Evaluation of the International Policy Program

View the print-friendly version: (PDF link – 2.56 MB)

 

 

Table of Contents

• Acronyms
• Executive Summary
• I. Introduction
  • Background
  • Methodology
  • Limitations
  • Logic Model
  • Evaluation Framework Matrix
• II. Findings
  • 1. Effectiveness
    • i. Reports and publications
    • ii. Research disseminated through media, conferences, symposia and direct distribution
    • iii. Partnerships and Collaborations undertaken
    • iv. Training sessions and participation in international events
    • Immediate Outcomes
    • Facilitator and Barrier: Length of the Contribution Agreement
    • Facilitator: Matching Funding Requirement and Partnerships
    • Facilitator: Taking Risks
    • Facilitator: Salaries paid by the Agreement
    • Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
    • Sustainability After the End of WD Funding
  • 2. Efficiency, Design and Delivery
    • Disbursements and Matched Funds
    • Utilization of Funding before the End of the Project
    • Barriers: Oil price crash, COVID-19
    • Facilitators: Having already-committed funds made matching easier
    • IPP Governance
    • Financial Oversight
  • 3. Impact
• III. Conclusions, Lessons Learned & Future Considerations
  • Considerations for Future Projects
• Appendix A: Evaluation Questions and Framework
• Appendix B: Mini-Case Studies
• Appendix C: List of IPP-Funded Events
• Endnotes

 

Acronyms

EDI

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

ERGP

Extractive Resource Governance Program

GBA Plus

Gender-based Analysis Plus

GGI

Goss Gilroy Inc.

IPP

International Policy Program (The project funded by WD)

IPT

International Policy and Trade (A research sector at SPP)

SPP

School of Public Policy (at the University of Calgary)

WD

Western Economic Diversification Canada

 

Executive Summary

Background

Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) contracted Goss Gilroy Inc. (GGI) to undertake a final impact evaluation of the International Policy Program (IPP). The IPP is a ten-year project, spanning 2012-2022, undertaken by the School of Public Policy (SPP) at the University of Calgary. WD contributed $15 million in funding to the IPP, and the SPP was responsible for obtaining funding to match, for a total project value of $30 million.

The IPP is a research project with four focus areas: international economics; extractive resource governance; security of state, resources and relations; and market diversification. The project’s activities included conducting research in these areas, developing partnerships, and disseminating research to inform and affect change in policy, both domestically and abroad. This final impact evaluation examines the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPP over its ten-year span, as well as the impacts of its research.

Findings: Effectiveness

To what extent has the IPP achieved its anticipated outputs?

The School, using IPP funding, has undertaken a number of activities and produced outputs in each of the agreement’s four areas of focus (i.e., international economics; the Extractive Resource Governance Program; security of state, resources and relations; and international market diversification).

The IPP exceeded the targets set for three of the four indicators outlined in its Contribution Agreement and is on track to meet the target for the fourth. These indicators are:

• The number of evidence-based economic analysis created/funded by WD
  • Target 200: 190 completed as of the end of December 2020.
• The number of spokesperson and media references to WD-funded research
  • Target 800: 2,046 achieved as of the end of 2020.
• The number of industry partnerships created
  • Target 120: 127 achieved as of the end of 2020.
• The number of projects promoting participation in major international events
  • Target 80: 229 achieved as of the end of 2020.

Through the IPP, the School published peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as research and policy papers on its website. Research has been disseminated through direct distribution to key policy makers and interested parties, as well as through the media. Conferences, symposia and other events have been important areas of activity for the IPP. In total, SPP reports that 215 events engaged 1,147 speakers (not counting 2012, when this was not tracked), and 12,478 attendees. Events ranged from breakfast meetings open to the public on topics related to international policy, to workshops and conferences with policy stakeholders from around the country, to longer-term, recurring conferences and initiatives, including the “Shoulder to Shoulder” annual conference with Goodenough College in the UK, the German-Canadian annual conference, the North American Process with US and Mexican stakeholders, and the Alberta-Québec International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy and Natural Resources.

To what extent has the IPP achieved its immediate outcomes?

The expected immediate outcomes of the IPP include increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders, influence on policy and practices, and increased capacity development of stakeholders in the areas of training. Some examples of how these outcomes have been achieved were identified through the “mini-case studies” in the Appendix of this report. For example:

• The Extractive Resource Governance Program (ERGP) has worked to enhance the extractive governance capacity of other jurisdictions through training, policy development and research founded on Canadian best practices and expertise. It has led to increased capacity in the development of resource sectors across numerous countries.
• SPP became responsible for programming in Canada for the annual Atlantik-Brücke German-Canadian conference. Outcomes of the conference have included the sharing of perspectives among senior decision-makers, researchers and media, and the building of partnerships and enduring relationships between the two countries.
• The International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy and Natural Resources is a week-long graduate level course held annually since 2014, jointly run by the SPP at University of Calgary and the Hautes études internationales (HEI) of Université Laval in Québec city. Its outcomes have included an increased understanding of a variety of perspectives on energy issues by participants including students, researchers and industry representatives. In addition, it has fostered increased collaboration between stakeholders in Alberta and Québec.
• The North American Process initiative, since 2013, has annually brought together academics from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and has increasingly been able to expand and draw both industry experts and government to join. Its outcomes have included collaboration on key economic issues for Canada, the United States and Mexico.
• In 2016, the SPP partnered with the Asia-Pacific Foundation (APF) to create a digital database called the APF Canada Investment Monitor, which visualises and analyses data on foreign direct investment between Asia and Canada. The creation of the Investment Monitor has made this investment data publicly available in an easily-digestible and interactive way. It has increased federal and provincial engagement with the data, and as such, has increased evidence-based decision making by those who have used the data.

Findings: Efficiency, Design and Delivery

Were the resources allocated to the IPP used efficiently and economically?

According to the original Contribution Agreement, WD would pay for 55% of total project costs for most categories of costs (equipment, salaries, travel, study and analysis, and outreach) and 0% of other project costs (direct cost time buy-outs). Altogether, this would result in WD paying a total of 50% of all project costs (i.e., 50% of up to $30 million). However, the agreement allowed for WD’s contribution to be proportionately higher in the initial years of the project, as the IPP was being established and the process of acquiring matching funds began.

The SPP succeeded in meeting the requirements of the Contribution Agreement in obtaining matched funding and in the most recent year of 2020-21, the cumulative costs paid by WD are approximately 51% of all project costs. WD’s cumulative contribution to total project costs has remained under the maximum percentages set out for various stages of the project.

To what extent will WD funding for IPP be fully utilized by the end of the project?

Overall, it is not expected that all $15 million will be expended by the end of the project in March 2022. It was estimated that approximately $12 million of the WD funds will be disbursed and matched by the end of the project.

Barriers to the expenditure of all of the project funding included the oil price crash, which began in November 2014. Prior to this, much of the matching funds for the IPP were obtained from private sector sources such as oil companies in Alberta. After the crash, it took time for other sources of funding to be obtained. SPP reports that the process of trying to obtain matched funds was extremely challenging for at least a year following the oil price crash.

COVID-19 was another barrier to the disbursement of funds in the last two fiscal years of the project. Interviewees indicated that conferences, travel, and planned activities were cancelled or moved online. The costs of holding conferences via videoconference is not significant, so less money has been spent.

To what extent has the design, structure and approach to the implementation of the IPP been effective and efficient?

The SPP Director and its Academic Director provide an oversight role for IPP funding. Requests for use of this funding must be approved by the Academic Director, who considers whether the suggested initiative is in line with the terms of the WD Contribution Agreement. Initially, an International Policy Program Advisory Council was formed to provide advice concerning the strategic direction and research priorities for the program; however, it met infrequently and was discontinued. Today, there is no governance body specifically formed to oversee the IPP funding. However, the School’s other governing bodies provide guidance applicable to the IPP funding. The School has an Advisory Committee, comprised of private sector representatives who provide advice regarding its strategic direction, and in 2017, a Scientific Council of external university professors was established to provide strategic advice and feedback on research activity for the School.

Overall, the approach to governance of the IPP funding has evolved over the course of the project. While some interviewees indicated that the current approach is effective, this was not established until late in the project, and does not deal solely with the IPP funding.

The School of Public Policy employs a Senior Financial Analyst who is a Certified General Accountant, who prepares the financial reporting for WD. SPP’s financials are reviewed and internally audited within the University of Calgary.

Findings: Impact

To what extent have IPP’s activities contributed to attitudinal, procedural and policy changes?

The extent to which the IPP created a longer-term impact, contributing to attitudinal, procedural and policy changes, is difficult to measure. By nature, longer-term impacts are always harder to measure than short-term outputs and outcomes. The longer the time that passes, the more there is influence from intervening variables, and the more difficult is attribution to the original project activity. In addition, because no medium- or long-term outcome indicators were developed at the inception of the project, tracking and reporting on these were not undertaken as with the outputs. Interviewees were asked about impacts, and most echoed that this was difficult to measure. Some interviewees indicated that their goal was not necessarily to influence policy itself, but to influence the policy debate - to “frame the debate”- on various issues.

However, there are some reasons which point to the IPP having had an impact. These are:

• The work of the School through the IPP has been very focused on outreach. They have engaged multiple audiences through events, activities and partnerships, rather than only academic ones.
• Their initiatives have continued over a number of years, including the German-Canadian Conference Atlantik-Brücke, the Alberta-Québec Summer School, the North American Process with Mexico and the US, and the “Shoulder to Shoulder” conference with the UK.
• These initiatives have also meant that many of the partnerships SPP formed have also lasted a number of years.

Overall, although it is not possible to specifically quantify or measure, there is indication that IPP’s activities have resulted in some impact in terms of policy influence, increased evidence-based knowledge and capacity development of stakeholders, development of partnerships and “improved understanding of Western Canadian economic issues, challenges, opportunities and priorities”.

Conclusions & Lessons Learned

Overall, the IPP has been successful in undertaking activities and producing outputs that reflect the original intent and purpose of the project. It has had a strong focus on outreach to a variety of audiences, which it accomplished in innovative ways. Through the IPP, the SPP formed and fostered a number of lasting partnerships.

Lesson: Outreach Excellence

The variety of outreach events targeting and engaging different audiences (from Policy and a Pint sessions to the annual North American Process symposia) provides excellent models for dissemination of knowledge and engagement with stakeholders.

Lesson: Length of Agreement

While the 10-year length of the Contribution Agreement facilitated the development of relationships and longer-term initiatives, building upon previous ones, the length of the Agreement was also a disadvantage in its being unable to formally reflect evolving priorities and issues (such as EDI). These observations imply that identifying an ideal length for projects would be one that balances the advantages and disadvantages involved.

Considerations for Future Projects

Consideration: Adding Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) planning

Any future such projects would benefit from the development of an EDI or Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) strategy and indicators for reporting.

Consideration: Outcome Indicators

The indicators used for the IPP were primarily focused on the achievement of outputs. For future projects, it could be helpful to also identify some outcome-focused indicators.

Consideration: Project governance

As a consideration for future programming, the establishment of a formalized governance structure specific to the ‘project’ itself, early in the project could provide greater consistency and transparent oversight.

I. Introduction

Background

Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) contracted Goss Gilroy Inc. (GGI) to undertake a final impact evaluation of the International Policy Program (IPP). The IPP is a ten-year project, spanning 2012-2022, undertaken by the School of Public Policy (SPP) at the University of Calgary. WD contributed $15 million in funding to the IPP, and the SPP is responsible for obtaining funding to match, for a total project value of $30 million.

The IPP is a research project with four focus areas: international economics; extractive resource governance; security of state, resources and relations; and market diversification. The project’s activities include conducting research in these areas, developing partnerships, and disseminating research to inform and affect change in policy, both domestically and abroad. This final impact evaluation examines the effectiveness and efficiency of the IPP over its ten-year span, as well as the impacts of its research.

The funding for the IPP was initially approved by a Treasury Board submission in 2012. A Contribution Agreement was signed between WD and the University of Calgary, which indicated:

“The Recipient will develop and implement an International Policy Program (IPP) at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy (SPP). Under the direction of internationally prominent subject matter experts, the IPP will use a multi-disciplinary approach to build a global perspective, engage stakeholders, identify and analyze issues, and disseminate findings in four areas of focus: (a) International Economics, (b) Resource Governance, (c) Security of State, Resource and Relations, and (d) Asian Diversification [later broadened to market diversification in general]. The IPP will work collaboratively with other universities, think tanks and with the public and private sectors to impact the public policy discourse and practice in Canada and abroad. This work will assist Canada: in diversifying its economy, markets and trade relations; in developing and marketing international governance expertise in the extractive resource industries; and in providing essential analysis on global economic and security issues.”

Methodology

The methods used to conduct the evaluation included:

• A review of documents and data provided by WD and SPP.
• Interviews with key informants and stakeholders of the IPP program. A total of 32 people were interviewed, including:
  • 17 current or former staff of the SPP (professors and operational personnel, including former SPP graduate students)
  • 12 external partners
  • 3 WD staff (in project management, performance measurement and audit areas of responsibility).
• Mini-case studies of IPP initiatives, developed based on the interviews and the document review.

Limitations

Evaluation focus

Due to the 10-year length of the IPP project and the broad variety of its activities, this evaluation reviewed only a selection of all the activities undertaken. The evaluation considered an overview of the project, rather than a more micro-level, detailed examination of activities and results. (For example, the content of training or the feedback of the attendees at events was not reviewed.)

Terminology

The SPP is structured according to four ‘research sectors’: International Policy and Trade (IPT) (which had originally been named International Policy Program or IPP), Social Policy and Health, Fiscal and Economic Policy, and Energy and Environmental Policy. In addition, the School runs a Master of Public Policy program, as well as the Extractive Resource Governance Program (ERGP, which is funded in part under the WD agreement and is one of the case studies for this evaluation).

According to key informants, the funding from the WD project has been used to help establish the IPT research area of the School and has been primarily used by the IPT research sector to fund various initiatives. However, the funding from the WD project is not used for all activities carried out by the IPT; only those which fit with the specifications of the Contribution Agreement. The funding from WD has also been used for some activities in the other ‘research sectors’ of the School that fit with the specifications of the Agreement. Staff at the School tend to use the terminology of “the WED funding” when discussing the money from the WD-funded project, and do not call it the IPP.

The differing terminology used by stakeholders created some confusion during the implementation of the evaluation, such as in interviews. To clarify the use of terminology in this report:

• “IPT” refers to “International Policy and Trade”, one of the school’s four research sectors.
• “IPP” refers to the “International Policy Program”, the WD-funded project.

These are not equivalent. The IPP’s funding is used to carry out some of the work of the IPT.

Because the IPP project funding underpins many, but not all, of the activities of the IPT, as well as of some other parts of the school (such as the ERGP), it is sometimes difficult to separate the outcomes of the IPP from the outcomes of the School overall.

Logic Model

Based on project documentation (largely from the project planning and approval phases), the following logic model was developed by the evaluation team in order to outline the project’s primary activities and expected outcomes. At this phase of the project, the four themes for its activities were already defined, but the specific nature of the activities evolved along with the implementation of the project. In general, the activities have fallen under the areas outlined in the logic model – conducting research and analysis, disseminating research, developing partnerships and conducting training and outreach.

The outputs are the direct result of those activities: reports and publications developed, research disseminated through conferences and symposia, collaborations and partnerships undertaken, and training sessions held.

The immediate outcomes are the changes that are expected to come from these activities and outputs, in a short period, and largely attributable to the project. The expected immediate outcomes include increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders, influence on policy and practices, and increased capacity development of stakeholders in the areas of training.

The intermediate outcomes are the changes expected in the medium-term to which the project is expected to contribute, as well as to the ultimate outcome in the long term. As a concept, medium and longer-term outcomes are less directly attributable to an intervention (i.e. the project) alone, since other intervening factors play a role over time. For example, the project should contribute to “improved international trade and investment policies and practices”, but of course, there are many other external factors that influence achievement of this outcome over time, such as changes in governments both nationally and internationally, trade negotiations, unforeseen events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and other factors.

Evaluation Framework Matrix

Based on this Logic Model, an Evaluation Framework Matrix was developed. This is included in Appendix A. This framework sets out the Evaluation Questions, as well as indicators to measure them, and the methods applicable to each question.

II. Findings

This section outlines the findings of this evaluation, after bringing together the document and data review, the interviews and the mini-case studies.

The findings are organized by evaluation question (identified in boxes).^{Endnote 1}

1. Effectiveness

The first evaluation question in the category of effectiveness is:

The School, using IPP funding, undertook a number of activities and produced outputs in each of the agreement’s four areas of focus (i.e., international economics; the Extractive Resource Governance Program; security of state, resources and relations; and international market diversification).

i. Reports and publications

The IPP funding was also used to support the development of research and policy papers. Interviewees indicated that there is an SPP inhouse scholarly publication, a peer-reviewed academic journal, the School of Public Policy Papers (SPPP), which has enabled more timely publication of articles than in traditional journals, helping keep the articles relevant. It is available at: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/index.

These journal articles are also published and accessible on the SPP website itself, along with other papers.

One of the performance indicators outlined in the Contribution Agreement for the IPP is “the number of evidence-based economic analysis created/funded by WD.” The target set for this was 200, and as of the end of December 2020, SPP reported having completed 190. Therefore, this target is on track to be met.

ii. Research disseminated through media, conferences, symposia and direct distribution

Direct distribution: There is dissemination of the above-mentioned reports and publications using SPP’s Twitter account, and via their distribution list. This distribution list includes key policy makers, people in government, and trade commissioners, for example.

Media: One of the indicators included in the original agreement upon which SPP has been required to report periodically was the “number of spokesperson and media references to WD-funded research”. The target set for this was 800. As of the end of 2020, SPP reports they have exceeded this at 2,046.

SPP used an automated news tracking service called Meltwater to collect statistics on media citations of their research. This has included stories or articles in either print, broadcast or online media that reference The School’s research. In addition, they track the number of SSRN (Social Science Research Network) downloads of papers, as well as the number of unique page views and downloads of the paper on the SPP website.

This is evidence of the further dissemination of the IPP-funded research, beyond the initial research outputs, likely contributing to achieving some immediate outcomes, such as “increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders”.

Conferences and Symposia: Holding a variety of different events, including conferences and symposia has been one of the main areas of activity for the IPP.

A list of the events that IPP has funded since its beginning in 2012, including, the event’s speakers, partner organizations, and attendance is included in Appendix C. In total, SPP reports that 215 events engaged 1147 speakers (not counting 2012, when this was not tracked), and 12,478 attendees.

As shown in the graphic below, the largest number of events funded by IPP related to the topic area of International Economics, followed by Security of State, Resources and Relations, then the ERGP, and Market Diversification. Fifty-seven of these events (27%) were outside Calgary, in locations such as Ottawa and Vancouver. In the case of the ERGP, events were in international locations. However, all events have been online since the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interviewees described some of the different types of events which were held:

• Breakfast meetings around certain themes, targeted to specific stakeholders or sometimes open to members of the public. At 7:30 in the morning, they offer a breakfast, and have speakers on a topic, which can then be discussed with the audience.
• Policy and a Pint. These events are hosted at a pub, where a speaker or a panel of speakers discuss policy issues. Members of the public can attend, though it is targeted to people with an interest in the specific policy area.
• Workshops and conferences with policy stakeholders from around the country, bringing together policy makers and researchers, including attendees from Global Affairs Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and provincial governments. Sometimes these were held outside of Alberta, in locations such as Ottawa or Vancouver. These events often attracted high-ranking civil servants, such as Deputy Ministers.
• Longer-term, recurring conferences and initiatives, including the “Shoulder to Shoulder” annual conference with Goodenough College in the UK, the German-Canadian annual conference, the North American Process with US and Mexican stakeholders, and the Alberta-Québec International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy and Natural Resources. (The latter three initiatives are subjects of the mini-case studies in Appendix B.)

iii. Partnerships and Collaborations undertaken

In undertaking the IPP activities, the SPP has formed many partnerships, many of which have lasted for multiple years. A number of these partnerships are discussed in the mini-case studies in Appendix B. For example, SPP partnered with Atlantik-Brücke for hosting the annual German-Canadian Conference; with Arizona State University and Universidad Anáhuac México and others for the annual North American Process; with Université Laval for the annual Summer School; with Goodenough College in London for an annual conference on the relationship between Canada and the UK; with Asia-Pacific Foundation Canada for the multi-year development of the Investment Monitor.

Some interviewees mentioned new partnerships and initiatives currently being developed. One of these is research exploring the concept of a Canadian Northern Corridor – a network of physical corridors connecting Canada from coast to coast – with partners including CIRANO (the Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Analyse des Organisations) and others. (See https://www.canadiancorridor.ca/the-research-program/people-and-contributors/partners/ for a list of partners.)

One of the indicators in the Contribution Agreement was the “number of industry partnerships created”. The target set for the project was 120, and SPP reports that they exceeded this amount with 127 at the end of 2020.

iv. Training sessions and participation in international events

The ERGP, which has received some funding under the WD agreement and is one of the case studies in Appendix B, has provided training in the area of extractive resource governance in a variety of jurisdictions, including Latin America, South Africa and Mongolia. The Alberta-Québec Summer School has also involved the training of graduate students as well as its other attendees, which included industry and government representatives.

As mentioned above, 27% of the events funded by IPP (as outlined in the Event List in Appendix C), were held outside of Calgary, and some have been international, such as the German, UK, and US-Mexico examples.

One of the indictors in the Contribution Agreement was the “number of projects promoting participation in major international events”. The target for the project was set at 80, which was exceeded and was indicated to be 229 at the end of 2020.

Immediate Outcomes

The logic model identifies some immediate outcomes, which are the changes that were expected to come from the activities and outputs, in a short period, and largely attributable to the project. The expected immediate outcomes include increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders, influence on policy and practices, and increased capacity development of stakeholders in the areas of training.

The mini-case studies (see Appendix B) offer some indication of the immediate outcomes which resulted from some of the IPP initiatives. Some of these are:

 

At the beginning of the IPP in 2012, it was categorized under WD’s Program Alignment Architecture’s Strategic Result of “improved understanding of western Canadian economic issues, challenges, opportunities and priorities.”

Interviewees indicated that the IPP contributed to this strategic result by helping to grow the School of Public Policy to be an established and influential public policy school. Without the IPP project, the School, which was founded in 2008, would have, at minimum, grown more slowly than it has to date. One interviewee indicated that they feel the SPP has been important in bringing a Western Canadian perspective to public policy debates, which can often be dominated by Central Canadian actors. As one informant indicated: “We could not have mounted some of the great events (…) such as Shoulder to Shoulder or Atlantik – Bruecke without the WD support. It allowed us to build a strong team that can organize amazing activities that much larger Faculties at our University (or at others) could not possibly do. People have been amazed (…) that our small School, with just 15 faculty members, has been able to put on such major events.”

The IPP also contributed to the goals of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, namely:

• “To produce timely, independent, fact-based, high quality research that directly impacts public policy in Canada and beyond”
• “To be recognized internationally as one of the world’s leading policy schools, as much because of its superior expertise as because of its innovating training approaches”.

Interviewees indicated that the IPP enabled the production of research intended to impact public policy in Canada, and its partnerships enabled collaboration on initiatives that hoped to impact public policy abroad, such as the ERGP’s international work, and initiatives including the “Shoulder to Shoulder” annual conference with Goodenough College in the UK, the German-Canadian annual conference, and the North American Process with US and Mexican stakeholders.

 

Facilitator and Barrier: Length of the Contribution Agreement

Some stakeholders mentioned that the 10-year length of the Contribution Agreement was a facilitator for the achievement of expected outcomes. This was compared to a typical academic grant, where funding is for a specific research project, which ends after a specific period. The advantage of the WD agreement was said to be that the timeline under which funding is available allowed for the development of relationships and connections, conducting the research, and then disseminating it, and possibly building upon it with new initiatives and research.

On the other hand, the 10-year length of the Agreement was also a disadvantage in some ways. With the project’s indicators and reporting requirements established at the beginning of the period, they are less likely to be able to reflect evolving priorities and issues (such as EDI). Therefore, it could be concluded that longer-length agreements (e.g. longer than the one-to-three year agreements which are common for many federal and provincial funding programs) are advantageous; however, a period which is long but less than 10 years may be able to allow more responsiveness to a changing context. These observations imply that identifying an ideal length for projects would be one that balances the advantages and disadvantages involved.

Facilitator: Matching Funding Requirement and Partnerships

While some interviewees indicated that they would have preferred not to have the requirement to match WD funding with other sources, other interviewees indicated that they felt the matching requirement was beneficial, and encouraged the development of partnerships. The development of these partnerships was said to be essential in fulfilling the collaborative vision of the School, and the funding model was complementary to that.

Facilitator: Taking Risks

One interviewee indicated that the flexibility and the size of the IPP funding served to ‘de-risk’ some activities. It enabled the SPP to take on new partnerships and activities, knowing that they had money committed which could in turn leverage other sources of funding. For example, teaching civil servants in Mongolia about mining regulations through the ERGP was an exceptional opportunity.

Facilitator: Salaries paid by the Agreement

According to the initial project Contribution Agreement, salaries are the largest category of expenses to be covered by the IPP. A maximum amount of $14.7 million in total project costs was allocated, with WD’s contribution to be 55% of those costs.

According to SPP key informants, WD financing was used to hire and pay half the salary of one new Associate Professor position, and supported, in part, the salaries of other faculty members in the energy and international policy areas. An interviewee indicated that this enabled the School to increase its course offerings in the IPP project areas.

The funding enabled the hiring of operational staff to help undertake the IPP activities, by funding half of their salaries. Many of these employees were students and/or graduates of the School’s Master of Public Policy Program. Their employment by the IPP involved undertaking things such as helping to organize the outreach activities and conferences. Interviewed former staff indicated that this gave them unique experience and helped position them to subsequently obtain other positions outside the School. According to an informant: “some of the best benefits (…) come from the young people IPP helped us support. (…) IPP has been critical in growing talent.”

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Awareness of issues related to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) has grown in the academic sphere in recent years. For example, the three Canadian academic granting councils released an Action Plan on EDI in 2018.^{Endnote 2} WD’s current priorities include “inclusiveness”: providing specific supports to help Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and other underrepresented groups to increase their economic participation, and improve economic and social outcomes.

When the IPP began 10 years ago, the emphasis on EDI was less prominent, and these considerations were not included in the initial WD Contribution Agreement. However, interviewees indicated that the IPP has integrated some considerations related to EDI issues in its activities in the time since the agreement was established. Most notable is the inclusion of considerations around and engagement of Indigenous stakeholders in discussions and events regarding natural resource governance.

Internal interviewees indicated that there has also been some increased gender diversity among Professors at the SPP, as the later-career stage academics who began the SPP have been replaced by younger academics. In addition, there was explicit effort to ensure that there was at least one female on panels during events. It was indicated that some staff and students are immigrants, and the ERGP has involved much international and cross-cultural engagement. The German-Canadian Conference included a youth event and established a youth partnership.

While the IPP has integrated some EDI measures and considerations, future such projects would benefit from the development of an EDI or Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) strategy, as well as indicators for reporting.

Sustainability After the End of WD Funding

One interviewee indicated that plans for how to continue the work funded by WD after the end of the IPP project are being developed. Given that the IPP is not a stand-alone project, the question of whether IPP-funded activities will continue after WD funding would have to be considered activity by activity. However, while interviewees indicated that obtaining funding from different sources is labour intensive, the School has been very successful in obtaining funding from a variety of sources, and many new projects are in development. Therefore, the likelihood of being able to continue many activities is high.

As an informant indicated: “We are very convinced that activities IPP allowed us to begin are now well enough established to continue. ERGP is developing new Executive Education modules, which we believe will help them become more self-supporting. The Government of Alberta is very interested in helping us continue the Shoulder to Shoulder event. IPP helped us get the Canadian Northern Corridor project up and running and it has since attracted significant support from other sources. In that sense, we see IPP as having been a very significant investment and vote of confidence in the School at an early stage and we feel the investment will continue to produce results for years to come.”

2. Efficiency, Design and Delivery

Disbursements and Matched Funds

According to the original Contribution Agreement, WD would pay for 55% of total project costs for most categories of costs (equipment, salaries, travel, study and analysis, and outreach) and 0% of other project costs (direct cost time buy-outs). Altogether, this would result in WD paying a total of 50% of all project costs (i.e., 50% of up to $30 million). However, the agreement allowed for WD’s contribution to be proportionately higher in the initial years of the project, as the IPP was established and the process of acquiring matching funds began.

The graph below shows the amount of actual disbursements per fiscal year over the course of the project. As can be seen in the first three years of the project, WD provided more funding than the matched funds. The amount of matched funds disbursed each year increased, until it was approximately the same as the WD funds in 2015-16. From then until 2020, the matched funds spent each year were more than the WD-provided funds.

While the graph above shows ANNUAL disbursements, the Contribution Agreement specified how the balance of CUMULATIVE disbursements should change over the course of the project. It indicated that:

“the Minister’s cumulative Contribution

1. to March 31, 2014 shall not exceed 80% of cumulative Total Project Costs,
2. to March 31, 2016 shall not exceed 70% of cumulative Total Project Costs,
3. to March 31, 2018 shall not exceed 60% of cumulative Total Project Costs,
4. to March 31, 2019 shall not exceed 55% of cumulative Total Project Costs, and
5. to March 31, 2020 and beyond shall not exceed 50% of cumulative Total Project Costs”

The graph below shows the WD’s cumulative contribution as a percentage of all project costs, compared to the maximums outlined in the Agreement. As can be seen, the WD cumulative contribution did stay under the specified maximum each year. WD provided a higher proportion of the project’s funding at the beginning of the project, and in the most recent year of 2020-21, the WD cumulative costs are approximately 51% of all costs. This all conforms to the Agreement.

Utilization of Funding before the End of the Project

According to interviewees, it does not seem possible that all $15 million will be expended by the end of the project in March 2022. It was estimated that approximately $12 million of the WD funds will be disbursed and matched by the end of the project.

Interviewees did mention some possibilities for additional activities that they would like to undertake, however, these activities were either in the ideas stage, or else plans that will be pursued after the WD funding ends. It was indicated that it is not feasible to add a number of activities between now and March 2022 which would substantially increase the funds used for this project. Activities take time to organize, and activities with longer-term impacts take longer. A number of interviewees indicated that they recognized the importance of responsible stewardship of the funding, and would not want to include activities that do not fit with the IPP’s goals and framework, or which were hastily organized. Any money spent also has to be matched by funds from another source; something that was said to be challenging to arrange in the short term.

WD interviewees indicated that because the funds for IPP do not come from a special allocation, if they remain unspent, they can be reallocated. It was specified that it would, however, be necessary for WD to become aware as early as possible of the amounts that will not be spent, so it will be possible to reallocate them. Indeed, the amounts expected to be unspent are reported by WD in the quarterly financial reports. However, this suggests that it could be helpful for WD and SPP to have a discussion about the expected disbursements, to discuss details regarding the rest of this fiscal year, and any potential factors causing deviations.

 

The pace of disbursement of the funds allocated to the project was affected by barriers and facilitators over the years.

Barriers: Oil price crash, COVID-19

Interviewees indicated that in the first years of the project, it was fairly easy to find matching funding for their WD initiatives. Much of this came from private sector sources, such as the large oil companies located in Alberta. However, in November 2014, global oil prices declined significantly. This substantially affected the economy of Alberta, and the oil companies were in periods of cutbacks, meaning they were less likely to be a source of matching funding for SPP.

Therefore, SPP needed to identify new sources of funding to match their WD contributions. As one interviewee indicated: “This has pushed us in other directions to look for more support. The change in energy has shifted the focus here. There is more work on sustainable energy for the future. It has been more of a shift than a real barrier for us.” The shift towards different sources of funding did take time. SPP reports that the process of trying to obtain matched funds was extremely challenging for at least a year following the oil price crash.

COVID-19 has, of course, been another barrier to the disbursement of funds in the last two fiscal years of the project. Interviewees indicated that conferences, travel, and planned activities have been cancelled or moved online. The costs of holding conferences via videoconference is not significant, so that much less money has been spent. It has also changed some of their existing cost-sharing models. For example, their “Policy and a Pint” series involved hosting an event and selling pizza, which generated small amounts of matching money. For a full-day conference, they might sell tickets for $150 to generate matching funds to pay for the catering and location rental. But now their Zoom events are free, which makes them more accessible to some, but also does not generate any significant costs or matching funds.

Facilitators: Having already-committed funds made matching easier

The requirement to provide matching funds is common for many federal and provincial funding programs for economic development. Often, project proponents need to bring together different potential funders to agree on their mutual willingness to provide funding. In the case of the IPP, however, funding from WD was already committed by means of the IPP project. Interviewees reported that this made it much easier to attract new funders for their initiatives. SPP could inform potential matching funders that they already had WD funding committed to their initiative, making it much easier for those other donors to participate.

As one interviewee said:

“It is harder than people think to develop productive relationships with the private sector, attracting investors – it is easier to get money if you can say it can be matched. …Raising money is so difficult, to convince people to give you money. The [WD] matching funds changes the nature of the conversation – dealing with donors on a different footing.”

 

The performance indicators identified in the original contribution agreement were the following:

• # of spokesperson and media references to WD-funded research
• # of industry partnerships created
• # of projects promoting participation in major international events
• # of evidence-based economic analysis created/funded by WD

These indicators were reported on over the course of the project and as of December 2020, and as mentioned above, three of the initial targets have been exceeded, while the fourth is on track to be met or exceeded by the end of the project.

Although only a couple of Interviewees were able to comment on the performance indicators, it was reported that the performance indicators have been tracked and were relevant to provide some indications of the IPP’s results. However, interviewees also indicated that they reported on more than these indicators. SPP provided narrative explanations in addition to the quantitative numbers in their reporting.

In addition, the SPP identified the growing need to track some outcomes in the area of online media. As mentioned above, they have collected statistics on media citations of SPP research, including print, broadcast and online media, as well as downloads from academic paper repositories and the SPP website.

One interviewee said the performance indicators were useful and served to “ensure that they thought about what they were doing, and were important in order to defend the need for sharing and dissemination. The university as a whole is starting conversations about knowledge transfer – taking research beyond publication in an obscure journal.”

The indicators could be classified as primarily output-focused indicators. These are the easiest to measure, of course, and at the beginning of this project, planning was still tentative and it may have been difficult to identify other indicators.

However, as a consideration for future projects, it could be helpful to also identify some outcome-focused indicators. Although the logic model for this program was only recently created as part of this evaluation, it can be used as an example. One of the immediate outcomes in the logic model was “increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders in relation to the four themes”. While this is more difficult to measure, some qualitative or quantitative indicators could be developed and measured through the project. For example, attendees at an event could be asked to fill out a short feedback form to indicate if it was useful in expanding their knowledge.

In addition, it would be beneficial to identify some EDI/GBA Plus indicators, to help identify and measure the project’s contribution to diversity and inclusion.

 

IPP Governance

Interviewees explained that the oversight role for the WD funding has been provided by the SPP Director and the Academic Director. They provide the oversight, and requests for use of IPP funding must be approved by the Academic Director, who considers whether the suggested initiative is in line with the terms of the WD Contribution Agreement.

The mid-term evaluation of the IPP in 2016 reported that an International Policy Program Advisory Council was formed to provide advice to the director of the IPP (now IPT) concerning the strategic direction and research priorities for the program. Though the expectation was that the Council would meet bi-annually, at the time of the report, the Council had only met once, in 2014, and was subsequently discontinued.

Today, there is no governance body specifically formed to oversee the IPP funding. However, the School’s other governing bodies provide guidance applicable to the IPP funding. Today, the School has an Advisory Committee, comprised of private sector representatives who provide advice regarding the Strategic Direction of the SPP. In addition, in 2017 the School established a Scientific Council to provide external strategic advice and feedback on research activity, comprised of external university professors, most from Canada, but some international. This committee has generally met bi-annually since 2018.

Overall, the approach to governance of the IPP funding has evolved over the course of the project. While some interviewees indicated that the current approach (with the Scientific Council) is effective, this was not established until late in the project, and does not deal solely with the IPP funding. As a considerationfor future programming, the establishment of a formalized governance structure specific to the ‘project’ itself, early in the project, could provide greater consistency and transparent oversight.

Financial Oversight

The School of Public Policy employs a Senior Financial Analyst who is a Certified General Accountant, and who was hired after the first year of the IPP. Upon arrival, the analyst worked with WD to ensure understanding and adherence to its regulations, and has prepared all subsequent financial reporting for WD.

SPP’s financials are reviewed and internally audited within the University of Calgary.

3. Impact

The extent to which the IPP created a longer-term impact, contributing to attitudinal, procedural and policy changes, is difficult to measure. By nature, longer-term impacts are always harder to measure than short-term outputs and outcomes. The longer the time that passes, the more there is influence from intervening variables, and the more difficult is attribution to the original project activity.

The indicators developed at the inception of the IPP focused on short-term, easily quantifiable outputs (as outlined in the Effectiveness section). Because there were no medium- or long-term outcome indicators, tracking and reporting on these were not undertaken as with the outputs. As a consideration for future programming, it could be helpful to also identify some outcome-focused indicators at the inception of the project.

Interviewees were asked about the extent to which the project’s activities contributed to attitudinal, procedural and policy changes. Most echoed the fact that they thought this was difficult to measure. . However, some offered anecdotes that they felt were indicative of policy influence and other impact. These anecdotes included:

• An interviewee met Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and she mentioned having read a paper from the SPP.
• The Alberta Minister of Energy adopted policy which was outlined in a WD-funded report.
• Some SPP staff have testified in Senate hearings.

Some interviewees indicated that their goal was not necessarily to influence policy itself, but to influence the policy debate - to “frame the debate”- on certain issues. On example of this would be with the Alberta-Québec Summer School. (See mini-case study in Appendix B.) Through this activity, they brought together speakers with different perspectives on energy and natural resource issues, and fostered discussion and debate.

Some reasons to believe the IPP had impact are:

• The work of the School through the IPP has been very focused on outreach. They have engaged multiple audiences through events, activities and partnerships, rather than only academic ones. The audiences have included industry, academics, researchers, students, Canadian and international political actors, and sometimes the public.
• Their initiatives have continued over a number of years. The mini-case studies provide examples of this. The German-Canadian Conference Atlantik-Brücke, the Alberta-Québec Summer School, the North American Process with Mexico and the US, and the “Shoulder to Shoulder” conference with the UK have each continued for a number of years. In some cases, they have grown (for example, with the formation of the Atlantik-Brücke youth organization).
• These initiatives have also meant that many of the partnerships SPP has formed have also lasted a number of years.

Overall, although it is not possible to specifically quantify or measure , there is indication that IPP’s activities have resulted in some impact in terms of policy influence, increased evidence-based knowledge and capacity development of stakeholders, development of partnerships and “improved understanding of Western Canadian economic issues, challenges, opportunities and priorities”.

III. Conclusions, Lessons Learned & Future Considerations

Overall, the IPP has been successful in undertaking activities and producing outputs that reflect the original intent and purpose of the project. It has had a strong focus on outreach to a variety of audiences, which it has accomplished in a number of innovative ways. Through the IPP, the SPP has formed and fostered a number of lasting partnerships.

The IPP has been a relatively unique project. As it is now coming to an end, it can offer some lessons learned and considerations which may be of use to any future such projects.

Lesson: Outreach Excellence

The variety of outreach events targeting and engaging different audiences (from Policy and a Pint sessions to the annual North American Process symposia) provides excellent models for dissemination of knowledge and engagement with stakeholders.

Lesson: Length of Agreement

While the 10-year length of the Contribution Agreement facilitated the development of relationships and longer-term initiatives building upon previous ones, the length of the Agreement was also a disadvantage in its being unable to formally reflect evolving priorities and issues (such as EDI). These observations imply that identifying an ideal length for projects would be one that balances the advantages and disadvantages involved.

Considerations for Future Projects

This review of the implementation of IPP suggests areas of consideration when planning future projects with some similarity to IPP.

Consideration: Adding Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) planning

Any future such projects would benefit from the development of an EDI or Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) strategy and indicators for reporting.

Consideration: Outcome Indicators

The indicators used for the IPP were primarily focused on the achievement of outputs. For future projects, it could be helpful to also identify some outcome-focused indicators.

Consideration: Project Governance

The approach to SPP’s governance of the IPP funding evolved over the course of the project. While some interviewees indicated that the current approach (with the Scientific Council) is effective, this was not established until late in the project, and does not deal solely with the IPP funding. As a consideration for future programming, the establishment of a formalized governance structure specific to the ‘project’ itself, early in the project, could provide greater consistency and transparent oversight.

Appendix A: Evaluation Questions and Framework

		Method(s)
Evaluation Questions	Indicators	Document & data review	Interviews & Mini-case studies
1. Effectiveness
Q 1.1 To what extent has the IPP achieved its anticipated outputs and immediate outcomes? Anticipated outputs include: Reports and publications Research disseminated through media, conferences, symposia, and direct distribution Partnerships and collaborations undertaken Training sessions and participation in international events Were there any unexpected outcomes?	Quantity and nature of activities and outputs, including: # of spokesperson and media references to WD-funded research # evidence-based economic analysis conducted/funded by WD # industry partnerships created # projects promoting participation in major international events Evidence of dissemination of research on the four themes Identification of the audiences to whom the research was disseminated # and nature of training sessions Evidence and opinions regarding the contribution to the immediate outcomes of: Increased evidence-based knowledge among stakeholders in relation to the four themes Policies and practices in relation to the four themes are influenced Increased capacity development of national and international stakeholders in the areas of training Other unexpected outcomes and impact on design/implementation	Yes	Yes
Q 1.2 To what extent has the IPP contributed to the strategic outcomes of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, and of Western Economic Diversification?	Identification of the strategic outcomes of the SPP and of WD over the timeframe of the project Opinions and evidence regarding the degree to which IPP has contributed to these outcomes	Yes	Yes
Q 1.3 What were the facilitators and barriers to achieving IPP’s expected outcomes?	Opinions regarding what were the facilitators and barriers to achieving outcomes		Yes
2. Efficiency, Design and Delivery
Q 2.1. Were the resources allocated to the IPP efficiently and economically used, in the context of the results achieved? To what extent will WD funding for IPP be fully utilized by the end of the project? Are there additional activities that could be undertaken with remaining funding before the end of the project, which would enhance the ability of the IPP to deliver on its long-term outcomes?	Quantity of resources expended in relation to nature of outputs and outcomes achieved Amount of funding expended and expected to be expended by the end of the project Plans or suggestions for additional activities; opinions as to their feasibility within the remaining time; opinions as to their likely contribution to long-term outcomes	Yes	Yes
Q 2.2 What have been the facilitators and barriers to the use of the funds allocated?	Opinions regarding the facilitators and barriers to the use of funds allocated		Yes
Q 2.3 To what extent were the identified performance indicators used to inform decision-making and indications of the IPP’s results? Have these indicators been useful in measuring the outcomes of the IPP? Have any other indicators been used to assess outcomes over the course of the project?	Frequency of reporting on the 4 identified performance indicators Opinions as to the use of the indicators by IPP and WD Identification of other indicators used, found in documents or indicated by informants	Yes	Yes
Q 2.4 What have been the lessons learned in the implementation of the IPP, and how can they inform future programming?	Opinions regarding lessons learned		Yes
Q 2.5 To what extent has the design, structure and approach to the implementation of the IPP been effective and efficient? Are there any changes to structure or implementation to position the program to deliver outcomes after the end of WD funding?	Nature of the governance and administration of the IPP Opinions regarding changes which could position the program to deliver continued outcomes
3. Impact
Q 3.1 To what extent have IPP’s activities, including: dissemination of research and publications training given nationally and internationally to government officials, the private sector and others publications, briefs, blogs and other products national and international outreach events contributed to attitudinal, procedural and policy changes that have contributed to achieving long-term outcomes?	Opinions regarding the efficacy of the different activities undertaken Evidence of policy or procedural changes Evidence of attitudinal change Evidence of further dissemination of IPP research and products after the project’s own dissemination efforts	Yes	Yes

Appendix B: Mini-Case Studies

The following mini-case studies are included in this Appendix.

1. Extractive Resource Governance Program
2. German-Canadian Conference Atlantik-Brücke
3. AB-QC International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy & Natural Resources
4. North American Process
5. Asia Pacific Foundation Canada Investment Monitor

 

Overview

Touted as one of the most successful programs under the School of Public Policy (SPP), the ERGP harnessed the knowledge of faculty as well as real-world practitioners (from industry and government) to deliver training and policy support to other countries centered on the Canadian experience in mineral and energy resource development governance.

The ERGP is unique from the SPP’s other programs in that its activities go beyond the traditional academic scope. The program is outward focused, tailored to the real-world training needs of each jurisdiction and their respective resource sectors, and centers around capacity development. Due to this focus, and growth within the program since it was first established in 2013, the ERGP forged its own path within the SPP.

Activities and Outputs

Based on the needs of individual jurisdictions, the ERGP offers:

• Executive training (including an Executive Certificate, customized workshops and online seminars)
• Customized policy and regulatory development services
• Research in resource policy and regulatory issues with a focus on current and emerging trends

Clients include resource legislators, regulators and policy professionals. Jurisdictions have largely centered around Latin America and South Africa, with an additional project undertaken in Mongolia. The needs of most jurisdictions have related to the oil and gas industry, with one project focused on mining.

The ERGP has also developed reciprocal relationships with provincial governments (in AB, SK and BC), further enhancing its training and policy development services.

Diversity and Inclusion

Based on demand from several jurisdictions, the ERGP Executive Certificate revised its Public Engagement and Community Consultation module to include a section on Indigenous engagement. The revised module also includes a focus on respecting local values, cultural norms and better understanding the concerns of affected communities. Course work was revised through the support of expert advisers and based on Canadian best practices.

Some training contracts have also specified that an equal number of men and women be engaged in the ERGP training offerings.

The ERGP 5-year Strategic Plan (2020) pledges to align the program with the UN Sustainable Development Goals by helping other jurisdictions to address challenges associated with areas including inequity, peace and justice. However, specific actions towards these goals were not outlined in the Plan.

Impact

Beyond building capacity in extractive resource policy in various developing countries, the ERGP successfully leveraged Western Canadian oil and gas expertise and created inroads for Canada into various international jurisdictions. The program and informants felt it helped to elevate Canada’s role as a reliable policy expert in the field.

Informants said the program became a hub of information on extractive resources, being called upon by provincial government and private industry to provide sectoral analyses and expertise when needed.

Facilitators and Barriers

Informants identified that success was facilitated by the fact that the program remained true to its original mandate, as well as by the program’s use of Executive Fellows. It was felt that the combination of academic scholars and real-world policy practitioners (fellows) helped the program to remain relevant and current, offering ERGP students more practical application.

The most common barrier identified was in regard to political shifts within some jurisdictions. In some cases, engagement with the country was discontinued due to a change in government and their views on resource development.

The requirement for matched funds also prevented some countries facing economic crises from engaging the program, despite their identified need for guidance and support.

COVID-19 required training in 2020-2021 to take place virtually, rather than in-person, which was deemed less effective.

Efficiency, Design and Delivery

The ERGP was initially a component of RPP’s International Policy and Trade (IPT) research sector, later moving under the Energy and Environment Policy area to support greater alignment. However, as the ERGP grew, it became its own program area under the SPP.

Informants felt that the program would not have occurred without IPP funding, and further, that the requirement for matched funds contributed to the program’s success. It was felt that the program drew large-scale industry funding, in some cases, because the funder knew their contribution would be matched. The ERGP also successfully secured funding from within the jurisdictions themselves. However, some countries faced fiscal challenges and were limited in what they could contribute.

Conclusion

As one informant indicated, the success of the ERGP was unexpected. Informants involved with the ERGP believed it provided great value for money and return on investment.

According to informants, the program gained international recognition, advanced Western Canadian policy perspectives, and offered students unique and experiential learning opportunities. It was felt that its focus on real world policy, beyond traditional academic training, will help to set the SPP apart from other policy schools in Canada and attract more students.

Methodology

• 5 interviews held with stakeholders, including leadership, instructors and program graduates
• Documents provided by the SPP and other stakeholders
• Website of the ERGP program

 

Overview

Atlantik-Brücke is a German organization established after World War II to strengthen relationships between Germany and North America, and to foster understanding and cooperation. An annual German-Canadian conference is its key activity of Atlantik-Brücke and has taken place for over 3 decades. SPP has provided support for organizing the conference since 2014, taking over from the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. Since 2016, the Secretariat for Atlantik-Brücke Canada has been housed within the SPP. The School is responsible for the Canadian programming for the annual conference in partnership with Atlantik-Brücke.

Activities and Outputs

The conference is a two-day event that brings together approximately 30-50 members from each country. The location of the conference alternates between Germany and Canada, and is intentionally small so as to foster in-depth and candid exchanges on diverse topics of mutual interest to the two countries.

The invitees include senior political, government, diplomatic, private sector, academic and media leaders and decision-makers. National and sub-national governments are both represented. The conference program is tailored each year, covering areas such as economic issues, trade, security, immigration and digital transformation. There are professional discussions (formal conference program), but also a program of site visits and dinners so the official program is enhanced through bonding and social opportunities to create a bigger network of those interested in friendship between the two countries.

The outputs of the conference include the event itself, as well as a summary report. Some information is posted publicly (e.g., https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/en/a-signal-of-closeness-from-canada/).

Diversity and Inclusion

According to interviewees, convening panels and speakers for the conference considers diversity and inclusion. The annual conference program strives for gender representation and diversity of views. Inclusion of racially diverse perspectives is a work in progress given the underrepresentation among the very senior target audience of the conference.

In 2019, the conference established a standalone program for “next generation” Germans and Canadians interested in furthering the transatlantic relationship. A group of 10 German and Canadian youth participated in a week-long exchange, including the opportunity to observe the German-Canadian conference. This was a gender-balanced group and the application instructions note that “women and gender minorities as well as people of all backgrounds are encouraged to apply to ensure a diversity of perspectives”.

Impact

According the key informants, the German-Canadian conference is successful, even “outstanding”, and has been effective in a number of ways.

• Provides an opportunity to showcase Canadian and Western Canadian expertise and scholars and, conversely; exposure to European perspectives and ideas;
• Enriches understanding through ability to “plumb the depths of topics”;
• Opens different channels of communications other than diplomatic; and
• SPP key informants felt that housing the Secretariat has elevated the reputation of the School.

As the participants are senior leaders, there is perceived to be the potential for policy influence. While direct links to impacts of the conference on policy are difficult to make, stakeholders indicate that insights from the conference can be applied easily and instantly.

While difficult to quantify, interviewees emphasized the importance of relationship building that occurs at the conference, which opens opportunities for further and enduring collaboration. As an example, following the 2018 conference, an agreement was struck by SPP with the German Economic Institute to hold further discussions focusing on health care, which then occurred in 2019.

Facilitators and Barriers

The facilitators include:

1. small size event that is focused and, therefore, conducive to productive conversations;
2. balance between countries and mix of government policy makers, private industry, and academics who have a wealth of experience;
3. topical program that includes a range of perspectives. According to one respondent, the sessions are “raucous” and never a “group think exercise”, “frank and no nonsense”;
4. a plan for intersections with other events so that you can meet with a broader group (e.g., Davos); and
5. close involvement of Embassies for both countries.

A key barrier to effectiveness has been the COVID-19 restrictions which caused the conference to be cancelled twice. In the interim, webinar events have been hosted but the lack of personal interactions outside the formal program has a negative impact on overall quality.

There is reportedly a desire among participants to continue the conference. However, once the WD funding ends, the funding of the conference will need to be in place from government or private funders.

Efficiency, Design and Delivery

Interviewees felt the conference is well designed. At the 2019 conference, a decision was made to formalize the organization of Atlantik-Brücke Canada which will give the organization more stability. With support from SPP, in early 2020 Atlantik- Brücke Canada was officially incorporated. This was perceived to be an important and useful step in formalizing Canada’s participation. There is an expectation that cooperation will increase and lessons from the pandemic have given some insights into offering webinars between conferences so relations are even stronger.

Conclusion

Overall, the German-Canadian conference and partnership with Atlantik- Brücke is perceived to be a success and the SPP has been capable in the role of Secretariat. While difficult to quantify the impact, the conference has effectively fostered sharing of perspectives and building of relationships between the two countries.

Methodology

• 3 interviews in total, with one internal SPP representatives and 2 external stakeholders
• Documents provided by the SPP
• Website content, including Atlantik Brücke https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/en/ and the University of Calgary and SPP websites.

 

Overview

The International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy and Natural Resources is a week-long graduate level course held annually since 2014, which is jointly run by the School of Public Policy (SPP) at University of Calgary and the Hautes études internationales (HEI) of Université Laval in Québec city. Its location alternates year-to-year between Calgary and Québec, two provinces with often differing discourses on natural resource development issues. It brings together experts, industry representatives and speakers to present and explore a variety of perspectives related to the global political economy of natural resources.

Activities and Outputs

The idea for the Summer School came about when an SPP professor who had moved from Québec to Alberta observed very different public dialogues and perspectives on energy and natural resource issues in these two provinces. The Summer School was conceived as an opportunity to bring together stakeholders to explore in depth the differing perspectives and issues involved.

Students from both universities can attend the program, but it is also open to attendance by others, such as professionals working in the topic areas. A different theme related to energy and natural resources is chosen each year, and there are five days of activities. These include presentations and panel discussions by a variety of experts and specialists, both academic and professional. Every year, one day involves a related site visit to a location such as an energy company or a museum. The final activity of the week is a “policy simulation”. Participants are assigned the roles of stakeholders with different perspectives and a debate is held.

 

Interviewees reported that the feedback from participants on the policy simulation is that it is often the highlight of the week - a participatory chance for the learning to be put into application. One interviewee indicated that for a simulation of a project being presented to the National Energy Board, participants were assigned to be either gas industry representatives, First Nations representatives, or members of the public. They said:

“What was fantastic, whatever your background was, they put you in the opposite group…. That forced myself and other participants to rethink our normal positions. It was powerful in making the point that you really need to consider different perspectives.”

Diversity and Inclusion

Some activities have involved the integration of Indigenous perspectives related to energy and natural resources. In 2019, the field visit included both TransAlta Corporation and subsequently the Tsuut’ina First Nation.

One interviewee indicated that the 2020 program included discussion of inclusion and diversity and speakers on the role of gender, especially in extractive industries.

In terms of official languages, in the first year, simultaneous translation in English and French was used. Unfortunately, the cost of this was very high, and so it was not continued in future years. Université Laval graduate students must pass an English proficiency test as part of their graduate studies, and after surveying the students, Summer School organizers determined that their comprehension level was such that the school could be held predominantly in English in the future.

Impact

According to interviewees, many participants report better understanding of the issues and of the different perspectives on the topics discussed following participation in the Summer School. As one former participant from Alberta stated:

“It was a great experience; having diverse opinions in the room and the exercise to hash out each perspective and where they’re coming from. It is great learning – you can have the economic theory, but you need to understand different positions and ground truth the theory to arrive at the right course of action. More conversations need to happen with Quebec – the province has their own language, economy, energy mix. It was invaluable for my understanding.”

One anecdote from an interviewee indicated that the experience contributed to one Québec participant deciding to move to Alberta, gaining employment in the energy sector there. Other anecdotes indicate that there has been some impact on research collaboration between academics as well.

Facilitators and Barriers

One key facilitator to the development of the Summer School was the pre-existing connections between professors at the two participating universities.

The major barrier in the last two years has been the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Summer School had been planned to be in-person in 2020, but in the end was moved online. Unfortunately, this meant that the policy simulation, in-person site visits, and personal interactions were not possible. The 2021 Summer School has been cancelled because it can not be held in person.

Efficiency, Design and Delivery

Funding for the Summer School came in part from WD, as well as other sponsors, including industry. Participants paid some costs. Québec organizers also obtained funding from a variety of sources, including government and industry.

Key elements of the program’s design and delivery were identified as being particularly important to its success, specifically: the in-person experiential learning through the site visits, the policy simulation and bringing people with differing perspectives together.

Conclusion

The International Summer School on the Geopolitics of Energy and Natural Resources brought together participants and experts from two provinces with very different public dialogues and perspectives on natural resource issues. The approach offers an exploration of different facets of topical issues, allowing a broadened dialogue and greater understanding of the complexities involved.

Methodology

• 6 interviews held with professors from SPP and Université Laval, as well as participants (industry representative and students)
• Documents provided by the SPP reviewed
• SPP and U Laval websites provided additional information

 

Overview

The North American Process initiative has combined expertise from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions at Arizona State University, and the School of Global Studies at Universidad Anáhuac México. As of 2019, its partnership has included the Canada and Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Since its beginning in 2013, this initiative has been bringing together academia from the three universities and has increasingly been able to expand and draw both industry experts and government to join the conversation. The initiative has organized eight symposia, all of which have discussed different areas of opportunity and policy implications relevant to all three countries.

Activities and Outputs

The activities of this initiative have primarily been focused on and around the annual symposia that occurred over eight years, their locations rotating between Canada, the United States and Mexico. These symposia, focused on issues and areas of strong interest to all three countries were initially academic in approach, with briefing papers on each symposium being released afterwards. In later years, the conference become more action-oriented, bringing together experts in a variety of fields from many backgrounds to collaborate and discuss actionable outcomes. For instance, for one symposium discussing the automotive sector, players from both public and private sector, the energy industry and government were brought together to discuss how to create smoother supply chains, and the possibility of more integrated infrastructure across borders for the future of electric vehicles.

Diversity and Inclusion

For all symposia, the initiative focused on bringing in keynote speakers and panelists from diverse backgrounds, ensuring for instance, being inclusionary of women and also having Hispanic representation. The symposia also strived to be engaging for students and for those from a variety of academic and professional backgrounds.

Impact

Stakeholders indicated that impact can sometimes be difficult to measure in terms of direct policy outcomes. However, levels of engagement are an indicator of progress towards impact, and and this been measured for the North American Process by way of website visits and soft copies obtained of symposia and materials, which have circulated widely.

As well, each year, the conferences have been increasingly expanding in size and scope, including more partners seeking to get involved in the initiatives, as well as a larger number of both public and private sector attendees.

Facilitators and Barriers

Interviews with stakeholders identified some of the facilitators and barriers to this initiative.

For instance, the economic downturn (subsequent to the oil price collapse of 2014-15) that occurred in 2015-2017 resulted in a significantly higher-than-usual unemployment rate in Calgary at the time. This made it difficult for SPP to continue finding opportunities to match funds, pitch projects, and meet with other potentially interested parties.

As well, the tumultuousness of North American politics in recent years has made it more difficult for other issues (such as those being discussed at each conference) to gain greater attention by government, policy makers, industry and the general public.

Among other barriers, the COVID-19 pandemic has been impactful. However, it has also enabled positive outcomes. The 2020 symposium (“Economic Coordination and Adaption”) was hosted via Zoom and acted as an opportunity for greater engagement. Instead of 60-100 people (the usual number of attendees in-person), the online conference was able to have over 150 people in attendance virtually. A key thought by one of the stakeholders interviewed was that this method of getting together should continue to be used in the future for a variety of events (symposia, working groups or other meetings throughout the year), as it was able to provide an opportunity to participate for those who may not have been able to physically attend.

Efficiency, Design and Delivery

According to interviewees, there have been numerous opportunities provided as a result of the funding allocated to this initiative. It was said to have created a deep collaborative relationship between the three universities and partners involved, and has enabled both professors and students at these schools to broaden the scope of their work and their relationships.

When asked about the future of this process, a couple of stakeholders suggested the idea of developing a joint degree program between the three universities on North American integration, with courses delivered by professors from all three universities and cohorts of students also from across all three as well.

Conclusion

The North American Process initiative was said to have been instrumental in providing opportunity for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to come together and work collaboratively on common goals. As stated by one of the stakeholders interviewed, the strength in this initiative lies in the partnerships formed; both the intellectual and interpersonal relationships have been major keys to its success.

Methodology

• 5 interviews held with stakeholders, including professors and external
• Documents provided by the SPP and other stakeholders - Symposium documents (2016 through 2020)
• https://northamericanprocess.org/

 

Overview

In 2016, the Market Diversification Program at the School of Public Policy partnered with the Asia-Pacific Foundation (APF) to create a digital database called the APF Canada Investment Monitor. Its objectives are to obtain, visualize, analyze and report Canada’s investment relations with Asia (and vice versa). This project was initiated to address the limitations of official statistics and other investment tracking services. The project consisted of three phases over three years. For 2016-2017, it focused on Asia’s investment in Canada through monitoring inward Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from Asia to Canada; in 2017-2018, it monitored and measuring outward FDI from Canada to Asia; and in 2018-2019, it measured investments between major Canadian and Asian cities.

Activities and Outputs

The activities of this program involved the creation of the Investment Monitor database, available through an interactive website dashboard, publicly accessible at https://investmentmonitor.ca/.

The program released four annual reports, for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Each public report was accompanied by at least one public presentation, alongside tailored briefings with project-related and government stakeholders, (including Invest in Canada, Government of British Columbia and Government of Alberta).

Diversity and Inclusion

Given both the geographic regions as well as the technical nature of the language involved with the Investment Monitor, diverse language abilities were essential, and researchers with these skills were integral to the project. As reported by one stakeholder interview, researchers had the ability to read and interpret various languages within Asia, including, for example, Chinese, Mongolian, Korean and Hindi.

As well, the project focused some of its data and its subsequent reporting to engage and support diverse stakeholder audiences. Examples of this include a curated list of Indigenous-specific investments which were captured by the Investment Monitor in 2019-2020; and the creation of a list of stakeholders including investment attraction agencies and economic development units with a focus on historically underserved communities (such as Francophone communities outside of Québec, immigrant business associations, and First Nations and Métis economic development offices).

Impact

The creation of the Investment Monitor has made this investment data publicly available in an easily-digestible and interactive way. It has increased federal and provincial engagement with the data, and as such, has increased evidence-based decision making by those who have used the data. As well, interviewees believed that it has also attracted or facilitated increased investment flows.

Facilitators and Barriers

One of the main facilitators (as noted by stakeholders interviewed) was the strong working relationship between partners of the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada and the University.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic created uncertainty for the project, the resulting use of virtual communication methods has allowed for an increase in engagement with a multitude of organizations to discuss collaboration and involvement with the project.

As well, in the midst of the pandemic, an increased interest in the state of Canada and the world’s economies lead to increased analysis, some informed by the Investment Monitor, of key issues such as investments in healthcare, historical examination of previous recessions, and changes to investment law. As reported by one stakeholder interviewed, these stories were picked up widely by the public and made their way to several top news platforms.

Efficiency, Design and Delivery

Without funding from the IPP, interviewees felt that this initiative would not have happened. In the latter years of the project, a greater variety of funders were brought in, including the Bank of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. The University of Calgary not only expressed a strong interest and support for the initiative at the onset. It expressed a desire for collaboration and brought in necessary partners to ensure that the project would be able to be long-lasting and comprehensive in nature.

Conclusion

Currently, the Investment Monitor continues to analyse municipal investment attraction efforts across Canada. Data available through the Investment Monitor fills a large gap in available data on international investment. It has and will continue to inform policy and decisions on foreign investment with Asia on a federal, provincial and municipal level.

Methodology

• 3 interviews held with stakeholders, including professors and external.

Appendix C: List of IPP-Funded Events

This list of IPP-funded events was provided by SPP. (The formatting was adapted for the purposes of this report.)

Title	Key/Headline Speaker	Event Type	# Speakers	Attendance	Date	Partner	Location
2021
The fight for the vaccinable middle - Public attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine in Canada and the World	Dr. Cora Constantinescu, Pediatric Infectious Disease, University of Calgary Raj Pannu, Co-founder & CEO, Emergence Dr. JC Boucher, Assistant Professor, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary	Public	3	86	February 18, 2021		Online
Implications of UNDRIP C-15	Stephen Buffalo, Dwight Newman, Brian Schmidt, Mark Podlasly	Public	5	324	March 8, 2021		Online
Pipelines and Indigenous Peoples	Michael Lebourdais, Evan Taypotato, Karen Ogen, Brian Mountain	Public	4	207	April 22, 2021		Online
Webinar	APEC Conference (Eugene Webinar)	Private			May 18, 2021	APEC	Online
Webinar	APEC Conference (Eugene Webinar)	Private			May 19, 2021	APEC	Online
Summer School		MPP			May 10 - 14, 2021		Online
2020
	Gitane de Silva	MPP	1	20	January 16, 2020		CNOOC
Canada Navigating in a Nasty World	Dr. Maureen S. Hiebert, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary, Dr. Jean-Sébastien Rioux, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary	Public	2	56	February 11, 2020		Junction YYC
Policy & a Pint	Group Discussion	Private	0	12	February 26, 2020		Bridgette Bar
Military Workshop	Group Discussion	Private	4	15	February 27, 2020		Ranchmans Club
Cyber Security Breakfast	Group Discussion	Public	7	75	February 28, 2020	Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary	CNOOC
Canada and the Changing World Order	Roland Paris	Public	1	34	March 2, 2020		CNOOC
Boarder Security Webinar	JC Boucher	Public	2	68	April 2, 2020		Online
Covid-19 and its Impact on International Trade	Hugh Stephens	Public	2	81	April 9, 2020		Online
COVID-19 as a Tool of Information Confrontation: Russia’s Approach	Sergey Sukhankin	Public	2	52	April 21, 2020		Online
ERGP - Week #1: Introduction to Lecture Series: History of Co-Management in Canada	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	39	April 23, 2020		Online
ERGP - Week #2: Case Study: Engagement of Indigenous Peoples in the Extractive Sector in Canada’s Northwest Territories	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	30	April 30, 2020		Online
ERGP - Week #3: Resource Revenue Sharing	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	32	May 7, 2020		Online
Summer School		MPP	11	12	May 11, 2020		Online
ERGP - Week #4: Engaging Indigenous Peoples in Environmental Impact Assessment	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	29	May 14, 2020		Online
Canada, China and COVID: Threat or Opportunity?	Hugh Stephens & Margaret McCuaig-Johnston	Public	2	60	May 14, 2020		Online
Week #5: Engaging Indigenous Peoples in Monitoring of Extractive Operations	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	23	May 21, 2020		Online
Week #1 Introduction to Lecture Series, Global Oil Market and Price Routs	Dr. Robert Skinner	Public	1	36	May 26, 2020		Online
US Election	Dr. Shannon Murray & Dr. Frank Towers	Public	2	138	May 27, 2020		Online
Week #6: Ensuring Economic Benefits (Local Content) for Indigenous Peoples	Deborah Archibald	Public	1	23	May 28, 2020		Online
Week #2 Realistic Expectations of Benefits from Oil Production	Dr. Robert Skinner and Brian Livingston	Public	2	30	June 2, 2020		Online
Week #4 Regulatory Responses	Brad Hubbard and Dan McFadyen	Public	2	30	June 16, 2020		Online
Canadian Agri-food Export Opportunities in a Covid-19 World	May T. Yeung	Public	2	31	August 6, 2020		Online
Grown Locally, Harvested Globally: The Role of Temporary Foreign Workers in Canadian Agriculture	Robert Falconer	Public	2	34	August 12, 2020		Online
NC Paper Exchange #1		Private	3	24	September 15, 2020		Online
NC Paper Exchange #2		Private	3	24	September 22, 2020		Online
NC Paper Exchange #3		Private	3	24	September 29, 2020		Online
Agri-Foods and Innovation Discussion: Technology and Twenty-first Century Canadian Farming	Kee Jim and Arvind Gupta	Public	3	65	October 7, 2020		Online
The Future Global Agri-foods Market for Canadian Products: High Tech and High Demand	Doug Horner	Public	2	64	October 14, 2020		Online
Does Alberta Have Enough Water to Grow? Expert Panel Discussion	Alex Ostrop, Chair, Alberta Irrigation Districts Association Jason Unger, Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre Wim Veldman, Independent Hydrotechnical Consultant	Public	4	89	October 20, 2020		Online
U.S. Election Webinar Series: Pre-Election Expert Panel	Dr. Pierre-Gerlier Forest Dr. Keesha M. Middlemass Luiza Savage Dr. Eugene Beauliu	Public	4	148	October 22, 2020		Online
Atlantik-Brücke		Private	5	41	October 26, 2020		Online
Canada vs China: What tools do we have to manage the relationship with a more aggressive China?	Robert Falconer, Ai-Mei Lau	Public	3	101	October 27, 2020		Online
Value-Added – Can Canada Globally Compete?	Dr. Simon Somogyi	Public	2	40	November 4, 2020		Online
U.S. Election Webinar Series: Post-Election Expert Panel	Deborah Yedlin Dr. Monica Gattinger Frank Graves Colin Robertson Dr. Christopher Sands	Public	5	207	November 5, 2020		Online
The Canadian Northern Corridor Concept	Alaz Munzur, Katarina Koch and Kent Fellows	Public	3	84	November 12, 2020		Online
Big Beef	Dr. Jared Carlberg	Public	2	36	November 12, 2020		Online
ERGP Workshop #1	Deborah Archibald & Lisa Young	Private	2	30	November 13, 2020		Online
ERGP Workshop #2	Deborah Archibald & Lisa Young	Private	2	30	November 16, 2020		Online
ERGP Workshop #3	Deborah Archibald & Lisa Young	Private	2	30	November 18, 2020		Online
Policy and a Pint – U.S. Election Results and Ramifications. What Lies Ahead?	JC Boucher Mary Lovely Dr. Sui Sui	Public	3	89	November 18, 2020		Online
Climate Change and Implications for the Proposed Canadian Northern Corridor	Dr. Tristan Pearce Dr. James Ford David Fawcett	Public	4	48	November 19, 2020		Online
ERGP Workshop #4	Deborah Archibald & Lisa Young	Private	2	30	November 20, 2020		Online
Financing and Funding Approaches for Establishment, Governance and Regulatory Oversight of the Canadian Northern Corridor	Anthony Boardman Mark Moore Aidan Vining	Public	4	41	November 26, 2020		Online
Canadian Agri-foods and Temporary Foreign Workers: Inextricably Linked	Dr. Robert Falconer	Public	1	33	November 26, 2020		Online
Cross-Canada Infrastructure Corridor, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ‘Meaningful Consultation’	David Wright	Public	1	88	December 1, 2020		Online
Carbon on your Plate	Ymene Fouli Margot Hurlbert Ronald Kroebel	Public	4	62	December 3, 2020		Online
A Conversation on Canada’s Hydrogen Potential	The Hon. Seamus O’Regan, Michael Liebreich, Sara Hastings-Simon	Public	4	533	December 8, 2020		Online
Governance Options for a Canadian Northern Corridor	Andrei Sulzenko & Katarina Koch	Public	2	33	December 10, 2020		Online
2019
Caroline Saunders - Brexit	Caroline Saunders	MPP	1	55	January 29, 2019		CNOOC
Electricity Storage	James Bushnell	Research Symposium	14	35	March 18, 2019		DTC Event Centre
Atlantik-Bruecke Conference		Private	29	56	May 2, 2019	Atlantik-Bruecke	Niagara-on-the-Lake
Geopolitics of Energy		MPP	13	30	May 13, 2019	Universite Laval	CNOOC
Canada-China Relationship		Public	3	54	June 11, 2019		Junction YYC
Security, Commerce and FDI in Canada	Goldy Hyder. Nik Nanos	Research Symposium	17	40	October 1, 2019	CGAI, Laval	Toronto
Foreign policy advice to next govt		Public	3	56	October 8, 2019		Junction YYC
	B.Gen. Janzen	MPP	1	25	October 25, 2019		CNOOC
ERGP Workshop		Research Symposium	0	16	October 31, 2019		CNOOC
Current State of Israel	Michael Bauer	Private	1	25	November 12, 2019		CNOOC
Israel 101	Michael Bauer	MPP	1	12	November 12, 2019		CNOOC
German-Canadian Dialogue on Health Policy		Research Symposium	13	13	June 11 - 12, 2019	German Economic Institute	Cologne, Germany
Shoulder to Shoulder		Public	28	70	November 27-28, 2019	Goodenough, HSB, Law	Goodenough College
2018
ERGP Kenya Visit		ERGP Training			March 14, 2018		DTC
Northern Corridor Reception		Private	2	20	March 27, 2018		Ottawa
Future of Intl Trade Governance		Research Symposium	9		April 13, 2018	CIGI, Uottawa	Ottawa
Trade Experts Roundtable		Research Symposium	3		May 17, 2018	GAC, CIGI, Uottawa	Ottawa
Trade Experts Dinner		Private	0		May 17, 2018	CIGI, Uottawa	Ottawa
Presentation at GPS		Public	4	20	June 12, 2018		BMO Centre
Northern Corridor Breakfast		Private	3	16	June 18, 2018		Fairmont Palliser
Policy and a Pint: NAFTA		Public	3	40	August 21, 2018		Bank and Baron pub
Northern Corridor Breakfast		Private	3	16	September 7, 2018		Toronto
Tax Policy Seminar: SR&ED		Public	5	48	September 19, 2018		DTC
Albertas Fiscal Future: How did Ralph and Roy do it?		Research Symposium		85	September 20, 2018		Fairmont Macdonald
Current Affairs: City User Fees		Public	4	45	October 31, 2018		Fairmont Palliser
Reception for MEP Arne Lietz		Private	1	30	October 31, 2018		DTC Event Centre
MPP Lecture Arne Lietz		MPP	1	30	October 31, 2018		Nexen
Implications of Bill C69		Public	4	150	November 5, 2018		DTC Event Centre
Midterm election analysis		Public	4	70	November 7, 2018	CGAI	Glenbow Theatre
Energy Leaders Roundtable		Private			November 13, 2018		Delta Kananaskis
CNEPRA Book: Impacts of Energy Infrastructure		Research Symposium	17	90	December 7, 2018		Ottawa
Atlantik-Bruecke: Special Roundtable		Private	6	10	December 8, 2018	Atlantik-Bruecke	Canadian Embassy Berlin
Oil Price Differential		Public	4	60	December 13, 2018		Fairmont Palliser
ERGP Pakistan Visit		ERGP Training			February 27-Mar 2, 2018	DTC
Atlantik-Bruecke: Canada-Germany Conference		Private	26	80	January 28-29, 2018	Atlantik-Bruecke	Munich, Germany
Summer School: Geopolitics of Energy		MPP	14	45	May 14-19, 2018	Universite Laval	Quebec City
Shouder to Shoulder: Forging a new Canada-UK Relationship		Public	18	50	November 28, 2018	Goodenough, Law	Goodenough College london
2017
MPP Lecture Speaker	Hugh Stephens	MPP	1	25	February 27, 2017		Nexen
Inter-American relations in the Age of Trump	SPP/LARC	Public	4	80	March 3, 2017		Nexen
Trade Experts Roundtable		Research Symposium	15	80	March 23, 2017		Ottawa
Sovereignty Roundtable	RCAF	Research Symposium	3	18	March 27, 2017		Nexen
Financials in ASEAN		Research Symposium	17	55	March 30, 2017		York University
Israel Canada Relations	Israel Consul General Galit Baram	MPP	1	40	April 4, 2017		Nexen
Sovereignty Conference		Research Symposium			April 21, 2017		Ottawa
100 Days of Trump	Panel	Public	4	220	May 3, 2017		Glenbow Museum
Where in the world launch	Shantel/Niloo	Private	2	50	June 15, 2017		Global Petroleum Show
Carbon footprint release	Kent Fellows	Public	2	23	September 27, 2017		DTC Event Centre
Policy process in the US	Dan Morhaim	MPP	1	40	October 18, 2017		Nexen
Trade Agenda		Research Symposium	15	81	November 16, 2017		Ottawa
Atlantik Bruecke		Private	33	75	June 9-10, 2017		Ottawa (various)
Summer School		MPP		46	May 15-20, 2017		Nexen
Trade Summit		Public	29	190	May 2-3, 2017		Telus Convention Centre
North American Agenda		Research Symposium	3		October 5-6, 2017		Puebla, Mexico
2016
Airpower, the Canadian way	LGen Michael Hood	Public	1	80	March 17, 2016		Nexen
Global Changes	Dominic Barton	Private	1	11	April 26, 2016		Calgary
Global Changes	Dominic Barton	Public	1	350	April 26, 2016		Calgary
Summer School		MPP	11	40	May 16, 2016		Quebec City
Private Dinner	Uzi Arad	Private	1	20	May 26, 2016		Toronto
Global Security	Uzi Arad, Stephen Rigby	Public	2	60	May 26, 2016		Toronto
Global Lessons in Urban Diversity	Cardenas, Stanley	Public	3	40	June 2, 2016		Calgary
Role and Future of Community Associations	Multiple	Public	5	170	June 2, 2016		Calgary
Financial Markets Roundtable	Multiple	Research Symposium	10	45	June 9, 2016		Toronto
Corporate Tax	Multiple	Research Symposium	25	75	June 15, 2016		Toronto
Canada US relationships	Canadas Ambassador to US	MPP	1		September 8, 2016		Calgary
Canadian Foreign Policy	Roland Paris	Public	1	40	October 4, 2016		Calgary
Atlantik Bruecke	Multiple	Private	19	45	October 26, 2016		Berlin
Defence Procurement	Multiple	Research Symposium	13	70	October 26, 2016		Ottawa
US Election	Panel	Public	2	130	November 9, 2016		Calgary
FMRP Meeting	FMRP	Private	11	10	November 21, 2016		Toronto
Aboriginal Policy	Chief Boucher	Research Symposium	11	60	November 21, 2016		Calgary
Sustaining Prosperity	Multiple	Research Symposium	0	15	November 26, 2016		Winnipeg
Building a North American Commission	Multiple	Research Symposium	27	85	March 30-31, 3016		Phoenix
2015
Meeting	S. African Minister for Energy	Briefing	1	8	March 6, 2015		Exec Boardroom
MPP Lecture	Gitane da Silva	MPP	1	42	March 9, 2015		Nexen
Exempt Markets	Vijay Jog	Private	1	25	March 12, 2015		Palliser
Private reception	Ian Bremmer	Private	1	11	March 18, 2015		Ranchmans
Canada in a Gzero world	Ian Bremmer	Research Symposium	7	80	March 19, 2015		Hotel Arts
Business in Colombia	Guillermo Perry	Private	1	16	April 9, 2015		Fairmont Palliser
MPP Speaker Series	Colin Robertson	MPP	1	42	October 19, 2015		Nexen - Calgary
Financial Markets Regulatory Program Meeting	n/a	Private	0	16	November 12, 2015		One King West - Toronto
Financial Markets Impact Analysis Roundtable	Various	Research Symposium	4	38	November 13, 2015		One King West - Toronto
Military Procurement for a Purpose: Charting (Refreshing) Canada’s Defence Strategy	Various	Research Symposium	9	110	December 1, 2015		Westin - Ottawa
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: Opportunities and Advantages for Western Canada	Various	Research Symposium	20	95	December 3, 2015		Sutton Place - Edmonton
Aboriginal Engagement Workshop	Gaetan Caron	Research Symposium	0	11	December 14, 2015		Exec Boardroom
The Changing Role of NATO	Multiple	Research Symposium		60	April 16-18, 2015		Brussels, Belgium
ERGP GPS Presentation	Dan McFadyen	Briefing	2	25	June 10-11 2015		BMO Centre
Trade Experts		Research Symposium	11	110	June 17-18 2015		War Museum Ottawa
TPP	Randolph Mank	Research Symposium	9	37	June 17-18 2015		War Museum Ottawa
Regulatory Roundtable	Jen Winter	Research Symposium	0	8	May 14 2015		SPP
FMRP Market Regulation	Multiple	Research Symposium	9	38	May 19-20 2015		One King West Toronto
Summer School	Multiple	MPP	22	49	May 25-30 2015		Nexen
FDI Canada Forum	Various	Research Symposium	23	84	September 22-23, 2015		Delta Bessborough - Saskatoon
2014
Financial Market Recovery	David Dodge	Public	1	125	February 15, 2014		Westin Harbour Castle
Financial Mkts semi-annual	Financial Mkts Meeting	Private	1	15	February 11, 2014		Westin Harbour Castle
Defence Procurement	Kics	Research Symposium	18	120	February 19, 2014		Fairmont Laurier
Arts in Vienna	Chumir Foundation	Public	4	140	March 19, 2014		Jack Singer Foyer
Canada in the Caribbean	Cam Ross	Research Symposium	10	15	May 15, 2014		Fairmont Royal York
Alberta Energy Regulations	Mexican ERGP	Executive Program	8	20	June 3, 2014		SPP
Networking lunch	Mexican Ambassador lunch	Private	5	60	June 3, 2014		DTC Events Centre
Emerging Issues	ERGP	Executive Program	10	70	June 9, 2014		DTC Events Centre
NAFTA 2.0	Chris Sands	Public	4	25	June 11, 2014		Nexen
China Canada Relations	Chinese Ambassadors	Private	3	20	July 22, 2014		Nexen
India Trade	Vivek Dehejia	Private	1	21	October 9, 2014		Nexen
MPP Lecture	Chris Sands	MPP Speaker Series	1	31	October 20, 2014		Nexen
Defence Procurement	V.Adm Mark Norman	Research Symposium	9	111	October 21, 2014		Chateau Laurier
Private Dinner	Uzi Arad	Private	1	16	October 30, 2014		Le Germain
MPP Lecture	Uzi Arad	MPP Speaker Series	1	24	October 30, 2014		Nexen
US Mid Term Election	Howard Dean	Public	4	175	November 5, 2014		U of C DTC
Business in Indo-Pacific	Emerging Markets	Research Symposium	21	55	March 11-12, 2014		Sheraton Eau Claire
Security of business in China	Robert Kaplan	Public	1	65	March 11-12, 2014		Sheraton Eau Claire
Achieving Canadas Trade Objectives	Trade Experts Roundtable	Research Symposium	19	74	September 15-16, 2014		Chateau Laurier
Trilateral Border Issues	TBSII	Research Symposium	30	85	March 16-18, 2014		Phoenix, AZ
Natural Resources	Laval Summer School	MPP Speaker Series	3	5	June 16-20, 2014		Laval
2013
Colombian Regulatory Workshop	Alberta Regulators	Executive Program	27	50	April 15, 2013		Nexen
Africa	Rilwanu Lukman	Public	1	120	April 17, 2013		Sheraton Eau Claire
Gift Announcement	Joe Oliver	Public	1	210	April 18, 2013		Sheraton Eau Claire
Africa	Paul Collier	Public	1	110	April 18, 2013		Sheraton Eau Claire
ERGP	Nigerian Consul	Private	1	15	July 11, 2013		Nexen
Shale Gas Regulatory	AER	Executive Program	14	25	October 7, 2013		Nexen
Shale Gas Regulatory	Pemex	Private	1	25	October 7, 2013		Hotel Arts
Shale Gas Regulatory	Bev Dahlby	Executive Program	11	20	October 8, 2013		Nexen
U of C Tanzania partnerships	Tanzanian Energy Minister	Private	1	18	November 7, 2013		Exec Board Room
ERGP	Indonesian Delegation	Private	1	24	November 13, 2013		Nexen
Shale Gas Regulatory	Romanian	Executive Program	11	24	November 19, 2013		Nexen
ERGP Symposium	Extractive Experts	Executive Program	21	85	April 17-19, 2013		Sheraton Eau Claire
US Policy	Peter Kujawinski	MPP Speaker Series	1	28	February 28, 2013		Nexen
Dutch Disease	Hon. John Manley	Public	1	115	March 6, 2013		King Edward Hotel
Dutch Disease	Dutch Disease roundtable	Research Symposium	13	67	March 7, 2013		King Edward Hotel
International Trade	Simon Kennedy	Private	1	29	June 2, 2013		Lord Elgin, Ottawa
International Trade	Eugene Beaulieu	Research Symposium	15	64	June 3, 2013		Fairmont, Ottawa
Business in Colombia	Colombian Ambassador	Private	1	20	October 21, 2013		Hyatt Regency
Canada Colombia Trade	Colombian Ambassador	MPP Speaker Series	1		November 1, 2013		Nexen
State Owned Enterprises	John Kubley	Private	1	40	December 9, 2013		Delta Bow Valley
SOE and FDI	Perrin Beatty	Research Symposium	26	100	December 10, 2013		Delta Bow Valley
Potash Paper Release	Jack Mintz, Duanjie Chen	Public	2	80	February 8, 2013		Delta Saskatoon
Chinese economy	Ambassador to China	Private	1	12	February 12, 2013		Nexen
Trilateral Border Symposium	Speaker Dinner	Private	1	40	March 17, 2013		Sheraton Phoenix
Market Diversification Dinner	Eugene Beaulieu	Research Symposium	1	18	November 25, 2013		Fairmont Waterfront
Asian Market Diversification	Market Diversification	Research Symposium	14	85	November 26, 2013		Fairmont Waterfront
Security	Tom Jenkins	Private	1	8	March 21, 2013		Nexen
Middle East	Uzi Arad	Private	1	11	March 21, 2013		Fairmont Palliser
Middle East	Uzi Arad	MPP Speaker Series	1	25	March 21, 2013		Nexen
JCC presentation	Uzi Arad	Private	1	110	September 17, 2013		Jewish Community
Israel	Uzi Arad	MPP Speaker Series	1	25	September 18, 2013		Nexen
Security	Ambassador Negroponte	MPP Speaker Series	1	20	November 21, 2013		Nexen
Israel Security	Israel Conference	Executive Program	n/	n/a	December 5, 2013		Haifax
Border Issues	Trilateral Border Symposium	Research Symposium	28	67	March 18-19, 2013		ASU DTC
Editor of The Economist	John Micklethwait	MPP Speaker Series		80	May 29, 2012		Nexen Space
2012
Private lunch	Gordon Campbell	Private		12	June 11, 2012		Petroleum Club
Networks of Opportunity	Gordon Campbell	MPP Speaker Series		65	June 11, 2012		Nexen Space
Canada-US regulatory	Bob Hamilton	Community Outreach		35	June 25, 2012		Nexen Space
Canada-US regulatory	Bob Hamilton	MPP Speaker Series		10	June 25, 2012		DTC
US Election	Jim Prentice	Community Outreach		225	September 27, 2012		Telus Convention
Clash of Generations	Larry Kotlikoff	Community Outreach		150	November 27, 2012		Hotel Arts
Roundtable	Income Inequality	Research Symposium		75	November 28, 2012		Hotel Arts
Trade with China	Canada’s Forward Agenda	Research Symposium		38	May 23, 2012		Fairmont Vancouver
Dr. Chowdhury	Energy in India	MPP Speaker Series		25	September 14, 2012		Nexen Space
Space Exploration in Frugal Times	Richard Truly	Community Outreach		57	April 13, 2012		Nexen Space
Space Exploration in Frugal Times	Richard Truly	MPP Speaker Series		30	April 13, 2012		Classroom
Imperial Oil Speaker	Daniel Yergin	Community Outreach		285	April 24, 2012		Telus Convention
Nuclear Iran	Uzi Arad	Community Outreach		142	May 24, 2012		Fairmont Palliser
Cybersecurity Conference	Conference	Research Symposium		50	May 24, 2012		DTC Event Centre