Evaluation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative

4. Results

4.1. Relevance

The evaluation examined the relevance of the Initiative based on:

4.1.1. Alignment with the priorities of the Department of Justice and the federal government

According to documentation and the interview findings, the activities and projects supported by the Initiative are aligned with the priorities of the Department and the federal government regarding access to justice in both official languages.

The Training pillar of the Initiative aims to support the bilingual capacity of justice professionals. Given that Supreme Court judges are usually selected from the Canadian pool of judges, the Training pillar is in line with one of the priorities in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Mandate Letter, which stipulates that “those appointed to the Supreme Court should be functionally bilingual.”Footnote 1 Ensuring bilingual Supreme Court judges is also a priority of the Department, as stated in the 2016-17 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP)Footnote 2.

Through the RoadmapFootnote 3, the federal government described how JUS would contribute to access to justice in both official languages. Under the Education and Community pillars, the Roadmap stated that Justice Canada:

During the period covered by the evaluation, priorities of the Department were identified in the JUS Program Alignment Architecture (PAA)Footnote 4 and the RPPFootnote 5. The sub-sub program labelled “Justice in Official Languages” supported the PAA’s strategic outcome aimed at a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system. Under this PAA component, it was stated that the Initiative “provides support to improve access to justice in both official languages to persons navigating the justice system”. It also mentioned that it is the Department’s responsibility to promote English and French in the development of OLMCsFootnote 6.

The 2016-17 RPPFootnote 7 identified the Initiative in its planning highlights. According to the RPP, the objectives of the Initiative include increasing the capacity of justice system stakeholders (judges, prosecutors, clerks, etc.) to offer justice services in both official languages, as well as increasing the availability and provision of legal information in the minority language to the legal community and OLMCs. The document specifies that the Department supports projects to: develop and disseminate linguistic tools; undertake research to the benefit of OLMCs; promote training for stakeholders of the justice system in both official languages; and promote and provide legal information to OLMCs.

The RPP also stated the intention of the Department to continue to support the implementation of the Initiative by securing funding agreements with provinces, territories, universities, courts, non-governmental organizations and others.

The Initiative’s webpage (on the JUS website) identifies activities and projects of interest that are aligned with the departmental and federal government’s priorities regarding access to justice in both official languages. The intended objectives of these activities and projects are to:

Key informants also confirmed that the Initiative is clearly aligned with the mission of the Department, two of its three objectives being to:

4.1.2. Alignment with the role of the federal government

The federal government has a legitimate and necessary role in the area of access to justice in both official languages, from the perspective of the Canadian official languages legal framework in place and the decisions associated with the Beaulac decisionFootnote 10.

The basis of the legal framework is found in the Constitution, Part XVII of the Criminal Code, Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 133 of the Constitution guarantees that both English and French can be used “in any Pleading or Process” before the courts of Canada. Section 530 of the Criminal Code guarantees that the accused has a right to be tried by a judge in the official language of his or her choice, and requires that the accused be advised of this right. Part VII of the Official Languages Act specifies the Government of Canada’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of the OLMCs in Canada and to supporting their development, as well as to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. The Act also sets out the duty of all federal institutions to take positive measures in order to fulfill these commitments. Finally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims English and French as the official languages of Canada and requires that federal services be provided in both languages; section 16 specifically establishes that English and French have equal status, rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament and of the Government of Canada.

In particular, the Beaulac decision held that an individual accused of a criminal offense has the right to be tried in the official language of his or her choice, regardless of where in the country that individual is being tried. For their part, most civil matters are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces have adopted legislation authorizing the use of French and English in the provincial legal system, while others have not. This is further discussed in subsection 4.1.3.

Despite these jurisdictional issues, key informants believed that the federal government has a leadership role in promoting access to justice in both official languages. JUS has acknowledged this role in its 2016-17 RPP where it communicated its “intention to continue to support the implementation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund by securing funding agreements with provinces, territories, universities, courts, non-governmental organizations and others.”Footnote 11

4.1.3. Continued need

Evaluation evidence confirms that there is an ongoing need to support language training for legal professionals and a need to provide legal information to Canadians living in OLMCs.

Since 2002, a number of studies and reports have identified an extensive need for programs and activities to improve access to justice in both official languages. Most of these studies were published before 2011 and were summarized in the previous evaluation. This literature focusses on the capacity of the system to deliver legal services in French. Although there are many professionals involved in the legal system, judges are deemed key players with respect to facilitating access to justice in both official languages. In many instances, judges do not undergo oral or written language testing and it is difficult to determine how many of them are bilingualFootnote 12. In addition, official languages commissioners have spoken out several times on the issue of the insufficient bilingual capacity in courts. The Canadian Bar Association has called for a sufficient number of bilingual judges to be appointed to ensure equal access to justice, and recognizes bilingualism as an important selection criterion for being appointed to superior courts. Despite the legislative and constitutional requirements in place, there are still limitations to accessing the courts in one’s language of choice due to the presence of unilingual judgesFootnote 13Footnote 14.

In another documentFootnote 15, it is stipulated that the provinces have an obligation to meet the requirements of the Criminal Code, and that the provinces and territories have, for the most part, implemented legislative provisions and other measures to clarify the language requirements in their courts. According to HudonFootnote 16, provisions recognizing the right to use French before the provincial courts are part of legislation in Saskatchewan, Alberta and the three territories. In Ontario, legislation recognizing the status of French before the provincial courts has been adopted. In New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba, these rights are entrenched in the Constitution. No provisions exist on the status of French in the provincial courts in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island.

Key informants for this evaluation recognized the importance of training, not only for judges, but for all professionals involved in the justice system (from police officers to judges, including professionals from mediation and arbitration services). They reiterated that equal access does not yet exist because there are delays in accessing justice in both official languages in minority language communities.

The Initiative in Support of Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Evaluation (2012)Footnote 17 found that there is a continued need to renew the awareness activities targeting youth and new Canadians. The evaluation also concluded that newcomers, in addition to having little knowledge of the Canadian legal system, simply do not have sufficient knowledge of the majority language to be able to navigate the court system in that language. Key informants added that legal information has to be continuously updated because it changes constantly.

Key informants also mentioned that the number of Canadians who go to court without a lawyer is increasing, which is confirmed by literatureFootnote 18. With the Internet, people have increasingly greater access to legal information which assists them in representing themselves when they do not have sufficient financial resources to afford representation. In criminal proceedings and in civil proceedings in some jurisdictions, these Canadians are entitled to access justice in their official language of choice. They also need to have access to legal vocabulary they can understand. Some key informants identified newcomers to Canada as having greater needs in this area as many come from countries with a very different legal system.

4.2. Effectiveness

This subsection presents evidence related to the performance of the Initiative. Effectiveness was assessed through key informant interviews and a review of program files and data. It should be mentioned that the program files and data did not contain conclusive evidence about the longer-term outcomes of the Initiative. Few project files contained performance information with respect to outcomes. Nevertheless, project files indicate that the Initiative has allocated $23.5M to 149 projects, for an average of 37 projects per year between 2013-14 and 2016-17 (see Appendix B: Allocated Funds – Additional Tables). Projects are grouped under the following rubrics:

Approximately 40% of the funding has been distributed to the Information pillar and 60% to the Training pillar. Activities and projects that provide information on legal rights and obligations fall under the Information pillar. The Training pillar includes course development, professional training, recruiting and training tools (see Appendix B).

Table 1 below provides an overview of funding amounts distributed to specific projects between 2013-14 and 2016-17, while Table 2 shows the funding provided to each of the AJEFs. As shown, 27% of the Initiative’s grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) was allocated to information centres, and 14% was allocated to provincial courts for professional training. Financial details regarding Table 1 are presented in Appendix B.

Table 1: Allocated Funds per Specific Project (2013-14 to 2016-17)
Specific Project Funding Amount ($) Percentage
Information Centres 6,290,278 27%
Provincial Courts (including Conseil de la magistrature) 3,351,050 14%
Jurilinguistics Centres 2,940,793 13%
Centre canadien de français juridique 2,457,788 10%
CliquezJustice.ca 1,655,500 7%
Jurisource 840,500 4%
Projects specific to newcomers 434,405 2%
Other funded projects (including, for instance, university training programs) 5,554,432 24%
Total 23,524,746 100%

Note: Between 2013-14 and 2016-17, contributions and grants totalling $23,524,746 were allocated to 148 projects. When a particular project is allocated funds for one year, it is counted as one project. If the same project is allocated funding for four years, it is counted as four projects.

Table 2: Allocated Funds to AJEFs for Various Projects (2013-14 to 2016-17)
AJEF 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Total
AJEFCB $204,937 $209,000 $181,050 $162,050 $757,037
AJEFA (includes an information centre) $68,000 $300,000 $255,350 $245,016 $868,366
AJEFS (includes an information centre) $108,666 $202,543 $250,000 $206,463 $767,672
AJEFM $68,000       $68,000
AJEFO (includes an information centre, CliquezJustice and Jurisource) $525,200 $1,137,000 $1,144,000 $1,068,000 $3,874,200
AJEFNB $85,000 $108,391 $227,590 $68,338 $489,319
AJEFNE (includes an information centre) $74,694 $290,622 $274,332 $246,933 $886,581
Total $1,134,497 $2,247,556 $2,332,322 $1,996,800 $7,711,175

Note: Since 2013-14, AJEFs were allocated funds for projects only. The term project refers to information centres, projects such as CliquezJustice and Jurisource, as well as various information and training projects.

4.2.1. Projects related to the Information pillar

According to program documentation, the Information pillar aims to offer legal information services that help minority Francophone and Anglophone Canadians learn about their rights, obligations and responsibilities in the official language of their choice. Most of the projects funded under this pillar center on the provision of legal information to the general population, in French outside Quebec and in English in Quebec.

According to interviewees, many communication channels were used by these projects to disseminate legal information, including online sources, telephone services, workshops (e.g., language rights in criminal law), in-person activities and information centres (InfoJustice Manitoba, Alberta Legal Information Centre, Accès Justice Access Centre Nova Scotia, Centre Info-Justice in Saskatchewan, and the Ottawa Legal Information Centre). Audiences for these activities included the general public, law professionals and other professionals (such as health, education and social services professionals) to help them serve their clients and identify those that need legal help. The information centres provided information services and referred users to sources covering not only areas of federal jurisdiction (e.g., criminal, divorce, immigration), but also issues of shared jurisdiction and provincial legislation.

Legal Information Hubs

Many of these projects were delivered through the Legal Information Hub organizations, which in most cases are managed by the local AJEFs. Through these projects, the associations provided information, guidance and support to help people better understand what they are facing. Clients have access to online legal information and in-person services without an appointment, at no charge, and in the minority community’s official language.

In Manitoba, the Initiative allocated resources to a legal information centre that provides legal information in person, as well as responses to email/telephone queries. Some information sessions have been delivered in rural communities, such as sessions targeting the elderly, sessions in schools, etc. The centre uses information online provided by CliquezJustice, which is another project funded by the Initiative. One of the challenges noted in Manitoba was that many users do not have the financial resources to access legal counselling services (and they are not eligible for legal aid). The information they receive helps them be prepared when they go to court without a lawyer, according to interviewees. Those who have the resources to hire a lawyer do not come to the centre (few lawyers, however, are bilingual). One project representative said that in spite of all the information provided by the centre, users in Manitoba struggle to find bilingual lawyers, which is a barrier to access justice in French. Project representatives are confident that the centre provides information services to Francophones in French, and in a timely manner. This encourages them to ask for court hearings in French.

In Alberta, a project was developed to support bilingual capacity in the private bar. Many Francophones live in rural communities in Alberta. A number of rural lawyers, including lawyers who speak French, will soon be retiring. For this project, activities consisted of matching bilingual law school graduates with bilingual law firms in order to develop a new generation of bilingual lawyers. A website was developed to match graduates with lawyers. Jobs are posted on the site, and access to the site is free. Work was also done with Law faculties in Alberta to pair French-speaking graduates with lawyers who also speak French in law firms. Tours were organized to engage firms to participate in the project. According to interviewees, the project representatives were successful in reaching law firms, and graduates have been using the system to connect with the firms. They monitor progress using Weblog analytics, and there was evidence of some graduates being hired in firms located in St. Paul and Red Deer.

An organization in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, received funds from the Initiative to provide legal information for Francophones in that province. The organization provides this information to allow Francophone minorities to learn about their rights, obligations and responsibilities in the official language of their choice. One of the projects also involved updating a database of French-speaking lawyers and legal agencies/organizations that offer legal services in French in the province. This information is made available to the public upon request.

In Saskatchewan, Initiative resources helped fund the creation in 2015 of a centre which responds in person to users seeking legal information. The centre also offers legal information workshops, which interview respondents deemed as being very effective and efficient in reaching many people. Each workshop has approximately 10 participants and lasts about 40 hours. They focus on specific topics, such as family mediation (for which there is a lot of demand according to project representatives). The centre has a Facebook page, and provides information by telephone to users. Furthermore, it offers workshops on law terminology for lawyers. According to interview respondents, all of these events are effective and encourage people to ask for services in French. Interview respondents said that many Francophones still do not know that they can access some justice services in French in Saskatchewan.

The Initiative provides funding to Éducaloi, an independent non-profit organization, to finance their provision of legal information through a portal for Anglophones in Quebec. The objective is to improve access to justice in Quebec through public education and information. Éducaloi.qc.ca provides translations of existing resources and tools, and adapts their content to reflect the cultural references of Quebec’s Anglophone and allophone community whose first official language is English. Project respondents mentioned that they were well connected with the community stakeholders to inform them of the Éducaloi portal and how they can use it. Stakeholders include organizations and professionals that provide services in various sectors, including health, social work, education, etc. The tools of the portal allow the users (professionals) to recognize the legal dimensions of a situation with a client. The project is based on studies and survey data. It also tracks the statistics associated with the portal to identify priorities. Project representatives noted that the five-year funding allowed them to develop relationships with their users. It was mentioned that the portals were also used by the general public. Éducaloi is “highly respected” according to one community representative, who also said that “the feedback from our members is that people do access Éducaloi and are very happy about it”.

In Ontario, the Association des juristes d’expression française de l’Ontario (AJEFO) has received funding for the Centre d’information juridique d’Ottawa (Ottawa Legal Information Centre), which provides legal information and referral services to residents of the Ottawa region and Ontario in general, in both French and English. Some staff are lawyers and can provide legal information for more complex questions.

Although the Centre offers services to the general public, there is a number of target groups, including low-income individuals and those with lower education, who lack the skills and/or resources to find legal information on their own. Many of these users cannot obtain this information from legal aid or other services for various reasons. The Centre also targets those in the medium-wage category who are not eligible for legal aid, and yet cannot afford services from a lawyer. According to documentation, approximately 85% of the Centre’s clients are not assisted by lawyers in their dealings with the legal system.

The Centre provides information that is updated on a regular basis, according to a project representative. In addition, the Centre organizes information sessions for the general public and offers practical tools for users. When relevant, the Centre refers users to professionals and has a database of 120 organizations for this purpose.

To assess its performance, the Centre conducted surveys of its users. Results indicate that those who have accessed the Centre’s services were generally satisfied with the quality and usefulness of its services. In 2015-16, 1,239 clients received information from the Centre, and the number of users is increasing each year. Clients meet for approximately 30 minutes with a representative from the Centre to obtain information, which is typically an explanation about a piece of legislation or procedures in court. The Centre provides services in both official languages; however, its working language is French and it actively promotes its services in French. According to the Centre’s mid-term evaluation report, approximately one third of its users are French-speaking, while Francophones account for approximately 20% of the Ottawa region’s population.

The Initiative also supports a national portal called CliquezJustice.ca, which is managed by the AJEFO. The portal contains legal information and video clips (in French) to help users understand their rights and be better prepared if they face a legal situation. It is promoted through various channels, including social media and presentations in schools and communities. In 2015-16, the portal had approximately 6,000 visitors per month. Video clips on the site were seen 53,259 times, which corresponds to about 4,400 views per month. During that period, work was done to include more specific information regarding provinces/territories to the existing content. The site targets multiple users, including the general public, youth (12-18 years) and teachers.

Some respondents said that although this is meant to be a national site, it will be a challenge for the organization to keep the information up to date. Although the objective was to get information from and about other jurisdictions, a few respondents said that the transfer of information has thus far been limited. It was explained that there was some resistance from both parties (portal representatives and regional organizations) to such exchanges of information. Some respondents said that there was no national needs assessment done about the information side of programming, and that a needs study could help future decision making about these issues.

A number of respondents provided overall comments about the Legal Information Hubs projects. They mentioned that reach was an issue. For example, certain regions have bandwidth limitations and can only access part of the online information in a user-friendly way (or not at all). Respondents wondered if specific populations, such as the elderly, can access the online information. Others pointed out that this pillar is not yet integrated and that there is not really an information “network” like there is on the legal training side. It should be mentioned that the federation of AJEFs has made efforts to promote/share information and expertise, including training sessions for staff and volunteers providing legal information in local centres. The federation has also done work to identify best practices. However, it was acknowledged that it would be difficult to have an integrated approach given the various legislation/jurisdictions involved.

Projects for Newcomers

Within the Information pillar, the Initiative also supported projects aimed at newcomers (immigrants).

One of the projects, led by La Passerelle-Intégration et développement économique, aimed to educate young French speaking immigrants and their parents about their language rights and the Canadian justice system. This was done through awareness and education workshops on various themes such as language rights, family violence, vandalism, etc. Workshops were held in Toronto, London, Hamilton and Ottawa with a total of 110 participants. At the time the evaluation was conducted, additional workshops were held (or planned) in Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Some training was facilitated by students from Collège Boréal’s legal assistant program who were members of ethnocultural communities and racial minorities.

Another project, conducted by the Ontario Justice Education Network, provided sessions to young Francophone newcomers about the justice system in Canada. The sessions were focused on skills development, knowledge building and attitudinal changes. The Network specifically aimed to educate Francophone youth living in high-risk communities and Francophone newcomer youth about misconceptions regarding the justice system. It also offered information on Canada’s justice system (i.e. right to a trial in French) and on career opportunities within the justice system.

A third project under the newcomer theme focused on the mentoring of members of visible minorities. It stemmed from a study showing that visible minorities are not well represented in the legal profession. Project activities consisted of matching mentors (lawyers, police officers) with mentees (youth) through an online system. According to project representatives, the project was a success: it allowed the mentees to meet people from other communities in the area of justice. According to one representative, the mentees indicated that these linkages with the various stakeholders in the justice system led to an improved access to justice.

A final project example consisted of workshops that provided legal information in plain language to newcomers in French, such as how to access the legal system. Culturally adapted resources were developed for this purpose. Two years ago, a workshop on family law was also developed and was very successful. Project representatives indicated that surveys conducted following the workshops revealed that 90% of the participants used the information.

A few respondents mentioned that using a tailored approach instead of a one-size-fits-all approach is a good practice for newcomers. Projects need to take into account the cultural and contextual backgrounds of the various newcomer groups.

To summarize, projects under the Information pillar allow the provision of legal information to legal system users through online information sources and/or in-person individual or group sessions. These services are provided to many users, including Canadians who do not have access to legal aid and cannot afford to use a lawyer. Information is generally deemed useful and tailored to the needs of various groups. Although work has been done in the area to date, ongoing efforts will be necessary to coordinate the various projects, especially those delivered online, in a more integrated manner.

4.2.2. Projects related to the Training pillar

The Training pillar includes projects related to training and development of justice professionals in order to improve their second language skills. The purpose of these projects was to increase their ability to offer services in French outside Quebec, and in English in Quebec, as part of their work within the justice system. These projects include in-person and online training for judges and other legal professionals. They also included projects to develop jurilinguistic tools and other online resources for legal professionals.

Training for Judges

The Initiative supported a number of language training projects to increase the bilingual capacity of judges. Training was provided by the New Brunswick Provincial Court with support from the Centre canadien de français juridique (CCFJ). These French training sessions for judges were delivered using case studies of court proceedings in a simulated environment (i.e. moot court). Two sessions per year have been provided, and training has focused on criminal law. The program also included vocabulary workshops and provided participants with tools, pronunciation guides and lexicons. Additionally, the program developed a grid (KORTOJURA, available online) to help evaluate initial language skills of justice professionals (oral, reading and writing, with an emphasis on oral) and to assess progress of the training participants. The test was developed with the help of experts in law, training and learning technologies. The courses were developed in consultation with the Canadian Council of Chief Judges (provincial courts) and were delivered by a team of judges and legal professionals. The Centre also provided special sessions for specific groups and webinars.

Approximately 100 judges have attended the sessions since 2011, with travel costs being covered by provincial governments. One key impact of the program, according to one project representative, has been the increased awareness among the participants of the importance of the linguistic issues in the system. According to the project respondents, participants appreciated the experience and most continued their participation in following years. One user mentioned that the training is in line with needs related to criminal law.

Despite these successes, the training has limitations, according to some respondents. One stakeholder said that the Initiative cannot meet the needs of the judges community, given its size (approximately 800 judges across Canada), and does not address the needs of the other professionals in the system, including the lawyers and prosecutors. If one link in the legal chain is unilingual, then there is a risk that all will be done in the language of the majority. Similar views were expressed by a project representative, according to whom the main problem in the legal system with respect to French services is not necessarily during the trial (chief justices usually have the flexibility to assign a bilingual judge with some delays due to the shortage of bilingual judges). Rather, the lack of French services is problematic before the trial – that is, at the preliminary procedures and hearings stage. There is a need to increase the language skills of these other stakeholders in the system.

Some pointed out that the training was not an extensive language course ― it is intended for judges who already have a basic knowledge of French. Extensive language courses would be delivered by training institutions. One respondent mentioned that there is no training for civil procedures such as divorce, probate, family disputes or general civil lawsuits, for which the respondent believed there is a need in terms of language training. One external respondent said that although good work is being done with this project, the curriculum could benefit fromconsulting even more with experts in the area of linguistics.

The Quebec counterpart of the Training component is the project English language training for judges. This project takes place in Quebec and New Brunswick, with a summer session at Bishop’s University (Lennoxville, QC), and in St. Andrews, N.B. The courses in St. Andrews were developed in cooperation with the CCFJ and are based on the case study approach done with Anglophone judges. Over the last two years, approximately 30 participants have attended semi-private courses and 15 attended the immersion sessions per year. According to project reports provided to JUS, all judges registered in the program have reached the objective of increasing their skills to hold a trial in English. In 2014-15, it was reported that all judges have progressed as expected from one level of skills to another in the two-year period.

However, by program design, participants can only attend the session once. For this reason, program representatives have been working on a pairing system (jumelage) to help the learners after they have attended the course. Respondents said that the judges appreciated the course and that their participation is indicative of the need for this training. The program meets the current needs and there is no waiting list, but there is an ongoing need given the constant flow of new judges.

Two respondents said that there was no overlap with the sessions at Bishop’s University, whose courses focused on civil law.

Training of Legal Stakeholders

The Initiative has also supported projects and activities for other stakeholders in the legal system. The CCFJ provided training for stakeholders (Crown prosecutors, probation officers, etc.) who did not benefit from the training offered to judges. It is the same approach used for the sessions with judges, that is a case study approach in simulated situations (i.e. moot court). The course itself has two parts: a webinar, followed by in-person sessions lasting one week. Volunteer judges participate in the simulations. The project representative said that there are no evaluations at the end of the courses, but that he has heard of improvements resulting from the course, such as court clerks corresponding in the minority language.

One user said that she has seen progress over the years. Employers are now more open to letting staff participate in these courses. The in-person sessions also provide networking opportunities. Another user, a lawyer who attended in-person sessions, said that although he was a bilingual Anglophone, the session has given him the confidence to work in French in the courtroom. He says that the demand for French has increased in courts and that today, he regularly works in French in courts in his province. The case study approach has allowed him to practice preparing questions in French for the courtroom. His scores in the course quizzes (early and later in the course) indicated that his knowledge had improved. Another user, a clerk from a different province, said that before he attended the course, he could speak but could not write in French. Furthermore, he did not know legal terms in French. The user said that the case study approach is an effective way of learning key terminology. He can now perform as a clerk in a court case in French. He added that there is a need for training in the area of family law (divorce).

Some online courses have been supported in Manitoba and in Ontario. In Manitoba, the Centre de ressources en français juridique (CRFJ) provided an online course for legal support staff which focused on criminal law. The course is aimed at a wide range of users, including court clerks, probation officers, interpreters, Crown prosecutors, etc. During interviews, project representatives indicated that they would like to extend their target group to social workers and those who work with newcomers. A user commented on the online training provided by the former Institut Joseph-Dubuc, (currently the Centre de ressources en français juridique) which was supported by the Initiative. He appreciated the online format which made it accessible.

In terms of alternatives or improvements that could be made to the program, some added that there is an opportunity for “train the trainer” projects; better evaluations to assess the language skills of training participants; as well as funding for one-on-one language training.

Réseau national de formation en justice

The Réseau national de formation en justice (RNFJ) is another organization that has received Initiative funding. Founded in 2014, the RNFJ aims to increase the capacity of Canada's justice system to implement constitutional, legislative and regulatory provisions allowing access to justice in both official languages. The RNFJ also gathers statistics and coordinates the projects of its members, which include faculties of law and legal translation/terminology centres of ten colleges and universities, two provincial government training programs, the AJEFO (which administers the Jurisource.ca national portal), the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law inc. (FAJEF) and the CCFJ.

The RNFJ has also established a number of partnerships, including with the Canadian Police Knowledge Network and the Ontario Provincial Police, and attends working meetings of the Ontario government’s French Language Institute for Professional Development. In addition, the network has established linkages with various post-secondary institutions. RNFJ met with community representatives and established a number of linkages with the English communities in Quebec, including McGill University.

Most respondents said that the RNFJ has been successful in creating synergies between its 14 members. A respondent from the CRFJ talked about a needs study conducted by the Centre, and said that the RNFJ was very helpful, opened doors and helped with the consultations. When the CRFJ considered developing a national training program for social workers, the RNFJ was very helpful.

Jurisource.ca

This project consisted of developing a portal that provides French legal terminology and tools for legal professionals outside of Quebec. The portal includes a search engine that provides access to contract templates, lexicons, thematic resources, professional development tools, jurisprudence, etc. Potential users include lawyers, judges, clerks and law students. The portal receives about 600 visits per month. The Jurisource.ca team mentioned that it obtained positive feedback on its product.

Some respondents noted that Jurisource.ca has had problems locating materials (templates of contracts, agreements, etc.), except for those provided by academia. Project representatives said that they have had difficulties getting materials associated with court cases to develop templates and tools.

One academic said that this type of tool is essential for the community. Another user mentioned that the portal is user-friendly, but that the search function does not distinguish between the types of tools, and there appeared to be no validation of the materials.

Jurilinguistics Centres

There are four jurilinguistic centres, in Moncton, Ottawa, Montreal and St-Boniface (Winnipeg). The centres received funds to develop tools, dictionaries, translations of key legal terms, and to translate common law and civil law. The Jurisource.ca website has links to the materials produced by the centres. Each jurilinguistic project has specialty areas and work is coordinated to avoid overlaps. One respondent said that the centres work together closely.

In Winnipeg, the CRFJ has been very active in developing and offering training for court clerks. They conducted surveys of users and results were positive, according to one respondent.

The Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques (CTTJ) in Moncton worked on translation (terms and analyses) and standardization, and developed French vocabulary in the area of common law. The CTTJ also created JURITERM, which is a terminology database in French dedicated to common law and produces the Juridictionnaire, which contains definitions of complex terms and resources. These resources allow OLMC legal professionals from Common Law jurisdictions to function in French.

According to the project respondent, jurilinguists as well as academics, legislators, clerks, journalists and students use the Centre’s resources. One user mentioned that the terminology produced is rigorous and helps specialists provide better services in French. Another user reported that while the content is appropriate, the interface needs to be modernized, to be made more appealing.

The Centre for Legal Translation and Documentation (CLTD) at the University of Ottawa was created to set up the necessary legal documentation for the practice of law and the carrying out of legal services in French in Ontario and other common law jurisdictions. The CLTD participated in the development of French vocabulary for Ontario's legislation and the common law. The CLTD’s website contains various online resources, including a section titled Ontario Case Law (French translations of decisions), a legal glossary of federal statutes, and templates for wills.

The Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law (McGill University) in Montreal received some Initiative funding for several of their activities. In addition to producing bilingual dictionaries for the private law of Quebec and offering civil law workshops for lawyers and notaries, the Centre organizes summer institutes of jurilinguistics. These summer institutes are day-long conferences attended by legal translators, lawyers, judges, plain language specialists and other interested people, with a total of 120 participants each year.

Overall, project recipients, experts and other respondents identified best practices related to these projects:

One respondent said that the centres could play a greater role in disseminating standard templates for users.

In terms of resources, over the period covered by this evaluation, $2.9M, or 12.5% of the total allocated Gs&Cs resources, were directed towards the jurilinguistic centres. A couple of interview respondents noted that this is significant in light of the fact that the centres’ activities have an indirect impact on users of the justice system. These respondents wondered if the work of the centres could be left to (and funded by) other groups, such as academia or the Translation Bureau of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)Footnote 19.

To summarize, the Initiative supports various training activities geared towards justice professionals, including judges, clerks and other professionals. Although there is a lack of data to assess the skills acquired, the training activities are deemed relevant and useful by those who manage them as well as those who have participated in them. There is also evidence that the dictionaries, tools and templates developed through the jurilinguistics projects are used by the community, including linguists, academics, legislators, clerks, journalists and students. However, concerns have been expressed about the level of investment made by the Initiative in these activities (jurilinguistics), which could possibly be funded by other organizations.

4.2.3. Summary of impacts of all projects

As part of the interview, key informants (funding recipients and experts) were asked to assess the extent to which the Initiative resulted in various outcomes using a five-point extent scale. Results are shown in Figure 1. According to the results, the average score was highest for the following impact areas: “Greater importance placed on the issue of access to justice in both official languages by organizations working in the area of justice”, as well as “Increased ability of members of the judiciary to work in both official languages”. On average, respondents rated these as 3.8 and 4.1 on the extent scale (great/very great extent). They rated the following items as being the result of the Initiative to a moderate/great extent: “Increased language training opportunities connected with criminal law”, “Increased ability of Crown attorneys to work in both official languages”, and “Increased ability of court officials to work in both official languages”.

Respondents attributed lower scores (little/some extent) to: “Increased ability of private lawyers to work in both official languages” and “Decrease in reluctance of litigants from OLMCs to exercise their language rights in dealing with the justice system”.

Figure 1: Impacts of Initiative According to Interview Respondents

Figure 1: Impacts of Initiative According to Interview Respondents

Source: Closed-ended questions asked to key informants (funding recipients and experts) (n=36)

Figure 1: Impacts of Initiative According to Interview Respondents - Text version

A bar graph shows the extent to which specific impacts were achieved as a result of the Initiative according to interview respondents responding to the question:

To what extent has the Initiative resulted in the following outcomes areas in the last four years?

1= Little or no extent

2= Some extent

3= Moderate extent

4= Great extent

5= Very great extent

  • A decrease in reluctance of litigants from OLMC to exercise their language rights in dealing with the justice system – average score = 2.8
  • An increase ability of private lawyers to work in both official languages  – average score = 2.9
  • An increase ability of court officials to work in both official languages  – average score = 3.1
  • An increase ability of crown attorneys to work in both official languages  – average score = 3.1
  • An increase language training opportunities connected with criminal law – average score = 3.5
  • An increase ability of members of the judiciary to work in both official languages – average score = 3.8
  • Greater importance placed on the issue of access to justice in both official languages by organization working in the area of justice – average score = 4.1

4.2.4. Performance measurement and project selection processes

Performance measurement

The evaluation assessed the extent to which performance data are collected and incorporated into the day-to-day management of the Initiative. Based on a review of documentation, the Initiative’s performance data is mostly derived from reports provided by the Gs&Cs recipients, and data from feedback surveys administered to advisory group members after their meetings. The Gs&Cs reporting template mostly included open-ended fields that respondents completed with narrative information. It is standard for all agreements.

Program officials said that the reporting system had a number of limitations. First, the narrative format caused inconsistencies ― some reports were detailed, others less so; some contained quantitative information, while others did not. Questions in the template were deemed too broad (e.g., “explain how objectives have been met”). Some organizations did not provide a final report, and did not get the final payment as a result. For all of the above reasons, it was difficult for the evaluation team to assess outcome achievement.

Respondents said that the current information system is used by the program to report back to JUS (for the Departmental Performance Reports) and Canadian Heritage (for the Annual Report on Official Languages and other reporting requirements under the Roadmap). Some of the project reports were also made public, which allowed the communities to access this information. It was also mentioned that the project reporting system was under review and that one of the options considered was to require interim reports to see if projects were on track.

Project selection processes

With respect to the project selection process, respondents were asked questions about the clarity and transparency of the application and selection processes. Program officials said that the processes are clear and rigorous, and that the information for funding applicants is clear. Although there are no stated selection criteria, the objectives of the Initiative are clearly laid out, according to government respondents. They also mentioned that the ratio of successful versus unsuccessful applications is appropriate (with about 85% of applications receiving funding). The review of documentation confirmed that the departmental website provides clear information with regard to the program’s objectives. It also explains who is eligible and offers examples of types of projects or activities that could be funded through the InitiativeFootnote 20.

Responses from funding recipients were more diverse. The majority of respondents said that communications about the Initiative and the selection process were clear. A few mentioned that the fact that there is no set date limit to send the applications makes it easier for applicants. However, approximately one-third of the respondents representing the funded organizations said that the selection process was not totally clear, and that there is not a lot of feedback regarding why some applications are unsuccessful. Some mentioned that the priorities used by the selection committee to select projects were not clear. However, a few respondents mentioned that the program representative/officer was very helpful when applicants connected with him to ask questions (e.g., to explain differences between pillars, what to do if the project was unsuccessful).

Otherwise, the two-stage proposal process oftentimes used by JUS is seen as a good practice. Under that process, applicants are first asked to submit a summary before writing a full proposal. This prevents applicants from investing a lot of time in developing a project proposal that would have a low probability of receiving funds.

4.2.5. Complementarity between Information and Training pillars

The evaluation assessed the extent to which there was complementarity between the activities under the Information pillar and those under the Training pillar. Overall, respondents said that both pillars complemented each other.

Respondents from government generally said that there was complementarity between pillars, the Information pillar aiming at the demand side, and the Training pillar serving the supply side (professionals). Most project representatives, experts and other respondents agreed that the pillars complemented each other, with one respondent explaining that one pillar “feeds” the other (Information feeds the Training deliverers).

4.2.6. Consultation structures

To examine the effectiveness of consultation structures, the evaluation collected information from key informant interviews and results from the analysis of two post-event surveys (2015 and 2016) administered to the members of the Advisory Committee on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages (Advisory Committee) to gather feedback. Overall, respondents mentioned that the two consultation structures, the Advisory Committee and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages (FPT Working Group), were conducive to cooperation between partners.

Advisory Committee

Key informants agreed that the Advisory Committee was conducive to an increased cooperation between stakeholders. They found committee meetings to be good opportunities to share ideas with JUS and other members of the community. The meetings allowed participants to learn about best practices (as well as what did not work) in other jurisdictions and the in-person format facilitated instant feedback. Meetings were perceived as an excellent networking vehicle because participants could meet and discuss with each other directly. Cooperation from participants at meetings was deemed excellent. Key informants from the federal government added that the Advisory Committee meetings allowed JUS staff to have direct contact with community representatives, understand the context, test ideas and exchange thoughts.

The analysis of results from the two post-event surveys corroborated the key informants’ perceptions. Participants were satisfied with the overall organization of meetings. Networking, discussion and sharing were the most appreciated elements of the meetings. Respondents were more satisfied in 2016 for the time they had for this activity than in 2015 (89% compared to 75% in 2015), and indicated that they appreciated having the opportunity to meet with members of the Department and the Support Fund team. They also enjoyed the panels and round tables. The results of the two post-event surveys revealed that participants were mostly interested in topics such as:

At the same time, the evaluation noted that the mandate of the Committee has not been formally revised or updated since 2003, and that its members have expressed an interest in seeing the Department play a greater role in terms of consulting with and coordinating between stakeholders. The following specific suggestions regarding the Advisory Committee were made by key informants and survey respondents:

FPT Working Group

Respondents who were able to speak to the work of the FPT Working Group said that the Group increases interjurisdictional collaboration and cooperation. It also facilitates the understanding of participants with regard to concerns about specific issues in certain provinces/territories, and potential solutions. It is a good forum to share information, including problems, solutions and best practices used in the other jurisdictions, even though the Group had not met every year.

Some respondents noted that the Initiative has not covered the travel costs of the FPT participants. Many participate via telephone, which has affected the quality of the meetings. One government respondent mentioned that despite this limitation, the committee structure in place can be seen as a good practice that builds bridges with a wide variety of groups, including academics, community representatives, association representatives and provincial representatives. The program has also been open to new ideas, including new ways of providing training and activities that are geared towards prevention instead of being reactive.

4.2.7. Unanticipated impacts

When asked about unanticipated impacts of the Initiative, the majority of respondents said that the activities led to networking and partnerships between organizations and training participants. Some explained that the Initiative allowed organizations to work with others, allowing them to work less in silos. For example, projects in the Information pillar led to linkages between health professionals and those involved in access to justice. On the Training side, it was said that justice professionals attending training also had the opportunity to have conversations and create linkages which continued after the events. One project representative said that their training project led to impacts on the Information pillar side of the Initiative.

4.3. Efficiency

4.3.1. Project funding mechanisms

Various dimensions of program delivery were assessed to address this issue, including the adequacy of the contribution agreements and the implications of the change with respect to core funding for organizations.

Adequacy of Funding Mechanisms

Overall, a total of $17.1M in Gs&Cs was provided between 2013-14 and 2015-16. An additional $5.9M was requested through project proposals but was not funded for various reasons. Of the 15 proposals that did not receive funding, two had been withdrawn and one funding application was incomplete (those three projects accounted for 23% of the requested but refused funds). Another two proposals were for core funding in years following its elimination (9%). Of the remaining 10 proposals, almost all were determined by the project selection committee to not meet the terms and conditions of the Support Fund, or to not be responsive to its most immediate priorities. Only one project, for which $1.2M had been requested, was not funded strictly due to an insufficiency of funds. The relatively small number of proposals that were not funded by the Initiative suggests that the current level of Gs&Cs resources is appropriate to achieve the set objectives of the Fund.

When asked about the adequacy of the funding mechanisms, most interview respondents (from the recipients group) said that they were adequate. The agreements are deemed flexible and meet the needs of the organizations. Among the limitations mentioned, some regretted that core funding was no longer among the funding options open to AJEFs (discussed below), and that there are not enough funds for the projects. One respondent mentioned that the multi-year projects could be divided differently to better match the actual expenses: for example, start-up projects typically involve more expenses in the second year of their life cycle than the first year.

Program officials said that the Gs&Cs agreements led to effective and efficient activities. However, some mentioned that the intellectual property clauses in the agreements are too restrictive from a government standpoint. The current clauses restrict the use by third-party entities of materials and other outputs developed solely with the Initiative’s funds. A broader license could allow organizations to benefit from materials already created by another organization, rather than having to develop the materials themselves.

Government respondents mentioned that there is an opportunity to expand the list of partners and project recipients. Some also indicated that the program has now matured to the point where further work could be done to better integrate funded project activities to have a more coordinated approach nationally. Although efforts have been made, more work needs to be done to achieve this coordinated approach. One of the instruments to achieve this would be the use of more targeted calls for proposals. These calls could be communicated during the Advisory Committee meetings.

Impacts of Changes to Gs&Cs (Abolishment of Core Funding)

During the evaluation period, JUS changed some elements of the funding structure for the AJEFs. Prior to 2013-14, the AJEFs each received core funding (varying in amount from $68,000 to $150,000 per year), in addition to any specific project funding obtained through a project selection process. In March 2013, JUS announced that the core funding would no longer be provided to AJEFs. Going forward, funding would only be available for projects having a direct link with the objectives of the Initiative.  

Government officials interviewed as part of the evaluation indicated that the rationale behind this change was to establish a funding mechanism that provided a better alignment of priorities between the activities undertaken by the AJEFs and the objectives of the Support Fund. They explained that core funding was never meant to be a perpetual funding mode, but rather it was put in place to assist in the development of a network of organizations capable of developing projects aimed at advancing the public policy goal of access to justice in both official languages. The core funding would then enable the AJEFs to submit additional proposals to the Support Fund.

However, internal analysis had revealed that some AJEFs, and the Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick (AJEFNB) in particular, had undertaken very few projects directly related to the priorities of the Support Fund. In fact, there are years where some AJEFs would only receive core funding and not make any other application to the Support Fund. Therefore, there was little correlation found between receiving core funding and developing projects aimed at supporting the objectives of the Support Fund. JUS officials explained that project-based funding allows the program to ensure that the resources are used to fund activities and initiatives which directly support the objectives of the program. Using grants as a core funding instrument provides limited controls over how program money is used by the recipients. In the end, eliminating core funding increases accountability for Canadians and encourages organizations to develop projects that meet the needs of their communities.

The program did acknowledge that the abolishment of core funding would require some adjusting on the part of the AJEFs. In recognition of this, and to ease the transition, JUS provided transitional funding in 2013-14 to each of the AJEFs and the FAJEF. Each association received an amount identical to the core funding received in previous years. As a funding condition, part of that money was to develop a plan detailing the needs of the OLMCs they serve with respect to access to justice in both official languages, and to lay out a strategy on how the AJEF would meet those needs. The intent of these plans was to assist the associations in identifying projects that could receive multi-year funding going forward.

As part of the evaluation, respondents were asked about the usefulness of the transition funding. Most of the organization representatives agreed that this funding was useful and that they implemented their transition plan as expected. A respondent from an AJEF explained that it allowed their organization to develop a business plan on how to maintain and develop other partnerships, to participate in committees and to prepare future projects while maintaining a secretariat function. In at least one case, an organization expanded the size of some of its projects (i.e. national scope) to increase its overall project funding to compensate for the loss of core funding.

Organization representatives were also asked to discuss the consequences of this change to the funding model. Most respondents said that the change had significant implications for their organizations. Many mentioned that AJEFs have stopped or changed some of their activities, such as providing fewer training activities. It should be noted, however, that this type of project would qualify as one that could be funded through a project-based proposal, as it could fall under the objectives of the Support Fund. Some respondents also indicated that the AJEFs have reduced their activities related to networking, promotion and communications. According to two of the respondents, this has resulted in fewer linkages with faculties, other Francophone associations, law societies and provincial authorities, including the provinces that have no AJEFs. Two respondents also indicated that the core funding had supported their participation in various committees, and that they now turn down some requests to make presentations due to lack of funds/time. Because AJEFs now function project by project, they rely on a set percentage allowed for overhead. One representative indicated that this complicates their internal administrative procedures.

Some representatives explained that the result of the abolishment of core funding is that the AJEFs’ capacity to promote the use of French in the legal system of their province has been reduced; however, no further details were provided in this regard. One respondent mentioned that the Initiative should have a third pillar regarding the promotion of access to justice in both official languages. This suggestion was echoed by another evaluation respondent (not representing the AJEFs).

Although AJEF representatives noted their opposition to the end of core funding, and spoke of how their associations’ activities have shifted as a result, none indicated that the needs of their OLMCs were no longer being met. Interview respondents spoke about the impact of the funding model change on their associations’ operations, but not on the OLMCs they serve.

Most AJEFs have in fact received similar or greater amounts of funding after the transition year (2013-14). One exception is the Association des juristes d’expression française du Manitoba, which has not requested funding since 2013-14. The Figure below presents the total amounts of funding for each AJEF before and after the core funding was discontinued. The fact that most of these organizations continue to have access to similar (or greater) amounts of funding, coupled with the fact that the contribution model allows for greater oversight by the Department to ensure that funds are being spent in accordance with the objectives of the Initiative, lead the evaluation to conclude that the current funding model is the appropriate one.

Figure 2: AJEF Allocated Funding Before and After the Transition Year

Figure 2: AJEF Allocated Funding Before and After the Transition Year

Figure 2: AJEF Allocated Funding Before and After the Transition Year - Text version

A line graph shows the amounts of funding provided to each of the AJEFs between 2008-09 and 2016-17. A vertical line indicates that 2013-14 was a transition year in which the funding structure for AJEFs changed.

AJEF Allocated Funding Before and After the Transition Year
Year AJEFCB AJEFA AJEFS AJEFM AJEFO AJEFNB AJEFNE
2008-09 $73,000 $92,299 $112,700 $71,179 $241,699 $111,977 $106,407
2009-10 $150,785 $139,918 $198,022 $94,605 $203,747 $84,573 $115,454
2010-11 $168,659 $134,317 $171,884 $68,000 $579,277 $96,598 $143,175
2011-12 $219,086 $113,000 $164,890 $68,000 $848,037 $96,924 $148,405
2012-13 $219,760 $138,665 $171,640 $68,000 $1,009,099 $132,625 $127,711
2013-14 $204,937 $68,000 $108,666 $68,000 $525,200 $85,000 $74,694
2014-15 $209,000 $300,000 $202,543 $0 $1,137,000 $108,391 $290,622
2015-16 $181,050 $255,350 $250,000 $0 $1,144,000 $227,590 $274,332
2016-17 $212,050 $245,016 $206,463 $0 $1,068,000 $68,338 $246,933

4.3.2. Operational efficiency

The table below provides an overview of the financial profile of the Initiative (budget and expenditures).

Table 3: Financial Profile of the Initiative
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Allocation Expenditures Allocation Expenditures Allocation Expenditures
Salaries $591,271 $712,754 $591,271 $741,669 $591,271 $717,257
O&M $594,604 $94,652 $594,604 $148,992 $594,604 $80,578
EBP $118,254 $142,551 $118,254 $148,334 $118,254 $143,451
Gs&Cs $6,492,846 $4,280,472 $6,492,846 $6,365,032 $6,492,846 $6,466,010
Total $7,796,975 $5,230,429 $7,796,975 $7,404,027 $7,796,975 $7,407,296

Note: PWGSC evaluation and communication costs are not included in the expenditures.

Table 3a: Financial Profile of the Initiative
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Allocation minus expenditures, total $2,566,546 $392,948 $389,679
Surplus as a percentage of total allocation 33% 5% 5%
Salaries + O&M + EBP as a percentage of total expenditures 18% 14% 13%

As shown above, the Initiative has been in an underspending situation over the three-year period. Although the percentage of administrative costs was relatively high the first year, it lowered to the level of 13% in 2015-16. There are no standards with respect to what would be an appropriate level of administrative costs, though some benchmarks have been established in the non-profit sector (16%)Footnote 21. As shown, the program’s administrative costs ratio has been generally lower than that of the charity sector benchmark. From this perspective, it is concluded that the program is efficient from an administration costs perspective.

4.3.3. Efficiency of the consultation structures

The evaluation assessed specifically the extent to which the consultation structures were efficient.

Advisory Committee Meetings

Annual meetings were held in 2015 and 2016. These meetings were held in person in Ottawa, and included community organization representatives, delivery organization representatives and federal public servants. According to project files, the costs associated with the 2016 meeting were as follows:

Table 4: Advisory Committee Meeting Costs (2016)
  Cost to JUS ($)
Travel costs 20,242
Hospitality costs 1,269
Costs for boardrooms and equipment 3,602
Total 25,113

Respondents were asked if these meetings were efficient in terms of the resources used to organize and hold them. Meeting participants agreed that they were efficient with government respondents echoing this, specifying that the Advisory Committee meetings are fairly low cost given the size of the program. Most expenses are related to travel for the participants. One respondent mentioned that a videoconference platform, in addition to the in-person participation, would allow other participants to attend the meetings. Another respondent added that virtual meetings could be envisaged to reduce costs, but that this would affect the effectiveness of the meetings. The fact of having participants together in Ottawa ensures quality interactions and provides valuable networking opportunities.

FPT Working Group

Meetings of the FPT Working Group were held in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Committee members representing provincial and federal governments indicated that the meetings were efficient. One said that the meetings would be more efficient if more work was done or follow-up was made between meetings. This could be done by creating sub-committees or sub-working groups. Documentation for the meetings could also be distributed earlier to make better use of the meeting time. One mentioned that there could be more participants from the RNFJ. In previous meetings, representatives from the RNFJ did not cover all the provinces.

Respondents from government said that the Working Group meetings are highly efficient from a federal government perspective (see table below) as travel costs for non-federal participants are not covered by the program, though some jurisdictions do cover the costs for their own representatives to attend the meetings in person.

Table 5: FPT Working GroupMeeting Costs (2016)
  Cost to JUS ($)
Travel costs 872
Hospitality costs 560
Costs for boardrooms and equipment 5,646
Total 7,077

However, as mentioned earlier (Section 4.2.6), some respondents said that although the Working Group’s meeting costs are low, the teleconference format affects the quality of the communication and is not conducive to networking.

As noted in Figure 3 below, the number of external participants in the FPT meetings has gone from 28 in 2014 to 17 in 2016 (though the number of participants invited has remained stable). Figure 4 shows that participation rates for both in-person and telephone/videoconference attendees have declined during the same period.

Figure 3: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Type

Figure 3: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Type

Source: Program data

Figure 3: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Type - Text version

Federal government:

  • In 2014: 12
  • In 2015: 11
  • In 2016: 9

External:

  • In 2014: 28
  • In 2015: 27
  • In 2016: 17

Figure 4: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Mode of Participation

Figure 4: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Mode of Participation

Source: Program data

Figure 4: Number of Participants in FPT Meetings by Year and Mode of Participation - Text version

In person:

  • In 2014: 22
  • In 2015: 20
  • In 2016: 14

Teleconference/videoconference:

  • In 2014: 18
  • In 2015: 18
  • In 2016: 12

According to the interview findings, the lack of funding for participants’ travel costs has not only affected the quality of the communications throughout the meetings as noted above, but is also responsible in part for the decline in the meeting participation rates. Program officials are of the opinion that FPT representatives are less engaged and motivated to participate in the meetings on account of the lower-quality interactions resulting from the high proportion of participants dialing in. These respondents indicated that funding for travel should be considered to support participation in the meetings of the FPT Working Group.