Evaluation of Interdepartmental Coordination (in relation to section 42 of the Official Languages Act) 2013-14 to 2017-18

Evaluation Services Directorate
March 3, 2021

On this page

• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of acronyms and abbreviations
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Profile of Interdepartmental Coordination
  • 2.1. Background
  • 2.2. Profile
  • 2.3. Management and governance
  • 2.4. Roles and responsibilities
  • 2.5. Main coordination mechanisms
  • 2.6. Resources
  • 2.7. Target population and stakeholders
• 3. Approach and methodology
  • 3.1. Scope
  • 3.2. Evaluation questions
  • 3.3. Calibration
  • 3.4. Data collection methods
  • 3.5. Limitations, context and mitigation strategies
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1. Effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms used to coordinate PCH work (between the IRAD and section 42 coordinators)
  • 4.2. Effectiveness of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms
• 5. Conclusions
  • 5.1. Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms used to coordinate work at PCH (between IRAD and section 42 coordinators)
  • 5.2. Regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms
• 6. Recommendations, response, and management action plan
• Appendix A: structure of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms
• Appendix B: detailed findings by PCH Administrative Region
  • Atlantic Region
  • Quebec Region
  • Ontario Region
  • Prairies and Northern Region
  • Western Region
• Appendix C: bibliography

List of Tables

• Table 1: roles and responsibilities of IRAD members
• Table 2: roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators
• Table 3: profile of the PCH Coordinators Network (Network 42)
• Table 4: estimate of the number of IRAD members responsible for Network 42 and the number of section 42 coordinators responsible for interdepartmental coordination, by region in 2017-18
• Table 5: number of key stakeholders who participated in the interviews, by region
• Table 6: limitations of the evaluation
• Table 7: population profile and description of interdepartmental coordination, per region
• Table 8: recommendation 1 – Action plan
• Table 9: recommendation 2 – Action plan
• Table 10: recommendation 3 – Action plan
• Table 11: profile of the population in 2016
• Table 12: description of Network 41 – Atlantic
• Table 13: profile of the population in 2016
• Table 14: description of the Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL)
• Table 15: profile of the population in 2016
• Table 16: description of the Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN)
• Table 17: profile of the population in 2016
• Table 18: description of the Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL)
• Table 19: description of the Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL)
• Table 20: profile of the population in 2016
• Table 21: description of the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC)
• Table 22: description of the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA)

List of Figures

• Figure 1: main interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in each PCH administrative region
• Figure 2: illustration of the evaluation scope
• Figure 3: effectiveness of coordination mechanisms in the regions
• Figure 4: satisfaction with coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in the regions
• Figure 5: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in the Atlantic Region
• Figure 6: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Quebec Region
• Figure 7: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Ontario Region
• Figure 8: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Prairies and Northern Region
• Figure 9: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Western Region

List of acronyms and abbreviations

BCFCOLC

British Columbia Federal Council – Official Languages Committee

BC-INOLC

British Columbia Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators

ESD

Evaluation Services Directorate

INOLCA

Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta

IRAD

Interdepartmental Relations and Accountability Directorate

MINOL

Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages

OL

Official languages

the Act

Official Languages Act

OLB

Official Languages Branch

OLIN

Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (Quebec)

OLMC

Official language minority communities

OOLIN

Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network

PCH

Department of Canadian Heritage

POLC

Prairie Official Languages Committee

QFC-OL

Quebec Federal Council – Official Languages Committee

SINOL

Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages

Alternate format

Evaluation of Interdepartmental Coordination (in relation to section 42 of the Official Languages Act) 2013-14 to 2017-18 [PDF version - 1.98 MB]

Summary

This document presents the findings of the evaluation of interdepartmental coordination related to section 42 of the Official Languages Act (referred to also as interdepartmental coordination) for the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18.

Description of interdepartmental coordination

Interdepartmental coordination began in 1994, following the launch by the Government of Canada of the accountability framework for the implementation related to sections 41 and 42 of the Act. The objective was to respond to the requirements of section 42 of the Act, under which the Minister of Canadian Heritage (PCH) is responsible, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, for promoting and encouraging a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions (section 41 of the Act). This section aims to enhance the vitality of English and French minority communities and support their development in order to foster the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society. To this end, PCH encourages collaboration and incites federal institutions, both nationally and at the regional level, to adopt positive measures to implement this commitment. PCH focuses on accountability, which includes, among other things, informing federal institutions of their obligation under Part VII of the Act.

To coordinate actions in the area of interdepartmental coordination, PCH created Network 42, in which members of the IRAD and section 42 coordinators participate. In addition, to fulfill their regional roles and responsibilities, section 42 coordinators support, coordinate, or preside over networks and interdepartmental official languages committees in their region.

Interdepartmental coordination is a responsibility of the Official Languages, Heritage and Regions sector and is delivered by:

• Headquarters, specifically the Interdepartmental Relations and Accountability Directorate (IRAD), which is under the Official Languages Branch (OLB);
• PCH regional offices, specifically section 42 coordinators in the five regions; Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Northern, and Western.

Evaluation approach and methodology

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016). Evaluation Services Directorate took advantage of the flexibility of that policy to focus the scope on the information needs of the various key stakeholders, in order to provide information useful to continually improving interdepartmental coordination. This evaluation therefore examines the effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms, particularly the work done by and with PCH regional offices. It also aims to identify strengths, challenges, needs, possible improvements and the individual characteristics of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms with and within PCH regional offices.

The data collection methods used in this evaluation consist of a document review, a survey, interviews and a media review.

Findings

Effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms used to coordinate work with PCH (between the IRAD and section 42 coordinators)

The evaluation findings indicate that the mechanisms for coordination between the IRAD and section 42 coordinators were effective, but that challenges, needs and opportunities for improvement exist.

While the roles and responsibilities of IRAD members and section 42 coordinators are well understood, differences were noted in the roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators by region, including time spent on interdepartmental coordination. Even though section 42 coordinators are generally program officers who play the role of interdepartmental coordinators part-time, evaluation findings reveal that there are no formal expectations or objectives regarding their work as section 42 coordinators, although these exist for those who work full-time. Although the nature of the work of PCH’s section 42 coordinators does not seem to have changed, their roles and responsibilities may have changed depending on their region.

Network 42 has a multi-year work plan and annual progress reports. However, annual reporting is limited to a description of activities, with no indication of their scope, the results achieved or their impact.

In general, IRAD members and section 42 coordinators are satisfied with Network 42. Meetings allow for the sharing of information on official languages. The frequency of meetings has been relatively stable. Various types of tools related to Part VII of the Act have been developed and shared with members of Network 42. An online platform was created to archive network information and share it with members. However, the evaluation did not identify tools designed for interdepartmental coordination work, or any official orientation or training activities for new section 42 coordinators.

The evaluation findings also reveal that there is an asymmetry among regions in the interdepartmental coordination function. Differences have been noted in the time spent on interdepartmental coordination, the roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators, the resources available, the structure of coordination mechanisms and official languages issues by region. Difficulties in sharing information among members of Network 42 was also noted as a challenge, as a lot of coordination work is still done in silos.

The needs and possible improvements identified in the evaluation findings include the update and development of tools related to Part VII of the Act that are more practical and more targeted to regional realities, and training for section 42 coordinators in the regions. A better definition of the duties of section 42 coordinators, expectations and objectives regarding interdepartmental coordination are also suggested as possible improvements.

Effectiveness of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

The evaluation findings indicate that, in general, regional coordination mechanisms are effective and that participants are satisfied with interdepartmental coordination, even though there are needs, challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Despite regional variations in both the structure of the mechanisms for interdepartmental consultation related to section 42 of the Act and in activities and operational practices, these coordination mechanisms are generally seen as good platforms for sharing information on official languages, including Part VII of the Act. Different activities have also been implemented to foster cooperation and exchange among federal institutions. In addition to regular meetings, consultation mechanisms in the regions have assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other official languages activities or events in the region, including Part VII of the Act^{Footnote 1}.

However, the evaluation findings indicate that section 42 coordinators in several regions are experiencing difficulties due to a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators, and a lack of understanding shown by the senior management of some regional federal institutions with respect to their roles and responsibilities under Part VII of the Act. Given their limited ability to exert influence, section 42 coordinators have expressed the importance of regional PCH senior management support to the achievement of their work. While different types of tools and documents related to Part VII of the Act have been developed and shared with regional coordination mechanism members, the evaluation findings indicate that there is a need to update them and to develop more tools related to Part VII of the Act and to ensure that they are more targeted to regional realities.

No potential overlap or duplication of the work of interdepartmental coordination with other regional coordination mechanisms was identified.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions implement concrete actions to strengthen regional interdepartmental coordination and to increase awareness among federal institutions’ regional senior management about their roles and responsibilities in respect to Part VII of the Act.

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions conduct an exercise to develop measurable expected results in order to better tell the story of the results of the work carried out by Network 42 members, and to show their impact over time.

Recommendation 3

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions ensure the development of tools and provide training to support the work of the section 42 coordinators.

1. Introduction

This document presents the findings of the evaluation of interdepartmental coordination related to section 42 of the Official Languages Act (referred to also as interdepartmental coordination) for the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18. This evaluation was carried out in accordance with the Canadian Heritage (PCH) Departmental Evaluation Plan (2018-19 to 2022-23) and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on Results (2016).

The report is divided into six sections. Apart from the introduction, the main sections of the report are as follows:

• Section 2 presents the program profile;
• Section 3 presents the approach, methodology and limitations of the evaluation;
• Section 4 presents the findings;
• Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions;
• Section 6 presents the recommendations and the management response and action plan.

2. Profile of Interdepartmental Coordination

2.1. Background

The Act confers responsibilities on the Government of Canada regarding official languages. Adopted by the Government of Canada in 1969, the Act recognizes English and French as the country’s two official languages in all matters pertaining to Parliament and the Government of Canada. In 1988, the Act was amended to support the development of Anglophone and Francophone minority communities. The amendments include the addition of Part VII “Advancement of English and French” (sections 41 to 45), which includes support for the development of official language minority communities (OLMCs) and the advancement of the equality of status and use of official languages within Canadian society.

In 2005, Part VII of the Act was amended to increase the accountability of all federal institutions by requiring that they take positive measures to implement their commitment with respect to section 41 of the Act. The Act also states that any failure in this regard may be subject to recourse before the courts.

As a result, of Cabinet changes, PCH’s specific responsibilities regarding official languages were assigned by Order in Council to the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie (from July 2018 to December 2019) who became the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (since December 2019).

2.2. Profile

Interdepartmental coordination began in 1994, allowing PCH to meet this requirement under the Act. It is one of three components of the official languages coordination program, which includes:

1. Horizontal coordination of official languages;
2. Coordination of the implementation of the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–18 and horizontal coordination of the Action Plan for Official Languages – 2018–2023;
3. Interdepartmental coordination related to section 42 of Part VII of the Act.

In particular, the activities carried out as part of interdepartmental coordination,^{Footnote 2} both nationally and regionally, are as follows:

• Provide a framework and bilateral liaison with federal institutions;
• Encourage and provide interdepartmental coordination at the regional level;
• Provide liaison with key stakeholders at PCH and in the federal system;
• Lead or take part in interdepartmental networks;
• Exercise and encourage sectoral or thematic coordination in order to maximize the potential for federal institutions to engage with OLMCs;
• Coordinate section 41 of the Act within PCH;
• Provide liaison with community representatives in the field.

2.3. Management and governance

Interdepartmental coordination work is carried out by IRAD members at headquarters and by section 42 coordinators at the five PCH regional offices.

The working relationships with IRAD and among the section 42 coordinators are based on collaboration. Each PCH regional office is responsible for allocating the financial and human resources, which have been dedicated to interdepartmental coordination.

Interdepartmental coordination is a responsibility of the Official Languages, Heritage and Regions sector. It is provided by:

• Headquarters, specifically the Interdepartmental Relations and Accountability Directorate (IRAD), which is under the Official Languages Branch (OLB);
• PCH’s five regional offices in the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Northern, and Western regions.

2.4. Roles and responsibilities

The roles and responsibilities of IRAD members and section 42 coordinators cover a wide range of inter-departmental coordination activities.

In general, IRAD members are responsible for national interdepartmental coordination, particularly coordination with section 41 coordinators (or federal institutions’ regional resources persons responsible for implementing section 41 of the Act) located at headquarters, and to create opportunities for dialogue concerning national issues with OLMC. IRAD members are also responsible for coordinating PCH’s interdepartmental coordination work across Canada through Network 42. The table below outlines their roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

Table 1: roles and responsibilities of IRAD members

At headquarters

In regions, provinces and territories

Communicate information on the programs and services of federal institutions to OLB agents, to section 42 coordinators and to OLMC; Produce and disseminate tools to facilitate the work of national section 41 coordinators and section 42 coordinators; Provide liaison with the entire OLB regarding interdepartmental coordination; Coordinate the network of section 41 coordinators at federal institutions (concerning section 41 of the Act); Create opportunities for national and sectoral dialogue between federal institutions and OLMC; Establish interdepartmental mechanisms or support mechanisms established by other federal departments or agencies; Support the work of national section 41 coordinators and provide liaison with them.

Communicate information on the programs and services of federal institutions to OLB agents, to section 42 coordinators and to OLMC; Produce and disseminate tools to facilitate the work of national section 41 coordinators and section 42 coordinators.

Section 42 coordinators are responsible for interdepartmental coordination in PCH’s regions. Their duties include supporting the work of regional section 41 coordinators (federal institutions’ regional resource persons responsible for implementing section 41 of the Act) who take care of their region’s file, and creating opportunities for dialogue with OLMC in their region. In addition, they participate in Network 42. Their roles and responsibilities are outlined in the table below (Table 2).

Table 2: roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

With headquarters (with IRAD)

In regions, provinces and territories

Ensure that IRAD is kept informed of ongoing interdepartmental activities, projects and initiatives in their region, province or territory.

Provide liaison with staff at PCH regional/provincial/territorial offices on issues related to interdepartmental coordination; Create opportunities for provincial-territorial and sectoral dialogue between federal institutions and OLMC; Foster links between federal institutions and OLMC at the provincial and territorial level; Establish interdepartmental mechanisms or support mechanisms established by other federal departments or agencies; Support the work of regional section 41 coordinators and provide ongoing liaison with them.

2.5. Main coordination mechanisms

2.5.1. PCH’s Coordination mechanism: Network 42

In 2005, to coordinate PCH’s actions across the country, the PCH Coordinators Network (also known as Network 42) was created. The network is made up of representatives from Canadian Heritage who are responsible for interdepartmental coordination, both at headquarters (IRAD members) and in the regions (section 42 coordinators). The following table presents a profile of Network 42.

Table 3: profile of the PCH Coordinators Network (Network 42)

Objective	Support interdepartmental coordination and increase the scope of federal interventions in the regions.
Description	Network 42 is a forum for providing an overview of issues, problems, major files and initiatives related to interdepartmental work in the area of official languages.
Mandate	Consists of: strengthening the interdepartmental coordination role of PCH (section 42 of the Act) at the national and provincial/territorial level; promoting the exchange of information and best practices between the Interdepartmental Relations and Accountability Directorate (IRAD) and those responsible for interdepartmental coordination at the provincial/territorial level; promote the complementarity of interdepartmental initiatives undertaken for the benefit of OLMC by PCH and other federal institutions at both the national and regional levels; serve as a forum for discussion on interdepartmental issues related to OLMC development.
Chair	One co-chair from IRAD and another from a PCH Regional Office.
Members/Participants	IRAD members; Section 42 coordinators; Other regional staff who support the work of section 42 coordinators.
Meetings	According to the mandate of Network 42, three to four conference calls are planned per year. The document review and interviews indicate that an annual face-to-face meeting and bilateral meetings were also held during the period under review.
Authority	According to available documentation, Network 42 does not report to any other interdepartmental committee or network.

2.5.2. Regional coordination mechanisms

To fulfill their roles and responsibilities, particularly those related to “creating opportunities for dialogue between federal institutions and OLMC” and to “support the work of the regional section 41 coordinators at federal institutions,” section 42 coordinators support, coordinate or chair interdepartmental networks or committees related to section 42 of the Act in each PCH administrative region. The following figure shows the main interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in each region that were analyzed as part of this evaluation project.

Figure 1: main interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in each PCH administrative region – text version

This figure illustrates the main interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in each PCH administrative region studied in the context of the evaluation and related to the Network 42. In the Western region comprised of Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta, there is the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC) and the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA). In the Prairies and Northern region, there is the Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL) and the Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL). In the Ontario region, there is the Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN). In the Quebec region, there is the Quebec Federal Council – Official Languages Committee (QFCOL). In the Atlantic region, there is the Atlantic Section 41 Network. No interdepartmental coordination mechanism was identified for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut or Yukon.

In general, there is at least one coordination mechanism in each PCH region. No interdepartmental coordination mechanism was identified for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut or Yukon, although there seems to have been liaison and representation activities.

In addition to the interdepartmental networks related to section 42 of the Act, regional federal councils ensure the exchange of information on regional issues and assist central agencies and Deputy Ministers achieve the Government of Canada’s priorities. Some regional federal councils have set up a Subcommittee on Official Languages. Some PCH section 42 coordinators have been encouraged to support or participate in the Federal Council Official Languages committee in their region, as is the case for the Quebec and Western Region, more specifically, for British Columbia.

2.6. Resources

The Official Languages Coordination Program does not administer any grant or contribution agreements. The program’s financial resources are based on expenditures that include salaries, the cost of benefits, and operating and maintenance costs, but they are not itemized to the level of the interdepartmental coordination component.

The table below presents an estimate of the number of human resources dedicated to ensuring interdepartmental coordination by and with PCH’s regions.

Table 4: estimate of the number of IRAD members responsible for Network 42 and the number of section 42 coordinators responsible for interdepartmental coordination, by region in 2017-18

Key stakeholder categories	Headquarters	Atlantic Region	Quebec Region	Ontario Region	Prairies and Northern Region	Western Region	Total
Full time IRAD members (responsible for regional interdepartmental coordination)	2	-	-	-	-	-	2
Section 42 coordinators	-	1	1	1	1	2	6

2.7. Target population and stakeholders

The target population and the stakeholders for interdepartmental coordination include:^{Footnote 3}

Target population:

• The Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie (2018–2019), the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (December 2019 to present) and the Minister of Canadian Heritage;
• All partners responsible for official languages in federal institutions (including section 41 coordinators at federal institutions);
• Canadians living in OLMC;
• OLMC stakeholders.

Main stakeholders:

• Coordinators responsible for interdepartmental coordination at PCH (section 42 coordinators);
• IRAD members responsible for interdepartmental coordination;
• Section 41 coordinators or federal institutions’ resource persons supporting the implementation of the commitment under section 41 of the Act;
• Official languages champions and co-champions.

Stakeholders who have a role to play with regard to official languages:

• All those responsible for official languages at federal institutions;
• The three federal institutions responsible for official languages coordination and accountability activities (The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for interdepartmental coordination for Parts IV, V, and VI of the Act; PCH for Part VII of the Act. Justice Canada assumes overall responsibility for the OLA, advises the government on legal issues relating to the status or use of official languages and represents the government in disputes relating to language rights. The Department also has specific responsibilities with regard to the administration of justice in both official languages).

3. Approach and methodology

This evaluation was conducted in compliance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016). It was conducted by ESD, with input from external resources, including a team of consultants and the PCH Policy Research Group (PRG). The evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the Departmental Evaluation Plan for 2018-19 to 2022-23.

3.1. Scope

The Evaluation Services Directorate took advantage of the flexibility of that policy to focus the scope of the evaluation on the information needs of the different key stakeholders in order to provide information useful to continued improvements in interdepartmental coordination. To that end, exploratory interviews were conducted with key interdepartmental coordination stakeholders at PCH, both at headquarters and in the regions.

Following those interviews, it was agreed that this evaluation would cover the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18 and would focus on the effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms (concerning section 42 of the Act), particularly the work done by and with PCH regional offices. It would aim to identify strengths, challenges, needs, possible improvements and individual interdepartmental coordination mechanism with and within of PCH’s regional offices.

Figure 2: illustration of the evaluation scope – text version

This figure illustrates the evaluation scope. The evaluation was guided by two questions. The first question focused on the work done within Heritage Canada, more specifically between IRAD and Section 42 coordinators. The second question focused on the work done between Heritage Canada and other federal institutions, more specifically between Section 42 coordinators and Regional section 41 coordinators.

3.2. Evaluation questions

As illustrated in the figure above, the evaluation was guided by the following two questions:

1. To what extent are the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms^{Footnote 4} used to coordinate the work of the IRAD and section 42 coordinators at PCH effective?
   1. How well do the coordination mechanisms meet the needs of section 42 coordinators and IRAD members?
   2. Are there opportunities to improve their effectiveness?
2. To what extent are the regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms effective?
   1. How well do the regional coordination mechanisms meet the needs of the resource people at federal institutions who support the implementation of the commitments set out in section 41 of the Act?
   2. What are the strengths and challenges of the regional coordination mechanisms?
   3. Are there opportunities to improve their effectiveness?

3.3. Calibration

The evaluation of interdepartmental coordination was calibrated as follows:

• The scope of the evaluation was defined based on the information needs of the different key stakeholders in order to provide information useful for the continuing improvement of interdepartmental coordination;
• At the request of the program, representatives of OLMC organizations were not considered as potential key stakeholders in this evaluation, to avoid any burden related to research. As well, consultations had just taken place to develop the “Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-23,” and others will take place to modernize the Act;
• Data collection favoured existing data sources, but additional data was collected to supplement or validate available secondary data, where necessary;
• Only regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms that were active in 2018-19 were included in this evaluation.

In the federal government, calibration allows for adjustments to the way evaluations are conducted in light of various factors to achieve quality evaluations in an economical way, while maintaining the credibility and usefulness of the results achieved.

3.4. Data collection methods

Various data collection methods were used to increase the reliability of the findings. Data collection methods included primary and secondary data. The observations, findings and conclusions of the report are based on more than one data collection method unless otherwise indicated. The evaluation included the following data collection methods:

3.4.1. Document review

The data and documents reviewed included, but were not limited to, documents from the Government of Canada and PCH, as well as interdepartmental coordination by both IRAD and regional offices (including agendas, minutes, and presentations made by the various interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act). The document review covered 2013-14 to 2017-18. IRAD members and the section 42 coordinators from each PCH region provided the documents. Approximately 600 documents were reviewed.

3.4.2. Survey

Evaluation Services Directorate, with the support of PRG, conducted an online survey of members, participants, and individuals from federal institutions who had been invited to attend interdepartmental coordination mechanism meetings in the regions during the period covered by the evaluation. Members of OLMC organizations and PCH staff who attended the meetings were excluded from the survey. The objective of this survey was to obtain the views of these stakeholders on, among other things, the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms, their strengths, challenges, and the elements to be improved.

The online survey was distributed to 611 people. One hundred and sixteen (116) people took part in the survey, for a response rate of 18.9% (margin of error of 8%, 19 times out of 20). Of those respondents, 58 had responsibilities related to Part VII of the Act. To mitigate the low response rate, the findings were validated by other data sources, including meeting minutes and interviews with section 41 coordinators who did not participate in the survey.

3.4.3. Interviews

Forty-two (42) semi-structured interviews were conducted with internal and external stakeholders. The interviews were conducted in person for stakeholders located at headquarters and in Winnipeg, and by telephone for the other key stakeholders. The interviews made it possible to gather the opinions, needs, and views of the different stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms, their strengths, challenges, and the elements to be improved.

The internal stakeholders included 22 PCH staff members located in the regions and 5 members at headquarters (IRAD), including PCH’s section 41 coordinator. The external stakeholders included 15 federal institution staff (section 41 coordinators) located across the five PCH regions. The table below lists the number of stakeholders of each type, by region.

Key stakeholder categories	Headquarters	Atlantic Region	Quebec Region	Ontario Region	Prairies and Northern Region	Western Region	Total
Internal stakeholders: IRAD members	5	-	-	-	-	-	5
Internal stakeholders : Section 42 coordinators and other PCH staff in the regions	-	5	2	4	6	5	22
External stakeholders : Section 41 coordinators in the regions	-	2	2	2	5Table 5 note *	4Table 5 note **	15
Total	5	7	4	6	11	9	42

Table 5 notes

Table 5 note *

3 interviews with MINOL members and 2 interviews with SINOL members

Return to table 5 note * referrer

Table 5 note **

2 interviews with BCFCOLC members and 2 interviews with INOLCA members

Return to table 5 note ** referrer

3.4.4. Media review

A review of online newspapers was conducted to better identify some community needs and the context in which interdepartmental coordination of section 42 is carried out across the regions. This review was conducted for the period from January 2014 to December 2018. 166 articles were identified and analyzed from 32 newspapers (15 English language and 17 French language).

3.5. Limitations, context and mitigation strategies

The table below presents the limitations, context and mitigation strategies used.

Table 6: limitations of the evaluation

Limitations	Context and mitigation strategies
Attribution	Although the documentation refers to numerous indicators that show positive results that contribute to the implementation of section 41 of the Act, it was hard to attribute those successes to the regional coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act. There were certainly links to PCH activities, but the link to section 42 coordinators was often not explicit and the documentation did not systematically make that link. Mitigation Strategy. A crosscheck (triangulation of data) was carried out using data from other sources of information. This multi-method approach helped mitigate the limitations encountered.
Consistency, uniformity or standardization of documents	Despite the number of documents reviewed, they were not always consistent and uniform from year to year. Mitigation Strategy. A crosscheck (triangulation) of data was conducted using other sources of information to resolve these gaps, such as interviews, a survey, etc.
Gaps in the size of the actual target population for the survey	The main limitation of the survey was not knowing the total size of the population targeted (i.e. respondents with responsibilities related to Part VII of the Act). This limitation was due to the lack of detailed data available to differentiate among members, participants and guests of regional interdepartmental mechanisms, including their responsibilities related to the Act, particularly Part VII of the Act. Mitigation Strategies. Filter questions were added to the survey to identify the target respondents. However, as the total number of target respondents was not known at the beginning, the response rate specific to the population targeted could not be calculated, even though it was possible to calculate the response rate for the total number of survey respondents.

4. Findings

4.1. Effectiveness of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms used to coordinate PCH work (between the IRAD and section 42 coordinators)

The evaluation findings indicate that the mechanisms for coordination between IRAD and section 42 coordinators were effective, but that there are needs, challenges and opportunities for improvement.

4.1.1. Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

In general, the roles and responsibilities of IRAD members and section 42 coordinators, as described in the Act or the Network 42 work plan (2018–21), are well understood. The key informant interview and document review findings indicate that there are differences among regions in the role of section 42 coordinators and in the time spent on interdepartmental coordination. With the exception of Prairies and Northern as well as Ontario Regions in 2017-18, interdepartmental coordination is only a part-time function. In addition to participating in Network 42, the part-time regional section 42 coordinators in support, coordinate or chair the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in their region. It is important to note that part-time section 42 coordinators are first and foremost program officers (PM-04) or managers (PM-06 for the Quebec Region) who perform the interdepartmental coordination duties during their free time. However, the time spent coordinating networks varies from region to region.

PCH region	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies and northern	Western
Total populationTable 7 note 1	1,569,000	8,066,555	13,312,870	2,421,930	8,660,625
French – mother tongue (Canada outside Quebec)/ English mother tongue (Quebec)Table 7 note 1	274,160 (17.5%)	657,080 (8.1%)	527,690 (4.0%)	61,890 (2.6%)	145,050 (1.7%)
French – 1st official language spoken (Canada outside Quebec)/ French – 1st official language spoken (Quebec) (Includes respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 7 note 2	273,300 (17.4%)	1,242,380 (15.4%)	597,070 (4.5%)	60,055 (2.5%)	163,165 (1.9%)
Number of section 42 coordinators by region	1	1	1	1	2
Position held by the section 42 coordinator	PM-04	PM-06	PM-04	PM-04	PM-04	PM-04
Time dedicated to interdepartmental coordination in 2017/18	Part-time	Part-time	Full-timeTable 7 note 3	Full-timeTable 7 note 3	Part-time	Part-time
Interdepartmental coordination mechanism	Network 41 (Atlantic)	QCFOL	OOLIN	SINOL and MINOL	INOLCA	BCFCOLC
Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators with respect to coordination mechanisms in the regions	Chairing and coordination	Coordination	Co-chairing and coordination	Coordination	Chairing and coordination	Advising/ consulting

Table 7 notes

Table 7 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Survey)

Return to table 7 first note 1 referrer

Table 7 note 2

Source: Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 7 note 2 referrer

Table 7 note 3

Before 2017-18, this position was held by a part-time coordinator

Return to table 7 first note 3 referrer

During the key informant interviews, the section 42 coordinators indicated that having more time dedicated to interdepartmental coordination or being full-time would not only allow them to improve accountability, but also to undertake more follow-ups, to be more strategic and proactive in their actions to “advance files” and “knock on the doors” of federal institutions and OLMC in the regions.

However, aside from the annual work plans developed by some regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act or the Network 42 work plan, there may not be any formal expectations or objectives for the work of the part-time section 42 coordinators. No job descriptions or performance objectives for the part-time section 42 coordinator positions were found, although these exist for full-time coordinators. For some regions, the roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators go beyond Part VII of the Act and may include Parts IV, V, and VI of the Act, for which Treasury Board is responsible. They may also overlap with those of national section 41 coordinators given that section 42 coordinators may be raising the awareness of and sharing tools with regional section 41 coordinators regarding their roles and responsibilities.

Based on the interviews, during the period evaluated, the nature of the work of section 42 coordinators at PCH seems to have been relatively consistent. However, several factors may have influenced the evolution of their roles and responsibilities. These include changes to the regional official language interdepartmental networks or committees (such as the merger of networks and committees from 2013 to 2015 and subsequent new roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators). As well, the section 42 coordinators’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities and of their initiatives to address the challenges in their regions sometimes lead them to assume roles that surpass those described in the Network 42 mandate or work plan (2018 to 2021).

4.1.2. Roles and responsibilities of PCH staff in the regions supporting the work of section 42 coordinators

Based on the interviews and the document review, other PCH staff in the regions working on official languages files support the work of the section 42 coordinators. Some occasionally attend Network 42 meetings and meetings for interdepartmental mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act held in the regions. According to the documentation, the number seems to vary from region to region. The interviews indicate that other regional PCH staff provide administrative support (such as taking notes at meetings, the logistics of meetings for interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in the regions, the translation of documents, etc.) or help to create links, particularly between section 42 coordinators and members of OLMC in the regions.

4.1.3. Network 42 reporting

In regards to reporting, a multi-year work plan and an annual progress report are developed for Network 42. While the work plans can contain priorities, objectives, examples of actions and indicators, the current progress reports seem to be limited to examples of activities, with no indication of their scope, achievement of results or impact.

One of the limitations of this evaluation was the difficulty in attributing success to coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act. The interviews with section 42 coordinators and the document review also identified the need to better tell the story of the results of the work done by Network 42 members in order to strengthen interdepartmental coordination.

4.1.4. Activities

Network 42 was active and different types of meetings were held during the period covered by the evaluation. The frequency of face-to-face meetings was stable; however, the frequency of teleconference or WebEx meetings fluctuated. The participation rate at meetings varied from 82% for teleconference or WebEx meetings to 100% for face-to-face meetings. In the interviews, most section 42 coordinators indicated satisfaction with the resumption of bilateral meetings between the IRAD and section 42 coordinators (2018).

In general, the interviews reveal that the meetings helped to develop a sense of belonging, to ensure the coordination of actions, to exchange, and to stay up to date regarding official languages, both at headquarters and in the regions.

4.1.5. Collaboration and exchanges

Collaboration and exchanges between Network 42 members (IRAD and section 42 coordinators) are important, as they keep members informed about official languages and allow best practices to be shared, issues to be raised and solutions to be identified. Network 42 is co-chaired by IRAD and a regional representative. Round tables are encouraged at the meetings. There are consultations and feedback on specific themes, working groups have been set up and reports on Network 42 achievements are shared with the members.

During the interviews, IRAD members noted the importance of knowing more about the work being done across the regions, the situation of OLMC, and the needs of section 42 coordinators in order to better assist and equip them. Section 42 coordinators indicated the importance of being informed of official languages developments at the national level and in other regions, as they do not always have time to stay informed.

Ad hoc working groups were set up to meet certain needs (such as developing work plans, etc.). However, the interviews revealed that, apart from Network 42 meetings, there does not appear to be much exchange among regional section 42 coordinators. Apart from a few one-time exchanges on specific topics, such as on the Language Internship initiative or the exchanges between section 42 coordinators from Alberta (in Western Region) and Prairies and Northern Region, including their coordination networks, which both report to the POLC. Challenges were noted in the interviews regarding collaboration and exchanges, including the tendency to work in silos and exchanges that were more reactive than proactive.

4.1.6. Tools

The interviews indicate that tools are essential to the work of section 42 coordinators. According to a few stakeholders, the tools distributed concerning Part VII of the Act are one of the means used by the section 42 coordinators in the regions to raise awareness and encourage federal institutions to become involved with OLMC.

Various tools and documents were developed and shared to inform and coordinate the actions of Network 42 members, including summaries of parliamentary committee hearings; updates of meetings with other official languages committees; compilations of reports from federal institutions; tools related to Part VII of the Act; and Network 42 work plans, and progress report templates. A SharePoint platform called R42N was created in 2018 to share and archive information among Network 42 members, although according to the interviews, adjustments are still needed to integrate it as a working tool.

The findings of the evaluation also indicate that no tools for interdepartmental coordination work, specifically best practice and training tools seem to have been developed to assist section 42 coordinators in their work. The interviews showed that training might not have been provided systematically to new section 42 coordinators, although, in the interviews, the majority of the Network members noted the importance of having structured training to support new section 42 coordinators in their work.

4.1.7. Challenges

Most section 42 coordinators and IRAD members indicated that they were satisfied with Network 42.

In general, in addition to the strengths mentioned above, the following challenges were also noted during interviews with members of Network 42, including the following:

• The asymmetry of the interdepartmental coordination function among regions (time spent, roles and responsibilities, available resources, structure of regional coordination mechanisms, regional challenges), which raises challenges in terms of coordinating PCH’s regional actions;
• A high turnover rate among IRAD members (until approximately 2015-16) which changed working relationships with the regions during this period;
• Information sharing, as the work is still done in silos.

4.1.8. Needs and possible improvements

Needs and possible improvements were identified by IRAD members and section 42 coordinators in the interviews and in the document review, including the following:

• Share more information between the national and regional levels to “be more proactive” and to strengthen bilateral mechanisms between the IRAD and each of the regions;
• Better tell the story of the results of the work done by the members of Network 42;
• Allow more time to be dedicated to regional interdepartmental coordination to improve their work, such as to do follow-ups and “knocking on the doors” of federal institutions and OLMC;
• Have more tools to assist section 42 coordinators in their interdepartmental coordination work (such as best practices regarding interdepartmental coordination);
• Systematically offer training to new section 42 coordinators;
• Have a more horizontal vision of interdepartmental coordination at the national and regional levels (particularly by further encouraging the link between national and regional section 41 coordinators and the links between regional senior management and the work of section 41 coordinators) in order to foster and further encourage the coordination of federal institutions’ implementation of section 41 of the Act;
• Define the duties and clarify the expectations and objectives regarding interdepartmental coordination (Network 42).

4.2. Effectiveness of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

Overall, the evaluation findings indicate that regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms were effective and that participants were satisfied with interdepartmental coordination, although needs, challenges, and areas for improvement were identified. In particular, 69% of external survey respondents (regional section 41 coordinators) agreed that the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in the regions were effective.

Source: survey conducted with members of/participants in/guests at regional interdepartmental official languages networks and committees.

Figure 3: effectiveness of coordination mechanisms in the regions – text version

How effective are official languages interdepartmental coordination mechanisms regarding Part VII of the Act? (n=48)	Percentage (%)
Very ineffective	4.2
Ineffective	4.2
Neither	22.9
Effective	62.5
Very effective	6.3

4.2.1. Activities

The vast majority of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act were active during the period under review.^{Footnote 5} The evaluation findings indicate that meetings enabled the sharing of information and best practices concerning Part VII of the Act.

4.2.2. Collaboration and exchanges

Various activities were elaborated to encourage collaboration and exchanges among federal institutions concerning Part VII of the Act. Ad hoc working groups were created to meet certain needs and to implement certain official languages activities in the regions. In addition to regular meetings, regional consultation mechanisms have assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other official languages activities or events in their region.

4.2.3. Tools

Different types of tools and documents related to Part VII of the Act were developed and shared with members of the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in the regions. While 74% of survey respondents (regional section 41 coordinators) indicated that they were satisfied with the tools distributed, they also indicated that they needed more practical, concise and attractive tools that are more targeted to the reality of their region.

4.2.4. Structure of regional coordination mechanisms

Differences in structure were noted among regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms. As illustrated in Appendix A, some interdepartmental coordination mechanisms report to a region’s federal council, while others report to other regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms or not at all. In Atlantic Region and Alberta in Western Region, interdepartmental coordination mechanisms are dedicated exclusively to Part VII of the Act, while the other regions include Parts IV, V, and VI of the Act. Some interdepartmental coordination mechanisms encourage, at every meeting, members of OLMC organizations to make presentations, while others do so only occasionally.

4.2.5. Strengths

Various strengths of the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in the regions were identified during the interviews, the document review and the survey, including sharing information on official languages, including Part VII of the Act, and exchanges and networking opportunities with members from other federal institutions. Some section 41 and 42 coordinators among PCH administrative regions also mentioned the sharing of information with OLMC members.

The evaluation also measured the satisfaction of section 41 coordinators who are members of the regional coordination mechanisms regarding different aspects of interdepartmental coordination. As indicated in figure 4, areas where satisfaction rates are highest include presentations (84% satisfied) and meeting management (83%). Satisfaction rates are lower for tools distributed (71%).

Source: Survey conducted by the ESD of members/participants/guests of interdepartmental official languages networks or committees (n=47) in the region

Figure 4: satisfaction with coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in the regions – text version

Elements of interdepartmental coordination mechanism concerning Part VII of the act by Canadian Heritage in your region (Percentage)	Unsatisfied	Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied	Satisfied
Tools distributed	6.3%	22.9%	70.8%
Records and minutes of meetings	10.4%	16.7%	72.9%
Frequency of meeting	8.2%	18.4%	73.5%
Management of member meetings, including follow-up	8.5%	8.5%	83.0%
Presentations	4.1%	12.2%	83.7%

4.2.6. Challenges

A number of challenges were identified during the interviews, the survey, and the document review. Among the common challenges identified were: a lack of support, commitment and awareness by senior management at certain federal institutions with respect to Part VII of the Act; a high turnover rate among regional section 41 coordinators; a lack of communication and information sharing between the national section 41 coordinators at some federal institutions and their regional counterparts (regional section 41 coordinators) and a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of regional section 41 coordinators concerning Part VII of the Act. These challenges have an impact on the work of section 42 coordinators, who often find that they have to raise awareness among regional section 41 coordinators regarding their roles and responsibilities, and among senior management of certain federal institutions concerning their responsibilities with respect to Part VII of the Act.

4.2.7. Needs and possible improvements

In general, the survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators have been taken into account in the regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act, which has assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

To some extent, the interdepartmental coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act in the regions assisted in raising of awareness among federal managers with respect to responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

However, needs and possible improvements were identified by section 41 and 42 coordinators across the PCH administrative regions:

• Obtain support from senior management at some federal institutions concerning Part VII of the Act and involve them in the development of mechanisms to assist section 42 and 41 coordinators in their work, particularly to make progress on certain projects;
• Obtain the support of PCH’s regional senior management, given that most section 42 coordinators are program officers with limited influence working part-time on interdepartmental coordination. In effect, they rely on the support from PCH regional senior management, particularly to raise the awareness of other federal institutions’ regional senior management, to plan activities, do follow-ups, and make progress on their files;
• Have more activities with or information on OLMCs;
• Have more tools related to Part VII of the Act that provide concrete examples adapted to the reality of each region to share with section 41 coordinators (like best practices tools, positive actions, the findings of research on OL and OLMC);
• Develop more joint projects with other regional federal institutions.

No potential overlap or duplication of the work of interdepartmental coordination with other coordination mechanisms in any of the regions has been identified.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms used to coordinate work at PCH (between IRAD and section 42 coordinators)

The evaluation findings indicate that the mechanisms for coordination between IRAD and section 42 coordinators were effective, but that there are needs, challenges and opportunities for improvement.

The roles and responsibilities of IRAD members and section 42 coordinators as described in the Network 42 documents are well understood. However, differences were noted in the roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators depending on the region, as well as in the time spent on interdepartmental coordination. The evaluation findings indicate that there may not be any formal expectations or objectives regarding the work of part-time section 42 coordinators in the regions, while these exist for full-time section 42 coordinators. Although the nature of the work of PCH’s section 42 coordinators does not seem to have changed, their roles and responsibilities may have evolved.

A multi-year work plan and an annual progress report are developed for Network 42. However, annual reporting seems to be limited to describing activities, without any indication of their scope, the results achieved or their impact.

In general, IRAD members and section 42 coordinators are satisfied with Network 42. Different types of meetings took place during this period. The frequency of face-to-face meetings was stable, although the frequency of teleconference or WebEx meetings fluctuated. Various types of tools related to Part VII of the Act have been developed and shared with members of Network 42. An online platform was created to share and archive network information with members.

Among the challenges identified for Network 42, the evaluation findings noted the asymmetry of the interdepartmental coordination function among regions (time spent, roles and responsibilities, available resources, structure of the regional coordination mechanisms, challenges specific to individual regions) and the difficulty in sharing information, as the coordination work is still done in silos. In addition, there is no formal orientation or training for new section 42 coordinators.

The following needs and possible improvements were identified: to develop practical tools for interdepartmental coordination work or the work performed by section 42 coordinators; to provide training for section 42 coordinators; to define tasks; and to clarify expectations regarding interdepartmental coordination.

5.2. Regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

With few exceptions, the evaluation findings indicate that regional coordination mechanisms were effective and that participants were satisfied with the coordination, even though needs, challenges, and opportunities for improvement remain.

There are significant variations in coordination structure among regions. In some regions, the mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination concerning section 42 of the Act focus only on Part VII, while others focus on the Act in general (Parts IV, V and VI). Some regions have a full-time coordinator, others do not. Despite these differences, regional coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act are generally seen as good platforms for sharing information on official languages, including Part VII of the Act, with the exception of the SINOL, which was inactive in 2015-16 and 2016-17. These mechanisms assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or participate in other official languages activities or events, including Part VII of the Act, in the regions.

However, the evaluation findings identify a need to have updated tools that are adapted to the reality of each region. In several regions, it was also stated that section 42 coordinators are having difficulties subsequent to a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators, and the lack of understanding of some federal institutions’ regional senior management with respect to Part VII of the Act. In this respect, the importance of having the support of PCH’s regional senior management was noted. Given that most section 42 coordinators are program officers who work part-time in interdepartmental coordination, they depend on the support of PCH’s regional senior management, particularly to raise the awareness of other federal institutions’ regional senior management on their roles and responsibilities, in order to plan activities, do follow-ups, advance files, and contact the right resources at federal institutions.

6. Recommendations, response, and management action plan

Actions to strengthen support for section 42 coordinators in order to improve regional interdepartmental coordination

According to section 42 of the Act, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting and encouraging the implementation, by federal institutions, of the commitments set out in section 41 of the Act. To this end, PCH has, among other things, created a team with national (IRAD) and regional (section 42 coordinators) representation. The latter are responsible, in particular, for “creating opportunities for dialogue and fostering links between federal institutions and OLMC” and for “supporting the work of section 41 coordinators.”

However, the evaluation noted that there are differences in perception, as well as in roles and responsibilities, among section 42 coordinators. In some regions, their roles and responsibilities go beyond those assigned and may overlap with those of national section 41 coordinators. Differences were also observed in the amount of time spent on interdepartmental coordination and the support received by other regional PCH staff supporting the work of section 42 coordinators.

The evaluation findings also indicate that section 42 coordinators are generally program officers who carry out the interdepartmental coordination role part-time. However, with limited influence, they depend on support from PCH’s regional senior management to raise awareness among federal institutions’ regional senior management with respect to their roles and responsibilities in relation to Part VII of the Act. Section 42 coordinators’ work with regional section 41 coordinators depends heavily on this support to advance official languages issues in each region.

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions implement concrete actions to strengthen regional interdepartmental coordination and to increase awareness among federal institutions’ regional senior management about their roles and responsibilities with respect to Part VII of the Act.

Response from management - Recommendation 1

Recommendation accepted

PCH’s Official Languages, Heritage and Regions Sector, which includes the Official Languages Branch (OLB) and PCH’s regional offices, is aware of the importance of strengthening regional interdepartmental coordination while recognizing Regional Office delivery.

To this end, in collaboration with the RDG, the OLB initiated meetings in 2018 of federal councils to raise their awareness of their responsibilities under section 41 of the Official Languages Act and more generally under Part VII of the Act. This awareness-raising process will continue in 2020-21. In addition, IRAD representatives also initiated a series of meetings attended by PCH regional managers responsible for section 42 of the Act to share with them best practices and to better understand the challenges they face and thus develop tools that can better support them in this function.

The OLB will work with the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is responsible for the regional federal councils, to better inform them and provide them with appropriate support in the implementation of section 41.

The role of RDGs in implementing section 42 in the regions is fundamental. The Official Languages, Heritage and Regions Sector will ensure that RDGs have precise annual objectives on this topic.

Finally, the OLB, in collaboration with the regions, is developing a leadership strategy with an action plan for the implementation of Part VII of the Act that will include actions targeting members of the regional federal councils.

Action Plan item	Deliverable	Timeline	Authority
1. Integrate function 42 as an ongoing discussion item with RDGs.	1. A permanent agenda item on official languages for meetings between the ADM and RDG.	January 2021	RGD
2. Identify PCH’s role under section 42 as a priority of PCH regional offices ensuring RDGs play an active role as champions promoting the accountability of all in the implementation of section 41 across the country.	1. Integrate a specific objective into RDG performance objectives related to their role concerning section 42 of the Act.	June 2021	RDG
3. Work with Treasury Board Secretariat to explore the possibility that federal councils or their official languages committees might participate in national events and that the national level will hear about the regions.	1. Invitation to representatives of federal councils or OL committees of federal councils to attend national events related to Part VII of the Act.	March 2022	OLB in collaboration with the RDGs
4. Raise awareness among senior executives, including members of the federal councils, of their responsibilities under section 41 of the Official Languages Act and more generally under Part VII of the Act.	1. Meetings in which PCH participates (including those of the federal councils).	March 2022	OLB in collaboration with the RDGs
5. In collaboration with the regions, implement a leadership strategy with an action plan for the implementation of Part VII of the Act.	1. Implementation of the strategy, including developing actions specifically for implementation by regional members of the federal councils.	March 2022	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with the RDGs and regional OL managers
6. Seize opportunities for the IRAD and the regions to exchange and participate in each other’s activities.	1. Create an annual planning tool for national and regional meetings between federal institutions and OLMC.	September 2022	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with regional OL managers
7. Promote meetings between federal institutions and OLMC.	1. Number of meetings per year.	March 2022	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with regional OL managers

Full implementation date: March 2022

Better describe the work and the achievements of interdepartmental coordination.

The evaluation findings indicate that annual Network 42 reporting is taking place. While the work plans can include priorities, objectives, examples of actions and occasionally indicators, existing progress reports seem to be limited to describing the activities carried out.

One of the limitations of this evaluation was the difficulty in measuring the contribution to the success of the coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act. The evaluation findings also indicate the need to better tell the story of the results of Network 42 members’ work to strengthen interdepartmental coordination.

Ensuring that the mandate of Network 42 and its priorities translates into common expected results would allow interdepartmental coordination to better describe its achievements and demonstrate its impact over the years. Similarly, there would be an opportunity to better publicize the achievements and impacts of interdepartmental coordination in the Annual Report on Official Languages.

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions lead an exercise to develop measurable expected results to better tell the story of the results of Network 42 members’ work and to show its impact over time.

Response from management - Recommendation 2

Recommendation accepted

The Network 42 Review content and approach was redesigned for the 2018-19 edition to include specific objectives and indicators. The results are now presented in a way that tells the story of Network 42 as a whole rather than listing separate achievements by region.

This work will continue to ensure that tangible results are reported in the Annual Report on Official Languages that the Minister responsible for Official Languages must table in Parliament.

At an N42 meeting in November 2019, the members of the network, namely the IRAD and regional managers, determined that the new approach made it possible to better demonstrate N42’s impact in 2018-19.

Action plan item	Deliverable	Timeline	Authority
1. Continue with the approach to reporting developed in 2018-19 to better present the results of Network 42 members’ work.	1. Revised approach to better include N42 results in future reviews.	March 2021	OLB in collaboration with OL managers in the regions
	2. 2021–2024 Work Plan incorporating this revised approach.	March 2021	2. OLB in collaboration with OL managers in the regions
2. Identify individual regional and three common priorities for N42 annually.	1. Review of N42 achievements and inclusion of results in the Annual Report on Official Languages.	March 2021	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with the regions

Full implementation date: March 2021

Develop and update tools and training to better support the work of section 42 coordinators.

Overall, the evaluation shows that tools are essential to assist section 42 coordinators in their work.

To this end, the tools designed to promote Part VII of the Act assist section 42 coordinators increase awareness among federal institutions and regional section 41 coordinators regarding their roles and responsibilities. For the period under review, various types of tools related to Part VII of the Act were developed and shared with Network 42 members. Although the tools developed by IRAD are perceived to be useful and of good quality by the section 42 coordinators, the evaluation findings indicate that there are still needs, such as better knowledge of existing tools and having more practical, concise and attractive tools that are more targeted to the realities of the regions.

In addition, there seems to be no tools addressing the roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators (particularly tools describing best practices in interdepartmental coordination). On this topic, the evaluation findings indicate that formal and systematic training would assist new section 42 coordinators understand their roles and responsibilities more quickly and would support them in their coordination work.

Recommendation 3

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions ensure the development of tools and provide training to support the work of section 42 coordinators.

Response from management - Recommendation 3

Recommendation accepted

While there is no formal, standardized training program for new coordinators among regions, the sector is committed to developing processes that enable the OLB (IRAD) to systematically contact new coordinators to provide critical information about Network 42. Coaching will be provided according to each coordinator’s needs, level of knowledge, and experience.

In 2019-20, the OLB (IRAD) established a learning network to systematize training for IRAD’s employees and enable the continuous development of skills. This learning network was opened for the first time to Network 42 (via WebEx) in November 2019 so that the coordinators in the regions could benefit from a training session relevant to their duties. Training related to the needs identified by section 42 coordinators could be developed as part of the activities of this learning network.

All tools that promote Part VII and the approach that federal institutions should take to implement their obligations were reviewed during 2018-19 (more concise, more attractive, revised graphics, etc.). Canadian Heritage’s main tool kit for Part VII was made available to the public on Canada.ca in September 2019. It would therefore be more appropriate to focus on the need for tools, which address the roles and responsibilities of regional section 42 coordinators.

At the Network 42 annual meeting on November 26-27, 2019, a working session was held to identify the training, tools, and information needs of section 42 coordinators.

Action Plan item	Deliverable	Timeline	Authority
1. Develop tools that describe the role of section 42 coordinators based on a common understanding of function 42.	1. Tools developed and shared in a timely manner.	March 2022	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with the section 42 coordinators in the regions
2. With the assistance of section 42 coordinators, develop tools that are adaptable by each region and can reflect their priorities and needs.	1. Tools adapted to regional priorities and needs.	March 2022	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with the section 42 coordinators in the regions
3. Encourage systematic use of common platforms (SharePoint and GCcollab) to share existing and new tools with officials with section 41 responsibilities across the country.	1. Continuously populate platforms 2. Facilitate access and promote the platforms to all staff with OL responsibilities.	March 2021	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with regional section 42 coordinators
4. Encourage the participation of N42 members in the IRAD’s Learning Network, as necessary.	1. N42’s training needs are identified once a year.	March 2021	OLB (IRAD) in collaboration with regional section 42 coordinators
	2. Training tools for section 42 coordinators are reviewed annually.	March 2021
	3. A training schedule is developed for the IRAD Learning Network.	March 2022

Full implementation date: March 2022

Appendix A: structure of regional interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

PCH Administrative regions	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies and northern		Western
Coordination mechanism	Network 41 – Atlantic	QFCOL	OOLIN	MINOL	SINOL	INOLCA	BCFCOLC
Mandate	Foster greater cooperation among those responsible for the federal commitment under Part VII of the Act in the Atlantic Region.	Develop and implement interdepartmental actions regarding Parts IV to VII of the Act in accordance with the priorities of the QFC Strategic Framework.	Foster the exchange of information and best practices regarding official languages; promote partnerships to foster the sharing of interdepartmental projects and initiatives.	Foster collaboration among network members; improve network members’ knowledge of the various parts of the Act; and allow each federal institution to benefit from the resources, collective knowledge and experience of network members.	The mission of the SINOL is to encourage and support federal employees who are responsible for, involved in or passionate about official languages.	Organize recurring activities, strengthen links between federal institutions and community organizations, increase the sharing of good practices, and increase the understanding of official languages issues and their implications for each federal institution.	Support the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI, and VII of the Act in all federal institutions in the region. Provide regional leadership in official languages matters Provide opportunities that will facilitate the advancement of official languages in British Columbia.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Part VII	Parts IV, V, VI, and VII	Parts IV, V, VI and VII.	Parts IV, V, VI, and VII	Parts IV, V, VI, and VII	Part VII.	Parts IV, V, VI, and VII
Roles of the section 42 coordinator	Chair and coordination.	Coordination for Part VII of the Act.	Co-chair for Part VII of the Act and coordination.	Coordination of the network.	Coordination of the network	Chair and coordination.	Role of permanent advisor for Part VII of the Act.
Representatives of OLMC organizations are invited to regular meetings to make presentations	Yes	Occasionally	Occasionally	Yes	N/A (network was inactive from 2016-17 to 2017-18)	Yes	Occasionally
Authority	Network 41 — Atlantic does not report to any other interdepartmental committee or network in the region.	Reports to the Quebec Federal Council (QFC).	Reports to the Ontario Federal Council (OFC).	Reports to the Prairie Official Languages Committee (POLC).	Reports to the Prairie Official Languages Committee (POLC).	Reports to the Prairie Official Languages Committee (POLC).	Reports to the British Columbia Federal Council.

Appendix B: detailed findings by PCH Administrative Region

Atlantic Region

Population profile - Atlantic Region

Province	Total populationTable 11 note 1	French – mother tongueTable 11 note 1	Percentage (%)	French –1st official language spoken (including respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 11 note 2	Percentage (%)
New Brunswick	736,285	234,965	31.9%	235,660	32%
Nova Scotia	912,300	31,375	3.4%	30,250	3.3%
Prince Edward Island	141,020	5,130	3.6%	4,785	3.4%
Newfoundland and Labrador	515,680	2,690	0.5%	2,605	0.5%

Table 11 notes

Table 11 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Census)

Return to table 11 first note 1 referrer

Table 11 note 2

Source: the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 11 note 2 referrer

Main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Atlantic Region

Until 2013-14, interdepartmental networks and committees concerned with section 42 of the Act in Atlantic Region were structured by province. However, following changes to the regional federal councils in 2013-14, it was decided that these networks and committees would follow suite and move from a provincial to a regional structure.

Figure 5: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in the Atlantic Region – text version

In the Atlantic region, the main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages are the Atlantic Federal Council, the Official Languages Committee of the Atlantic Federal Council and the Network 41 – Atlantic. The Official Languages Committee of the Atlantic Federal Council relates to the Atlantic Federal Council. The Network 41 – Atlantic is the interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act in the region.

The Official Languages Committee of the Atlantic Federal Council and Network 41 – Atlantic deal particularly with official languages in Atlantic Region.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanism concerning section 42 of the Act

Network 41 – Atlantic is the interdepartmental coordination mechanism concerning section 42 of the Act in this region. The following table provides a brief description of the network.

Table 12: description of Network 41 – Atlantic

Mandate	Promote greater cooperation in Atlantic Region among those responsible for the federal commitment set out in Part VII of the Act.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Part VII.
Meetings	Regular face-to-face, WebEx or teleconference meetings Meetings should rotate among the four provinces.
Frequency of meetings	Three to four (3 to 4) times a year.
Roles of the section 42 coordinator	Chair and coordination.
Members	Persons appointed by federal institutions and preferably responsible for implementing section 41 of the Act in at least one of Canada’s Atlantic provinces.
Other: Structure of meetings	First part of the meeting: sharing with OLMC Second part of the meeting: exchanges among Network members.
Authority	According to the documentation found, Network 41 — Atlantic does not report to any other interdepartmental committee or network in the region.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review findings indicate that the role and responsibilities of section 42 coordinator in Atlantic Region were primarily to chair and coordinate Network 41 – Atlantic meetings. As needed, the section 42 coordinator provided training to new section 41 coordinators and facilitated the development of links between federal institutions and OLMC. For the period under review, the section 42 coordinator also implemented the Service Loan and Language Internship initiative in the region.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

Regular Network 41 – Atlantic meetings allowed for the sharing of information concerning Part VII of the Act. This network has been active since its creation and meeting frequency was relatively stable during the period covered by the evaluation. Representatives of OLMC organizations were invited on a regular basis to present at meetings. Exchanges and collaborations among Network members were encouraged. Training was offered to new section 41 coordinators, as well as the twinning of their activities with those of former section 41 coordinators. In addition to regular meetings, Network 41 – Atlantic assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other official languages activities or events in the region. This was particular the case for the Acadian World Congress in 2019, Official Languages Week in the Atlantic Region, Linguistic Duality Day, the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie and the Canadian Francophone Games. Various types of tools and documents were developed and shared with members of Network 41 – Atlantic, including tools related to Part VII of the Act. An online platform was created to share and archive network information with members.

The evaluation findings indicate that coordination mechanisms were effective in the Atlantic Region.

The strengths noted in the interviews, the document review and the survey include, in particular, the stability of Network 41 – Atlantic, the frequency of meetings, the activities organized by the section 42 coordinator, the sharing of information and collaboration among Network 41 – Atlantic members, and the training offered by the section 42 coordinator to section 41 coordinators concerning their roles and responsibilities.

Challenges were identified: a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators, their lack of knowledge concerning their roles and responsibilities, and a lack of support and commitment from senior management at some federal institutions.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the Network 41 – Atlantic which assisted them to better understand the needs of OLMC.

Half of the survey respondents indicated that Network 41 – Atlantic raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

However, needs and areas for improvement were identified during the interviews and the survey, including the following:

• Having more time and financial resources dedicated to interdepartmental coordination. Given the remoteness due to the unique regional structure of Network 41 – Atlantic, having more time and financial resources would allow for face-to-face meetings among the section 42 coordinator, section 41 coordinators and OLMC from the Atlantic provinces. In addition to strengthening the links between them, this would allow the section 42 coordinator to follow up with federal institutions and to establish more links with OLMC.
• Having more support from senior management at certain federal institutions, by including performance agreements for executive members and performance objectives regarding Part VII of the Act, and by further improving the link to and collaboration with the Federal Sub-Committee on Official Languages in the Atlantic Region.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Quebec Region

Population profile - Quebec Region

Province	Total populationTable 13 note 1	English –mother tongueTable 13 note 1	Percentage (%)	English –1st official language spoken (including respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 13 note 2	Percentage (%)
Quebec	8,066,555	657,080	8.1%	1,242,380	15.4%

Table 13 notes

Table 13 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Census)

Return to table 13 first note 1 referrer

Table 13 note 2

Source: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 13 note 2 referrer

Main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Quebec Region

Figure 6: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Quebec Region – text version

The main mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination that deal in particular with official languages in Quebec Region are the Quebec Federal Council and the Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL). There are also other mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination concerning official languages, including the following: the Annual Meeting of the Working Group on Arts, Culture and Heritage; The co-leaders initiative; the Quebec Community Groups Network – Speed Dating Event; the Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada – follow-up committees; and the Network of Official Languages Champions. The QFCOL is the interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act in the region.

The main mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination that deal in particular with official languages in Quebec Region are the Quebec Federal Council and the Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL). Until 2015, there was also an Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OLIN), of which the section 42 coordinator was co-chair. In 2015, it was merged with the QFCOL, keeping the latter’s name.

However, there are also other mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination concerning official languages, including the following:

• Annual Meeting of the Working Group on Arts, Culture and Heritage: This initiative aims to strengthen cooperation between federal institutions and English-speaking communities in Quebec in the arts, culture and heritage sector, and to help build bridges with other levels of government.
• The co-leaders initiative: This initiative includes volunteers from the Anglophone arts, culture and heritage sectors and from federal institutions. These volunteers meet every two months to continue discussions and provide support regarding possible solutions identified at the annual meeting of the Working Group on Arts, Culture and Heritage.
• Quebec Community Groups Network – Speed Dating Event: This event is held each year at the QCGN Annual General Meeting. PCH takes part in this event, which brings together federal institutions and Anglophone community organizations to identify possible sources of funding and support for various projects within the English-speaking community.
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada – follow-up committees: Every two years, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada organizes a special follow-up committee meeting for federal representatives in Quebec to meet with various representatives of the English-speaking community working in the economic development sector. The goal is to have a discussion to identify current economic development problems that affect the English-speaking community. The Official Languages Support Programs Manager is the PCH representative at that meeting.
• Network of Official Languages Champions: The mandate of this committee is to promote bilingualism in the federal public service and to promote linguistic duality as a personal and organizational value.

Main interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act

Since 2015, the QFCOL has been the main interdepartmental coordination mechanism concerning section 42 of the Act in Quebec Region. Following is a brief description of the committee.

Table 14: description of the Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL)

Mandate	Develop and implement interdepartmental actions regarding Parts IV to VII of the Act in accordance with the priorities of the QFC Strategic Framework. To this end, the Committee: advises the QFC on strategic issues related to Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act; develops and implements an interdepartmental action plan consistent with the priorities and results set out in the QFC Strategic Framework; identifies federal institutions and organizations that could contribute to the development and implementation of the action plan; acts as a forum for exchange and sharing of environmental analyses by members of the QFC, federal institutions and OLMC to identify challenges and opportunities related to linguistic duality and the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act; and reports to the QFC on the progress of the Action Plan on Official Languages.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Parts IV, V, VI, and VII.
Frequency of meetings	Four (4) times a year, in person or by telephone.
Role of the section 42 coordinator	The Regional Director General of PCH is the sponsor of the Committee and the section 42 coordinator is responsible for coordination.
Members	The Committee is made up of representatives of federal institutions who are able to guide their organization to advance issues related to the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI or VII of the Act.
Authority	Reports to the QFC.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review findings indicate that the roles and responsibilities of the section 42 coordinator in the region included coordinating the QFCOL meetings. This committee also establishes and maintains links to OLMC in the region, particularly by taking part in various activities with them.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

The QFCOL has been active since it was merged with the OLIN in 2015 and meeting frequency was stable. Representatives of OLMC organizations were intermittently invited to meetings. Exchanges and collaborations among representatives and members of the QFCOL were encouraged. The QFCOL assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other OL activities or events in the region, including Linguistic Duality Day, the event offered by universities and colleges in Quebec at the professional training centre, and “speed dating.” Various types of OL tools and documents were developed and shared with members of the QFCOL, including tools related to Part VII of the Act. No online platform was found for sharing and archiving network information with members.

The evaluation findings indicate that the coordination mechanisms were effective in the Quebec Region.

Noted in the interviews, the document review and the survey were the following strengths: the quality of the exchanges, the tools and presentations made by the members and the regular frequency of meetings.

Challenges were noted regarding the QFCOL, including a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators, a lack of time to prepare for meetings (section 41 coordinators), a lack of follow-up with members after meetings and a lack of knowledge, interest or capacity of some federal institutions in supporting OLMC.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the QFCOL which assisted them to better understand the needs of OLMC.

Most survey respondents indicated that the QFCOL raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

However, the following needs and areas for improvement were identified during the interviews and the survey:

• Allow more time to prepare for meetings of the QFCOL, question-and-answer periods and exchanges between members.
• Have more tools regarding best practices with respect to Part VII of the Act, update the tools and research data, and share them with section 41 coordinators.
• Increase OLMC participation in QFCOL meetings to increase knowledge of key OLMC actors in specific sectors and to better align OLMC issues with the mandates of federal institutions (through presentations).

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Ontario Region

Population profile - Ontario Region

Province	Total populationTable 15 note 1	French – mother tongueTable 15 note 1	Percentage (%)	French – 1st official language spoken (including respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 15 note 2	Percentage (%)
Ontario	13,312,870	527,690	4.0%	597,070	4.5%

Table 15 notes

Table 15 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Census)

Return to table 15 first note 1 referrer

Table 15 note 2

Source: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 15 note 2 referrer

Main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Ontario Region

In Ontario Region, the Ontario Federal Council (OFC) and the Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN) deal with official languages.

The OOLIN is a community of interest of the Ontario Federal Council, which undertakes interdepartmental coordination concerning section 42 of the Act in the region. It is co-chaired by a member from PCH and a member from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL). The meetings were held at PCH locations in Toronto. Members were located in the major cities of the province (e.g. Guelph, Ottawa, Windsor, Mississauga, Toronto, Sudbury, etc.).

Figure 7: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Ontario Region – text version

The main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Ontario Region are the Ontario Federal Council and the Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network. The Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network relates to the Ontario Federal Council and is the interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act in the region.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act.

The OOLIN is the official languages interdepartmental network co-chaired by the section 42 coordinator in Ontario Region. The following table provides a brief description of the network.

Table 16: description of the Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN)

Mandate	The OOLIN is an interdepartmental network for the assistance, exchange and guidance concerning official languages. the mandate of the OOLIN is to: foster the exchange of information and best practices regarding official languages; promote partnerships to foster the sharing of interdepartmental projects and initiatives; and Inform the Ontario Federal Council’s RIOLO Champion (or co-champions) of various issues.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Parts IV, V, VI and VII.
Meetings	Four (4) times per year. Most meetings were by teleconference.
Roles of the section 42 coordinator	Co-chair: a representative of a federal institution for parts IV, V and VI of the Act and a representative from Canadian Heritage for Part VII of the Act.
Members	Act according to their mandate as representatives of federal institutions.
Authority	Reports to the OFC.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review finding indicate that the roles and responsibilities of the section 42 coordinator in the region consisted in particular of co-chairing and coordinating the OOLIN meetings. As needed, the section 42 coordinator also offered training and information to section 41 coordinators and built ties to OLMC in the region, particularly by attending their various events.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

Regular meetings of the OOLIN allowed for the sharing of information and best practices regarding official languages, including Part VII of the Act. The OOLIN was active and meeting frequency was stable. Representatives of OLMC organizations were invited on a regular basis to present their organization at meetings. Exchanges and collaborations among these representatives and members of the OOLIN were encouraged. The OOLIN assisted with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other official languages activities or events in the region. In particular, a network kiosk was set up at different events across the country, including the 2020 Innovation Fair. The OOLIN also encouraged members to take part in various activities and events, such as the annual gathering of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, the 2014 Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie and the 400th anniversary of the French presence in Ontario and the Franconnexion (2017). Various tools and documents were developed and shared with OOLIN members. The GCConnex and GCForum platforms were used to archive and share Network documents with members. Just over half of survey respondents said they were satisfied with the tools distributed.

Noted in the interviews, document review and survey were strengths included the topics covered, the quality of the presentations and tools shared, the opportunity to network with other section 41 coordinators in the region and to develop links with OLMC, and reporting to the Ontario Federal Council.

Challenges were also noted, including a high turnover rate among members, a lack of information and training on Part VII of the Act, a lack of understanding of the role of section 41 coordinators and a lack of support from senior management at some federal institutions for the work done by section 41 coordinators, a lack of awareness at some federal institutions regarding Part VII of the Act and the needs of OLMC, as well as of the creation of projects to support the development of OLMC.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the OOLIN, which assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

A minority of survey respondents indicated that coordination mechanisms are effective in the Ontario Region, while 27.3% indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

A minority of survey respondents also indicated that the OOLIN raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

The following needs and possible improvements were identified by the interviews and the survey:

• Strengthen network governance (e.g. review and share the network’s terms of reference, create a web platform to encourage collaboration and share tools, etc.).
• Have joint projects (among federal institutions) in the region.
• Organize interdepartmental official languages events in person with a training component.
• Create more opportunities to connect with other federal institutions and Francophone OLMC organizations.
• Obtain more support from regional senior management at certain federal institutions.
• Improve tools to assist OOLIN members in their day-to-day work, connect with OLMC and help new section 41 coordinators better understand their roles and responsibilities.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Prairies and Northern Region

Population profile - Prairies and Northern Region

Province	Total populationTable 17 note 1	French –Mother tongueTable 17 note 1	Percentage (%)	French – 1st official language spoken (including respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 17 note 2	Percentage (%)
Manitoba	1,261,620	43,215	3.4%	42,745	3.4%
Saskatchewan	1,083,240	16,375	1.5%	15,325	1.4%
Northwest Territories	41,380	1,690	4.1%	1,315	3.2%
Nunavut	35,690	610	1.7%	670	1.9%

Table 17 notes

Table 17 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Census)

Return to table 17 first note 1 referrer

Table 17 note 2

Source: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 17 note 2 referrer

Main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Prairies and Northern Region

Figure 8: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Prairies and Northern Region – text version

This figure illustrates the main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Prairies and Northern Region. There are the Prairie Federal Council, the Northern Federal Council, and the Prairie Official Languages Committee (POLC). The interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in the Prairies and Northern Region are the Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL), and the Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL), which report to the POLC. Although the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA) is located in PCH’s Western Region, it reports to the Prairie Official Languages Committee. No interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act was identified in the Northwest Territories or Nunavut.

The Prairies and Northern Region covers the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In the North, the Northern Federal Council covers the three territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut). The Prairie Federal Council and the Prairie Official Languages Committee (POLC) cover Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The latter was created in 2014-15. It is independent of the Prairie Federal Council but maintains effective communication with it to facilitate actions related to official languages.

The interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in the Prairies and Northern Region are the MINOL, the SINOL and the INOLCA, all of which report to the POLC. It is important to note that although the INOLCA is located in PCH’s Western Region, it reports to the Prairie Official Languages Committee.

No interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act was identified in the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, although there were liaison and representation activities during the period under review.

Main coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in Manitoba

MINOL is the interdepartmental network on official languages related to section 42 for the province of Manitoba. The following table provides a brief description of the network.

Table 18: description of the Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL)

Mandate	The mission of the MINOL is to: foster collaboration among members of the network; improve network members’ knowledge of the sections of the Act; and allow each federal institution to benefit from the resources, collective knowledge and experience of the network’s members.
Chair	N/A
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Parts IV, V, VI and VII.
Frequency of meetings	N/A
Role of the section 42 coordinator	Coordination of the network.
Members	The members of the network are resource persons for official languages, representing federal institutions in Manitoba.
Authority	The MINOL reports to the POLC.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review findings indicate that the roles and responsibilities of the section 42 coordinator consist in particular of coordinating MINOL, SINOL and POLC meetings. As part of the full-time duties, the coordinator also:

• supported the work of the PCH Champion of Official Languages in the region;
• developed a regional interdepartmental strategy for the implementation of section 41 and 42 of the Act;
• offered training for section 41 coordinators;
• gave presentations to federal institutions regarding Part VII of the Act;
• took part in meetings with OLMC; and
• implemented the Service Loan and Language Internship initiative for the region.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

In general, regular meetings included different types of information-sharing concerning official languages, including Part VII of the Act. The MINOL was active and meeting frequency was relatively stable. Representatives of OLMC organizations were intermittently invited to make presentations at the meetings. The MINOL helped with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in other official languages activities or events in the region. MINOL members mobilized to implement OL activities in the region, particularly during Public Service Week, Linguistic Duality Day and the organization of the Official Languages Forum in 2013. Members were also encouraged to work with the Société de la francophonie manitobaine (SFM) to publicize bilingual job postings. Various tools and documents were developed and/or made available to MINOL members.

The survey findings indicate that, in the view of most survey respondents, the MINOL was effective.

Among the strengths noted during the interviews and the survey, were information sharing, and the support received by section 42 coordinators related to official languages and to follow ups following meetings.

Challenges were also identified in the interviews and document review regarding the MINOL, including:

• representativeness of members (not all federal institutions are present and not necessarily the right people);
• the network priorities and responsibilities of members represent only a small part of their duties;
• a lack of understanding regarding the role of the section 41 coordinator and a lack of commitment and support from senior management in some federal institutions; and
• a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the MINOL that assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

A small majority of survey respondents indicated that the MINOL raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

The needs and possible improvements identified in the interviews and survey included:

• sharing more information, providing more training and improving the tools available to section 41 coordinators in the region;
• coordinating more interdepartmental activities in the region or joint initiatives (apart from regular MINOL meetings); and
• prioritizing official languages and Part VII of the Act by making official languages a priority and by involving senior management from federal institutions, particularly in the development of mechanisms to assist regional section 42 and section 41 coordinators.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Main coordination mechanisms related to section 42 of the Act in Saskatchewan

The SINOL, also known as the INOLCS until 2013-14, is the interdepartmental network on official languages in the province of Saskatchewan. Following is a brief description of the network.

Table 19: description of the Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL)

Mandate	The mission of the SINOL is to encourage and support federal employees who are responsible for, involved in or passionate about official languages.
Chair	Information not available.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Parts IV, V, VI and VII.
Frequency of meetings	Information not available.
Role of the section 42 coordinator	Coordination of the network.
Members	The SINOL is for participants with varying levels of involvement in official languages issues in the province.
Authority	The SINOL reports to the POLC.

Findings

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

From 2013-14 to 2015-16, SINOL meetings allowed for the sharing of information and best practices regarding official languages, including Part VII of the Act. The SINOL was only active between 2013-14 and 2015-16, although efforts were made to reactivate it in 2018.

From 2013-14 to 2015-16, exchanges and collaboration by and with SINOL members were encouraged. The SINOL helped with promotion and encouraged members to organize or take part in official languages activities or events in the region. Members were encouraged to take part in the activities and events as part of National Public Service Week and Linguistic Duality Day, and OLMC activities (Rendez-vous fransaskois), and to make presentations or visit OLMC (such as attending school career fairs and visiting the Institut français in Regina). Happy hour activities were organized by SINOL in Regina and Saskatchewan for Public Service Week (2013-14).

Various tools and documents were developed or made available to members between 2013-14 and 2015-16. No online platform was found for archiving network information or for sharing documents with members. The majority of survey respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the tools distributed.

The strengths noted in the interviews and survey included exchanges on best practices among members and with OLMC, and collaboration between SINOL members.

The following challenges were also noted:

• a lack of continuity and follow-up regarding meetings and the progress of SINOL projects;
• a lack of information on the roles and responsibilities of section 41 coordinators and who does what with respect to OL;
• the centralization of federal institutions in Manitoba, the limited number of section 41 coordinators in the province and their concentration in the two main cities, Regina and Saskatoon; and
• the dispersion of OLMC across the province.

The survey findings indicate that the SINOL was not very effective, although efforts were made to reactivate it in 2018.

However, the survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the SINOL when it was active which assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

Half of survey respondents indicated that the SINOL raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

However, needs and possible improvements were identified in the interviews and the survey, including the following:

• Having tools on best practices and targeted information regarding official languages, the roles and responsibilities of section 41 coordinators and a portrait including the needs of OLMC.
• Having the support of senior management at certain federal institutions to disseminate information.
• Making better use of technology at meetings (e.g. WebEx and videoconferencing), based on the reduced number of federal institutions in the province and their distribution between the two main cities in the region (Regina and Saskatoon).
• Having more regular meetings, following up on proposed actions and increasing the number of participants or members.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Western Region

Population profile - Western Region

Province	Total populationTable 20 note 1	French –mother tongueTable 20 note 1	Percentage (%)	French – 1st official language spoken (including respondents who indicated “French” and “French and English”)Table 20 note 2	Percentage (%)
British Columbia	4,598,415	64,210	1.4%	73,325	1.6%
Alberta	4,026,650	79,150	2.0%	88,140	2.2%
Yukon	35,560	1,690	4.8%	1,700	4.8%

Table 20 notes

Table 20 note 1

Source: Statistics Canada (2016 Census)

Return to table 20 first note 1 referrer

Table 20 note 2

Source: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Return to table 20 note 2 referrer

Main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Western Region

The Western Region covers British Columbia, Alberta and Yukon. The British Columbia Federal Council operates in the region, along with the Northern Federal Council (covering Yukon).

Figure 9: main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Western Region – text version

The main active interdepartmental coordination mechanisms related to official languages in Western Region are the British Columbia Federal Council, the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Network (FCBCOLC) and the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA). The interdepartmental coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act in Western Region are the FCBCOLC and the INOLCA. Although INOLCA is located in the Western Region, the Committee reports to the POLC, which is part of the Prairies and Northern Region. No interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act was identified in Yukon.

The interdepartmental coordination mechanisms concerning section 42 of the Act in Western Region are the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Network (FCBCOLC) and the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA). It is important to remember that, although INOLCA is located in Western Region, the committee reports to the POLC, which is part of the Prairies and Northern Region.

No interdepartmental coordination mechanism related to section 42 of the Act was identified in Yukon, although there were liaison and representation activities during the period under review.

Coordination mechanism concerning section 42 of the Act in British Columbia

In 2013-14, Canadian Heritage chaired the BC-INOLC. However, it was decided that the activities of the BC-INOLC would cease in order to bring the expertise developed into the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC) in order to strengthen Part VII and also to reduce the number of meetings requiring the participation of official languages officials, as their availability was limited. In April 2014, the British Columbia Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators (BC-INOLC) was therefore integrated into the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC). Since then, the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC) has been the main interdepartmental coordination mechanism concerning official languages in British Columbia that deals with Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act. Following is a brief description of the committee.

Table 21: description of the British Columbia Federal Council Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC)

Mandate	The mandate of the BCFCOLC is to: provide regional leadership in official languages matters, and provide opportunities that will facilitate the advancement of official languages in the British Columbia region. Its mandate is primarily to support the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Act in all federal institutions in the region.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Parts IV, V, VI and VII.
Meetings	In person and by conference call.
Structure of meetings	The last hour of each meeting should be dedicated to Part VII of the Act.
Frequency of meetings	Four (4) times per year.
Role of the section 42 coordinator	Role of permanent advisor for Part VII of the Act.
Members	Federal public servants in the role of official languages coordinator or who are responsible for this portfolio in their federal institution.
Authority	The BCFCOLC reports to the British Columbia Federal Council.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review findings indicate that the roles and responsibilities of the section 42 coordinator included the role of advisor and involvement in the organization of activities related to Part VII of the Act within the BCFCOLC. The coordinator gave presentations or shared information on Part VII and promoted the development of links among federal institutions, OLMC and occasionally the province regarding activities related to Part VII of the Act.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

Regular meetings of the BCFCOLC allowed for the sharing of information and best practices regarding official languages, including Part VII of the Act. The BCFCOLC was active and meeting frequency was stable.

Exchanges and collaborations among members of the BCFCOLC were encouraged. The BCFCOLC assisted with promotion and encouraged its members to participate in the organization, implementation and/or promotion of the committee’s annual events, namely the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie in Vancouver (in March) and the annual consultations with community organizations (in November), and ad hoc activities such as guided tours in French about Vancouver’s Francophone pioneers. The BCFCOLC also shared information and encouraged its members to take part in French or bilingual activities organized by departments, such as Linguistic Duality Day and National Public Service Week, as well as the various activities and events organized by Francophone and Francophile organizations in the region.

Various tools and documents were developed and/or made available to members during the evaluation period. No online platform was found for sharing and archiving committee information with members.

The survey findings indicate that the coordination mechanisms in British Columbia were effective.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by BCFCOLC which assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

Most survey respondents indicated that the BCFCOLC raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

The strengths noted in the interviews and the survey included exchanges and sharing regarding best practices and official languages issues, particularly regarding Part VII of the Act, among members of BCFCOLC and with OLMC. Collaboration among members of the BCFCOLC in carrying out activities was also identified as a strength of this committee.

Challenges identified in the interviews and the survey included:

• a high turnover rate among section 41 coordinators;
• a lack of adequate understanding of Part VII of the Act in some federal institutions, linked to, among other things, a lack of communication between national and regional coordinators;
• a lack of support from senior management at some federal institutions;
• a lack of tools providing concrete examples adapted to the reality of each region and that consider the mandates of federal institutions; and
• a lack of time among 41 coordinators to dedicate to section 41 duties of the Act.

However, needs and possible improvements were identified during the survey and the interviews to improve coordination of this network, including:

• being informed about changes in the needs and issues of OLMC;
• identifying opportunities to carry out official languages responsibilities in a more creative manner;
• having more projects involving several federal institutions;
• having more new and attractive tools (to better explain Part VII of the Act, particularly positive measures and best practices) that are better adapted to each region; and
• adding performance objectives on official languages for senior management at federal institutions.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms was identified in the region.

Coordination mechanism concerning section 42 of the Act in Alberta

In Alberta, the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA) is the coordination mechanism regarding section 42 of the Act. Following is a brief description of the network.

Table 22: description of the Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages Coordinators of Alberta (INOLCA)

Mandate	Its objectives are to organize recurring activities, strengthen links between federal institutions and community organizations, increase the sharing of good practices, and increase the understanding of official languages issues and their implications for each federal institution.
Relevant parts of the Official Languages Act	Part VII.
Frequency of meetings	Three to four meetings are planned per year. The meetings are in person at PCH offices or by teleconference.
Roles of the section 42 coordinator	Chair and coordinate the network.
Members	Most members are located in Edmonton and Calgary. Others may be located in Winnipeg, Vancouver or Ottawa, depending on their area of responsibility.
Authority	The INOLCA reports to the POLC.

Findings

Roles and responsibilities of section 42 coordinators

The interview and document review findings indicate that the role and responsibilities of the section 42 coordinator consist primarily of coordinating INOLCA meetings. As needed, the coordinator also offers training to section 41 coordinators.

Interdepartmental coordination mechanisms

Regular meetings of the INOLCA allowed for the sharing of information and best practices regarding Part VII of the Act. The INOLCA was active and meeting frequency was stable. OLMC representatives were invited to regular meetings to give presentations.

Exchanges and collaborations among members of the INOLCA were encouraged. The INOLCA helped promote and encourage its members to organize and/or take part in other official languages activities or events in the region. This included Linguistic Duality Day, the Congrès annuel de la francophonie albertaine, and the Forum communautaire de la francophonie albertaine.

Various tools and documents were developed and/or made available to INOLCA members. A GCConnex platform is used to archive and share documents with members.

The survey findings indicate that the coordination mechanisms in Alberta were effective.

The strengths noted in the interviews and the survey included exchanges, sharing of best practices and official languages issues, particularly regarding Part VII of the Act, and with OLMC. Collaboration among members in carrying out activities was also identified as a strength of the network.

The challenges identified in the interviews and document review included:

• a low participation rate among federal institutions and the fact that most participants are from Edmonton (fewer participants from Calgary);
• a high rate of turnover among members; and
• a lack of support from some federal institutions regarding Part VII of the Act.

The survey findings show that the needs of section 41 coordinators were taken into account by the INOLCA which assisted section 41 coordinators to better understand the needs of OLMC.

All survey respondents indicated that the INOLCA raised awareness among federal managers regarding responsibilities under section 41 of the Act.

Nevertheless, needs and possible improvements were identified in the interviews and documentation, such as

• being informed about changes in the needs and issues of OLMC and taking part in annual consultations with OLMC to better understand their needs;
• having more opportunities for collaboration and to create another interdepartmental network to better connect section 41 coordinators in Calgary; and
• having more tools related to Part VII of the Act (best practices and positive measures), and a need for regionally tailored tools to help section 41 coordinators to better do their job.

No potential overlap or duplication of interdepartmental coordination work with other coordination mechanisms in the region was identified.

Appendix C: bibliography

• Canadian Heritage. Challenges and opportunities for action identified at the annual Network 42 meeting. December 2 and 3, 2015
• Canadian Heritage. Coordinator’s Guide: Implementation of Section 41 of the Official Languages Act. 2011.
• Canadian Heritage. Departmental Evaluation Plan 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• Canadian Heritage. Final report of the ad hoc committee of provincial directors on interdepartmental coordination in the regions. 2018.
• Canadian Heritage. Guide on Part VII of the Official Languages Act: Support to communities and promotion of English and French. 2016.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42, Mandate of the interdepartmental coordination network at Canadian Heritage (section 42 of the Official Languages Act). 2015
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42 Minutes of the annual meeting. 2017.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42 Report on achievements. 2014-15.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42 Report on achievements. 2015-16.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42 Report on achievements. 2016-17.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42 Report on achievements. 2017-18.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42; Work Plans. 2014.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42; Work Plans. 2015.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42; Work Plans. 2016.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42; Work Plans. 2017.
• Canadian Heritage. Official Languages Annual Reports. 2014-15.
• Canadian Heritage. Official Languages Annual Reports. 2015-16.
• Canadian Heritage. Official Languages Annual Reports. 2016-17.
• Canadian Heritage. Official Languages Annual Reports. 2017-18.
• Canadian Heritage. Performance Information Profile-PIP. 2017.
• Canadian Heritage. Performance Information Profile-PIP. 2018.
• Canadian Heritage (2018). Review of the Interdepartmental Official Languages Function part VII
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42, Visual portrait of interdepartmental coordination mechanisms in the regions of Network 42. 2016.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42, Work Plan — Priorities and Challenges 2014-15 to 2016-17.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42, Work Plan 2012 to 2014, abridged. 2011.
• Canadian Heritage. Network 42, Work Plan 2018-19 to 2020-21.
• Canadian Heritage. Study on the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act. 2010.
• Canadian Heritage. Study on the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act. 2017.
• Canadian Heritage. Terms of reference for the evaluation of interdepartmental coordination (in relation to section 42 of the OLA). 2018.
• Federal Government. British Columbia Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC), Mandate of the BCFCOLC. 2014.
• Federal Government. British Columbia Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC), Meeting agendas.2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. British Columbia Official Languages Committee (BCFCOLC), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages of Alberta (INOLCA), Meeting agendas. 2013-14 to 2016-17
• Federal Government. Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages of Alberta (INOLCA), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2016-17
• Federal Government. Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL), Mandate of the MINOL. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL), Meeting agendas. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Manitoba Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (MINOL), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Network 41 – Atlantic, Mandate of Network 41 – Atlantic. 2014.
• Federal Government. Network 41 – Atlantic, Meeting agendas. 2014 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Network 41 – Atlantic, Meeting minutes. 2014 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN), Meeting agendas. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Ontario Official Languages Interdepartmental Network (OOLIN). Terms of reference. 2012.
• Federal Government. Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL), Mandate of the QFCOL. 2014.
• Federal Government. Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL), Meeting agendas. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Quebec Federal Council Official Languages Committee (QFCOL), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• Federal Government. Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL), Meeting agendas. 2013-14 to 2015-16.
• Federal Government. Saskatchewan Interdepartmental Network of Official Languages (SINOL), Meeting minutes. 2013-14 to 2015-16.
• Federal Government. What to Consider When Calibrating Evaluations. 2015.
• Justice Canada. Official Languages Act, 1985, c. 31. 2017.
• Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Fast figures on official languages by province and territory. 2016.
• Statistics Canada. Population by mother tongue and geography, 1951 to 2016, date of modification 13.01.2020 (online resource). 2019.
• Treasury Board Secretariat. Policy on Results. 2016.
• Treasury Board Secretariat. What to Consider When Calibrating Evaluations. 2015.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2021
Catalogue Number: CH14-52/1-2021E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-38192-3