Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program Evaluation

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

Interview guide for Program departments (Justice, CBSA, and IRCC)

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing Program staff, as well as various Canadian and international stakeholders. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

Representatives of the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, or IRCC may sit in on interviews of their departmental/agency key informants. In addition, the Evaluation Division of each department/agency will have access to the notes from the interviews with their departmental/agency key informants. Finally, with your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report.

1. Please briefly describe your role with respect to the Program. Has your role evolved or changed over time? As part of your role in the Program, have you worked with other federal departments/agencies or international partners?

Relevance of the Program

2. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public. Does this changing context enhance or reduce the need for the Program?

3. Are the objectives of the Program still relevant to:

  1. evolving Government of Canada priorities, including international priorities;
  2. current departmental immigration, refugee, security, and justice policies and priorities;
  3. Canada’s evolving international legal obligations (e.g., new international accords, legislation, or policies); and
  4. the policies and priorities of its international partners?

4. In your opinion, is there a continued need for the multi-departmental, coordinated Program, or are the current legislation, policies, processes, structures, etc. in place sufficient for Canada to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? Please explain.

Performance — Achievement of outcomes

5. How has the Program contributed to increasing awareness and knowledge of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and how they are being addressed? Please provide examples of how Canada has contributed. (Probe: are they aware of any training, outreach, capacity building, collaborative initiatives?)

6. Are any stakeholder groups not being sufficiently reached with the Program’s current outreach efforts? (Probe: international partners, domestic or international non-governmental organizations that work in the area, other federal departments) What are the benefits from these outreach efforts? (Probe: to the Program or to the international response to these crimes)

7. What training does the Program offer to partner departments/agencies?How satisfied are you with the current training? What changes, if any, could improve the training? (Probe: have standardized training plan and modules been developed and implemented?) Please consider issues such as the frequency, subject matter, and level of training.

8. What tools or policies does the Program have to support the work of the operational personnel in each Program department/agency? Are there any gaps in tools or policies that the Program should address or improvements that it should consider?

9. How effective are the working relationships among the Program partners in terms of communication, collaboration, information-sharing, clarity of roles and responsibilities, or other issues? (Probe: how well do partners know the other components of the Program?)

10. What steps has the Program taken to improve or support its knowledge management efforts? In what ways is the current knowledge management for the Program adequate, and in what ways could it be improved? (Probe: upgrading/sharing across coordinating partners; the Modern War Crimes System database; coordinating the Program’s research capacity via a Virtual Library Project)

11. In your opinion, are allegations managed effectively at each step in the process: compiling and screening allegations, investigating allegations, selecting and implementing remedies, and monitoring outcomes?

12. How effective has the Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

13. What factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

14. Based on your experience, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

15. In your opinion, is Canada meeting its international obligations related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court) Is Canada demonstrating leadership at the global level? (Probe: ask them if other countries have emulated Canada's approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure) What is the basis for your opinions?

Design and delivery

16. To what extent is the Program governance structure (i.e., Program Coordination and Operations Committee [PCOC], and the ADM Program Steering Committee) appropriate and effective with regard to:

  1. clear definition of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities;
  2. decision-making; and
  3. risk management?

Please provide examples.

17. Please describe any changes within your department/agency’s structure or approach to the Program within the last five years.

18. What factors have promoted horizontal collaboration among partnering departments and agencies? What factors have hindered horizontal collaboration? (Probe: awareness/knowledge of each partner’s role; different department cultures, and realities; different department approaches related to communication and information-sharing) In your opinion, has the horizontal approach contributed to or detracted from the achievement of the Program’s outcomes?

19. What are the key best practices to date in the delivery of the Program? What are the key lessons learned?

Efficiency and economy

20. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support the work of the Program and of your department/agency’s contribution to the Program? Where are there gaps/deficits in resources? How are resource challenges managed?

21. Do you have any suggestions for how the Program or your department/agency could achieve the Program’s objectives either more efficiently (i.e., do more with the same resources) or at a lower cost? (Probe: are there ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of certain remedies?)

22. Should the Program encourage other departments/agencies to be more involved in the Program? If so, what would be your suggestions? (Probe: which departments/agencies and what would be their contributions to the Program)

23. Are there more cost-effective approaches (including those used by other countries) to fulfill Canada’s no safe haven policy? If so, please describe.

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for Program departments (RCMP)

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing Program staff, as well as various Canadian and international stakeholders. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

Representatives of the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, or IRCC may sit in on interviews of their departmental/agency key informants. In addition, the Evaluation Division of each department/agency will have access to the notes from the interviews with their departmental/agency key informants.

1. Please briefly describe your role with respect to the Program. Has your role evolved or changed over time? As part of your role in the Program, have you worked with other federal departments/agencies or international partners?

Relevance of the Program

2. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public. Does this changing context enhance or reduce the need for the Program?

3. Are the objectives of the Program still relevant to:

  1. evolving Government of Canada priorities, including international priorities;
  2. current departmental immigration, refugee, security, and justice policies and priorities;
  3. Canada’s evolving international legal obligations (e.g., new international accords, legislation, or policies); and
  4. the policies and priorities of its international partners?

4. In your opinion, is there a continued need for the multi-departmental, coordinated Program, or are the current legislation, policies, processes, structures, etc. in place sufficient for Canada to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? Please explain.

Performance — Achievement of outcomes

5. How has the Program contributed to increasing awareness and knowledge of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and how they are being addressed? Please provide examples of how Canada has contributed. (Probe: are they aware of any training, outreach, capacity building, collaborative initiatives?)

6. Are any stakeholder groups not being sufficiently reached with the Program’s current outreach efforts? (Probe: international partners, domestic or international non-governmental organizations that work in the area, other federal departments) What are the benefits from these outreach efforts? (Probe: to the Program or to the international response to these crimes)

7. What training does the Program offer to partner departments/agencies?How satisfied are you with the current training? What changes, if any, could improve the training? (Probe: have standardized training plan and modules been developed and implemented?) Please consider issues such as the frequency, subject matter, and level of training.

8. What tools or policies does the Program have to support the work of the operational personnel in each Program department/agency? Are there any gaps in tools or policies that the Program should address or improvements that it should consider?

9. How effective are the working relationships among the Program partners in terms of communication, collaboration, information-sharing, clarity of roles and responsibilities, or other issues? (Probe: how well do partners know the other components of the Program?)

10. What steps has the Program taken to improve or support its knowledge management efforts? In what ways is the current knowledge management for the Program adequate, and in what ways could it be improved? (Probe: upgrading/sharing across coordinating partners; the Modern War Crimes System database; coordinating the Program’s research capacity via a Virtual Library Project)

11. In your opinion, are allegations managed effectively at each step in the process: compiling and screening allegations, investigating allegations, selecting and implementing remedies, and monitoring outcomes?

12. How effective has the Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? What factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

13. Based on your experience, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

14. In your opinion, is Canada meeting its international obligations related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court) Is Canada demonstrating leadership at the global level? (Probe: ask them if other countries have emulated Canada's approach in terms of legislation, operations, Program structure) What is the basis for your opinions?

Design and delivery

15. To what extent is the Program governance structure (i.e., Program Coordination and Operations Committee [PCOC], and the ADM Program Steering Committee) appropriate and effective with regard to:

  1. clear definition of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities;
  2. decision-making; and
  3. risk management?

Please provide examples.

16. Please describe any changes within your department/agency’s structure or approach to the Program within the last five years.

17. What factors have promoted horizontal collaboration among partnering departments and agencies? What factors have hindered horizontal collaboration? (Probe: awareness/knowledge of each partner’s role; different department cultures, and realities; different department approaches related to communication and information-sharing) In your opinion, has the horizontal approach contributed to or detracted from the achievement of the Program’s outcomes?

18. What are the key best practices to date in the delivery of the Program? What are the key lessons learned?

Efficiency and economy

19. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support the work of the Program and of your department/agency’s contribution to the Program? Where are there gaps/deficits in resources? How are resource challenges managed?

20. Do you have any suggestions for how the Program or your department/agency could achieve the Program’s objectives either more efficiently (i.e., do more with the same resources) or at a lower cost? (Probe: are there ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of certain remedies?)

21. Should the Program encourage other departments/agencies to be more involved in the Program? If so, what would be your suggestions? (Probe: which departments/agencies and what would be their contributions to the Program)

22. Are there more cost-effective approaches (including those used by other countries) to fulfill Canada’s no safe haven policy? If so, please describe.

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for federal stakeholders

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing Program staff, as well as various Canadian and international stakeholders. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. With your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report.

1. Please briefly describe your role with respect to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program (“the Program”). Of the Program departments (Justice, RCMP, CBSA, and/or IRCC), which ones do you work with most closely?

Relevance of the Program

2. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public. Does this changing context enhance or reduce the need for the Program?

3. Are the objectives of the Program still relevant to:

  1. evolving Government of Canada priorities, including international priorities;
  2. current departmental immigration, refugee, security, and justice policies and priorities;
  3. Canada’s evolving international legal obligations (e.g., new international accords, legislation, or policies); and
  4. the policies and priorities of its international partners?

4. In your opinion, is there a continued need for the multi-departmental, coordinated Program, or are the current legislation, policies, processes, structures, etc. in place sufficient for Canada to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? Please explain.

Performance — Achievement of outcomes

5. How would you describe your department/agency’s staff awareness and knowledge of the Program?

6. In what ways, has the Program contributed to increasing awareness and knowledge of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and how they are being addressed? Please provide examples of how Canada has contributed. (Probe: are they aware of any training, outreach, capacity building, collaborative initiatives?)

7. Are any stakeholder groups not being sufficiently reached with the Program’s current outreach efforts? (Probe: international partners, domestic or international non-governmental organizations that work in the area, other federal departments) What are the benefits from these outreach efforts? (Probe: to the Program or to the international response to these crimes)

8. From the perspective of your department/agency, is the Program well coordinated among the four participating departments/agencies in terms of communication, collaboration and information-sharing, clarity of roles and responsibilities, or other issues? Please explain or provide examples.

9. How effective has the working relationship been between your department/agency and the Program departments/agencies? Do you have any suggestions for improvements?

10. How effective has the Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? What factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

11. Based on your experience, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

12. In your opinion, is Canada meeting its international obligations related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court) Is Canada demonstrating leadership at the global level? (Probe: ask them if other countries have emulated Canada's approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure) What is the basis for your opinions?

Efficiency and economy

13. Do you have any suggestions for how the Program or your department/agency could achieve the Program’s objectives either more efficiently (i.e., do more with the same resources) or at a lower cost? (Probe: are there ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of certain remedies?)

14. Should the Program encourage other departments/agencies to be more involved in the Program? If so, what would be your suggestions?(Probe: which departments/agencies and what would be their contributions to the Program)

15. Are there more cost-effective approaches (including those used by other countries) to fulfill Canada’s no safe haven policy? If so, please describe.

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for international stakeholders

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing representatives of the Canadian government, as well as various Canadian and international stakeholders. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. With your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report.

1. Please briefly describe your role and the role of your organization in addressing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

2. In doing this work, do you ever interact directly with your counterparts in Canada? Please describe how you have worked with them.

Relevance of the Program

3. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public.

4. Does the current context affect the demand for and continued relevance of prosecution, deportation, extradition, or exclusion of persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Are these remedies sufficient to address these crimes?

5. What evidence is there that international initiatives, including Canada’s, have had an impact on denying safe havens to persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

Performance — Achievement of outcomes

6. Have you received or been involved in any outreach activities offered by the Canadian Program? What were they? (Probe: training, capacity building, collaborative initiatives) What would you consider to be the benefits of these activities? Do you have any improvements to suggest?

7. Based on your experience, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

8. Is Canada meeting its international obligations related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide? In what ways has Canada exceeded, met, or fallen short? (Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court.) What has been the effect on the global ability to respond to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide?

9. To what extent has Canada demonstrated leadership on war crimes at the global level? Please give specific examples. (Probe: have other countries emulated Canada’s approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure, etc.?)

10. Based on your contacts with the Canadian Program, in your view, are allegations of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide managed efficiently and effectively in Canada? Please explain or give examples.

11. How effective has the Canadian Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

12. Based on your experience and contacts with the Canadian Program, what factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

Efficiency and economy

13. Based on your experience, what are the most cost-effective approaches that you have observed for countries implementing their policies related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide?

14. What are the most effective and efficient ways to increase knowledge and awareness of the Program among international partners and stakeholders?

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for non-governmental organizations and academics

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, and along with other methodologies, we are interviewing representatives of the Canadian government, as well as various Canadian and international stakeholders. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. With your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report.

1. Please briefly describe the work of your organization or your individual work related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

2. In doing this work, do you ever interact directly with the Program departments in Canada (Justice Canada, RCMP, CBSA, and IRCC)? Please describe the nature of any interactions you have had.

Relevance of the Program

3. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public.

4. Does the current context affect the demand for and continued relevance of prosecution, deportation, extradition, or exclusion of persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Are these remedies sufficient to address these crimes?

5. What evidence is there that international initiatives, including Canada’s, have had an impact on denying safe havens to persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

Performance — Achievement of outcomes

6. Has the Canadian Program contributed to increasing international awareness and knowledge of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and how they are being addressed? Please provide examples of how Canada has contributed. (Probe: are they aware of any training, outreach, capacity building, collaborative initiatives?) Are there any stakeholder groups that are not sufficiently being reached yet? What are the benefits of these outreach activities?

7. Based on your experience, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

8. Is Canada meeting its international obligations related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide? In what ways has Canada exceeded, met, or fallen short? (Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court.) What has been the effect on the global ability to respond to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide?

9. To what extent has Canada demonstrated leadership on war crimes at the global level? Please give specific examples. (Probe: have other countries emulated Canada’s approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure, etc.?)

10. In your view, are allegations of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide managed efficiently and effectively in Canada? Please explain or give examples.

11. How effective has the Canadian Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

12. Based on your experience and contacts with the Canadian Program, what factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

Efficiency and economy

13. Based on your experience, what are the most cost-effective approaches that you have observed for countries implementing their policies related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide?

14. What are the most effective and efficient ways to increase knowledge and awareness of the Program among international partners and stakeholders?

Thank you for your participation.


Survey questionnaire for departmental staff

Welcome to the survey for the Evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). One component of the evaluation is to conduct this online survey of departmental staff of Program departments and agencies (Department of Justice Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada). The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary, and the information you provide is confidential; results will be reported in aggregate. You may leave the survey at any time and come back later to complete the questions. If you do leave the survey prior to completion, we ask that you wait approximately 15 minutes to re-enter, in order to give the survey a chance to refresh.

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact one of PRA Inc.’s staff: Amy Richmond at 1-888-877-6744 for assistance in English, or Éric Albert at 1-866-422-8468 for assistance in French. If at any time you experience technical difficulties while completing the survey, please contact support@pra-surveys.ca. If you have any questions about the evaluation, please contact Paula McLenaghan of the Department of Justice Canada at 1-613-952-3594 or paula.mclenaghan@justice.gc.ca.

The survey will remain open until [insert date].

Introduction

To start, please tell us about yourself. We understand that some survey respondents may no longer work within the context of the Program. Please answer the questions below based on when you were working within the Program.

1. For what department/agency do/did you work?

  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada
  • Department of Justice Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police

2. Where do/did you work? Check all that apply.

  • Headquarters or satellite offices in Ottawa/Gatineau
  • Regional units
  • Overseas mission
  • Other (please specify)

3. How long have you worked in areas related to addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

  • Less than one year
  • One to five years
  • Six to ten years
  • Over ten years

Context

The next several questions ask you to consider the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

4. Based on your experience, have you noticed a change in any of the following: [Q1.1, Q1.1.5, Q1.2]

Response categories: Major increase, Small increase, No change, Small decrease, Major decrease, Don’t know

  • Allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
  • Commitment of international community to accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
  • Commitment of domestic stakeholders to accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
  • Media attention paid to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
  • Public desire to pursue individuals who are believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
  • Impact of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide programs in other countries

5. Within the last five years, have there been any changes in Canadian legislation or policies that have enhanced or reduced the need for the Program? [Q1.1.2]

Response categories: Enhanced need for the Program; Some changes have enhanced need, some changes have reduced need for the Program; Reduced need for the Program; No effect; Don’t know

6. (If No effect or don’t know to Q5, skip to Q7) Please explain. [OPEN-END] [Q1.1.2]

7. Within the last five years, have there been any changes in international law, policies, or accords that have enhanced or reduced the need for the Program? [Q1.1.2]

Response categories: Enhanced need for the Program; Some changes have enhanced need, some changes have reduced need for the Program; Reduced need for the Program; No effect; Don’t know

8. (If No effect or don’t know to Q7, skip to Q9) Please explain. [OPEN-END] [Q1.1.2]

9. How would you describe the Program’s contribution related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the following areas? To the extent possible, please consider the Program as a whole and not only your department or agency. [Q1.1.3 and Q1.1.4]

Response categories: Substantial contribution, Minor contribution, No contribution, Negative contribution

  • Gathering information and/or intelligence on the context and history
  • Sharing information and/or intelligence with partner departments on the context and history
  • Sharing information and/or intelligence with international partners on the context and history
  • Gathering information and/or intelligence on the allegations against specific individuals
  • Sharing information and/or intelligence with partner departments on the allegations against specific individuals
  • Sharing information and/or intelligence with international partners on the allegations against specific individuals

10. In your opinion, is there a continued need for the multi-departmental, coordinated Program, or are the current legislation, policies, processes, structures, etc. in place sufficient for Canada to hold accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? [Q1.2, Q4.8.3]

Response categories: Yes, continued need for the Program; Continued need for the Program, but with changes to address evolving context; No need for the Program anymore; Don’t know

11. Please explain. [OPEN-END]

Outcomes

The next set of questions asks about the Program’s anticipated outcomes.

12. How would you rate awareness of the Program and its aims among the following groups? [Q4.1]

Response categories: Very aware, Somewhat aware, Somewhat unaware, Very unaware, Don’t know

  • Canadian organizations that deal with human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide
  • International organizations that deal with human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide
  • Non-government organizations that assist victims and communities that have experienced war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide
  • Representatives of agencies working in immigration, security, military, and humanitarian law in other countries
  • The public

13. How would you rate your level of knowledge of all components of the Program (not just your own program component)? [Q4.1.3]

Response categories: Very knowledgeable, Knowledgeable, Somewhat knowledgeable, Not knowledgeable

14. To what extent has the Program demonstrated Canadian leadership on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide at the global level? [Q4.2.2, Q4.4.1, Q4.4.2, Q4.4.3]

Response categories: To a great extent; To a reasonable extent; Very little; Not at all; Don’t know

  • In providing an effective legislative framework
  • In the effective management of allegations
  • In providing support to international organizations addressing war crimes issues
  • By other countries learning from and emulating Canada’s approach to addressing war crimes

15. Based on your experience, to what extent has the Program been successful in the following activities as related to persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? [Q4.2.2, Q4.3.3, Q4.6.1]

Response categories: Very successful, Somewhat successful, Somewhat unsuccessful, Very unsuccessful, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Denial of visas
  • Denial of refugee status
  • Revocation of citizenship
  • Removal of individuals from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Extradition upon request by other countries
  • Prosecution

16. How adequate are the following in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? [Q4.4, Q4.5]

Response categories: Very adequate, Somewhat adequate, Somewhat inadequate, Very inadequate, Don’t know

  • Legislation
  • International agreements and treaties (e.g., Memoranda of Understanding)

17. How would you describe the working relationships between your department/agency and the following organizations related to your work on war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? [Note: The online survey will remove respondent’s response to Q1 from list below] [Q6.1.3]

Response categories: Very effective, Somewhat effective, Somewhat ineffective, Very ineffective, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Canada Border Services Agency
  • Citizenship and Immigration Canada
  • Department of Justice Canada
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police
  • Public Prosecution Service of Canada
  • Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada
  • Partner agencies in other countries

18. How have the working relationships between the Program departments/agencies (Department of Justice Canada, RCMP, CBSA, IRCC) affected the ability to do any of the following activities related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? [Q4.8.3]

Response categories: Very positive effect, Positive effect, No effect, Negative effect, Very negative effect, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Gather information and/or intelligence
  • Share information and/or intelligence
  • Identify individuals complicit in these crimes
  • Take action against individuals complicit in these crimes

19. How would you describe your level of satisfaction with the Program as a response to denying safe haven in Canada to those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? [Q4.7.1]

Response categories: Highly satisfied, Somewhat satisfied, Somewhat unsatisfied, Highly unsatisfied, Don’t know

20. How useful are the following tools, policies, and procedures to your work related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? [Q4.1]

Response categories: Very useful, Somewhat useful, Not very useful, Not at all useful, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Department/agency manuals
  • Department/agency procedures
  • Department/agency policies
  • Screening tools
  • Country reports
  • CBSA 24-hour telephone support line
  • Lookouts in computer system
  • File review criteria

21. Are the tools, policies, and procedures that you use kept up-to-date so that they remain relevant to your work? [Q4.1]

  • Yes
  • No
  • Don’t know
  • Not applicable to my work

22. (IF RESPOND 0 TO Q21) Which ones need updating? [OPEN-END] [Q4.1]

23. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please answer based on your work related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. [Q4.1, Q4.4]

Response categories: Agree, Somewhat agree, Somewhat disagree, Disagree, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Roles of other departments and agencies are clear.
  • Communication and coordination among departments and agencies is effective.
  • Communication and coordination between the Program and international organizations is effective.
  • The amount of training provided is adequate.
  • The subject matter of current training meets my needs.
  • The level of training is suitable for someone with my time on the job and responsibilities.
  • The outreach efforts to raise awareness with domestic stakeholders are sufficient.
  • The outreach efforts to raise awareness with international stakeholders are sufficient.

24. For each of the following, are there adequate resources for dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? [Q5.1]

Response categories: Very adequate, Somewhat adequate, Somewhat inadequate, Very inadequate, Don’t know, Not applicable to my work

  • Screening visa applications for entry to Canada
  • Denying visas
  • Training and professional development
  • Gathering and disseminating information and/or intelligence data
  • Investigations
  • Outreach and communications
  • Preparation of cases for hearings/reviews
  • Preparation of cases for trial

25. Please identify three elements of the Program that, in your opinion, work particularly well. [Q4.8.2]

26. Please identify three potential areas for improving the Program. [Q4.8.2]

27. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make about the Program?


Interview guide for case studies

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

In addition to other methodologies, the evaluation includes case studies of the use of five remedies available under the Program. Each case study will include a review of relevant documents and files and key informant interviews. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for your participation.

Representatives of the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, or IRCC may sit in on interviews of their departmental/agency key informants. In addition, the Evaluation Division of each department/agency will have access to the notes from the interviews with their departmental/agency key informants. Finally, with your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report.

1. What was your role on the specific case that we will be discussing today?

2. Please review the attached diagram. Is the process used for this remedy accurately depicted? (Probe: does your department/agency have any documentation or data on the costs of the remedy?)

Collaboration

3. What other federal departments and agencies did you work directly with on this case, if any? Did you indirectly work with any other federal departments or agencies (i.e., did not have direct contact with them but relied on their work)? If so, which ones? Please describe how you worked, directly or indirectly, with each department and agency.

4. For each of the departments/agencies with which you worked directly, how would you describe the working relationship in terms of communication, collaboration, information sharing, and clarity of roles and responsibilities? (Probe: do departmental cultural differences affect collaboration/coordination? What about different departmental realities and/or restrictions on sharing information across departments? Did each department/agency understand the roles of the other departments/agencies?)

5. Did you work with any international partners on this case? What role, if any, did international partners play in this case in terms of gathering and/or sharing intelligence or other types of supports? What factors facilitated cooperation and what factors inhibited it?

Results

6. Why was this remedy used in this case? Were other remedies considered? Do you believe the appropriate remedy was selected? Why or why not?

7. What tools, policies, or other supports were available to you on this case? Are there any gaps or improvements to existing tools, policies, or other supports that the Program should consider?

8. How effectively were the allegations managed at each step in the process including the following:

  1. compiling allegations
  2. screening allegations
  3. investigating allegations
  4. selecting remedies
  5. implementing remedies
  6. monitoring and reporting on outcomes

Did any departments/agencies have difficulties meeting their obligations?

9. Were there any impediments to conducting your work in terms of the following:

  1. being able to access the information necessary to substantiate claims
  2. having sufficient information to substantiate claims
  3. having sufficient time to conduct your work

Were there any other impediments?

10. What was the result of this case, and did it involve or reveal any broader operational or policy implications for addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

11. What were the key best practices in how this case was handled? What are the key lessons learned?

12. In your opinion, is Canada meeting its international obligations related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court) Is Canada demonstrating leadership at the global level? (Probe: ask them if other countries have emulated Canada's approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure) What is the basis for your opinions?

Efficiency and economy

13. In your opinion, were there adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support your department/agency’s contribution to the Program for this case? Where are there gaps/deficits in resources? How are resource challenges managed?

14. Based on your experience with this case, do you have any suggestions for how the Program or your department/agency could increase the cost effectiveness of the remedy used? (Probe: either do more with the same resources or do the work at lower cost?)

15. Thinking about the Program overall, are there more cost-effective approaches (including those used by other countries) to fulfill Canada’s no safe haven policy? If so, please describe.

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for case studies – RCMP

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct Program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

In addition to other methodologies, the evaluation includes case studies of the use of five remedies available under the Program. Each case study will include a review of relevant documents and files and key informant interviews. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. Thank you in advance for participating.

Representatives of the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, or IRCC may sit in on interviews of their departmental/agency key informants. In addition, the Evaluation Division of each department/agency will have access to the notes from the interviews with their departmental/agency key informants.

1. What was your role on the specific case that we will be discussing today?

2. Please review the attached diagram. Is the process used for this remedy accurately depicted? (Probe: does your department/agency have any documentation or data on the costs of the remedy?)

Collaboration

3. What other federal departments and agencies did you work directly with on this case, if any? Did you indirectly work with any other federal departments or agencies (i.e., did not have direct contact with them but relied on their work)? If so, which ones? Please describe how you worked, directly or indirectly, with each department and agency.

4. For each of the departments/agencies with which you worked directly, how would you describe the working relationship in terms of communication, collaboration, information sharing, and clarity of roles and responsibilities? (Probe: do departmental cultural differences affect collaboration/coordination? What about different departmental realities and/or restrictions on sharing information across departments? Did each department/agency understand the roles of the other departments/agencies?)

5. Did you work with any international partners on this case? What role, if any, did international partners play in this case in terms of gathering and/or sharing intelligence or other types of supports? What factors facilitated cooperation and what factors inhibited it?

Results

6. Why was this remedy used in this case? Were other remedies considered? Do you believe the appropriate remedy was selected? Why or why not?

7. What tools, policies, or other supports were available to you on this case? Are there any gaps or improvements to existing tools, policies, or other supports that the Program should consider?

8. How effectively were the allegations managed at each step in the process including the following:

  1. compiling allegations
  2. screening allegations
  3. investigating allegations
  4. selecting remedies
  5. implementing remedies
  6. monitoring and reporting on outcomes

Did any departments/agencies have difficulties meeting their obligations?

9. Were there any impediments to conducting your work in terms of the following:

  1. being able to access the information necessary to substantiate claims
  2. having sufficient information to substantiate claims
  3. having sufficient time to conduct your work

Were there any other impediments?

10. What was the result of this case, and did it involve or reveal any broader operational or policy implications for addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide?

11. What were the key best practices in how this case was handled? What are the key lessons learned?

12. In your opinion, is Canada meeting its international obligations related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court) Is Canada demonstrating leadership at the global level? (Probe: ask them if other countries have emulated Canada's approach in terms of legislation, operations, program structure) What is the basis for your opinions?

Efficiency and economy

13. In your opinion, were there adequate resources (e.g., human, financial, technological) in place to support your department/agency’s contribution to the Program for this case? Where are there gaps/deficits in resources? How are resource challenges managed?

14. Based on your experience with this case, do you have any suggestions for how the Program or your department/agency could increase the cost effectiveness of the remedy used? (Probe: either do more with the same resources or do the work at lower cost?)

15. Thinking about the Program overall, are there more cost-effective approaches (including those used by other countries) to fulfill Canada’s no safe haven policy? If so, please describe.

Thank you for your participation.


Interview guide for country studies

The Evaluation Division of Justice Canada, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is conducting an evaluation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (CAHWC) Program (“the Program”). The Program is an interdepartmental effort by the above-named departments/agencies to support the Government of Canada’s policy of denying safe haven to those who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. Justice Canada has retained the services of PRA Inc. to perform this evaluation. The evaluation is required under the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct program spending be evaluated. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the Program’s relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy).

As part of this evaluation, we are examining the approaches used to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in France, New Zealand, and England and Wales. Your participation is voluntary. The interview will take approximately one hour to complete. With your permission, we will audio-record the interview to ensure the accuracy of the information we gather and report. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. Thank you in advance for participating.

Background

1. Please describe your role within the context of your government’s approach to addressing war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

2. In doing this work, do you ever interact directly with your counterparts in Canada? Please describe how you have worked with Canada. (Probe: academic or other international conferences, EU Genocide Network or other international meetings, case-specific cooperation)

3. How would you describe your country’s working relationship with Canada in terms of information-sharing and collaboration related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What factors have affected collaborating with Canada, either positively or negatively, in the last five years?

Relevance

4. Has the context related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide changed over the last five years? If so, how? In your response, please consider such factors as the nature and number of these crimes, the commitment of the international community to addressing them, international legal developments, and the attention paid to these crimes by the media and the public.

5. From your organization’s perspective, have any new or different needs arisen recently related to the prosecution, deportation, exclusion, or extradition of persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Are these needs being adequately addressed within your country and by the international community?

6. What evidence is there that international initiatives, including Canada’s, have had an impact on denying safe havens to war criminals or persons believed to have committed or been complicit in crimes against humanity or genocide?

Design and delivery

7. What do you consider to be the key features of your country’s approach to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide? Please consider the following features:

  1. legislative framework
  2. program structure
  3. available remedies
  4. coordination domestically
  5. collaboration internationally
  6. training staff
  7. outreach to external domestic or international stakeholders

8. Do you believe that sufficient human, financial, and technological resources are available to your department/agency to conduct its work related to apprehending and deterring those involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide? If possible, please quantify the human and financial resources available to your department or agency for its work in this area.

Outcomes

9. Has your department/agency identified outcomes in order to measure your success in apprehending and deterring those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? What are those outcomes? Are they systematically measured? What have been the results? (Probe: can they provide the number of individuals suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity that have been prevented from entering the country or removed from the country or prosecuted.)

10. What domestic or international factors have facilitated or hindered the success in achieving expected outcomes?

11. What are the key lessons learned or best practices to date with regard to your country’s approach to the fight against impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity (e.g., with regard to legislative tools, investigative and/or prosecutorial resources, refusal and removal mechanisms)

12. To your knowledge, what unintended impacts or effects (positive or negative) have resulted from your country’s approach to the fight against impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Experience with Canada

13. Is Canada meeting its international obligations related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide? In what ways has Canada exceeded, met, or fallen short? (Probe: ask them to consider specific obligations under international accords, protocols, conventions to which Canada is a signatory, such as Convention on Torture, Genocide Convention, Geneva Convention, Rome Statute/International Criminal Court.). What has been the effect on the global ability to respond to crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide?

14. Based on your contacts with the Canadian Program, in your view, are allegations of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide managed efficiently and effectively in Canada? Please explain or give examples.

15. How effective has the Canadian Program been in holding accountable persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide? Based on your experience and contacts with the Canadian Program, what factors have influenced its effectiveness in either a positive or negative way?

16. In your view, how effective is the collaboration between Canada and its international partners in terms of gathering and sharing information and/or intelligence related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? What has been the Program’s contribution? What, if anything, can be improved?

17. To what extent has Canada demonstrated leadership on war crimes at the global level? Please give specific examples. (Probe: have other countries emulated Canada’s approach in terms of legislation, operations, etc.?)

Thank you for your participation.

Date modified: