturalism has become less visible as a result of the emphasis on diversity and inclusion.
• The levels of funding to the Multiculturalism Program have decreased over time. Expert Panel members were of the opinion that the current level of funding to the Program was inadequate relative to the importance of the issues and the needs identified.
• The Minister's mandate letter does not mention multiculturalism, and the department has focused its attention on other departmental priorities.

Many key informants noted that the federal government has a leadership role to play with respect to setting a strong policy framework, and promoting and delivering multiculturalism programming that promotes social cohesion. Specific examples provided by key informants of the areas where the federal government can play a lead role included:

• conducting research, providing data and sharing information, including best practices and expertise, on issues relating to multiculturalism;
• conveying strong messages against racism and religious intolerance, including coordinating a national response to racism; and
• "championing" diversity and multiculturalism, and educating Canadians about multiculturalism and racism.

The media analysis also found that there is an expectation that governments, including the federal government, take action. Thirteen of fifty articles called for some form of government action to respond to challenges with building a cohesive society. Just over half of these (54%) called for federal government action. Among the calls to action are: better governance to stem the rising tide of intolerance; changing the relationship with Indigenous Peoples (replacing the Indian Act, acquiring a deeper understanding of Indigenous perspectives); and maintaining the current immigration policy, which is seen to be working well. Provincial and municipal calls to action included confronting racist policing; more diversity on federal and provincial court benches, and expanding public education to include learning about world religions.

While the Multiculturalism Program has a role in advancing and supporting the Government's diversity and inclusion priority, some key informants indicated that the Multiculturalism Program's role in promoting and supporting the broader scope of the diversity and inclusion priority should be clarified.

Although the terms diversity and multiculturalism are often used interchangeably, the literature notes that multiculturalism is but one facet of diversity. Multiculturalism is rooted in culture and race. Diversity includes these, as well as other communities based on gender, sexual orientation, abilities, and age, among others.

This need for clarification was highlighted by the expectation from a few stakeholders such as the MCN members who, in their comments to the survey as well as in interviews, suggested that the MCN should be a forum to support federal institutions in implementing the diversity and inclusion priority in federal departments and agencies. Therefore, being clear about the government's approach/understanding, and then developing a program that operationalizes this understanding, would go a long way to creating a more coherent narrative to build on.

Opinions were mixed as to whether the scope of the Program should be extended to include the groups covered by the broader concept of diversity. Among the arguments presented by key informants supporting a broader perspective was their interpretation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as promoting the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada and that the current multiculturalism concept of facilitating interaction solely among ethnocultural communities is dated. Canadian society is experiencing rapid socio-demographic changes and limiting the Program to ethnocultural groups was seen as limiting the relevance of the Program. The majority of external MCN and FPTORMI network key informants noted that the concept of multiculturalism has evolved in their organizations/jurisdictions to encompass the broader concept of diversity and inclusion.

As noted in the literature review conducted by PRG, identity facets like race, religious affiliation, gender, sexuality and disability are layered in ways that can result in compounded disadvantages. For example, an individual will be disadvantaged on multiple fronts if their experience of the female gender is complicated by their Arab identity, practice of Islam and queer sexual orientation. These individuals may live on the margins of society and often experience social exclusion, despite multiculturalism policies and programs.^{Footnote 74}

Some PCH key informants noted that projects and events funded through Inter-Action already support the communities covered by the broader concept of diversity, because of intersecting identities. There are often intersections regarding discrimination such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer/Questioning and others (LGBTQ+) members that are part of the Black Community, linguistic minority members and being visible minorities, LGBTQ+ and being a refugee/new immigrant, or even ethno-cultural communities/new immigrant communities and their comprehension of the challenges faced by Indigenous communities. The Program can seek to address these intersections, supported by the Inter-Action event or project stream.

Others, including the expert panel members, did not view broadening the concept of multiculturalism as a positive development. In their opinion, doing so would dilute the idea of multiculturalism to the point where it fades from the discourse. Furthermore, extending the scope to include the multiple identities under the broader concept of diversity was also seen as diluting already limited resources at the detriment of ethnocultural, religious and linguistic groups, the groups traditionally targeted by the Program. It was also pointed out that with limited resources, the Program needs to be strategic and focused.

4.1.3. Relevance: alignment with CIC/IRCC and PCH mandate and priorities

Evaluation question:

To what extent does the Program align with CIC/IRCC and PCH mandate and priorities?

Key findings:

The Multiculturalism Program aligns with the PCH mandate and priorities. Between 2011-12 and November 2015, the Program aligned with CIC/IRCC priorities.

The majority of key informants see PCH as the appropriate department to lead federal responsibilities related to multiculturalism.

The current objectives of the Program were developed at CIC/IRCC and implemented in 2010. They have not been updated to reflect the PCH language, to articulate the intended impact in a changing context and to respond more directly to the key challenges. The objectives are very broad and while their broadness allows for flexibility, they do not align closely to the activities or priorities of the Program. The broad scope of the objectives also creates challenges for performance measurement.

Multiculturalism is viewed as a core Canadian value and part of the Canadian identity. The Program aligns with PCH's mandate as set out in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act which centers on fostering and promoting "Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage." The Minister's powers, duties and functions, as set out in the Act include multiculturalism.^{Footnote 75} The Program also supports the PCH vision in which "all Canadians can celebrate our rich cultural diversity, our shared experiences and values, and where all can gain a greater understanding and appreciation of our history, heritage and communities."

The activities of the Program align with responsibilities under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to coordinate implementation of the multiculturalism policy and to provide advice and assistance to organizations and institutions in their implementation of the policy.

The majority of PCH key informants who responded to the question about the alignment of the Program with PCH mandate and priorities noted that PCH is the appropriate department to be the lead for federal responsibilities related to multiculturalism.

Between 2011-12 and November 2015, the Multiculturalism Program aligned with the CIC/IRCC's mandate and priorities. It appeared as a separate Program in CIC/IRCC's PAA – Multiculturalism for Newcomers and all Canadians and supported the departments Strategic Outcome #3 – Newcomers and citizens participate to their full potential in fostering and integrated society.^{Footnote 76} As the department responsible for immigration, the Multiculturalism Program aligned with CIC/IRCC mandate to build a stronger Canada by helping newcomers settle and integrate into Canadian society and the economy, and by encouraging, granting and providing proof of Canadian citizenship.^{Footnote 77}

Based on a review of CIC/IRCC documents, the Program's objectives played a role in supporting CIC/IRCC's emphasis on citizenship as part of the integration process. Departmental DPRs indicate that the "acquisition of citizenship is a significant step in the integration process." Project proposals also had to align with citizenship rights and responsibilities, in addition to facilitating positive interaction among different cultural, ethnic and religious communities.

The Program aligns with PCH mandate and priorities. Following its transfer to PCH in 2015, the Multiculturalism Program appeared as a separate Program in the PCH PAA. In 2017-18, the Program became a Sub-Program under the Engagement and Community Participation Program and supported PCH's Strategic Outcome #2 Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity and Priority #2 Promote diversity and inclusion to enhance Canadians' sense of belonging and pride and to promote inclusive economic growth.^{Footnote 78}

Views were mixed on the continued relevance of the objectives of the Program, in particular Objective #1 to build an Integrated, socially cohesive society, and its emphasis on civic memory and pride and core democratic values. The current Program objectives in the Ts&Cs were developed at CIC/IRCC and have not been updated since the transfer of the Program to PCH in 2015.

Some PCH key informants favored the flexibility of broad objectives, noting that the broad language provides the flexibility to fund non-ethno cultural/religious projects that address issues facing those with intersecting identities.

A greater number were of the view that the language needs to be updated to align with the terminology of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, to reflect inclusion instead of integration or to better align with PCH terminology. Some key informants noted that as a result of the broad scope of the objectives, there is a weak link between the objectives, the activities and the priorities of the Program. Their broad scope also creates challenges for performance measurement.

4.2. Effectiveness: achievement of expected outcomes

The following section examines the achievement of expected outcomes related to the following:

• public outreach and promotion;
• coordination and support to federal and other public institutions;
• Gs&Cs (Inter-Action); and
• international role.

4.2.1. Achievement of expected outcomes

Evaluation questions:

What evidence exists as to the effectiveness of the policy instruments and levers used by the Program to achieve the objectives of the Program:

• public outreach and promotion
• coordination and support to federal and other public institutions
• Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act
• Gs&Cs (Inter-Action)
• international role

Are there other more effective levers/instruments to achieve Program objectives?

Key findings:

Public outreach and promotion. Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month were widely promoted, so that they reached and engaged Canadians in conversations and appreciation for the contributions of Canadians from diverse communities. The Paul Yuzyk Award was unable to gain traction as evidenced by declining participation in spite of increased promotion and adjustments to the Award. There was limited evidence to conclude that public outreach and promotion activities contributed to the achievement of the objectives and the outcomes of the Program.

Coordination and support to federal and other public institutions. Overall, activities to support federal and other public institutions were limited in scope, particularly in the period following the transfer of the Program to PCH. While members consider their networks to be relevant, they have primarily been information exchange mechanisms. However, key informants believe that the two networks continue to be relevant but that their mandates should be reviewed.

Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Multiculturalism Program is making the Annual Report more relevant by encouraging departments and agencies to report on the outcomes of their policies and programs. Although the number of departments and agencies fluctuated between 2011-12 and 2016-17, the majority of departments provided a submission to PCH. A new reporting template, requesting institutions to report on outcomes, may have contributed to the reduced participation rate in 2016-17.

Gs&Cs (Inter-Action). Although there was limited performance data available on program or project level outcomes, based on recipient feedback, the file review and the case studies, the projects appear to have contributed to the Program objective of building an integrated socially cohesive society and to the expected outcomes of intercultural/interfaith understanding, civic memory and pride and respect for core democratic values.

International engagement. Although it can be concluded that the Program's international engagement activities contributed to the immediate outcome to increase policy awareness about international approaches to diversity, it is less evident that the activities contributed to intermediate outcomes.

Policy levers. An assessment of current Program levers against those suggested in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act identified several activities, which are not currently being implemented by the Program. Key informants identified many of them as gaps in the current program delivery.

4.2.2. Public outreach and promotion

Public education and promotion activities are intended to support the following outcomes:

• Program participants and targeted public gain knowledge, develop strategies and take action toward increasing awareness of Canadian history and institutions, Canadian values; cultural diversity, and Cultural/racial/ethnic/religious issues affecting full participation in society and economy (Immediate)
• Program participants have increased civic memory and pride, increased respect for core democratic values, increased intercultural understanding and increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy (Intermediate).

Since 2010, the scope of the public outreach and promotion activities of the Multiculturalism Program have been reduced. At CIC/IRCC, direct public outreach and promotional activities primarily targeted young people and included the Mathieu Da Costa Challenge^{Footnote 79} and the Racism. Stop it! National Video Competition.^{Footnote 80} The Mathieu Da Costa Challenge, was discontinued after 2011-12 due to waning participation and a challenging fiscal environment, which prompted a re-evaluation of multiculturalism initiatives. At the same time, this re-evaluation led to the cancellation of the Racism. Stop it! National Video Competition. The document review found that CIC/IRCC concentrated on preparing new public education materials, such as the Teachers and Youth web corner "A Fun Path to Learning," that provided educational tools regarding citizenship, Canadian identity, multiculturalism and immigration and to encourage participation in other initiatives, such as the Canadian Citizenship Challenge.

Currently, the main public outreach and promotion initiatives undertaken by the Multiculturalism Policy Unit include the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism, Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month.

The document review found that PCH developed promotional materials (posters, brochures, emails and public service announcements) and used Social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) to promote these initiatives.

Paul Yuzyk Award

Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism recognizes exceptional contributions to multiculturalism and integration of newcomers to Canada. Since its launch in 2009, the number of nominations for the award has declined over time from 88 nominations in 2010 to 41 nominations in 2015.

From 2009 to 2014, a single award ($20,000) was granted each year. Two additional categories for youth and private sector were included in the award cycle in 2015, for an award/grant of $10,000 each. The expansion of the Award to include 2 new categories had little impact on participation levels.

The Paul Yuzyk Award has been on hold since 2015 as options are being explored to increase interest and participation.^{Footnote 81}

Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month

Evidence from the document review and input from key informants on Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month indicated that the Program increased its efforts to make these activities more relevant by consulting with stakeholders from academia, the Black and Asian communities, and heritage and cultural institutions on possible speakers and entertainers for the launch event and on appropriate themes for the month.

Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month typically included an official launch event, an educational poster, a travelling Black History Exhibit and formal public outreach initiatives which are widely promoted on the departmental websites and through social media. Web analytics for Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month indicated that web and social media content engaged Canadians. Based on data provided by the Communications Branch:

• During the 2016 Black History Month^{Footnote 82} there were: 46,039 visits counted to the CIC/IRCC's Black History Month website, and 2,763 posters were downloaded. In 2017, PCH attracted a total of 52,762 visitors to its Black History Month website and 2,279 posters were downloaded.
• In 2015, during Asian Heritage Month CIC/IRCC attracted 7,902 visits to its website and 1256 visits to the poster page. In 2017, PCH attracted fewer visits– 4,459 visits. The poster page had 1567 visits.

Regions also supported events for Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month.

Based on web statistics, public outreach and promotion activities reached and engaged Canadians in conversations and appreciation for the contributions of Canadians from diverse communities. However, there was no outcome data to demonstrate that public outreach and promotion activities contributed to an increased knowledge or awareness.

Many key informants supported a federal role in public outreach and promotion, including members of the expert panel, some of whom suggested that the federal government and PCH play a "championing" role within the federal government. A few key informants felt that PCH is doing the right things but needs to do more. In particular, a few key informants highlighted the need for an anti-racism campaign.

Several issues emerged from PCH key informant interviews and the document review which impacted on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Program's public outreach and promotion activities. Issues included: increased demands on the Multiculturalism Policy Unit resources, the capacity and role of Multiculturalism Policy Unit's staff in communications activities, and the need for coordination between National Headquarters and Regions on Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month activities.

• Beginning with the 2017 Black History Month, increased expectations for the Program's public outreach and promotion activities has led to increased costs, and an impact on the Multiculturalism Policy Unit's human resources. Direct costs were $44,000 for the Black History Month launch in 2017, compared to between $9,500 and $12,500 annually between 2013 to 2016.
• Aligned with the CIC/IRCC delivery model, the Communictions Branch was responsible for outreach and promotion activities. At PCH, the Communications Branch provides advice which has placed new demands on the Multiculturalism Policy Unit and diverted staff from their core business. The Policy Unit led on the 2017 Black History Month launch with support from Communications and the Event Planning Unit. It was estimated that the event consumed approximately $47,000 in the Policy Unit's staff time.
• A few regional key informants noted that they also support events for Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month. They noted that there is an opportunity for greater coordination between the regions and the Multiculturalism Policy Unit on Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month activities.

The direct costs associated with Asian Heritage Month, ranged between $11,965 and $16,854 between 2013 and 2016.

In recent years, a number of other communities have come forward to request support for a recognition month. A few key informants noted that as these requests will continue to be made, PCH will need to have a position on how to respond.

4.2.3. Coordination and support to federal and public institutions

Support to federal and public institutions aims to improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population and contributes to the following expected outcomes:

• targeted institutions have external and internal policies and practices that are responsive to the needs of a diverse society (Immediate); and
• targeted public institutions demonstrate an increased responsiveness to the needs of a diverse population, increased intercultural understanding and increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy (Intermediate).

To achieve these objectives, the Multiculturalism Program facilitates information exchange and dialogue through two networks, the MCN and the FPTORMI network.

Overall, activities to support federal and other public institutions were limited in scope, particularly in the period following the transfer of the Program to PCH. This can be attributed, in part, to a period of inactivity as a result of the transition of the Program and the limited capacity within the Multiculturalism Policy Unit. While members consider their networks to be relevant, the networks have primarily been information exchange mechanisms.

Multiculturalism Champions Network

The MCN is a Government of Canada community of practice of multiculturalism champions representing about 140 federal institutions. The primary aim of the Network is to share information between federal institutions to foster greater implementation of multiculturalism across the federal government by helping institutions be responsive to the diversity of Canada and to fulfill their obligations under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Multiculturalism champions are generally senior-level executives nominated by the Deputy Minister or equivalent in their respective federal institutions. They represent a variety of functional areas, although membership is predominately from the human resources and corporate services areas. Policy, research and communications/public affairs are also reflected in the membership. MCN meets annually and has an online SharePoint platform which provides tools to multiculturalism champions to guide their work.

The effectiveness of the MCN during the period covered by the evaluation was impacted by a period of inactivity as a result of the transition of the Program from CIC/IRCC to PCH; the limited capacity within the Multiculturalism Policy Unit; the low participation levels at meetings; the delegation of responsibility to attend meetings; and the fact that the network is essentially an information-sharing mechanism.

An analysis of the 2016-17 meeting found that of the approximately 140 organizations with a multiculturalism champion, only 35 attended the meeting. Of the 35 participants that did attend, half (17) were delegates. The low level of participation and the delegation of attendance suggests that the MCN meetings have a low level of priority.

The assessment of the effectiveness of the MCN and its members' satisfaction with the network's mandate and goals were assessed through an on-line survey of members between 2011-12 and 2016-17. Thirty-three survey responses were received. The majority of respondents agreed that the mandate of MCN is still relevant:

• The goals and objectives of the MCN are still relevant (78%).
• There is alignment between the goals and objectives of the Network and the actions taken by the Network (65%).
• The MCN has fostered greater implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act across the federal government (63%).

MCN survey respondents (63%) agreed that MCN had fostered greater implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. This was supported by examples provided in the Annual reports on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of policy and program changes implemented by federal institutions. However, there was no data on the extent to which policy and program changes have contributed to the intermediate outcomes.

In terms of the effectiveness of MCN on various dimensions of its mandate and goals, the most positive response was with respect to the sharing best practices, with 70% agreeing that MCN has been an effective forum for discussions about best practices. Only 35% agreed that MCN has been effective forum for discussions about program delivery and about half of respondents agreed that MCN has been effective forum for discussions about shared challenges (48%), program sharing (52%) and lessons learned (50%).

Results were also modest in terms of the extent to which participation in MCN contributed to:

• greater knowledge of the tools available to help implement the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (52%)
• identification of opportunities for greater collaboration among federal institutions (56%)
• addressing issues of equitable access to opportunities in employment and advancement, with a multiculturalism focus (43%)

Some themes emerged from additional comments provided by a few multiculturalism champions to the survey, including: a desire for clarity and guidance on promoting and implementing diversity and inclusion in their organizations; the differing capacity of small versus large organizations; the challenges associated with sharing when each organization is at a different stage of implementation; the need to improve the operations of SharePoint; and the desire for face-to-face meetings.

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism Issues network

The FPTORMI network was established in 2005 as a working group with the objective to "facilitate closer collaboration on mutual priorities such as the elimination of barriers to full participation in Canadian society, respect for diversity, public education, hate-crime activity and combating racial discrimination in various sectors." The mandate of the FPTORMI network is to:

• identify and report to the network on emerging policy, program, technological, communications and research issues in their respective jurisdictions and regions;
• identify, examine and make recommendations to address such issues collectively, as appropriate;
• involve, as required, relevant subject matter experts to contribute to discussion of issues related to multiculturalism, diversity and anti-racism;
• share best practices, successes, challenges, and research results and, where appropriate, seeking opportunities to conduct joint research on issues of potential interest to one or more jurisdictions; and
• establish short-term (one fiscal year – April 1 to March 31) and longer-term (3-5 years) priorities for the network.

Provincial representatives on the FPTORMI network represent a range of departments and ministries including tourism, culture, heritage, sport, citizenship, immigration, justice and labor.

The document review found that the FPTORMI network had 10 teleconferences between 2011-12 and 2014-15. There were no face-to-face meetings. The Network was inactive between 2015-16 and 2016-17, and has only recently resumed its teleconferences. A few provincial key informants noted that as a working level group they have challenges getting the attention of senior officials and Minister buy-in and expressed a desire to have more influence and connectedness with some of the broader federal-provincial-territorial tables. The period of inactivity and evidence from the document review which revealed some uncertainty as to the continued need for the network raises the question of its relevance.

In terms of fulfilling its mandate, the document review and interviews with FPTORMI network members found that the network is essentially an information-sharing platform. The majority of FPTORMI network key informants (3/4) considered sharing of best practices, trends, research and information on what jurisdictions are doing useful. However, a few key informants pointed to the need for greater federal leadership by developing a vision or policy framework for multiculturalism. They also expressed an interest in more guidance from the federal level on how to navigate issues such as racism and greater sharing of research and data. A few key informants expressed an interest in a more substantial engagement, such as by a focused agenda, common projects and greater collaboration with stakeholders (such as with other federal departments and municipalities). Anti-racism was put forward as an opportunity for coordinated action.

Annual report on the operations of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act

PCH is responsible for submitting an Annual Report on the Operations of the Multiculturalism Act to Parliament. The Annual Report is intended to showcase the achievements of reporting institutions in implementing multiculturalism policies and procedures in their organizations. In 2016-17, PCH introduced a new template which encouraged institutions to report on the outcomes of their activities.

To support federal institutions in fulfilling their obligations under the Act, PCH provides support to institutions in the development of their input by providing reporting templates, offering training sessions on how to respond to the submission template requirements and by providing a dedicated mailbox for federal institutions to send questions or raise concerns about their obligations and template requirements. The Program also has bilateral calls on a need basis to offer support and information.

The requirement to provide an Annual Report is mandatory under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, however; it is not mandatory that federal institutions provide a submission. The document review found that although the number of federal departments and agencies changed throughout the evaluation period, the majority of federal departments and agencies provided a submission. Between 2012-13 and 2015-16, this number ranged between 88% and 92% exceeding the target of greater than or equal to 75%. However the 2016-17 DPR reported that the submission rate dropped to 76%. Multiculturalism Policy Unit key informants, attributed the decrease to challenges that institutions may have encountered when completing the new outcome-based reporting template.

4.2.4. Grants and contributions (Inter-Action)

Inter-Action is intended to support the objective to build an integrated socially cohesive society by contributing to increased civic memory and pride, increased respect for core democratic values; increased intercultural understanding; and increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy. Inter-Action contributes to the following outcomes:

• Program participants and targeted public gain knowledge, develop strategies and take action toward increasing awareness of Canadian history and institutions, Canadian values, cultural diversity and cultural/racial/ethnic/religious issues affecting full participation in society and economy (Immediate);
• increased civic memory and pride (Intermediate);
• increased respect for core democratic values (Intermediate);
• increased intercultural understanding (Intermediate); and
• increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy (Intermediate).

A preliminary assessment of the availability of outcome information on Inter-Action projects found that funding recipients were not asked to report against specific outcome indicators. The Program did collect qualitative data from recipients through their final project activity reports. The qualitative information was not rolled-up or analyzed. Therefore, the evaluation did not have consistent performance data to enable an assessment of the contribution of Inter-Action projects to the achievement of the Program's objectives and expected outcomes. Although a participant survey was developed in response to the 2012 evaluation recommendations, it was only implemented for one year.

To mitigate this challenge, the evaluation team conducted a review of 24 project files, with support from staff of the Office of the Chief Audit Executive. The Office of the Chief Audit Executive examined the compliance of payments with approved contribution agreements and the Program's Ts&Cs; compliance with Treasury Board policy instruments' requirements to include monitoring and reporting requirements in contribution agreements; and an assessment of the completeness of files transferred by CIC/IRCC to support PCH's administration of payments. In addition, ESD undertook five case studies and interviewed 4 funding recipients to assess the projects' contributions to the achievement of the Program's outcomes.

Projects

In their final activity reports, project recipients provided a descriptive narrative on how they had achieved the results agreed upon in their contribution agreements. As well, they were asked to describe how their project had contributed to the objective – building an integrated, socially cohesive society and to the immediate and at least one of the intermediate outcomes.

Although only qualitative performance data was available on program or project level outcomes, based on recipient feedback, the file review and the case studies, the projects appear to have contributed to the program objective of building an integrated socially cohesive society and to the expected outcomes of intercultural/interfaith understanding, civic memory and pride and respect for core democratic values.

Between 2011-12 and 2016-17, there were two call for application processes:

• Intake 2015 received 52 applications, of which 13 projects were approved to receive funding.
• Intake 2017 received 256 applications. At the time of writing this report, 55 projects were approved to receive funding.

According to the funding guidelines, projects funded through the 2015 call for applications had to respond to the priority of youth civic engagement.

Overall, the file review and case studies found that funding recipients were able to demonstrate that their project aligned well with the relevant Program objective and expected outcomes. In their funding application, all projects funded under the 2015 call demonstrated alignment between the project activities and objectives and anticipated program outcomes. As part of the case studies, key informants noted that their projects aligned with the objectives of the Program, with a few noting that the project was specifically designed to reflect the objectives of the Program. The objectives of the five case study projects addressed the following needs: enhanced employability skills among ethnocultural youth; enhanced civic engagement among Indigenous and ethnocultural youth; fostering of civic citizenship, civic pride, and respect for democratic values; and promoting equal opportunity for individuals of all origins.

Although the project funding recipients were not required to report against specific outcome indicators, the case studies and the file review found that recipients were able to demonstrate, through their narrative descriptions in their final activity reports, that they had achieved their project objectives and that their projects had contributed to the Program's objective and outcomes. Among the achievements noted:

• Youth of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds developed a better understanding of their common Canadian values and democratic processes. Civic leaders benefited from the ideas and energy of youth who participated. Youth were exposed to civic organizations they did not know about prior to participating in the project.
• New Canadians learned firsthand about Canadian and Indigenous culture.
• Youth who participated in the project have become more compassionate and engaged with a greater understanding of the role that diversity and inclusion play in strengthening the tapestry of Canada.

Some of the project final activity reports also reported results from surveys conducted by the recipient organizations to meet their decision-making needs. Survey results indicated that the projects were well received by youth.

Evidence from interviews with project proponents, partners and participants and project documentation also indicated a high degree of satisfaction on the part of participants with the projects.

Based on interviews with funding recipients from the 2015 call for applications, it can be concluded that Inter-Action is an important element of the Multiculturalism Program given that it:

• supports grassroots organizations;
• supports programs aimed at responding to the needs of marginalized communities, newcomers, and to address indigenous reconciliation;
• helps maximize opportunities for interactive activities to encourage cross cultural understanding; and
• facilitates the sharing of unique stories of new Canadians with youth.

Case study key informants were asked to identify the major successes of their projects. These included:

• helping young people understand what civics entails, and engaging with civics organizations;
• bringing young people together;
• engagement of young people beyond their ethnocultural background;
• improved employment skills, including technical skills, presentation skills, networking skills and time management skills;
• partnerships among organizations; and
• inclusion of faith groups in all aspects of the project – faith groups are often ignored in the discourse about multiculturalism, and yet, they play an important role in multiculturalism.

Not unexpectedly, the case studies and interviews with funding recipients found that all projects encountered challenges stemming from time constraints and less funding than expected. These issues were a direct consequence of the transfer of the Program to PCH from CIC/IRCC during the intake process. Projects had applied for multi-year funding through CIC/IRCC's 2015 call for applications. However, with the transfer, funding decisions were made by PCH. In most cases, funding was approved for one year only, and funding recipients had to reapply for funding in subsequent years. Also, the transfer caused delays in funding decisions, putting time pressures on projects.

Other challenges identified by the case studies included:

• language barriers – some newcomers had only basic English. Translators had to be hired to move the project along.
• difficulty in recruiting participants into the project (for youth focused projects);
• difficulty in recruiting a sufficient number of speakers from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds to meet demand;
• limited gender and cultural diversity among participants;
• logistics – for example., the weather; and
• administrative and human resource challenges within the organization.

Key lessons learned by funding recipients included: involving youth in planning, design and implementation adds value to the project; there is a need for sufficient funding to bring participants together from across Canada; and activities need to be tailored to the needs of different communities/regions.

Strategic initiatives

Between 2011-12 and 2015-16, 33 strategic initiatives projects were approved by CIC/IRCC which addressed government priorities and were outside the call for applications process.

The document review, file review and cases studies found that the strategic initiatives aligned with government priorities. For example, in 2013, Canada assumed chairmanship of the IHRA. Aligned with this role was the approval of several strategic initiatives directed to Holocaust remembrance including multi-year funding to the following organizations:

• Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre – Preserving the Past for the Future;
• Ukrainian Jewish Encounter - Publication, Exhibit, Digital Media and Community Events Project; and
• Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Education and Remembrance - Survivor Testimony Project: Preservation, Access and Pedagogical Use.

Two of the case studies (Our Canada and Passages Canada) that were funded as strategic initiatives were also intended to allow the Multiculturalism Program to respond to new or emerging priority issues. "Our Canada" responded to a need for improved integration of newcomers to Canada through a better understanding on the part of newcomers of what Canadian values entail. The "Passages Canada" project was also focused on responding to a need for increased communication and understanding through educating youth. The project provided elementary and high school teachers with resources to reach out to youth.

Events

The evaluation provides limited coverage of the events component of Inter-Action (grants of low dollar value (< $25,000) and low risk).

For the events stream, the intake is continuous. Tables 5 and 6 below, present the annual number of approved events by region. As the regional breakdown differs between PCH and CIC/IRCC, the results are presented in two tables. Table 5 presents the number of CIC/IRCC events between 2011-12 and 2014-15. Table 6, presents the number of events for 2015-16 and 2016-17. Although in 2015-16 the Program spanned two organizations, all events for both organizations are captured under Table 6 for that fiscal year.

Administrative data indicates that between 2011-12 and 2016-17, the Multiculturalism Program funded 1118 events through Inter-Action for a total of $10,826,980. Data shows that the number of approved events ranged between 135 and 212 annually, and the average amount approved per event ranged between a low of $8,883 in 2013-14 and a high of $11,619 in 2016-17. This illustrates that the number of events and the dollar value awarded to events have been fairly stable over the years.

Table 5: approved events by CIC/IRCC Region 2011-12 to 2014-15

Region	2011-12 # of events funded	2011-12 $ value of events funded	2012-13 # of events funded	2012-13 $ value of events funded	2013-14 # of events funded	2013-14 $ value of events funded	2014-15 # of events funded	2014-15 $ value of events funded
British Columbia and Yukon	33	$316,790	36	$266,957	31	$217,477	27	$229,760
Prairies and Northwest Territories	34	$260,098	12	$106,820	20	$146,571	27	$221,224
Ontario	58	$654,144	34	$368,042	38	$410,552	49	$536,200
Quebec	39	$365,435	32	$343,605	49	$471,700	54	$455,136
Atlantic	36	$256,661	21	$144,928	28	$228,337	39	$310,494
Total	200	$1,853,128	135	$1,230,352	166	$1,474,637	196	$1,752,814
Average $ value per project	N/A	$9,266	N/A	$9,114	N/A	$8,883	N/A	$8,943

Source: Program administrative data

Table 6: approved events by PCH Region 2015-16 -2016-17

Region	2015-16 # of events funded	2015-16 $ value of events funded	2016-17 # of events funded	2016-17 $ value of events funded
Western	42	$349,070	57	$527,752
Prairies and Northern Region	25	$244,368	12	$180,039
Ontario	56	$656,145	50	$822,885
Quebec	51	$475,295	56	$592,398
Atlantic	38	$362,800	34	$305,297
Total	212	$2,087,678	209	$2,428,371
Average $ value per project	N/A	$9,848	N/A	$11,619

Source: Program administrative data

4.2.5. International engagement

The Multiculturalism Program's international engagement activity supports the objective – to actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level. It contributes to the following outcomes:

• increased policy awareness in Canada about international approaches to diversity (Immediate);
• increased implementation of international best practices in Canadian multiculturalism policy, programming initiatives (Immediate);
• increased civic memory and pride (Intermediate);
• increased respect for core democratic values (Intermediate);
• increased intercultural understanding (Intermediate); and
• increased equal opportunity to full participation in society and economy (Intermediate).

Although it can be concluded that the Program's international engagement activities contributed to the immediate outcome to increase policy awareness about international approaches to diversity, it is less evident that the activities contributed to its intermediate outcomes.

The Multiculturalism Program contributes to international policy dialogue on issues related to multiculturalism and diversity through the following:

• The Program supports Canada's membership in the IHRA, an intergovernmental organization that promotes Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally.
• Canada is a signatory to ICERD.
• The Program also works in partnership with the Global Centre for Pluralism (GCP) to advance respect for diversity worldwide.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

Canada has been a member of IHRA since 2009. The IHRA is a network of government officials and experts from 31 member states committed to the implementation of national and international policies and programs in support of Holocaust education, remembrance and research. Canada pays a yearly membership contribution of €30,000 (approximately $45,000 CAD), funded through Inter-Action.

Policy and program responsibility for the IHRA file is shared between Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the PCH Multiculturalism Policy Unit. GAC leads on international aspects, including the Head of Delegation, and PCH leads on domestic elements, including preparing the Country Report. This aligns with the Program's responsibility for anti-racism issues, of which antisemitism is a subset, and meets the objective of the Program to actively engage in discussions on multiculturalism and diversity at the international level.

Canada assumed chairmanship of IHRA in 2013, providing an opportunity to lead international efforts to combat anti-Semitism, to promote Holocaust education, remembrance and research on the global stage, and to complement domestic efforts in this regard. Canada hosted two international meetings and helped build IHRA consensus on a definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion to address a growing trend in contemporary anti-Semitism. In May 2016, Canada supported the adoption of a working definition of anti-Semitism.

In 2015-16, a Canadian delegation attended two IHRA conferences in which Canada actively engaged in discussions on the European Union's draft General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its potential impact on Holocaust research, a priority issue for IHRA and one which Canada had championed during its Chair year. Research and analysis undertaken by IHRA indicated that the lack of precision in the GDPR's language on the protection of personal data could, unintentionally, deny access to Holocaust-related materials. A positive outcome to IHRA's advocacy on this issue was achieved in December 2015, when the European Union came to an agreement on a revised version of the GDPR, which now includes a specific reference to making Holocaust-related information available.

It can be concluded that the Multiculturalism Program's international engagement with the IHRA did influence the types of projects funded under the strategic initiatives stream and that its activities did contribute to the Program's immediate outcome. The Program provided multi-year funding to organizations to undertake projects related to Holocaust remembrance.

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination

Canada is also a signatory to ICERD, including appearing before the CERD, which monitors the implementation of the convention. The federal lead on ICERD was transferred to the Multiculturalism Program in 2011 from the Human Rights Program.

As the federal lead, the Multiculturalism Policy Unit is responsible for coordinating input and preparing reports to the CERD on how the rights are being implemented, and coordinating appearances by the delegation for the reviews. During the period covered by the evaluation, Canada appeared before the Committee in February 2012.

Canada submitted an interim report to CERD in 2014, and in 2016 submitted its Twenty-first to Twenty-third reports outlining key measures adopted in Canada since its appearance before CERD in 2012, to enhance the implementation of the ICERD.^{Footnote 83}

Global Centre for Pluralism

The Multiculturalism Program oversees the funding agreements^{Footnote 84} between the Government of Canada and the GCP. The GCP is an independent non-governmental organization jointly funded by the Government of Canada and the Aga Khan, whose mission is to promote pluralism internationally. The Program works in partnership with the GCP to advance respect for diversity worldwide.

4.2.6. Other policy levers

As noted previously, The Canadian Multiculturalism Act (section 5.1) identifies a broad range of measures that the Minister may take to implement the Act. An assessment of current programming levers against those proposed in subsection 5(1) of the Act identifies several areas that could be pursued by the Multiculturalism Program. Evidence, based on an examination of previous objectives, priorities and activities of the Program indicated that in the past, the Program did engage in a number of these activities. Of note, key informants identified many of these areas as gaps in the current program delivery. They include:

• expand engagement with communities;
• engage with the private sector, including for example, the business community, labor organizations, and policing and health sectors. The Program could learn from the best practices, as well as support these organizations to address some of the systemic barriers where they exist in their sectors.
• forge strategic partnerships with the provinces and territories to address specific issues and to leverage limited resources. The Program could also engage with municipalities through organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism and Discrimination to garner a better understanding of local issues.
• undertake or fund research.

Given the new and emerging challenges associated with increased diversity, and within the context of limited resources, the Program may wish to examine its objectives, establish priorities, and reconsider its current mix of policy and program levers to determine if they remain relevant or if other levers would better address current and emerging challenges.

4.3. Efficiency: demonstration of efficiency

Evaluation questions:

How efficient is Inter-Action?

Are resources adequate for delivery of the Program?

Are there areas for improvement?

Key findings:

At CIC/IRCC, Inter-Action consistently lapsed Gs&Cs funding. For the period of 2011-12 and 2014-15, between 21% and 26% of the planned budget was not spent. In 2014-15, Inter-Action lapsed 52.5% of its planned budget.

The efficiency of the Multiculturalism Program has been affected by the lengthy time frames for the approval process of the Gs&Cs for the 2015 and 2017 calls for applications which led to delays in notifying recipients of funding decisions and late start dates for projects.

While at CIC/IRCC, Inter-Action consistently lapsed Gs&Cs funding. The lapsed funds affected the efficiency and outcomes of the Program as Gs&Cs were not being used to fund projects and events.

As shown by Figure 1, between 2011-12 and 2013-14, between 21 and 26 per cent of the planned Gs&Cs budget was not spent. In 2014-15, the Program lapsed 52.5 per cent of its Gs&Cs funding. The difference between planned and actual Gs&Cs spending in that year was attributed to Program activities not materializing as planned at the beginning of the fiscal year.^{Footnote 85} The program demand was lower than expected, which directly impacted the level of spending.

Figure 1: Inter-Action: lapsed vote 5 (total $)

*Similar data is not shown for PCH, as the DPR did not report planned spending for 2015-16 and 2016-17.

As shown in Figures 2 and 3, a breakdown between grants expenditures and contributions expenditures, shows that generally the lapse was more pronounced for grants than for contributions.

Figure 2: Inter-Action: lapsed grants ($)

*Similar data is not shown for PCH, as the DPR did not report planned spending for 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Figure 3: Inter-Action: lapsed contributions ($)

*Similar data is not shown for PCH, as the DPR did not report planned spending for 2015-16 and 2016-17.

The efficiency of Inter-Action was also affected by the length of time it took to notify recipients of the funding decision.^{Footnote 86}

Analysis of the 2015 call for applications found that service standards were not met for the notification of funding decisions on project files. This could be attributed to the impact of the transition of the Program from CIC/IRCC to PCH. The intake was initiated at CIC/IRCC but approvals of the 13 recommended projects occurred at PCH.

Similarly, for the 2016-17 call for applications (deadline date March 24, 2017), information obtained from the tracking sheet for Inter-Action showed that the 26 week service standard for notification of the funding decision was not met for the majority of files (50/56). In approximately 20% of files, the funding decision was made 10 or more weeks beyond the 26 weeks. The 2017 intake had a significant increase in demand for project funding and received 256 proposals. This put greater than anticipated pressures on Inter-Action staff to manage the workload and to provide services to the Regions. Inter-Action had been staffed on the basis of the 2015 CIC/IRCC intake of 52 applications.

Unlike other Programs at PCH, it should be noted that the authority for decisions on Inter-Action projects under $75,000 has not been delegated to the Program.

PCH key informants indicated that the Program provided advance payments to some of its recipients to respond to the delays in the decision, and the associated funding pressures on the projects. The Ts&Cs state that payments to recipients should normally be made as reimbursements of costs. The Office of the Chief Audit Executive found that out of the 70 payments reviewed, 35 (50%) were advance payments. This highlights an opportunity for PCH to update the Ts&Cs of the Program to align with current practices.

The Office of the Chief Audit Executive noted that all 13 agreements signed by PCH included a clause where the recipient was to provide a written confirmation of year-end expenditures. This documentation was not on file for six of the 13 agreements and would be important in order to demonstrate compliance with agreements. This highlights an opportunity for PCH to update contribution agreements of the Program to align with current practices.

Findings of the Office of the Chief Audit Executive's review of 24 files determined that the majority of the payments conformed with the Inter-Action Ts&Cs and applicable Treasury Board policy instruments:

• 83% (20) met the payment requirements as set out in their agreements.
• 13% (3) did not meet the payment requirements for various reasons such as missing documentation, not following the payment schedule and the value of an agreement exceeding the maximum in the Ts&Cs of the Program. All three agreements were approved by CIC/IRCC.
• One (4%) did not include a final payment due to the results of a recipient audit.

4.4. Other evaluation issues

This section presents the findings of the evaluation related to the following issues:

• program design and delivery; and
• performance measurement.

4.4.1. Program design and delivery

The evaluation examined several aspects of program design and delivery. One of the factors that impact on the Program's ability to respond to needs, issues or challenges in Canada relates to ineffective internal operational/program delivery.

Evaluation questions:

Is the current design and delivery of the Multiculturalism Program the most effective and efficient? Are there areas for improvement?

What has been the impact of the transfer of the Program from IRCC/PCH?

Key findings:

Effective program governance is a challenge and the majority of PCH national office and regional staff identified communications, coordination and decision-making challenges with the current model.

The split between Inter-Action and the Multiculturalism Policy Unit has contributed to the need to define clear roles and responsibilities for program policy development.

The funding model, which limits Inter-Action project funding to projects that are national in scope, has created a gap in terms of the funding for local or regional projects to address unique local and regional needs.

The Program's structure which splits operations, policy and communications was created at CIC/IRCC and was maintained by PCH when the Program transferred back. This structure has created communications, coordination and decision-making challenges. It also differs from the structure of other PCH programs.

Following the transfer from PCH to CIC/IRCC in 2008, the Multiculturalism Program was reorganized to align with the CIC/IRCC functional model. Responsibility for the Multiculturalism Program was dispersed across three CIC/IRCC Branches.

Following the transfer of the Program back to PCH in 2015, the decentralized delivery model, which was established at CIC/IRCC, was essentially maintained at PCH. However, unlike CIC/IRCC where outreach and promotion activities were undertaken by the Communications Branch, at PCH this activity was placed in the Multiculturalism Policy Unit.

The delivery model for the Multiculturalism Program differs from other PCH program delivery models where policy and program delivery both report to one Director General. It also differs from the structure that existed at PCH prior to 2008. Then, the Multiculturalism and Human Rights Programs were together under one integrated policy and program branch. Policy, research, public education and Gs&Cs were all under one Director General.

Key informant interviews with Multiculturalism Program managers and staff at both the national and regional levels noted that the existing design and delivery structure has contributed to several challenges including ineffective communications; capacity issues associated with Multiculturalism Policy Unit's delivery of public outreach and promotion activities; a program policy gap; a gap in funding projects to address unique local or regional needs; and inefficiencies associated with corporate planning and reporting decision-making processes.

Staff from all organizational units provided examples of ineffective communications at various levels including between Inter-Action and Multiculturalism Policy, between Regions and National Headquarters (Inter-Action and Policy), and between regions. For example:

• coordination of Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month activities between the Multiculturalism Policy Unit, Communications and the Regions;
• collaboration between the Multiculturalism Policy Unit and Inter-Action on the development of guidelines and revisions to the Program's Ts&Cs;
• coordination of activities and sharing of tools and information between Regions,^{Footnote 87} and
• communications between Inter-Action – National Headquarters and Inter-Action – Regions.^{Footnote 88}

As discussed in 4.2.1, unlike at CIC/IRCC where the Communication Branch was responsible for public outreach and promotion, at PCH, the Communications Branch provides advice and the Multiculturalism Policy Unit has responsibility for public outreach and promotion activities. This has created a capacity challenge for the Multiculturalism Policy Unit. As well, internal key informants share a perception of a lack of skills required for this role.

A program policy gap has emerged. Clear role and responsibilities for the Inter-Action and the Multiculturalism Policy Unit in terms of policy roles and responsibilities are lacking.

As noted in the relevance section, a gap has emerged as a consequence of the decision to provide project funding only to projects that are national in scope. The 2010 call for applications was the last call to fund local or regional organizations to undertake projects that address their regional or local needs. Subsequently, in the 2015 and 2017 calls, projects had to be national in scope to be eligible for funding. This funding model has created a gap in terms of support and funding to respond to local and regional issues and needs. Regions need more consistent funding than the current grants provided for events. Most key informants feel that events have limited impact because of their short-term nature. Funding needs to align with a long-term vision to achieve the greatest impact.

There are inefficiencies associated with corporate planning and reporting decision-making processes for Inter-Action. The organizational structure has created an extra layer of approvals for planning and reporting for the Inter-Action component. Approvals for planning and reporting content goes through the Citizen Participation Branch approval process and once approved is submitted to the Multiculturalism Policy contact responsible for corporate reporting where it then goes through the Strategic Policy, Planning and Research approval process.

Impact of the Multiculturalism Program transfer

The majority of PCH key informants and expert panel members remarked on decreases in the Program's resources. Expert panel members interpreted this as signaling a decrease in the Government's commitment to the Multiculturalism Program.

PCH key informants remarked that fewer resources were transferred back to PCH from CIC/IRCC in 2015 than were transferred from PCH to CIC in 2008.

During the period that the Multiculturalism Program was at CIC/IRCC, the document review provided some insight as to the reductions in the Multiculturalism Program's resources. The most significant are:

• decreases to Vote 5 as a result of the sunsetting of the Community Historical Recognitions Program
• reductions to both Vote 1 and Vote 5 as part of the Government-wide-deficit reduction exercise
• reductions to Vote 1 to support other Government-wide initiatives (e.g., Transfer to the Canada School of Public Service, modernization and back office reductions, etc.)
• departmental strategic reallocations

From the perspective of FTEs, an analysis of DPRs and RPPs shows a significant reduction of FTEs during the period that the Program was at CIC/IRCC. The changes to FTEs between 2011-12 and 2012-13 can be attributed, in part, to the realignment of the Program's FTE with the functional delivery model at CIC/IRCC. The CIC 2011-12 RPP showed planned FTEs for 2012-13 as 100. However, the FTE figure presented in the 2012-13 RPP is 52. The explanation provided was that the change in planned FTEs reflect some re-alignments between Program activities following the implementation of the CIC/IRCC's new PAA beginning in 2011–12.

In addition to the resources, the transfer of the Program from CIC/IRCC to PCH had a significant impact on the Program and on recipients. For PCH this included:

• changes to roles and responsibilities for the Multiculturalism Program Policy Unit. Policy staff assumed responsibilities for some of the communications activities that had been the responsibility of the Communications Branch at CIC/IRCC.
• Inter-Action was staffed based on the CIC/IRCC 2015 intake of 52 applications, but the 2017 intake had a significant increase in demand for project funding with over 250 applications, challenging Inter-Action's capacity to manage the increased workload and to provide services to the regions.
• gaps in terms of the availability of historical information and data about the Program
• completeness of files. The Office of the Chief Audit Executive identified a risk regarding the completeness of files transferred by CIC/IRCC to support PCH's administration of payments. As a result, contribution agreements were reviewed and it was determined that over 80% of payments were supported by adequate documentation, indicating that PCH has taken measures to manage this risk.

For funding recipients this included:

• delays in approvals of their projects
• limited multi-year funding. Only a few recipients received approval of their request for multi-year funding. Those who wanted funding in subsequent years had to reapply. This created uncertainty for recipients. Most reduced the scope of their projects.

4.4.2. Performance measurement

Evaluation question:

To what extent is an effective performance measurement in place?

Key finding:

The issues of the availability of consistent, appropriate and reliable outcome data, identified in the 2012 evaluation report persist. This evaluation encountered challenges with the availability of performance data, particularly to measure the achievement of outcomes. There is currently limited evidence to demonstrate if, or to what extent, the Multiculturalism Program is achieving its objectives and expected outcomes or to identify what works, to support future funding decisions.

The 2012 evaluation report identified issues around the availability of performance data and recommended that the Program implement a robust performance measurement strategy. The document and administrative data review and interviews with Program staff determined that, in response to the 2012 recommendation, the following actions were taken by the Multiculturalism Program:

• The performance measurement strategy and logic model were reviewed and revised. The Logic Model was approved in the summer of 2015, just before the transfer of the Program to PCH. The CIC/IRCC logic model and indicators have been reviewed and streamlined as part of the 2017 exercise to develop a Performance Information Profile (PIP). This version was intended to provide an overview of the Program in the transitional period between CIC/IRCC and PCH.
• An Inter-Action client survey to collect data from Inter-Action participants was developed. The survey was implemented in 2013-14 but it was not conducted in 2014-15. Between April 1, 2015 and August 2015, the Program did not have access to on-line survey software and between August and October 2015, public opinion research was suspended due to the federal election. The Program has not resumed the survey since the transfer of the Program to PCH.

As was the case in the 2012 evaluation, there was limited performance data available that would enable an assessment of the Program's achievement of its objectives or outcomes. Between 2011-12 and 2016-17, the data collected was still predominately output data.

In the case of Inter-Action, the Office of the Chief Audit Executive review of 24 files found that contribution agreements included monitoring and performance requirements for recipients to demonstrate that projects were progressing in a timely fashion, and follow-up was performed by PCH officials and documented.^{Footnote 89}

Although recipients are complying with the performance requirements set out in their contribution agreements, the information they are being asked to provide does not enable an assessment of the project's contribution to the achievement of Program outcomes. It was observed that:

• Recipients are not asked to report against specific Program outcome indicators in their final project activity reports. Instead, the final activity report consists of a series of open-ended questions including: an overall assessment and general overview of achievements in relation to Contribution Agreement requirements; a description of the completed project, and an explanation of how funding helped the project achieve expected results. As a result of the open-ended nature of the questions, consistent information is not being provided across projects.
• Apart from one year of data from feedback surveys, there was no consistent information available on the impact of project participation on individual participants. Some funded organizations, as part of their own evaluation processes, conducted participant surveys and reported the results in their final activity reports. However, these were developed by the organizations themselves to meet their own decision-making needs. Regardless, the survey was not designed to measure the impact on long-term attitudinal change. It is also difficult to attribute changes in behavior or attitudes to the multiculturalism intervention when there may be other factors at play that may be exerting an influence at the same time. This challenge is encountered frequently in social programs. As a result of these challenges, the Program lacks the evidence-base on which initiatives and activities achieve the best results, information which would support future funding decisions.
• Although recipients are asked to report participation numbers in their final project activity reports, it was unclear how participation is defined. There was considerable variation among reports in terms of who was included. Also, participation was reported by activity so it was difficult to determine how many unique individuals participated in the project.
• The qualitative information collected by the Program from the final project reports is not being rolled-up, analyzed, or used.
• The reporting on indicators in the DPRs and the RPPs was inconsistent across the years covered by the evaluation.

PCH key informants who commented on performance measurement noted a number of challenges associated with measuring outcomes. Many key informants (11/16) linked the difficulty measuring outcomes to the broad objectives of the Program. They indicated that there is a need to review the objectives to better articulate the impact PCH wishes to achieve and to more directly reflect the priorities and challenges the Program wants to address, and then develop realistic outcome indicators. A few key informants supported the observation made through the file review and case studies indicating that recipients are not asked to report on outcomes. About half of respondents noted that there is a need to change the tools, including the guidelines, application form, assessment forms and project/event activity reports.

5. Conclusions

This section presents the evaluation conclusions related to relevance and performance (efficiency and effectiveness) and other evaluation issues, including design and delivery and performance measurement.

5.1. Relevance

There is a continued need for multiculturalism programming in Canada. There is evidence that Canada's increasing diversity is creating tensions in Canadian society which pose a threat to social cohesion. The continued inequities experienced by certain groups in Canadian society also points to the need to continue to promote policies and programs that work toward achieving greater equality for all Canadians.

Gaps exist in terms of the Program's response, including responding to racism and religious intolerance; supporting public institutions to address systemic issues; engaging stakeholders at all levels to determine the appropriate policy and program response to issues of diversity; supporting and providing project funding to local and regional community organizations; and developing evidence-based policy and programming options.

The ability of the Program to meet needs and address gaps is constrained by:

• the capacity to achieve the broad policy objectives of the Act;
• a lack of evidence to inform policy and program development; and
• a lack of performance data to provide evidence on whether their activities are effective or to make program adjustments.

The federal government's role is mandated through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Multiculturalism Program is one means by which the federal government implements the multiculturalism policy and the Act. Multiculturalism is a core Canadian value and part of the Canadian identity. Therefore, PCH is the appropriate department to lead federal responsibilities related to multiculturalism as it aligns with the Department's mandate which includes fostering and promoting Canadian identity and values.

The Multiculturalism Program aligns with and supports the Government of Canada's diversity and inclusion priority. However, the concept of diversity and inclusion is broader in that it includes groups not typically covered under the concept of multiculturalism. Greater clarity is needed on the Program's role in supporting the broader definition of diversity.

The objectives of the Program have not been re-examined since the Program's transfer to PCH. These should be reviewed to ensure that they are still relevant, are focused on the Program's priorities, align with its activities and reflect the results the Program can reasonably expect to achieve.

Canada is becoming increasing diverse, and the issues associated with this diversity are increasingly complex. Several gaps have emerged during the period covered by the evaluation in terms of the Program's response, including a lack of: focus on issues of racism and discrimination; support for institutional change to address systemic issues; and project funding to address unique regional or local needs. A number of factors affect the Multiculturalism Program's ability to respond and point to the need for a comprehensive reassessment of the Programs mandate, roles and responsibilities for addressing the issues; within the context of limited resources, the identification of priority areas for action, and the development of relevant objectives with measurable outcomes.

5.2. Effectiveness

In the absence of performance data, there is limited evidence to conclude that the Program has achieved its outcomes. As a result, the Program is unable to demonstrate that the current program levers are the most effective tools to address current and emerging issues.

Evidence from the file review and case studies suggest that the projects that were funded through Inter-Action aligned with and contributed to the Program objective and the expected outcomes of increased inter-cultural understanding, increased civic memory and pride and respect for core democratic values. Through public outreach and promotion activities, particularly Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month, the Program reached and engaged Canadians. The inactivity of MCN and the FPTORMI network since the transfer of the Program from CIC/IRCC and the limited scope of their activities impacted the effectiveness of the two networks. There is evidence that PCH engagement on the international front influenced domestic activities.

5.3. Efficiency

Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, the Program lapsed $11,671,828 of Gs&Cs funding. When funding is not being distributed to recipients, it reduces the potential impact of the Program and its efficiency. The efficiency of the Program has also been affected by the length of time it takes to make decisions on project funding.

5.4. Other evaluation issues

There are several factors with respect to the current decentralized design and delivery model of the Program that impact effective program delivery, including:

• challenges with effective communications, coordination and decision-making;
• unclear roles and responsibilities associated with program policy;
• capacity issues for the Multiculturalism Policy Unit role in delivering public outreach and promotion activities and for Inter-Action to respond to an increased volume of applications; and
• ineligibility of local and regional project proposals for project funding through Inter-Action.

There is currently limited evidence to demonstrate the extent to which the Program overall, and individual projects, are contributing to the achievement of the Program's expected outcomes. There is a need, therefore, to modify the Program's Performance Information Profile and reporting tools to ensure that they include outcome indicators on all aspects of the Program's delivery, and that information is collected that will enable an assessment of the effectiveness of Program. Outcome information is essential to ensure that resources are being directed to activities that contribute to the achievement of the Program's expected outcomes.

6. Recommendations, management response and action plan

Since the writing of this Report, Budget 2018 announced $23 million over two years starting in 2018–19 to the Multiculturalism Program to support events and projects that help individuals and communities come together. This funding will support cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach, and will dedicate increased funds to address racism and discrimination against Indigenous Peoples and women and girls. Also, the Government proposed to provide $19 million over five years to enhance local community supports for youth at risk and to develop research in support of more culturally focused mental health programs in the Black Canadian community.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage presented its report – Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia (PDF format) – to Parliament on February 1, 2018. The Report is in response to a House of Commons Motion 103 which called on the Government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination." The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was mandated to undertake a study on how the Government could:

1. develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy making; and
2. collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Private Members' Business M-103).^{Footnote 90}

Based on the findings of this evaluation, six recommendations are being made. The following presents the recommendations and the management response and action plan.

Recommendation 1

Context/Preamble

A number of contextual elements have implications for the Multiculturalism Program, including continuing rapid socio-demographic changes in Canadian society, religious intolerance directed to certain religions; incidence of hate crimes; the program's transfer from CIC/IRCC in 2015, the Government of Canada's diversity and inclusion priority and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage study of Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination Including Islamophobia. Given this context, a policy development exercise will guide decision-making and set the future direction of the Multiculturalism Program, identify important connections and opportunities for coordination of activities within the federal government, and with the provinces and territories and with other stakeholders.

Recommendation 1

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should lead a policy development exercise which, within the context of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, will articulate the Multiculturalism Program's vision, goals/objectives, priority actions, roles and responsibilities and the expected results for the Program going forward. This policy visioning exercise should be inclusive of consultations with internal and external stakeholders, national and local community organizations, its existing networks (MCN and FPTORMI) and others, as appropriate.

Management response

PCH agrees with this recommendation. A number of activities already underway will contribute to this exercise: Canada's 2017 appearance before the United Nations' Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; recent Parliamentary Secretary regional roundtables on multiculturalism; and the development of the Government response to the Standing Committee's report on systemic racism and religious discrimination (M-103).

Further additional context comes with the recent federal 2018 budget announcement which proposes to provide $23 million over two years, starting in 2018–19, to increase funding for the Multiculturalism Program. This funding would support cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach, would bring together a diversity experts, community organizations, citizens and interfaith leaders to find new ways to collaborate and combat discrimination, and would dedicate increased funds to address racism and discrimination targeted against Indigenous Peoples and women and girls. Federal budget 2018 also provides a new funding of $19 million over five years that would help address challenges faced by Black Canadians and to enhance local community supports for youth at risk and to develop research in support of more culturally focused mental health programs in the Black Canadian community.

Recommendation 1 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
1.1 Review diagnostic work carried over the last year– identify gaps and synthesize.	Complete a comprehensive corpus of factsheets and background documents.	Spring 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR)
1.2 In light of evidence of racism and discrimination in Canada, the announcement in Budget 2018, initiatives in several provinces, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage's report on systemic racism and religious discrimination (M103), recommendations made by the United Nations' CERD, and the recognition of the International Decade of People of African Descent, engage in consultations with Canadians, other federal departments and other levels of government, representatives of racialized groups, human rights and social advocacy groups, industry associations and employment groups, think tanks, community organizations and organizations. Further, advisory bodies will be established to provide expert advice on gaps in current service and community needs.	Develop a consultation approach, including notably a citizen consultation survey and regional roundtables	Spring 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
	Engage in national consultations, establish an advisory committee, as per para. 7(1) of the Act, and an interfaith leaders table to help focus possible activities to be undertaken by the government	Summer and Fall 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
	Consult the Multiculturalism Champions Network (MCN) and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multicultural Issues Network (FPTORMI) where appropriate	Summer and Fall 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR)
1.3 Develop policy options that will articulate the Multiculturalism Program vision, goals/objectives, priority actions, roles and responsibilities and the expected results for the program going forward (i.e. a new logic model and performance measurement approach). This key priority action will be done under the guidance of the Program Coordination Committee (see recommendation 4). Validate recommendations with Departmental Executive Committee, including program policy orientations and a revamped performance measurement strategy with a new logic model.	Engage in a visioning exercise and develop relevant documentation and briefings	End of Fall 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
	Presentation to Departmental Executive Committee.	End of Fall 2018 or early Winter 2019
Full Implementation Date: end of fiscal year 2018-2019

Recommendation 2

Context/Preamble

In assessing the relevance of the Multiculturalism Program, the need to conduct or fund research in support of evidence-based decision-making was a reoccurring theme that was raised by key informants and identified in the literature. In this context, the absence of comprehensive research and/or analysis on effectiveness of interventions raises a risk that funds may be directed to activities which do not meet the needs/issues in the most effective way.

Recommendation 2

To address the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions (what works) in support of policy development and program decision-making, the Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should examine and implement (for example, through research and experimentation) ways to measure the impact of program interventions, projects and activities.

Management response

PCH agrees with this recommendation. In the absence of performance data, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that the Multiculturalism Program is achieving its objectives and expected outcomes. As such, there is a pressing need for the program to explore ways to capture information related to program impacts more effectively. This could include deliberate experimentation with different program approaches and robust results monitoring to allow for replication of successful programs.

Recommendation 2 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
2.1 Increase the capacity of the Multiculturalism Program to identify and analyze new trends in research, statistical data, to be responsive to pressing issues and needs, and to experiment on best approaches to performance measurement.	Hire at least 2 or 3 research analysts	Winter 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
	Research on innovative and promising approaches to performance measurement to feed into concrete program practices	End of Winter 2019
2.2 Increase and reinforce the Program's stakeholder engagement mechanisms by capitalizing on recent budget 2018 announcements for cross-country consultations, including through inter and intra-department engagement, and find ways to better measure the impacts of social programming	Recommendations included in the report of the Pan-Canadian consultations on a new national anti-racism approach	End of Fall 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
	Reinvigoration of FPTORMI Renewed engagement with the Canadian Coalition of Municipalities against Racism and Discrimination (CCMARD)	Winter 2018
2.3 Look at similar Departmental initiatives or programs (e.g. OL Program Support) and/or Government of Canada (GC) programs that have recently developed a performance measurement strategy which includes ways of measuring the impact of funded projects and activities	Mapping analysis document and recommendations	Fall 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
2.4 As part of the new Black Canadian Youth-at-Risk strategy, an evaluation framework will be developed to assess performance outcomes and a data collection strategy. This new performance measurement framework for the Black Youth at risk strategy will be used as a pilot.	Use the performance measurement framework for the Black Youth at risk strategy as a pilot to develop clear and evidence-based policy objectives	Early Winter 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
Full implementation date: end of fiscal year 2018-2019

Recommendation 3

Context/Preamble

The 2012 evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program identified issues with the availability of performance information, particularly information on program and project outcomes. Although issues had been identified through previous recommendations made by an evaluation undertaken at CIC/IRCC, many of the same issues were again encountered in this evaluation.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should:

1. Update the Program Information Profile to include indicators measuring immediate, intermediate and long term program outcomes.
2. Review and revise the data collection instruments and existing mechanisms to ensure outcome data is collected and analyzed for all elements of the program.

Management response

PCH agrees with this recommendation. The Multiculturalism Program's Performance Measurement Strategy and Logic Model were last reviewed and approved the summer of 2015, while the Program was at Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Following the transfer of the program to PCH, a "Draft Logic Model" and revised Program Information Profiles were developed to provide an overview of the Program in the transitional period between IRCC and PCH.

These changes in approach to reporting serve as a basis for discussion pending the more detailed work that will be undertaken following the program renewal exercise to be undertaken under recommendation 1. Consequently, further steps are required to develop new program objectives, including the development of a new Logic Model and performance indicators that will be aligned with a renewed vision, goals and objectives for the Multiculturalism Program.

Recommendation 3 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
3.1 In the transitional period between IRCC and PCH, revised Program's Program Information Profile (PIP) were developed to ensure that they include indicators that align with the expected outcomes and priorities of the program. This exercise was completed in November 2017 (reference to Recommendation 3a).	Revised PIP	Completed in November 2017	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR), Strategic Planning (SPPR) and Community Engagement (Citizen Participation)
3.2 Develop new program objectives as part of the visioning exercise outlined in recommendation 1, including a new logic model and a revised set of indicators that align with this new framework.	Development of a new program objectives and logic model. Ensure that the Performance information Profile align with the new logic model.	End of Fall 2018 or early Winter 2019 (in concordance with Departmental Executive Committee approval)	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR), Strategic Planning (SPPR) and Community Engagement (Citizen Participation)
3.3 Through this review process, there is also a need to ensure that data collection instruments and existing mechanisms to analyze outcome data are sufficient to address all reporting elements of the program (Recommendation 4b). Internal reviews of existing data collection tools will be undertaken to ensure that they are sufficient and that information is up-to-date to allow performance reporting. If necessary, a mitigation approach will be developed to address current and new reporting needs (based on the new framework). New tools and methodologies will be developed.	Internal review of existing tools. Develop a data collection mitigation strategy, if needed Develop new tools and methodologies as required (e.g. impact evaluation surveys).	End of Winter 2019	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR), Strategic Planning (SPPR), Policy Research Group (SPPR) and Community Engagement (Citizen Participation)
Full implementation date: end of FY 2018-2019

Recommendation 4

Context/Preamble

The program's delivery structure introduced at CIC/IRCC made effective governance a challenge as noted in the 2012 evaluation. With the transfer, PCH retained the split between operations and policy that existed at CIC/IRCC. However, while the Communications Branch at PCH, provides advice to the Multiculturalism Program, at CIC/IRCC Corporate Communications developed and delivered the public education and promotion activities on behalf of the program. This has caused an increased workload for the Multiculturalism Policy Unit.

Delivery of the Program within PCH involves a number of branches, including the Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, the Citizen Participation Branch, the Communications Branch and the Regions. Under this structure, the program has continued to experience challenges with respect to effective governance. The fragmented nature of this structure has led to challenges in communication, coordination and shared decision-making generally. More specifically, a gap with respect to program policy was identified. There are also issues with respect to the capacity and role of the Multiculturalism Policy Unit to deliver public outreach and promotion activities. Finally some inefficiencies have been noted in the decision-making process for planning and reporting.

Recommendation 4

To address the identified governance challenges, improve communication, collaboration and decision-making the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, and the Director General, Communications should review the Program's structure (which has a wide scope of policy, outreach and operational activities delivered through two sectors, all regions, and one direct report) as well as the roles and responsibilities.

Management response

PCH agrees with this recommendation and will review the governance structure of the program, and will take steps to improve coordination and communication mechanisms between the relevant groups in the Department in order to increase Program efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendation 4 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
4.1 Create a Multiculturalism Program Coordination Committee that will be mandated to review the structure of the Multiculturalism Program and to look at better ways to support communication and coordinated decision making among the responsible or involved branches and units of the program, including Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR), Community Engagement (Citizen Participation), Regional offices, and Communications branch.	Creation of the Multiculturalism Program Coordination Committee.	Mid-April 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions, and Communications
	Development of options and recommended approach on the governance, management and delivery structure of the Program.	Fall 2018
4.2 Validate recommendations with the Departmental Executive Committee, including proposed governance structure of the Program	Presentation to Departmental Executive Committee.	Early Winter 2018	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions, and Communications
4.3 Develop a Multiculturalism Program Coordination Committee work plan, composed of sub-thematic working groups with terms of reference and a mandate to provide guidance and ensure a coordinated approach to the Program, including the program renewal exercise.	Develop and implement the Committee work plan as specified.	Summer 2018 to Spring 2020 Ongoing oversight	Multiculturalism Policy (SPPR) in collaboration with Inter-Action NHQ and regions
Full Implementation Date: spring 2020

Recommendation 5

Context/Preamble

The 2010 Call for Proposals was the last call to fund local organizations to undertake projects that address local needs. Subsequently, for the 2015 CIC/IRCC call and 2017 PCH call, projects had to be national in scope to be eligible for funding. As a result, a gap has emerged in terms of project funding for local organizations to address unique regional and local systemic issues and needs.

Recommendation 5

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should revisit the eligibility criteria for projects to allow for support to address systemic regional and local issues.

Management Response

PCH agrees with this recommendation. The Inter-Action Program recognizes that the application eligibility requirement for a national scope limited the kind of clients and projects that it was able to consider in order to address local needs. The Inter-Action Program also recognizes that PCH regional offices are well-placed to provide support towards project applications.

Work is underway to include local and regional projects within future calls for proposals, to implement current government priorities, and the Budget 2018 announcement for Strengthening Multiculturalism and Addressing the Challenges Faced by Black Canadians.

The Program plans to test this approach via a priority-themed call for applications with targeted groups. This will entail a much more inclusive call that will highlight local, regional and national projects, thus allowing localized issues to be addressed in the next call for applications.

Recommendation 5 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
5.1 These further steps will help moving forward in revisiting the eligibility criteria for projects to allow for support to address systemic regional and local issues: Modify program application guidelines to include larger scope of local, regional, or national projects; Modify assessment criteria to include local and regional projects; and Next call for proposal to include projects that address racism and discrimination against targeted groups.	Updated application guidelines for Inter-Action: Multiculturalism Project component.	May 2018	Program Management / Inter-Action NHQ and regions
5.2 Projects will be divided between regions and HQ as appropriate, in order to address specific localized needs	Applications are triaged between HQ and regional offices after call for applications.	July 2018, or six weeks after new call for applications in April 2018	Program Management / Inter-Action NHQ and regions
Full implementation date: summer 2018

Recommendation 6

Context/Preamble

The efficiency of the Multiculturalism Program has been affected by the lengthy time frames of the approval process. Specifically, in regards to the 2016-17 call for applications, the 26 week service standard for notification of the funding decision was not met for the majority of files (50/56). In approximately 20% of files, the funding decision was made 10 or more weeks beyond the 26 week service standard.

Recommendation 6

In order to provide recipients with timely funding decisions the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship, Heritage and Regions, should implement measures to ensure the Program service standards are met.

Management response

Management agrees with the recommendation. Of 290 initiatives (including events and projects) funded in 2017-18 by the Inter-Action Program, 245 (85%) received funding of less than $75,000. Inter-Action is unique in requiring a high level of approval for small funding amounts, which results in delays in decisions for applicants. The trend toward a higher volume of lower dollar-value projects is likely to continue, in light of the recent budget decision and the inclusion of regional and local anti-racism initiatives, as recommended in this evaluation.

Recommendation 6 – action plan

Action item	Deliverable(s)	Timeline	Program official responsible
6.1 The program will review 2017-18 data on file processing in both Events and Projects funding streams of Inter-Action.	Analysis of data and identification of key delays in process, recommendations to senior management	June 2018	Inter-Action Program Management NHQ
6.2 Implement decisions of senior management	Revised assessment and/or approval process	July 2018	Inter-Action Program Management NHQ
Full implementation date: summer 2018

Annex A: evaluation framework

Available upon request: PCH.dse-esd.PCH@canada.ca

Annex B: bibliography

Anderson, B. and Coletto, D. The True North, Friendly & Free: What makes us proud to be Canadian. Ottawa: Abacus Data, 2016.

Angus Reid Institute. What makes us Canadian? A study of values, beliefs, priorities and identity. Vancouver: Angus Reid Institute, 2016.

Biles, John. "The Government of Canada's Multiculturalism Program: Key to Canada's Inclusion Reflex?" in The Multicultural Question: Debating Identity in 21st-century Canada, edited by J. Jedwab, 11-22. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014.

B'nai Brith. Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. Toronto: B'nai Brith, 2016.

Canada, Governor General. Making real change happen: speech from the Throne to open the first session of the forty-second Parliament of Canada. 2015.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Report on Canadian Values. Toronto: Canadian Race Relations Foundation, 2014.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Departmental Performance Report for the year ending 2014-15.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Funding Guidelines: National Call for Proposals. 2015.

Department of Canadian Heritage. Application Guidelines – Projects – Inter-Action: Multiculturalism Funding Program. 2017-07-13.

Department of Canadian Heritage. Revue de la littérature : évaluation du programme du multiculturalisme. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage, Policy Research Group, 2017.

Department of Finance. Budget 2016: Growing the middle class. 2016.

Department of Finance. Budget 2017: Building a strong middle class. 2017.

Department of Justice Canada. Canadian Multiculturalism Act. 1988, c. 31.

Department of Justice Canada. Constitution Act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1982.

Department of Justice Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage Act S.C. 1995, c. 11.

Dewing Michael. Canadian Multiculturalism. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2009.

Gonick, Cy and Levy, Andrea. "Barbara Perry on the Far Right in Canada." Canadian Dimensions 51, 4 (Autumn-Winter 2017).

Government of New Zealand. Initiatives to Improve Social Cohesion. Ministry of Social Development. No date.

Griffith, Andrew. "The Conservative Legacy on Multiculturalism: More Cohesion Less Inclusion." Policy Options (October 2015).

Griffith, Andrew. Multiculturalism in Canada: Evolution, Effectiveness and Challenges. Ottawa: The Pearson Centre for Progressive Policy, 2017.

Hasford, Julian. "Dominant Cultural Narratives, Racism, and Resistance in the Workplace: A Study of the Experiences of Young Black Canadians." American Journal of Community Psychology 57 (2016): 158-170.

Hyman, I., Meinhard, A., & Shields, J. The role of multiculturalism policy in addressing social inclusion processes in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Multicultural Educational Foundation, 2011.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Departmental Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2016.

Kitchen, Peter et al. "Sense of belonging to local community in small-to-medium sized Canadian urban areas: a comparison of immigrant and Canadian-born residents." BMC Psychology 3, 1 (2015).

Leung, Ho Hon. "Canadian Multiculturalism in the 21st Century: Emerging Challenges and Debates." Canadian Ethnic Studies 43-44, 1-3 (2011-2012): 19-33.

Livingstone, Anne-Marie and Weinfeld Morton. "Black Families and Socio-economic Inequality in Canada." Canadian Ethnic Studies 47, 3 (2015): 1-23.

Nagra, Baljit and Peng, Ito. "Has Multiculturalism Really Failed? A Canadian Muslim Perspective." Religions 4 (2013): 603-620.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators. OECD, 2011.

Perry, Barbara. "Disrupting the Mantra of Multiculturalism: Hate Crime in Canada." American Behavioral Scientist 59, 13 (2015): 1637-1654.

Perry, Barbara. "Gendered Islamophobia: Hate Crime Against Muslim Women." Social Identities 20 (1) (2014): 74-89.

Perry, Barbara and Scivens, Ryan. Right Wing Extremism in Canada: An Environmental Scan. Research funded by Kanishka Project Contribution Program. 2016.

Province of British Columbia. Organizing Against Racism & Hate.

Province of Ontario. A Better Way Forward: Ontario's 3-Year Anti-Racism Strategic Plan. 2017.

Silj, A. (Ed.). European multiculturalism revisited. London: Zed, 2010.

Statistics Canada. "Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2015/2016." Juristat, 2017.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Identity 2013, Spotlight on Canadians: Results from the General survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2015.

Statistics Canada. Canadians' perceptions of personal safety and crime, 2014. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2017.

Statistics Canada. General Social Survey. Canadian Identity. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013.

Statistics Canada. Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada, National Household Survey. 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013.

Statistics Canada. Police-reported hate crime, 2016. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2017.

The Association for Canadian Studies. Selected Views on Diversity in Canada. Montreal: The Association for Canadian Studies, 2017.

The Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration. Canadian Index for Measuring Integration. 2011.

The Environics Institute. Focus Canada – Fall 2016 Canadian public opinion about immigration and citizenship. Toronto: Environics Institute, 2016.

The Environics Institute. Survey of Muslims in Canada. Toronto: The Environics Institute, 2016.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia – Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. 2018.

Thomas, Brian. "Invisibility, Multiculturalism, and Black Canadians." Constellations 21, 4 (2014): 589-607.

Tiflati, Hicham. "Muslim Youth between Quebecness and Canadianness: Religiosity, Identity, Citizenship, and Belonging," Canadian Ethnic Studies 49, 1 (2017): 1-17.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2017-18 Estimates.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Main Estimates 2010-2011.

Treasury Board Secretariat. Policy on Results. Ottawa: 2016

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Supplementary Estimates (A), 2009-10.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action: Calls to Action. 2015.

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Statement to the media by the United Nations' Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, on the conclusion of its official visit to Canada, 17-21 October 2016.

Wood, James. "There is volatility out there: Alberta government readies new push against racism." Edmonton Journal, March 13, 2017.