Horizontal Summative Evaluation of the Government of Canada's Investment in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games

Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive

Evaluation Services Directorate

March 2012

Cette publication est également offerte en français.

This publication is available upon request in alternative formats.

This publication is available in PDF and HTML formats

on the Internet at http://www.pch.gc.ca/

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2012.
Catalogue No CH7-11/2012E-PDF
ISBN 978-1-100-20607-3

Table of Contents

Table of acronyms

AANDC
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
ADM
Assistant Deputy Minister
CBSA
Canada Border Services Agency
CCG
Canadian Coast Guard
CF
Canadian Forces
CFIA
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
CIC
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
COC
Canadian Olympic Committee
CPC
Canadian Paralympic Committee
CRA
Canada Revenue Agency
CSIS
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
CTC
Canadian Tourism Commission
DFAIT
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
DFO
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DND
Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces
DM
Deputy Minister
EC
Environment Canada
EFS
Essential Federal Services
FFC
Framework for Federal Coordination
FHFN
Four Host First Nations
FHFNS
Four Host First Nations Society
FIN
Department of Finance Canada
2010 FS
2010 Federal Secretariat (often shortened to 2010 FS)
GoC
Government of Canada
GOST
Government Operations Steering Team
HC
Health Canada
HPMS
Horizontal Performance Measurement Strategy
HRSDC
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
IC
Industry Canada
IHR
IHR
IEWG
Interdepartmental Evaluation Working Group
IOC
International Olympic Committee
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MPA
Multiparty Agreement
OCS
Office of the Coordinator for Security
OLMC
Official Language Minority Community
PAA
Program Activity Architecture
PCH
Canadian Heritage
PCO
Privy Council Office
PHAC
Public Health Agency of Canada
PMS
Performance Measurement Strategy
PS
PS
PWGSC
Public Works and Government Services Canada
RCMP
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RMAF/RBAF
Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/Risk-based Audit Framework
RWG
Representative Working Group
TB
Treasury Board of Canada
TBS
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
TC
Transport Canada
TFWP
Temporary Foreign Workers Program
VANOC
Vancouver Organizing Committee

List of tables

Table 1
Planned and Actual Expenditures for the 2010 Games

List of figures

Figure 1
Percentage of surveyed Canadians that watched or attended any competitions and watched the Opening Ceremonies (Olympic Games and Paralympic Games).
Figure 2
Opinions of surveyed Canadians on the performance of Canadian athletes in the 2010 Games
Figure 3
Canadians surveyed who report that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact Canada's image abroad; national pride in all regions of the country; and the promotion of world peace through sport

List of tables—Appendix B

Appendix B–Table 1
Planned GoC services and budget for the 2010 Games, December 2009

List of tables—Appendix G

Appendix G–Table 1
Awareness of the Games
Appendix G–Table 2
Awareness of the Games – British Columbia Lower Mainland
Appendix G–Table 3
Awareness of the Games – by region
Appendix G–Table 4
Pre Games awareness of the role of the Government of Canada
Appendix G–Table 5
Pre Games awareness of the role of the Government of Canada by region
Appendix G–Table 6
Watched or attended any competitions
Appendix G–Table 7
Watched or attended the Opening Ceremonies
Appendix G–Table 8
Post Games awareness of the role of the Government of Canada
Appendix G–Table 9
Sport Matters poll questions on the 2010 Games and the Own the Podium Initiative
Appendix G–Table 10
Perceived impact of the 2010 Games
Appendix G–Table 11
Impact on Canada's image abroad

Executive summary

Context

Canadian Heritage was the lead department coordinating the federal participation in 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (the 2010 Games) held in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia in February and March 2010 respectively, with the exception of Games Security and Public Safety. The 2010 Federal Secretariat, housed at Canadian Heritage, was responsible to ensure timely advice for decision makers, provide leadership, expertise, and coordination for Essential Federal Service departments and as well as 16 other departments and agencies that were leveraging the 2010 Games to bring benefits to Canadians.

This report presents key findings from the horizontal evaluation of the Government of Canada contribution towards the activities undertaken by federal departments and agencies responsible for delivering Essential Federal Services and strategic investments, excluding Games Security and Public Safety.

Canadian Heritage led this horizontal evaluation in collaboration with the following federal departments and agencies: Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Industry Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Preliminary results from the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games — Games Security and Public Safety Summative Evaluation - RCMP Led Horizontal Evaluation Report (November 2011) were considered in this report. The Canadian Tourism Commission contributed to the horizontal evaluation but is conducting a separate evaluation of its 2010 Games-related activities.

Evaluation objective and methodology

The horizontal evaluation covers the period from April 1, 2003 to the end of the 2010 Games. The data collection started in November of 2009 and concluded in September 2010. The scope of this horizontal evaluation includes the:

  • Impact of the contribution of the Government of Canada to the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for the 2010 Games under the Multiparty Agreement, which focused on the construction of the venues and support for the 2010 Games.
  • Activities and results captured in the horizontal Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/Risk-Based Audit Framework and undertaken by departments/agencies responsible for delivering Essential Federal Services, excluding Games Security and Public Safety, activities of the 2010 Federal Secretariat and of departments/agencies that had received incremental funding to leverage the 2010 Games. Those activities include:
    • Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, torch relays, cultural activities, etc.
    • Non-security Essential Federal Services (Public health, meteorological services, foreign worker support, etc.)
    • Canada Pavilion
    • Sport and community development and legacies
    • Business development
    • Promotion of Canada as a prime tourism destination

The evaluation framework was developed in alignment with the Treasury Board of Canada's Policy on Evaluation (2009) to assess the core issues of relevance and performance as well as additional aspects of the planning, and impact of the 2010 Games.

The data collection methods used for this summative evaluation are:

  1. Key informant interviews
  2. Review of public opinion research and monitoring of media coverage
  3. Review of documents, including:
    • Business plans and operational documentation by the 2010 Federal Secretariat
    • Performance reporting by Essential Federal Services partners
    • Other research studies related to the 2010 Games

Key limitation of this evaluation study

The decision to conduct the evaluation right after the 2010 Games led to the evaluation's key limitation.  This limitation is linked with the lack of available measurements to assess so early after the event some intermediate and longer term outcomes as well as social and economic outcomes. Relevant data and information were still in development at the time of the data collection.

Findings - Relevance

The evaluation concludes that the Government of Canada investment in the 2010 Games was relevant as it was aligned with the Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events and the commitments made through the Multiparty Agreement, the priorities of the federal government and relevant strategic outcomes and priorities of the departments involved. The Government of Canada contribution is also relevant as it actually contributed to the development of high performance athletes including athletes with disabilities. Almost all Canadians were aware of the 2010 Games and of the role of the federal government.

Findings - Performance

The Government of Canada was successful in the design and delivery of its commitment made for the 2010 Games. It put in place an effective governance structure through the 2010 Federal Secretariat and the Federal Framework for Coordination. The 2010 Federal Secretariat was effective to deliver on its responsibilities related to the coordination and communication with internal and external partners. The planning and reporting was framed by a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/Risk-Based Audit Framework updated on a regular basis as was risk planning and monitoring. The Government of Canada provided additional funds to offset the effects of the economic crisis and to ensure that the 2010 Games were bilingual. The funding provisions of the Hosting Policy, such as the maximum proportion of costs assumed by the GoC and the no deficit guarantee helped maintain the focus of the GoC investment.

The evaluation has found that the investments in the 2010 Games allowed the Government of Canada to reach the expected outcomes that could be measured at the time the evaluation was conducted.

The following section presents the key evaluation findings per level of outcomes.

Immediate outcomes

  • The Essential Federal Services committed through the Multiparty Agreement, were delivered successfully by the relevant departments and agencies.
  • Canadians from all regions and socio-economic levels participated in sport, economic, social, and cultural activities and outreach events and activities surrounding the 2010 Games.
  • A majority of Canadians surveyed were aware of the financial contribution of the Government of Canada to the Games including security and customs.
  • Obligations and expectations related to official languages were not clear in the Multiparty Agreement signed with partners and that future similar initiatives would need to ensure that such agreements provide greater clarity.
  • Evidence shows that the obligations related to bilingual Games were in the end respected and that the deficiencies identified before the start of the 2010 Games may have been prevented through earlier and more comprehensive planning in this area.
  • The 2010 Games allowed the federal government to advance its objectives of bilingual Games, despite the challenges encountered

Intermediate outcomes

  • There is evidence that federal funding to specific initiatives contributed to increased awareness of art, artists, and cultures; and increased attendance or participation in Games-related events, including the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games.
  • There was unprecedented First Nations' participation in planning and in various Games-related activities and potential long-term benefits along with establishment of sport legacies for the First Nations. 
  • Canadian athletes performed well as shown by the 26 medals, the highest count for any Winter Games obtained by Canada. Most Canadians agreed that the level of performance was a credit to Canada.

Final outcomes

  • The 2010 Games and related events promoted sport excellence, effectively demonstrated our sense of pride and diversity, and generally showcased the Canadian cultural heritage, including First Nations.
  • Despite the early setbacks in the 2010 Games, key informants agreed that the 2010 Games reinforced Canada's reputation in hosting major sport events. 
  • The majority of Canadians reported that hosting the 2010 Games would have a positive impact on Canada's image abroad.
  • The 2010 Games also created sport legacies for all athletes including ones with disabilities and First Nations as well as environmentally sustainable new sport venues.

Outcomes linked with the Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events

  • Research studies which point to several contributions toward expected long-term benefits of the 2010 Games are limited at the time of this report.
  • Public opinion research indicates that the majority of Canadians perceived positive impacts of the 2010 Games on the tourism industry, Canadian arts and culture, trade and investment opportunities for Canadian companies and economic and social opportunities for communities across Canada.

Lessons learned

Key informants have identified several good practices and opportunities for improvement that could inform the design and delivery of sports and cultural events similar in scope.

Good practices:

  • Early planning through the Multiparty Agreement.
  • The Federal Governance Structure that was established through the 2010 Federal Secretariat and the Federal Framework for Coordination.
  • A strong performance measurement strategy and reporting system.
  • Evergreen risk management of the 2010 Federal Secretariat.
  • Network of senior management for the delivery of Essential Federal Services and pooling of resources to leverage other opportunities related to the 2010 Games.
  • The design of accessible, sustainable and convertible sport venues.
  • The involvement of First Nations and the creation of the Four Host First Nations Society as the single point of contact.

Opportunities for improvement

  • Streamlining reporting requirements for funded recipients to reduce the burden place on them.
  • Ensuring on-going communication between the 2010 Federal Secretariat and funded recipients concerning cash flow requirements to help recipient organizations react to unforeseen risks related to the payment schedule more effectively.

Conclusion

The evaluation concludes that the Government of Canada investments in the 2010 Games were relevant. The Government put in place an effective structure through the Federal Secretariat to plan and deliver its commitments effectively and efficiently. Good practices and opportunities for improvement are identified. The expected outputs were produced by the departments and agencies responsible for the Essential Federal Services. Expected outcomes at the immediate and intermediate level were reached. It is expected that long-term outcomes will be realised in time.

Recommendation

Recommendation: Official languages obligationsPCH should implement a comprehensive framework to ensure that official languages requirements are monitored efficiently for sport or cultural events similar in scope to the 2010 Games. This framework would be meant to reinforce existing mechanisms such as contribution agreements (including multiparty agreements) and/or planning documents (including funded recipient's business plans). It would include the necessary internal and external collaborative processes and tools to ensure systematic monitoring and support of funded recipients and partners. This should be started early in the process to better support partners in meeting official languages requirements.

Management Response and Action Plan

Canadian Heritage has in place a suite of tools and processes which collectively constitute strong measures for managing and monitoring Grants and Contributions files, including the identification and monitoring of official language requirements at major sport and cultural events. All programs are responsible to refer regularly to these tools and processes.

In response to the recommendation, the Department will develop appropriately worded clauses to be included in the standard Contribution agreement.  Based on each program's objectives and expected results, the specific programs requiring special OL clauses will be identified.  The clauses will:

  • clearly indicate specific actions that must be taken by the funding recipient to reflect Canada's linguistic duality; and
  • ensure that the ultimate funding recipient is informed of its responsibilities to fulfill obligations to reflect Canada's linguistic duality.

Richard Willan

Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive

Department of Canadian Heritage

Introduction

Canadian Heritage was the lead department coordinating the federal participation in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (the 2010 Games) held in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia in February and March 2010 respectively, with the exception of Games Security and Public Safety. The 2010 Federal Secretariat, housed at Canadian Heritage, was responsible to ensure timely advice for decision makers, provide leadership, expertise, and coordination for Essential Federal Service departments and as well as 16 other departments and agencies that were leveraging the 2010 Games to bring benefits to Canadians. Games Security and Public Safety aspects were coordinated by the Federal Coordinator for 2010 Olympic and G8 Security, within the Privy Council Office (PCO).

As the original federal lead, Canadian Heritage developed an integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) and Risk-based Audit Framework (RBAF) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games to capture the contribution of those departments and agencies that received incremental funding and/or used existing resources to support the 2010 Games. In order to ensure accountability for Games Security and Public Safety, a separate Results-based Management and Accountability Framework for security was developed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in collaboration with its federal partners. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted a separate evaluation covering the security and public safety aspects of the 2010 Games.

This report presents key findings from the horizontal evaluation of the Government of Canada contribution towards the activities undertaken by federal departments and agencies responsible for delivering Essential Federal Services and strategic investments, excluding Games Security and Public Safety. The data collection phase of the evaluation was conducted from November 2009 to September 2010 and was managed by the Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD) of Canadian Heritage (PCH). The report addresses the mandatory relevance and performance issues required by the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation.

Canadian Heritage led this horizontal evaluation in collaboration with the following federal departments and agencies through the Interdepartmental Evaluation Working Group (IEWG). Members of the IEWG are: Canadian Heritage (PCH), Environment Canada (EC), Department of Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO), Health Canada (HC), Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Industry Canada (IC), Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). A joint formative evaluation and audit of the 2010 Federal Secretariat (2010 FS) was also conducted in 2008. Results from the draft report of the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games — Games Security and Public Safety Summative Evaluation - RCMP Led Horizontal Evaluation Report (November 2011) were considered in this report. The Canadian Tourism Commission contributed to the horizontal evaluation but is conducting a separate evaluation of its 2010 Games-related activities.

The Report is divided in 6 sections:

Section 2 describes the context in which the investments of the GoC were made to support the 2010Games; section 3 presents the evaluation methodology; section 4 outlines the evaluation findings, organized by issue; section 5 presents the conclusion; and section 6 provides the recommendation.

1 Context 

The 2010 Games were convened from February 12 to 28, 2010 (Olympic Games) and from March 12 to 21, 2010 (Paralympic Games) in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia. The planning and delivery of the 2010 Games was a complex, multi-year, horizontal initiative where all partners involved from the Vancouver Organising Committee (VANOC), not-for-profit and private sector organizations and all levels of government participated. The Government of Canada (GoC) was a major contributor to the 2010 Games.

This section presents a description of the context in which the GoC investments in the 2010 Games were made, and how federal departments and agencies delivered on their obligations.

1.1 Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events

The Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (Hosting Policy) guides the federal government's activities related to the hosting of competitive events in sport development.  This policy states that:

  • The Government of Canada recognizes the sport development, social, cultural, economic and community benefits that are derived from hosting international sport events, and that a proactive, strategic and coordinated approach to bidding and hosting is required in order to realize and maximize the benefits for Canadians.
  • The Government of Canada recognizes the important role of bidding for and hosting of international sport events in further establishing Canada as a leading sport nation.[1]

In relation to the 2010 Games, the GoC limited its investments to respect the parameters within the Hosting Policy.

Specifically, the Hosting Policy requires that:

  • The federal government funds events that yield net benefits (sport, social, economic, and cultural);
  • Federal funding contributions are limited to 35% of the total event costs and 50% of the total public sector contribution to the event; and
  • The GoC does not guarantee any operating deficit sustained by organizers.

With this Hosting Policy as a guide, the federal government committed, in the November 2002 Multiparty Agreement (MPA), to provide essential services as well as legacy and strategic investments for the 2010 Games.

1.2 The Multiparty Agreement

The Multiparty Agreement (MPA) was included in the bid presented to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), demonstrating key parties' level of commitment in staging the 2010 Games. The MPA[2] identified the host city and all partners' respective responsibilities in financing, organizing, and producing this international event.

The signatories of the MPA included the GoC, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC) and the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation. The Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation transitioned to the Vancouver Organising Committee (VANOC) after the 2010 Games were awarded. Besides the Multiparty Agreement (MPA) signatories, the following were important partners in the planning and delivery of the 2010 Games: local First Nations communities identified as the Four Host First Nations (FHFN), the Four Host First Nations Society (FHFNS), the City of Richmond, the IOC and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). More information on the MPA signatories and the other important partners is available in Appendix A.

Parties to this agreement expected the 2010 Games to have both tangible and intangible impacts on Canadian amateur athletes, as well as the Canadian public and that hosting the 2010 Games would globally enhance Olympic and Paralympic activities.[3] Federal partners seized the 2010 Games as an opportunity to advance the objectives of the Hosting Policy and to achieve sport, cultural, social, and economic benefits.

The MPA outlined contributions from the various levels of government. Both federal and provincial governments pledged, in 2003, to invest equal amounts of funding for hosting the 2010 Games. Vancouver and Whistler also agreed to provide support and services required for staging the 2010 Games.[4] In addition to these stipulated contributions, VANOC could also request additional assistance from any partner government who had the option of supplying or not any additional assistance.[5]

1.3 Government of Canada Investments in the 2010 Games

1.3.1 Incremental funding

The GoC contribution to the 2010 Games was $1,1 billion in incremental funding. The GoC support, committed through the MPA, was provided for a series of activities. See Appendix B for the table presenting the planned GoC services and budget for the 2010 Games.

1. Funding for Strategic Investments—$557M—was expended by:
  • VANOC for the construction of the Games venues and its operations.
  • Canadian Heritage (PCH), Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC), Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for the coordination of activities that allowed the federal government to pursue specific promotional and participation-related policies and priorities associated with the 2010 Games.
  • PCH for a range of 2010 Games-related activities—Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, Torch Relays, Canada Pavilion—and to pursue activities indirectly connected to the logistics of convening the Games, but that had the potential to produce other benefits or leverage the participation and attention of the world.
  • Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) to support legacies and increased economic, sport, and social opportunities for the Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.
  • CTC to support the development of a 2010 Olympic Games Tourism Strategy in view of encouraging tourism to Canada after the 2010 Games.
2. Funding for Essential Federal Services (EFS) not related to security and public safety—$17.745M—was expended by:
  • Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC), Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) to deliver services committed to under the MPA in support of the 2010 Games or to promote goals related to the spirit of the 2010 Games.
3 Funding for the Essential Federal Services (EFS) related to the 2010 Games Security and Public Safety was offset by a $252M contribution of the government of British Columbia. The amount of $785M was expended by:
  • Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP); the Department of National Defence (DND); Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA); Industry Canada (IC); PHAC; PS (PS); Transport Canada (TC); Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC); Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); the Privy Council Office (PCO) through the Office of the Coordinator for the 2010 Olympics and G8 Security; the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG); Canada Post Corporation; and NavCanada.

1.3.2 Services provided through existing resources

Four departments—IC, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)—did not receive incremental funding to provide certain Essential Federal Services. These departments reallocated funds from their annual appropriations (A-base) to offer these services. The services they delivered are included in this evaluation. HC also used existing resources to provide certain services which are not included in this evaluation.

Several other federal departments and agencies also used existing resources (A-base) to leverage the hosting of the 2010 Games. As they have not formally committed themselves to reporting on their Games-related activities, they are not included in this evaluation.

1.4 Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC)

VANOC was the main external recipient of federal funding. VANOC is a not-for-profit corporation established for the 2010 Games. Its Board of Directors is comprised of representatives of the signatories to the MPA, and of the band councils of the Lil'wat and Squamish First Nations. VANOC's goals were to create and deliver a high-quality 2010 Games event and leave sustainable and beneficial sport and cultural legacies.[6]  VANOC's responsibilities were [7]

  • Planning, organizing, financing, and staging the 2010 Games in and around the city of Vancouver and the resort municipality of Whistler;
  • Promoting Vancouver as the host city, Whistler as the host resort, the Province as the host province, and Canada as the host country for the 2010 Games; and
  • Providing and assisting in the preparation of facilities as may be required.

VANOC also agreed to communicate and provide services to the public in both English and French.[8]

To aid in meeting these responsibilities, VANOC developed a business plan, approved by the federal and provincial governments, based on the goals identified in the MPA.

VANOC established the Legacy Endowment Fund to which the GoC and government of British Columbia each contributed funds. The fund was used in part to pay operating and maintenance costs for various 2010 Games sports facilities from their inception onward. This fund could also be used for athlete and coach sport development programs at the 2010 Games sport facilities and for post-2010 Games coach and sport development programs in other locations within Canada.[9]

VANOC also established the Whistler Legacies Society, composed of members representing the parties to this agreement (excluding the GoC), and the Lil'wat and Squamish First Nations. The Whistler Legacies Society oversees the ownership, management, and operation of the 2010 Games sports facilities in the resort municipality of Whistler.[10] Following the 2010 Games, VANOC arranged to make sports facilities created or renovated for the 2010 Games—funded either in whole or in part by the GoC—available to amateur sports groups for developing and high-performance athletes to use.[11]

1.5 Roles and responsibilities of the GoC in the 2010 Games

Structures to support the GoC roles and responsibility not related to Games Security and Public Safety aspects were developed and refined throughout the period leading to the event. Governance and secretariat structures were implemented to support the 30 federal departments and agencies called upon to contribute to the hosting of the 2010 Games, including 15 federal departments and agencies providing EFS mandated under the commitments the GoC made through the MPA.

1.5.1 Governance structure

PCH, responsible for the Hosting Program, was the lead department for federal participation in support of the 2010 Games. As such, the role of PCH included establishing a secretariat—the 2010 Federal Secretariat (2010 FS)–to oversee the federal contribution. The 2010 FS developed the Framework for Federal Coordination (FFC), a governance structure to ensure the whole of government approach for the delivery of the EFS for the 2010 Games.  

1.5.2 Federal Secretariat's responsibilities

The 2010 FS was responsible for coordinating the provision of EFS, capital, legacy, and strategic funding to support the 2010 Games. The 2010 FS was to: “...ensure timely advice for decision makers, provide leadership, expertise, and coordination for 14 EFS departments and 16 other departments and agencies that are leveraging the 2010 Games to bring benefits to Canadians.[12]” Internally, the 2010 FS worked with PCO, the Department of Finance (FIN), and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) to ensure:

  • effective communication and coordination among government departments and agencies involved in the 2010 Games; and
  • alignment of activities related to the Games with the federal government's overall interests and priorities.[13]

The 2010 FS also maintained ongoing relationships with EFS partners supporting directly the 2010 Games to:

  • coordinate the federal contribution to the 2010 Games;
  • serve as the liaison between the GoC, VANOC, and the Government of British Columbia;
  • maintain relationships with the 2010 Games partners that both sponsored and organized the 2010 Games, such as VANOC and the municipalities (Richmond, Vancouver, and Whistler); and
  • monitor the compliance of recipients with federal contribution requirements.[14]

Once the 2010 FS was dismantled, Sport Canada became responsible for monitoring and reporting on the legacies of the 2010 Games.

1.5.3 Federal Framework for Coordination

The Framework for Federal Coordination (FFC) is a governance structure composed of four levels of committees:

  • Deputy Ministers and Heads of Agency Coordination Committee
  • Representative Working Group (RWG) composed of senior officials at Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) level from the departments and agencies involved
  • EFS Committee (Director and Director General level of federal departments and agencies with contractual obligations to provide services to the Games) under the authority of the RWG
  • Ten working-level issue clusters (later revised to eight)[15]

The committees supported and monitored EFS partners in their role of providing essential and discretionary services for the 2010 Games. They also allowed federal departments and agencies to communicate and plan strategies for using existing departmental resources and other available assets to enable the creation of the economic, social, cultural, and sport benefits related to the 2010 Games.[16]

1.5.4 Federal partners' responsibilities

The GoC investments were made in nine different service areas which supported the expected outcomes. The first two service areas (Federal Coordination and Promotion and Participation) are considered Strategic Investments,[17] while the remaining seven areas relate to services committed under the MPA and provided by EFS partners. The EFS partners already providing services typical of their respective department or agency, could recommend additional national activities to leverage opportunities from the 2010 Games. A description of service areas and EFS partners is found in Appendix C. The service areas are also represented in the 2010 Games logic model presented in Appendix D and link directly to the achievement of the expected 2010 Games outcomes.

1.6 Accountability of the GoC investments

As the organization responsible for the federal coordination, Canadian Heritage developed an Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework and Risk-based Audit Framework (RMAF/RBAF) in collaboration with an Interdepartmental Development Team (the Team) in 2005 which was regularly updated. The Team comprised representatives from federal departments and agencies contributing to the 2010 Games. The RMAF/RBAF for the horizontal initiative specified performance measures for participating departments responsible for delivering Strategic Investments and EFS. Performance expectations were related to coordination and communications activities of the 2010 FS and other departments, and of the services delivered by EFS partners. The final document was approved in November 2009.

As part of the process to ensure that the responsibilities of EFS partners were carried out to the best of their abilities, a RMAF/RBAF Implementation Team was created to monitor and assess risks and their impact on the outcomes identified for this initiative.

1.6.1 Strategic objectives of GoC investments

The three strategic objectives of the GoC's participation in the 2010 Games were:

  • Increasing Canada's profile at home and abroad, along with promoting the GoC as a funding partner in supporting the 2010 Games
  • Advancing existing federal priorities and the promotion of sustainable economic, social, cultural, and sport benefits for Canadians
  • Displaying Canada's ability to successfully plan, coordinate, promote, and produce a world-class major international sporting event[18]

1.6.2 Expected outcomes of the GoC investments

The logic model for the 2010 Games was developed by the 2010 FS in consultation with its EFS partners. This logic model captures the contribution of those departments and agencies that received incremental funding to support the 2010 Games or used existing resources with respect to delivery of mandated EFS. It identifies the activities, outputs, and outcomes that contribute to the overall goal of the Hosting Policy, namely that, “Hosting sports events in Canada creates sport development opportunities and has social, cultural, economic and community benefits for Canadians.”  An important part of this evaluation is to demonstrate the achievement of the planned outcomes. See Appendix D for the 2010 Games horizontal logic model.

The expected outcomes of the 2010 Games included:

Immediate outcomes
  • Leverage 2010 Games to advance existing federal priorities
  • Positive exposure and heightened recognition of the GoC as a key partner in the 2010 Games
  • Successful delivery of the mandated EFS
Intermediate outcomes
  • Pan-Canadian engagement in sport, economic, social, and cultural activities related to the 2010 Games
  • Enhance Canada's domestic and international profile
  • Canadians and international participants experience safe and high-quality Games
Final outcomes
  • Sport, economic, social, and cultural legacies are established for the benefit of Canadians
  • Canadian excellence and values are promoted domestically and internationally
  • Canada is recognized as a capable and inclusive host

These final outcomes derive from the Hosting Policy outcomes identified in the Hosting Policy. 

2 Methodology

The horizontal evaluation was conducted in three phases:

  • Phase 1 (April-July, 2009): identification of the scope of the evaluation through consultations
  • Phase 2 (July-October, 2009): development of the evaluation framework to structure the evaluation
  • Phase 3 (November 2009-September 2010): conduct of the evaluation study

All phases were conducted in close collaboration with the Interdepartmental Evaluation Working Group (IEWG), the central agencies—Privy Council Office (PCO), Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) —and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

2.1 Evaluation purpose and objectives

The PCH-led horizontal evaluation reports on GoC investments and activities related to the Games from April 2003 to the end of the 2010 Games.  This evaluation is conducted in compliance with the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation (2009).  The evaluation is also aligned with the Horizontal Results-based Management and Accountability Framework/ Risk-based Audit Framework (RMAF/RBAF) developed to guide the accountability requirements related to the GoC Investments in 2010 Games.

An evaluation matrix was developed in consultation with PCH, the 2010 FS and EFS partners to reflect the many dimensions of success and to meet policy requirements. The matrix is presented in Appendix D.

The scope of the evaluation includes:

  • Impact of the contribution of the GoC to the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for the 2010 Games made under the Multiparty Agreement (MPA) and focused on the construction of the 2010 Games venues and operational support
  • Activities and results captured in the horizontal RMAF/RBAFand undertaken by:
    • departments/agencies responsible for delivering Essential Federal Services (EFS), excluding security and public safety
    • the 2010 Federal Secretariat (FS) and departments/agencies that had received incremental funding to leverage the 2010 Games

2.2 Evaluation issues and questions

The evaluation is framed around 24 questions related to the following issues:

  • Relevance (3 questions)
  • Design, Delivery, and Risk Mitigation (7 questions)
  • Cost-Effectiveness (2 questions)
  • Success and Impacts (10 questions)[19]
  • Lessons Learned (1 question)

Appendix E presents the complete evaluation matrix. The evaluation questions are summarized in the Findings (Section 4) at the beginning of each relevant sub-section.

2.3 Lines of evidence

The evaluation matrix identified three general categories of data collection methods for this summative evaluation. An in-depth description of the methodology is found in Appendix F.

1. Interviews with 47 key informants belonging to five different groups:

  • Personnel of the 2010 FS (7 interviewees)
  • Senior management at PCH (5 interviewees)
  • EFS and other federal departments/agencies (20 interviewees)
  • 2010 Games Partners (13 interviewees)
  • Four Host First Nations (FHFN) / FHFN Society (2 interviewees)

2. Review of public opinion research: 1) Pre-Games surveys conducted in June 2007, and February 2009 and 2010 and one Post-Game survey conducted in April-May 2010; 2) monitoring of media coverage from November 2009 to March 2010.

3. Review of documents, including:

  • Business plans and operational documentation of the 2010 FS
  • Performance reports by EFS partners
  • Other research studies related to the 2010 Games

2.4 Limitations and challenges

This section of the report describes challenges associated with the selected methodology, and the approaches to mitigate them.

Limitation 1: The horizontal evaluation was conducted right after the 2010 Games when data and information to measure the intermediate and longer term outcomes as well as social and economic outcomes were not yet available. The decision was made to benefit from fresh insights of 2010 FS key personnel on the operations considering the trade-offs.

Limitation 2: Most of the time, the interconnected nature of the responsibilities related to the outcomes of the Games prohibits the attribution of outcomes to specific EFS or MPA partners. Therefore, the outcomes are “jointly owned” by all signatory parties to the MPA.  When evidence permits, contributions of specific partners are underlined. 

Challenge 1: Access to key informants after the dismantling of the 2010 FS in June 2010 was initially difficult but some staff of the 2010 FS were instrumental in tracking down other key informants and providing documents in the midst of concluding their own operations and moving on to new assignments. The dismantling of the 2010 FS also created challenges to continued monitoring and reporting of financial information about the GoC investments in the 2010 Games for fiscal year 2010-2011. Financial data reported in this report have been confirmed by the evaluators in January 2012.

3 Findings

This section presents findings grouped under the two main themes of relevance and performance.

3.1 Relevance

The relevance of the Government of Canada (GoC) contribution to the Games was assessed through whether:

  • it was aligned with departmental and federal government-wide priorities
  • it in turn contributed to the development of high-performance athletes
  • the Canadian public supported it

3.1.1 Alignment with government and departmental priorities

The GoC investments in the 2010 Games are aligned with government priorities as set out in the Hosting Policy where the important role of hosting international sport events in further establishing Canada as a leading sport nation is recognized. The alignment of investments and government priorities is further evidenced through two main MPA objectives that are directly linked to Hosting Policy objectives and outcomes:

  • providing for tangible and intangible positive impacts on Canadian amateur athletes and the public
  • enhancing Olympic and Paralympic activities worldwide, which in turn contributes to enhancing Canada's reputation as a capable and inclusive host

The 2010 Games logic model clearly articulates the activities, outputs and outcomes linked to the Hosting Policy objectives.

The GoC commitments to support the 2010 Games, as framed by the Hosting Policy and made through the MPA, are also aligned with the business line of the departments and agencies tasked to deliver the strategic investments and essential federal services. For example:

  • Environment Canada (EC), and to some extent Department of Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO), used the Games to advance the federal government's agenda on sustainability (e.g., by conducting environmental impact assessments, helping to reduce the environmental impact of the Games, and, more specifically, with venue construction and infrastructure, showcasing Canadian capacity in environmental technology).
  • The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) Olympic Strategy activities centered on leveraging the media exposure of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to showcase and promote Canada as a tourism destination to international audiences.
  • Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) collaborated with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Canada Border Services Agencies (CBSA) to ensure rapid issuance of working permits for workers for the Games under the existing Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP).

The contribution of PCH in strategic investments (Federal Coordination and Promotion and Participation) was largely defined by the existing goals of the Sport Canada Programs, including the Hosting Program, the Hosting Policy, and the Physical Activity and Sport Act. As such PCH's involvement was directly aligned with its departmental responsibilities and priorities as well as legal and policy related frameworks.

3.1.2 Contribution to the development of high-performance athletes

Key informants indicated that hosting the 2010 Games contributed to the development of high-performance athletes by:

  • triggering the construction of sport venues and making them available a year and a half to two years prior to the 2010 Games, giving Canadian athletes unprecedented access to facilities for training
  • increasing the awareness of the Canadian public of high-performance athletes in general
  • the creation of the Own the Podium Initiative[20]
  • the integration of specific characteristics into the design of venues to cater to all athletes, including those participating in the Paralympic Games 

Furthermore, primary findings of the Sport Canada Program evaluation suggested that the 2010 Games provided an incentive for athlete performance as well as an opportunity to compete on home soil. This gave athletes an advantage because they were familiar with the venues, and they had the ‘home crowd' behind them.

Key informants also expect the 2010 Games to have a long-term impact on the future development of high-performance athletes as:

  • it inspires youth to strive for athletic excellence
  • the extensive coverage of the Paralympics increased the visibility of athletes with disabilities
  • Canada achieved a great medal showing
  • design considerations and conversion plans to ensure longer-term use by both high-performance and amateur athletes were integrated in the venues

3.1.3 Public awareness of and support for the 2010 Games and of the GoC's contribution

The awareness of the location of the 2010 Games is used as a proxy for level of awareness of the 2010 Games. Survey results show that awareness of the location of the 2010 Games increased among Canadians over the pre-Games period. In June 2007, 55% of surveyed Canadians correctly reported that the 2010 Games would be held in Vancouver and/or Whistler and by February 2010, 89% reported correctly the location of the event. General awareness of the location of the 2010 Games was higher and increased from 61% in June 2007 to 95% just prior to the 2010 Games in February 2010 (Appendix G—Table 1).  After the 2010 Games, a similar percentage (96%) of surveyed respondents identified correctly the location of the 2010 Games (Appendix G—Table 2). The awareness of the 2010 Games across regions in Canada also increased over time, with the exception of British Columbia respondents, who in June 2007 already reported a high level of awareness of the location of the 2010 Games. Quebec respondents had the lowest percentage of awareness in June 2007 (43%), a percentage that more than doubled in February 2010 (92%) (Appendix G—Table 3).

Prior to the 2010 Games, knowledge of the roles of the GoC in helping finance the 2010 Games and ensuring services like security and customs remained fairly stable, raising from 67% in June 2007 to 73% in February 2009 and 2010. The proportion of Canadians reporting, during the same period, that the GoC was not involved at all in the 2010 Games diminished from 9% in 2007 to 6% in 2010 (Appendix G—Table 4). The knowledge of the full role of the GoC slightly increased during the same period in all regions of the country (Appendix G—Table 5).

According to a variety of survey results reported in the media over the pre-Games period, a small proportion of Canadians thought there would be positive economic impacts in the area of trade and investment opportunities stemming from the 2010 Games (La Presse, September 17, 2009). On the eve of the 2010 Games, Canadians were increasingly enthusiastic, but still split on the costs of the 2010 Games and they were more likely to see positive benefits from the 2010 Games than residents of British Columbia and Vancouver (CBC, February 12, 2010).  Midway through the 2010 Games, one poll revealed that “Canadians remained more enthusiastic” regarding the benefits of hosting the 2010 Games “than British Columbians and people living in Vancouver, although those perceptions ha[d] improved as well” (CBC, February 26, 2010). A poll following the 2010 Games revealed that 85% or more “Canadians [saw] substantial benefits for Canada, for B.C. and for Vancouver [but] British Columbians and Vancouverites were less likely to see great benefits ” (CBC, March 10, 2010).

By the time the 2010 Games concluded, two-thirds of Canadians thought the 2010 Games were a great idea, up from 28% in December 2009 (The Globe and Mail, March 11, 2010).  Furthermore, according to CBC, “[polls] taken during the 2010 Games suggested the vast majority of Canadians believed the Olympics were uniting the country” (March 2, 2010).

3.2 Performance of the GoC investments in the 2010 Games (design and delivery)

This section presents findings related to various performance aspects of the GoC contribution to the 2010 Games as it relates to design/delivery, and the demonstration of efficiency and economy. The evaluation assessed the manner in which the GoC delivered on its commitments through four themes covering six evaluation questions:

  1. Coordination/communication
    • between the 2010 FS and EFS Partners
    • between the 2010 FS and 2010 Games Partners
  2. GoCinvestments
    • resources planning and utilization and oversight of the totality of the contributions by the 2010 FS and EFS Partners
    • reporting of results by external funding recipients
  3. Cost effectiveness
    • clear business and operational planning surrounding the transfer of funds
  4. Contingency planning  and risk identification

The evaluation also included a question on lessons learned. Findings related to these are found in Section 4.4.1 under Good practices and opportunities for improvement. There was also a question related to Games Security and Public Safety. The findings are presented in the RCMP-led evaluation[21].

3.2.1 Coordination and communication efforts of the 2010 Federal Secretariat

The 2010 FS was responsible for the provision of capital funding and the coordination of legacy, promotional and participation related funding as well as EFS support to the 2010 Games. It was also responsible for liaising with central agencies and interfacing between the GoC, VANOC and other 2010 Games partners.

According to most federal key informants the strong leadership demonstrated by a dedicated secretariat such as the 2010 FS is regarded as a main success factor of the design and delivery of the GoC investments for the 2010 Games and is a model of best practice of horizontal management. This leadership was embedded in the effective communication processes of the 2010 FS that ensured senior-level support, effective and timely decision making in a large, complex bureaucracy as well as a single point of contact with other partners outside the GoC. Some key informants also underlined the 2010 FS' continuous information sharing efforts, and quick response to specific requests for information or advice.  The FFC was identified by key informants as a key governance structure for ensuring communication and coordination and the MPA as a key document that supported effective coordination within the GoC and with external partners. 

The Federal Framework for Coordination

The FFC was developed by the 2010 FS in the planning phase of the 2010 Games. It consisted of a three-tiered governance structure of departments and agencies tasked with delivering on the GoC commitments to the 2010 Games. In addition to the governance structure, eight working-level issue clusters were active during the time of the 2010 Games preparation. Clusters focusing on transportation, the environment and sustainability, as well as the federal communicators' network, were deemed particularly useful by government key informants.

Some key informants said that the Framework for Federal Coordination (FFC) structure was the most effective they had witnessed in terms of horizontal communication and coordination. Some also indicated that the overall governance structure was effective for:

  • departments/agencies to provide updates on progress
  • the 2010 FS and central agencies to monitor accountabilities and ultimately ensure that MPA requirements were met

Judging by the number and regularity of meetings of these committees, the quality of the representatives involved, and the topics discussed, considerable communication for the purpose of coordination occurred between the 2010 FS and the EFS partners. The examination of the meeting documentation and performance reports also demonstrated that EFS partners cooperated and coordinated closely among themselves and other partners as expected. Also, some key informants considered that meetings were well prepared and informative, and follow-up items were said to be closely monitored by the 2010 FS.

Some key informants mentioned that:

  • It was challenging to secure over several years the continued participation of members of the Deputy Minister (DM) and Assistant Deputy Minister –Representative Working Group (ADM-RWG) committees as this responsibility was sometimes delegated.
  • Efficiency of meetings could have been improved when issues relevant to a small group of departments needed to be discussed.
  • Agendas prepared by the 2010 FS and materials provided by departments/agencies were often available very late, which did not always allow for proper briefing of senior management within participating departments.
Other coordination and communications mechanisms

Several EFS departments also put in place their own senior managers' network several years prior to the 2010 Games, in order to coordinate the planning of 2010 Games services, to identify other opportunities for involvement, to share information about the GoC involvement in the 2010 Games and to discuss and resolve potential issues affecting various areas of their department. 

Formal and informal communication by the 2010 FS with its internal partners regarding specific issues, such as the preparation of planning documents and the 2010 Games outcomes, supported the coordination of the federal government investment. Apart from the FFC, formal communication included:

  • The comprehensive interdepartmental intranet site housing operational documents and materials developed under the lead of the 2010 FS.  Key informants identified this intranet site as a specific practice worthy of emulation.
  • Senior management in most departments and agencies communicated the importance of supporting the preparation of the 2010 Games (although several did so relatively close to the event) by publishing internally special bulletins, newsletters or memoranda regarding roles, responsibilities, expectations, department specific contribution to the 2010 Games, evolving games-related activities or specific stories about individual involvement.
Challenges

The following are challenges impacting effective coordination raised during the key informant interviews:

  • There were instances where the 2010 FS was overwhelmed with requests, and where staff turnover at the 2010 FS hampered progress on various departmental or interdepartmental initiatives as new individuals had to be brought up to speed. These problems were resolved in late 2008.
  • Central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), also monitored the type and level of investments in support of the 2010 Games. However, they expressed concern about receiving some requests for funding from departments/agencies with little lead time—as little as three weeks before the 2010 Games. Key informants provided the following examples of contributions from the GoCthat were planned or implemented too late:
    • Translation and interpretation services relative to Games operations;
    • The Canada Pavilion; and
    • A standing offer for accommodation for all federal public servants travelling to British Columbia to provide support for the 2010 Games.
  • Key informants mentioned that the level and type of human resources required for the 2010 FS to fulfill its role were underestimated, which may have led to lapses in coordination or support. They did not identify specific cases.
  • Early on, it proved more challenging for the 2010 FS to effectively engage other branches of PCH than other departments/agencies. Key informants indicate this may have been due to some confusion with regard to the 2010 FS' responsibilities versus other branches', and to a greater reliance within PCH on the 2010 FS to take the lead in most of the department's responsibilities. PCH created its own departmental committee, since several branches of the department, in addition to the 2010 FS, had significant involvement in the 2010 Games. Some key informants indicated that although this committee was useful in providing updates on progress, it was created too late relative to the 2010 Games.
  • As per the initial statement of responsibilities from PCO, each of the EFS departments and agencies were aware of their obligations, had to judge for themselves the adequacy of their planning, and retained individual accountabilities. Occasionally, the 2010 FS reminded a particular department of their responsibilities or of commitments made to provide funding or services according to a certain timeline, or brought additional opportunities to their attention in terms of investments or services. Although the overall response and level of cooperation from federal partners was considered sufficient, some key informants indicated that the response and cooperation from certain departments/agencies was relatively late.
Role of the Multiparty Agreement in GoC coordination efforts

Key informants indicated that the 2010 Games MPA, allowing the creation of a “shared vision” from the time of the bid, fostered a stronger partnership and provided an effective framework for all 2010 Games partners. It specified areas of responsibility and spelled out requirements and obligations. It served as a basis to build trust and to resolve ambiguity or concerns. It was used as a basis for monitoring the progress of:

  • the GoC in delivering on its own obligations in supporting the 2010 Games
  • other partners—specifically VANOC—in meeting their obligations relative to GoC funding and other requirements (e.g., with regard to official languages)

While interviews and a study on coordination[22] indicated that the MPA can serve as a model in the future, some key informants offered suggestions for its improvement:

  • future agreements would benefit from even greater clarity and details with regard to expectations and obligations, such as those pertaining to official languages
  • more realistic requirements should be expected from a temporary structure such as VANOC (i.e., the requirement to reflect linguistic duality within VANOC, or some of the budget management requirements placed on VANOC may have been unrealistic).
Communications with 2010 Games Partners

The 2010 FS also maintained extensive communications with VANOC, the British Columbia government representatives, and other 2010 Games partners. Some key informants emphasized the importance of communication by the 2010 FS and VANOC and suggested that it was conducive to the efficiency of the role played by 2010 FS. Examples of formal communications processes identified as helping the coordination of the GoC investment are:

  • The 2010 FS continuous information sharing efforts and quick response to specific requests for information or advice, which were referred to as “open”, “collaborative,” and “collegial”.
  • The 2010 FS engagement at bringing forth GoC issues, as well as responding to questions or the needs of other partners.
  • The regular attendance of representatives from VANOC at meetings of EFS departments and agencies, and at meetings of the DM committee and the RWG for information exchanges and updates.

Key informants also mentioned that the formal communications were reinforced by informal relationships happening almost daily as the 2010 FS Vancouver office was on the partner floor of the VANOC offices, fostering enhanced communication and transparency with VANOC and other partners and supporting the development of a good working relationship.

3.2.2 Resources planning, utilization and oversight

Direction concerning the seven EFS areas was provided to the EFS partners directly by PCO or through the 2010 FS.  Departments and agencies assigned to those areas proposed activities and budgets to meet the EFS requirements, and in many cases also proposed activities beyond requirements, building on the existing GoC contribution in various areas.

The Horizontal RMAF/RBAF for the 2010 Games, was first developed in 2005 and was updated as new activities were included until 2009 when the final version was approved by senior management of the relevant departments and agencies. The document identified the planned programs or activities and budgets for each of the departments and agencies as part of the GoC contribution to the 2010 Games. Some activities, such as the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AADNC) support for Aboriginal participation or the temporary Service Canada offices in Squamish and Whistler, were not identified initially by the Government, PCO, the 2010 FS, or individual departments and agencies. These were not included in the RMAF/RBAF and represent a small portion of the overall GoC contribution to the 2010 Games.

The actual contribution of the GoC includes direct contributions to VANOC, the delivery of EFS including the direct contribution to Games Security and Public Safety by the GoC as well as leveraging activities. Table 1 compares the planned and actual GoC contribution to the 2010 Games. For the most part, federal partners indicated that no factors adversely affected their planning or the timeliness of the funding that their department/agency received. The table below shows that, for almost all categories, the GoC funds spent correspond to the funds budgeted in 2009. The exception being with Games Security and Public Safety actual expenditures which were lower than what was budgeted at the start of the 2010 Games.

Table 1– Planned and Actual Expenditures for the 2010 Games
Federal Departments and AgenciesExternal Funding RecipientActivityPlanned* ($000,000)Actual** ($000,000)
Total 1,449.69 1,359.325
Contribution of the Gov. of British Columbia for Games Security and Public Safety (252.5)
Total GoC Investments for the 2010 Games 1106.825

Sources

*Integrated RMAF-RBAF for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, November 2009.

**2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games - Report on Horizontal Expenditures (all Depts.) Financial Management Advisory Group-Canadian Heritage, January 2012.

***Games Security and Public Safety for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games

RCMP Led Horizontal Evaluation Report, DRAFT, November 18, 2011.

Canadian Heritage VANOC Venue Construction 290 290
Canadian Heritage 2010 Games Operating Trust Society Venue Legacy Fund 55 55
Canadian Heritage   2010 Federal Secretariat Operating Budget 35 35.5
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada First Nations First Nation Legacy Grant 34 34
Canadian Heritage VANOC Paralympic Operations 32 32
Canadian Heritage PWGSC and Canadian Heritage Official Languages 7.7 3.5
Canadian Heritage Communities and VANOC Torch Relays 24.5 23.3
Canadian Heritage Four Host First Nations Society Host First Nations 2 2
Canadian Heritage   Cultural Olympiad Digital Edition 0.4 0.4
Canadian Heritage VANOC Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games 20 20
Canadian Heritage   Canada Pavilion 10.4 9.9
Canadian Heritage   Athletes Recognition Activity 1.7 0.4
Canadian Heritage Resort Municipality of Whistler and City of Vancouver Live Sites 20.2 21.2
Canadian Tourism Commission   Tourism Strategy 26 26
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canadian Heritage and DFAIT International Business Development and Protocol 3.69 3.69
Essential Federal Services for Games Security and Public Safety RCMP, DND, CSIS, PS, TC, IC, CBSA, CIC, PHAC, HC, Canada Post Corporation, CCG, NavCanada, PCO Games Security and Public Safety 867.8*** 784.69***
Other Essential Federal Services not related to Games Security and Public Safety –Incremental Funding PHAC, HC, EC, DFO Health & Safety, Entry of Goods and Individuals, Meteorological Services 19.3 17.745
Other Essential Federal Services not related to Games Security and Public Safety –A-based funding CRA, IC, CFIA, HRSDC Health & Safety, Entry of Goods and Individuals, Tax Issues, Intellectual Property A-base A-base
Challenges

Aside from some departments providing support from their existing A-base resources having to temporarily reallocate resources internally, key informants did not report any factors limiting the mobilization of necessary resources to support the 2010 Games.

Federal departments and agencies did not identify specific lapses or gaps in the GoC contribution. A few indicated incidents of cost overruns related to unforeseen requirements for:

  • the onsite deployment of federal public health personnel;
  • IT and other forms of support from regional offices; and
  • more generally, increased costs due to the reduced private sector involvement associated with the economic downturn.

Some departments and agencies mentioned that TBS planning requirements and overall GoC budgetary and planning cycles were not necessarily aligned to the operational realities associated with the involvement of departments and agencies in the 2010 Games. Some key informants indicated that this limited the activities that their department/agency could implement or made it more challenging to implement them within a shorter time frame. Therefore, most comments aimed at a need for greater flexibility in re-profiling funding across areas (e.g., salary vs. capital) or fiscal years, as operational requirements evolved.

External funded recipients

A PCH-led audit confirmed the soundness of business and operational planning at VANOC specifically[23]. Based on information from the 2010 FS, deviations from the required practice were minor and easily rectified. In general, funded recipients external to the GoC indicated their appreciation of the support provided by the 2010 FS in describing GoC processes and expectations, and ensuring they were able to adhere to them, so that funding flowed on time and was used in the way it was intended. 

Some funded recipients external to the GoC were critical of the lack of timeliness of the federal funding, and more specifically of:

  • The lengthy processes to develop and submit requests and to obtain funding.
  • The inability or refusal of the GoC to engage in multiyear funding agreements, even in cases where multiyear funding was approved in principle.
  • The provision of funding on a quarterly or annual schedule, after expenses were incurred, which makes cash flow management more challenging, especially for non-profit organizations and temporary organizations created for the 2010 Games.
  • The requirement to expend funds within the fiscal year they were budgeted for, even though the reality might diverge slightly across fiscal years compared to the budget.

Some partner interviewees also suggested that a single entity such as the 2010 FS should be responsible for all contribution agreements in a future similar event.

3.2.3 Cost effectiveness

Oversight of spending characterised the GoC commitments in the MPA and permeated the entire delivery of the 2010 Games. Key informants considered this a best practice because it enabled the GoC, as a funder, to monitor the evolution of budgetary assumptions and actual costs, in VANOC's budget. 

Furthermore, according to 2010 FS and departments/agencies, the 2010 Games will serve as a model for similar future events in terms of estimating costs associated with the deployment of resources across the country.

The funding provisions of the Hosting Policy, such as the maximum proportion of costs assumed by the GoC and the no deficit guarantee, were considered by key informants to be effective and helped maintain the focus of the GoC investment.

In general, key informants indicated that 2010 Games partners were generally successful in anticipating costs. Increased contributions were due to:

  • Higher than expected translation and interpretation services costs, which were related to a cost underestimation by VANOC
  • The variances in construction costs and VANOC's revenues

2010 Games partners were also successful in mitigating variances:

  • VANOC, the BC government, and the GoC anticipated increases in venue construction costs due to the “Olympic effect” on suppliers and builders (speculation around the 2010 Games), but also because the original cost estimates dated back to the time of the bid for the 2010 Games, and the high level of activity in the construction industry in British Columbia was expected to increase labour and supply costs. 
  • The consequences of the economic downturn were mitigated as VANOC revised its budget completely at the first sign of the economic downturn, implemented measures such as eliminating staff bonuses and contingencies funds and lowered revenue forecasting. The BC government, IOC, and the GoC stepped in with an additional $100M to compensate for VANOC's projected deficit and to help prevent the curtailment of 2010 Games-related activities, compensating for investors dropping out, sponsorship revenue shortfall, and cost increases.

3.2.4 Risk and performance measurement planning and reporting

The development of the horizontal RMAF/RBAF is generally regarded within the GoC as a new and complex process that required constant communication. The RMAF/RBAF reporting was focused on activities related to the provision of mandated EFS and promotion and participation activities. Those who were involved in the development of the RMAF/RBAF and related tools generally indicated they were satisfied with the process. According to representatives of the 2010 FS, linking the funding to the reporting via the RMAF/RBAF for EFS partners was helpful in early planning. Departments and agencies who used these tools generally agreed that the RMAF/RBAF and related tools proved useful in reporting. 

Key informants representing EFS and other departments and agencies generally agreed that the collective risks that applied across the GoC were well defined by the 2010 FS.  Those who participated in risk identification for the horizontal RBAF indicated that:

  • all risks were adequately identified
  • robust mitigation strategies were developed

As part of the evergreen strategy applied to the performance management process, the 2010 FS kept updating the risk register in the RBAF for the risk areas it had the lead on, and as new information became available from departments and agencies. The 2010 FS also added a review of the risks and their ratings to its quarterly business plan review process.  In addition, four EFS partners had also developed their own risk management plans related to the Games, or added a component related to the Games to their ongoing risk management plans.

Key informants mentioned that the 2010 FS' comprehensive risk register, the Security Plan led by the RCMP, and three scenario-based exercises have supported enhanced planning for mitigation for all departments involved. This model could serve as an example for future major events.

The following challenges linked with the development of the RMAF/RBAF, reporting requirements and risk mitigation were mentioned by key informants:

  • The 2010 FS did not have the full participation of all EFS departments and agencies involved, responses to proposed changes were often late, and the turnover in personnel assigned to this task in departments and agencies further complicated matters.
  • In some cases, EFS partners who had to report through the 2010 FS as well as their Department and Agency on a cyclical basis throughout their involvement in the Games found the reporting burden to be too heavy. 
  • Efforts put into risk identification, management and mitigation by the 2010 FS, such as numerous simulation exercises, may have been excessive, considering that VANOC also led similar exercises.

3.3 Achievement of expected outcomes

The expected outcomes of the GoC investments in the 2010 Games are presented in the logic model (Appendix D). The extent to which the outcomes were reached was measured through a series of questions and indicators. The achievement of one level of outcomes leads to the assessment of the achievement of the next level of outcomes.

3.3.1 Achievement of immediate outcomes

As shown in the model logic, three immediate outcomes were expected from the GoC investment in the 2010 Games:

  • The 2010 Games successful delivery of mandated essential federal services
  • The leveraging of the 2010 Winter Games to advance existing federal priorities
  • The positive exposure and heightened recognition of GoC as a key partner in the 2010 Winter Games

The level of attainment of these outcomes was assessed through the following:

  1. The EFS partners' delivery of outputs on time and achievement of specific results in compliance with their individual commitments
  2. Public awareness of the federal contribution to the 2010 Games
  3. Official languages requirements

Evaluation findings show that the immediate outcomes were achieved for the GoC investments.

EFS partners' delivery of key outputs on time and achievement of specific results

Analysis of performance data show that all EFS partners delivered the outputs for which they were responsible in due time and that the achievement of results was generally in compliance with their commitment. This was also confirmed through GoC key informant interviews. Some departments and agencies exceeded their own plans and expectations. This was especially true of those who provided services to the rest of the GoC, such as procurement or translation services. There was abundant public criticism in the media concerning the Canada Pavilion because of last minute construction, the award of the contract to an American firm and plainness of its design and uninspired content.

Public awareness of the federal contribution to the 2010 Games

Overall, awareness of the role of the GoC in the 2010 Games has increased in all regions of the country as measured through pre- and post-2010 Games surveys:

  • Prior to the 2010 Games, awareness that the GoC helped finance the event and was responsible for services like security and customs increased from 67% in June 2007 to 73% in February 2009 and 2010 (Appendix G—Table 4).
  • Over time, relatively few Canadians (9% to 6%) reported that the GoC was not at all involved in the 2010 Games (Appendix G—Table 4).
  • The post-2010 Games survey revealed that (Appendix G—Table 8):
    • more than half of Canadians (57%) correctly indicated that the federal government shared financing of the 2010 Games with other levels of government, including for security aspects;
    • one-quarter of Canadians (25%) indicated the federal government shared financing of the 2010 Games with other levels of government;
    • residents of the British Columbia Lower Mainland have results similar to the rest of Canada in terms of their understanding of the role of the GoC in the 2010 Games.
Official languages requirements

Following concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages, and although VANOC had evidently embedded official language requirements in its budget among the various activities, the 2010 FS through its monitoring of performance assessed that VANOC had underestimated the resources necessary to have fully bilingual Games. The GoC announced, in December 2009, an additional $7.7 million, of which only $3.5 million were actually used in the end, specifically to assist PWGSC with translation and interpretation costs, as well as for VANOC for bilingual signage at official sites. The need for these additional measures was confirmed by some of the key informants.  They underlined two key factors that contributed to this issue:

  • The additional challenge of ensuring bilingual 2010 Games in British Columbia, where French is much less present in everyday life (e.g., the challenge to recruit a sufficient number of bilingual volunteers).  Also, while there was much goodwill, VANOC and the BC government were perceived as not being primarily concerned with the inclusion of French.  The logistical complexity of the event was the focus of VANOC.
  • The absence of some specific details in the requirements related to official languages in the MPA, which left room for interpretation, and the need for more education by the GoC for all Games partners relative to the official language requirements associated with such an event.

One criticism from the public, as reported in the media, was the insufficient inclusion of French language and francophone culture in the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games.  Based on key informant interviews, there is much evidence of the inclusion of the francophone culture in other Games-related events, namely over the course of the torch relays and Cultural Olympiads.  There were no reports of complaints or results of further investigations by the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time of the writing of this report.[24]

3.3.2 Intermediate outcomes

The expected intermediate outcomes of the 2010 Games are: 

  • Pan-Canadian engagement in sport, economic, social and cultural activities related to the 2010 Winter Games
  • Enhance Canada's domestic and international profile
  • Canadians and international participants experience safe and high quality 2010 Games

The extent to which these outcomes were achieved was assessed through:

  1. The participation of Canadians in the sport, social, economic and cultural activities associated with the 2010 Games
  2. The performance of our athletes relative to other countries and historically

Findings related to the third outcome are reported in detail in the RCMP-led evaluation.

The evaluation findings show that the intermediate outcomes were in large extent reached.

Participation of Canadians in the sport, social, economic and cultural activities

According to VANOC, nearly 200 communities gathered and participated in the 2010 Olympic Torch Relay community celebrations, which crisscrossed Canada from October 30, 2009 to February 12, 2010. Over three-quarters of Canadians surveyed followed the coverage of the Olympic torch relay through various types of media.  Post-2010 Games survey results presented in Figure 2 and in Appendix G—Table 6 also show that:

  • most Canadians (89%) indicated they watched or attended some of the Olympic competitions during the 2010 Games
  • fewer Canadians (48%) reported attending or watching some of the Paralympic competitions
  • almost 8 out of 10 Canadians attended or watched the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, while fewer Canadians (27%) watched or attended the Opening Ceremonies of the Paralympic Games. In addition, approximately three-quarters of Canadians who watched or attended both opening ceremonies rated them as either good or outstanding (Appendix G—Table 7); survey results are similar for the closing ceremonies.
  • those in the Lower Mainland of BC were more likely to have followed the torch relay, the ceremonies, and the competitions compared to the rest of Canada
Figure 1—Percentage of surveyed Canadians that watched or attended any competitions and watched the Opening Ceremonies (Olympic Games and Paralympic Games)

Text equivalent for Percentage of surveyed Canadians that watched or attended any competitions and watched the Opening Ceremonies (2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games)
View this image in text format

Source: Decima Research, Post-2010 Games Survey, April-May 2010

Evidence gathered through key informant interviews, the VANOC Sustainability Report, and the 2010 Games Effect study, show that the 2010 Games were inclusive:

  • participation of the Aboriginal population, artists, and businesses
  • awareness-raising initiatives, accessibility plans, and participation of persons and athletes with disabilities
  • planning for and participation of socially-disadvantaged populations, social enterprises, and businesses in disadvantaged areas
  • the inclusion of both official languages and cultural duality  (e.g., Cultural Olympiads)

Specific examples of the GoC contribution to support inclusivity are funding for the torch relays and for Cultural Olympiad and other arts and cultural events and performances.

In addition, the 2010 Games marked the first time in Olympic history that the host country's Aboriginal peoples were formally included as partners within an Olympic organizing committee. The Four Host First Nations (FHFN) were part of the initial bid proposal and went on to form the FHFNS. To ensure the intended level of Aboriginal participation and that FHFN's cultures and traditions were acknowledged, respected, and showcased during the 2010 Games, the GoC provided $2 million of operational funding over five years for the FHFNS.

Performance of Canadian athletes

The post-Games survey findings revealed that nearly all Canadians (96%) strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that the performance of our athletes was a credit to Canada (see Figure 1).

Figure 2–Opinions of surveyed Canadians on the performance of Canadian athletes in the 2010 Games

Text equivalent for Opinions of surveyed Canadians on the performance of Canadian athletes in the 2010 Games View this image in text format

Source: Decima Research, Post-2010 Games Survey, April-May 2010

With 26 medals, the 2010 Games were the most successful Winter Games ever for Canada.  Key informants interviewed as part of the evaluation of Sport Canada's Programs, where this question was examined in more detail[25], credit the Own the Podium Initiative for this success. Key informants interviewed for this evaluation credit also the Sport Canada Programs and investments by a private foundation—B2Ten. The Sport Canada Programs evaluation has not elicited the necessary evidence to attribute this success to Sport Canada programs or the Own the Podium Initiative.

3.3.3 Final outcomes

The expected final outcomes of the 2010 Games are:

  • Sport, economic, social and cultural legacies are established for the benefit of all Canadians
  • Canadian excellence and values are promoted domestically and internationally
  • Canada is recognized as a capable and inclusive host

The extent to which these outcomes were achieved was assessed through:

  1. Promotion of Canadian values to the world and in Canada.
  2. Contribution of the 2010 Games to Canada's reputation in hosting major sports events
  3. Environmental sustainability of and positive environmental legacy of the 2010 Games.
  4. Future sport legacy for all athletes, including athletes with disabilities and First Nations of the 2010 Games.

Evaluation findings show that these outcomes were reached to a large part.

Promotion of Canadian values to the world and to the rest of Canada

Key informants agree that the 2010 Games and related events (e.g., torch relays, cultural programming, Live Sites) effectively demonstrated our sense of pride and diversity, and showcased Canadian cultural duality, as well as First Nations. Media coverage in general was very positive.

Key informants indicated that general awareness and understanding of Canada and Canadian values increased internationally, as demonstrated in the mostly favourable international media coverage. Key informants also indicated that the 2010 Games effectively promoted sport excellence. Canadian athletes demonstrated a strong competitive spirit, and the population's sense of national pride was evident in how it dominated media coverage toward the end of and following the 2010 Games. Much of the domestic and international media's focus was also on the Own the Podium Initiative, which was characterized by some media as arrogant and unsporting. Later on, during the 2010 Games and in the days that followed the closing ceremonies, not only did much of the domestic media celebrate the Own the Podium Initiative, but some of the international media also acknowledged its potentially significant role in the overall achievement of Canadian athletes. The media coverage also underlined how the Paralympic Games were more connected than ever to the Olympic Games, and that their profile and coverage were much greater than in any previous Games.

Poll results (Appendix G—Table 9) also demonstrated that Canadians believe that events such as the 2010 Games assist in motivating Canadians to become more physically active (75%) and to participate in sport (78%). Canadians also showed strong support for the Own the Podium Initiative, with over three-quarters of respondents saying the $117 million invested by the GoC and corporate sponsors for assisting Canadian athletes in winning the most medals was either very or somewhat worthwhile. Furthermore, almost three-quarters (72%) strongly or somewhat supported a $22-million annual investment by Canada in an initiative like Own the Podium Initiative.

There was also extensive media coverage of the unprecedented First Nations' participation in planning and in various 2010 Games-related activities, as well as legacies for First Nations, and this was confirmed by key informants as a positive aspect.  The FHFN celebrated the Aboriginal participation in an Olympic event and the potential long-term benefits. The FHFN said “the positive energy has been incredible” (The Globe and Mail, February 27, 2010), and that “their involvement [in the 2010 Winter Olympics] has created a new sense of pride for Aboriginal Canadians and shown that equal partnership between aboriginal communities and government and industry leaders is possible” (The Vancouver Sun, March 2, 2010).

Contribution of the 2010 Games to Canada's reputation in hosting major sports events

As indicated in Figure 3, from June 2007 to February 2010, the majority of Canadians reported that hosting the 2010 Games would have a positive impact on Canada's image abroad (the % of Canadians reporting such an opinion varied from 85% to 87% during that period). Few said the 2010 Games would have a negative impact (Appendix G—Table 10). This remained fairly stable over time.

Figure 3—Canadians surveyed who report that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact Canada's image abroad; national pride in all regions of the country; and the promotion of world peace through sport

Text equivalent for Canadians surveyed who report that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact on Canada's image and national pride, and the promotion of world peace
View this image in text format

Source: Pre-game-surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in June 2007, Feb. 2009 and Feb. 2010.

A fourth survey, held after the end of the 2010 Games, asked Canadians to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 whether they believed that the 2010 Games had a positive impact on Canada's image abroad. The survey revealed that nearly all Canadians (95%) believed the impact to be relatively high, rating it as 3.6 out of 5, on average (Appendix G—Table 11).

Key informants agreed that the 2010 Games have reinforced Canada's reputation as a country that excels at organizing, planning, and staging international sporting events.  Key informants interviewed for the Sport Canada Programs evaluation also said that Canada has a reputation for holding successful international events.

The 2010 Games were considered a success in all aspects, including venue construction, safety, security, and transportation—some of the issues that have plagued previous Olympic Games.  Key informants also listed specific attributes of Canada that were emphasized because of the 2010 Games, in international media coverage:

  • welcoming hosts
  • respectful sports fans
  • world-class venues
  • safe cities

Media reports, on the other hand, were split and revealed a contrast between the first few days, when there was the death of a luger, bad weather, problems with a Canadian-made ice resurfacing machine, and other setbacks, and the rest of the 2010 Games, increasingly full of cheer and success for Canada, and fun for international visitors and spectators (various international media reported by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC], March 1, 2010).  According to some reports, these 2010 Games “had been prematurely written off,” and organizers demonstrated perseverance (Fanhouse, February 28, 2010).  It is unclear whether any of the setbacks have effectively tarnished Canada's reputation for hosting international sport events.  Key informants did not think so.

Environmental sustainability and positive environmental legacy of the 2010 Games

Assessing the future environmental legacy is not possible in the short term.  However, based on the available research (i.e. the reports commissioned by VANOC and the IOC), it is possible to reflect on the preparations and progress toward environmental sustainability goals in the pre-2010 Games period. The 2010 Games Effect study provides evidence of planning and preparations to make the 2010 Games and related activities “green” and environmentally sustainable, including the role of the GoC in this regard, mainly through EC assistance to VANOC. Environmental assessments were a condition of every venue's funding. A plan was developed in each case to monitor the recommendations and findings of these assessments. While the final report from VANOC with results in this regard was not available at the time of the preparation of this report, there have not been any non-compliance reports at this time[26].  The Olympic 2010 Games Impact study looks at specific measures of environmental impacts in the area of transportation, air and water quality, and concludes that there was very little or no impact in the pre-2010 Games period. The latest VANOC Sustainability Report provides much evidence of progress toward environmental stewardship and impact reduction and concludes that:

  • there was no impact on biodiversity
  • energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions were limited as much as possible
  • VANOC was recycling, reusing, or recovering the energy out of most of the waste it produced, and sending less and less of it to the landfill

The level of activity, and hence, of waste, was increasing leading up to the 2010 Games but that period is not included in these studies.  Thus, it is not possible to fully address this issue with the evidence available at the time of this evaluation.  It is also not possible to link the evidence from these studies directly to the contribution of the GoC.

In addition, every new 2010 Games venue was built in accordance with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System[27].  More specifically, the venues and two athlete villages were designed for long-term community use by incorporating green building standards, each of which obtained a minimum LEED silver designation.  The resulting energy and water efficiencies built into the venues will provide further conservation measures for the communities once operating in legacy mode.

Future sport legacy for all athletes, including athletes with disabilities and First Nations 

According to key informants, the venues are the greatest legacy of the 2010 Games since they:

  • combine specialized training and sports science capabilities for high-performance athletes
  • act as sports facilities for all levels of athletes, and can accommodate various levels of competitions
  • encourage sport, recreation, health, and wellness among the general population

Plans and funding are in place for their conversion and/or continued operation and maintenance—e.g., via the federal and provincial governments' contributions to the 2010 Legacy Trust Fund.  In fact, many of the facilities were already used for other purposes before the 2010 Games. The venues were also designed to accommodate persons with disabilities, thereby ensuring a legacy for all athletes.

Some key informants indicated that the Own the Podium Initiative also continues to benefit high-performance athletes beyond these Games, since many have gained more visibility and a greater ability to seek other sources of funding.

The creation and promotion of the FHFNS as the single point of contact for First Nations involvement in the 2010 Games and related activities was not only a best practice, but an important positive outcome. The prominent role and dedicated funding provided to First Nations are regarded by all as having:

  • contributed to capacity-building
  • created an unprecedented level of participation
  • conferred long-term benefits and legacies for Aboriginal peoples, not only in British Columbia but across Canada

According to key informant interviews, media reports, and documentation, the sport legacies for First Nations are twofold:

  • Activities to which the GoC contributed via its support to the FHFN, to VANOC, or via AANDC aimed at increasing interest in sport amongst Aboriginals, including youth. These consist of, for example, the Aboriginal Youth Sport Legacy Fund; the poster series with First Nations Act Now in British Columbia promoting coaches and sports teams; and community events geared at testing sport ability with First Nations youth.
  • There are also various Legacy Agreements signed with FHFNnations such as:
    • The GoC providing the Musqueam First Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation each with $17 million, for the acquisition of lands, capacity building, business development, skills enhancement, and other economic development opportunities
    • VANOC and the BC government providing the Squamish and Lil'wat First Nations with similar funding
    • Also, Lil'wat and Tsleil-Waututh are part of the legacy society that owns and operates facilities in Whistler

3.3.4 Hosting Policy outcomes

The Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events is a key framework guiding the GoC investments in the 2010 Games. The support provided through the different departments and agencies was designed to reach the following ultimate outcome:

  • Hosting sport events in Canada creates sport development, social, cultural, economic, and community benefits for Canadians

This was assessed through:

  1. Long term social, cultural, economic, and community benefits

The evaluation evidence available to date cannot conclude whether this outcome has been reached as expected.

Long term social, cultural, economic, and community benefits

It is expected that evidence of social, cultural, economic and community benefits will emerge mostly from the Games Impact and Games Effect studies.  At the time of the preparation of this report, evidence from these sources is limited.  Public opinion, however, provides an indication of the perceived benefits in these areas.

As indicated in section 4.1.3 on the awareness of GoC's contribution of the 2010 Games, Canadians were reported to be increasingly aware and enthusiastic, but were split on the costs and benefits prior to the 2010 Games.  Over the pre-2010 Games period:

  • 9 out of 10 Canadians stated that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact on Canada's tourism industry
  • about two-thirds indicated they would have a positive impact on trade and investment opportunities for Canadian companies, as well as on Canadian arts and culture
  • and more than half reported that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact on economic or social opportunities for communities across the country 

Following the 2010 Games,

  • nearly all Canadians (95%) stated that they had a positive impact on Canada's tourism industry
  • most (83%) indicated they had a positive impact on Canadian arts and culture
  • about three-quarters said there will be a positive impact on trade and investment opportunities for Canadian companies, and economic and social opportunities for communities across Canada

British Columbia residents became more skeptical regarding the benefits of the 2010 Games as they approached. Following the 2010 Games, only a slightly higher proportion of residents of the British Columbia Lower Mainland, compared to the rest of Canada, reported a negative impact in terms of economic and social opportunities.

Although many of the benefits will not be fully realized for some time, some research studies point to contributions toward the expected social, cultural, economic, and community benefits of the 2010 Games such as:

  • The VANOCSustainability Report provides examples of training and employment opportunities, mostly related to venue construction:
    • VANOC's contribution to affordable accommodation
    • its financial and in-kind contributions to non-profit groups
    • its focus on Aboriginal arts and culture
    • its focus on procurement from Aboriginal businesses, as well as from inner-city businesses and organizations, where possible

The GoC indirectly contributed to such benefits by contributing to the VANOC's budget and by some in-kind such as procurement workshops to VANOC personnel.

The 2009 Games Effect Report provides examples of benefits at the community level, such as:

  • investments in affordable housing and it distinguishes the GoC contribution in this regard
  • several initiatives in the cultural realm to which the GoC contributed directly, mainly contributing to increased awareness of art, artists, and cultures
  • increased attendance or participation in 2010 Games-related events, such as the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic 2010 Games

The Olympic Games Impact and Games Effect studies also underline various impacts of the 2010 Games on elite athletes and their results, linking them to the Own the Podium Initiative, and highlighting the substantial contribution of the GoC to that Initiative. 

The only conclusive evidence of economic benefit is provided in the Olympic Games Impact study—i.e., the unemployment rate in BC being lower than the national average by 2006, and the relative increase in popularity of Vancouver as a host city for international conferences by 2009.


3.4 Good practices and opportunities for improvement

The evaluation included a question regarding lessons learned from the 2010 Games. Key informants reported a series of good practices and identified opportunities to inform the design and delivery of sports and cultural events similar in scope. These are presented below.

3.4.1 Good practices

Early Planning—In general, the Multiparty Agreement is a model for endeavours similar to these Games.  There are clear benefits to negotiating and signing a multiparty agreement that provides a comprehensive description of roles and responsibilities of all partners for large multi-year and multi-partner projects either before preparing for a bid or early on once in the actual planning phase. These benefits are linked with the clarification of financial commitments, the efficiency of the preparations, budgeting and the development of the governance structure of the event.

Federal Governance Structure—The governance structure implemented through the 2010 Federal Secretariat and the Federal Framework for Coordination is a model in managing federal horizontal initiatives of this type. A strong secretariat serves to:

  • provide a single point of contact and be an effective interface between the GoC and other partners
  • monitor on an ongoing basis the spending of incremental funds awarded to various departments and those provided to third parties as well as the results achieved
  • ensure senior-level support across the GoC
  • ensure effective and timely decision making in a large, complex bureaucracy

The Federal Framework for Coordination was also viewed as an essential tool, as it identified the objectives and responsibilities of all contributing federal departments from the onset. 

Performance Measurement Strategy and Reporting System—The performance measurement strategy and reporting system put in place through the horizontal RMAF/RBAF is an exemplary practice for any horizontal initiative.  Furthermore, the use of an intranet site, accessible by all partners, represents an effective implementation of current technologies to support performance management.

Risk management—The “evergreen” risk register of the 2010 FS, as well as the security plan and scenario-based exercises that were held, serve as a model for future major events. 

Essential Federal Services—Several EFS partners put in place their own senior managers' network several years prior to the 2010 Games, in order to develop plans to deliver EFS, to identify other opportunities for involvement, to share information about the GoC involvement in the 2010 Games, and to discuss and resolve potential issues affecting various areas of their department. The pooling of resources among departments/agencies and partnerships outside the GoC were considered essential to deliver on certain EFS, and also to leverage other opportunities related to the 2010 Games.

Accessible, Sustainable and Convertible Sport Venues—The design criteria for the 2010 Games venues incorporated the needs related to accessibility of all levels and types of athletes. As well, the design ensured that it could be converted for long term use after the end of the 2010 Games and incorporated standards for sustainability in construction. As such, the venues are considered an important legacy of these Games.  In addition, these Games provided an excellent blueprint for sustainability attributes for such events, including the development of a standard by the Canadian Standard Association (CSA standard).

Involvement of First Nations—The creation and promotion of the Four Host First Nations Society (FHFNS) as the single point of contact for First Nations involvement in the 2010 Games and related activities are also considered not only a best practice, but an important positive outcome. The prominent role and dedicated funding provided to First Nations are regarded as having contributed to capacity-building, an unprecedented level of participation, and long-term benefits and legacies for Aboriginal peoples, not only in British Columbia but across Canada.

3.4.2 Opportunities for improvement

Reporting Requirements for Funded Recipients—Streamlining reporting requirements across levels of government would reduce the burden on funded recipients. For Games partners and other organizations that were the recipients of funding from the GoC and the British Columbia Government, annual audits as well as quarterly and/or annual financial reporting requirements were considered too onerous.  Streamlined reporting requirements should be negotiated with the appropriate provincial body and recipient organizations.

Cash flow requirements—On-going communication between the GoC and funded recipients concerning cash flow requirements would help recipient organizations react to unforeseen risks related to the payment schedule more effectively.

4 Conclusions

Relevance

The investments of the Government of Canada (GoC) in the 2010 Games were relevant as demonstrated through alignment with government and departments' priorities, contribution to the development of high-performance athletes, and support of Canadians.

Performance

The GoC put in place an effective governance structure that allowed it to deliver on its 2010 Games commitment made through the MPA. The planning of the GoC investments and the reporting met expectations and the monitoring allowed the GoC to manage its commitment effectively and efficiently, with some challenges met and ultimately resolved concerning obligations related to official languages. Planning for risks was effective and constantly updated.

The evaluation has identified many lessons learned concerning the delivery model put in place by the GoC that could be emulated in future similar events.

Essential Federal Services covered in this evaluation were produced and supported the 2010 Games as expected. The expected immediate outcomes were achieved and there are indications that intermediate and final outcomes will be achieved. As the 2010 Games was a multi-partner endeavour the final outcomes are not directly attributable to the Government of Canada. It is expected that future research will be able to provide more information on whether expected sport, social, economic, and cultural benefits will be realised.

5 Recommendation

Recommendation: Official languages obligationsPCH should implement a comprehensive framework to ensure that official languages requirements are monitored efficiently for sport or cultural events similar in scope to the 2010 Games. This framework would be meant to reinforce existing mechanisms such as contribution agreements (including multiparty agreements) and/or planning documents (including funded recipient's business plans). It would include the necessary internal and external collaborative processes and tools to ensure systematic monitoring and support of funded recipients and partners. This should be started early in the process to better support partners in meeting official languages requirements.

Management Response and Action Plan

Canadian Heritage has in place a suite of tools and processes which collectively constitute strong measures for managing and monitoring Grants and Contributions files, including the identification and monitoring of official language requirements at major sport and cultural events. All programs are responsible to refer regularly to these tools and processes.

In response to the recommendation, the Department will develop appropriately worded clauses to be included in the standard Contribution agreement.  Based on each program's objectives and expected results, the specific programs requiring special OL clauses will be identified.  The clauses will:

  • clearly indicate specific actions that must be taken by the funding recipient to reflectCanada's linguistic duality; and
  • ensure that the ultimate funding recipient is informed of its responsibilities to fulfill obligations to reflect Canada's linguistic duality.

Appendix A

1. Signatories of the Multiparty Agreement other than the Government of Canada

Government of British Columbia

An equal funding partner, along with the federal government, the British Columbia Government created its 2010 Games Secretariat (BC Secretariat) to ensure the Province met its infrastructure and service commitments to these Games. The BC Secretariat's key goals were to ensure sustainable economic, social, cultural, and sport opportunities were developed as a result of hosting the 2010 Games and that permanent infrastructure and cultural legacies were developed within the province.[28]

City of Vancouver

As the host city for the 2010 Games, Vancouver developed an Olympic and Paralympic Operations Office to ensure the city met its commitments. The office's primary activities involved developing relationships with VANOC and other government partners, offering leadership in city planning for the 2010 Games, and developing a lasting Olympic legacy for Vancouver.[29]

Resort Municipality of Whistler

Whistler was the primary venue for many of the Alpine sliding and Nordic sporting events for the 2010 Games. The Office of the Executive Director was charged with the responsibility of coordinating Whistler's involvement in the 2010 Games.[30]

The Canadian Olympic Committee

This organization was responsible for the Olympic movement in Canada and provided financial support and services to the amateur high-performance sports community. The COC ensured Canada's Olympic team at the 2010 Games provided a high level of competition throughout the 2010 Games.[31]

The Canadian Paralympic Committee

This organization's primary objective was to promote and enhance the Paralympic movement in Canada.[32]

Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation

This Not-for-Profit organization was responsible for preparing and presenting the bid to the International Olympic Committee to host the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in 2010.

2. Key Partners for the planning and delivery of the 2010 Games (not signatories to the MPA)

The Four Host First Nations

The FHFN included the four First Nations communities whose traditional territories were directly utilized in the hosting of the 2010 Games: Lil'wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

The Four Host First Nations Society

The FHFNS was comprised of the four First Nations and its main objective was to represent the interests of the Nations and to ensure that the Nations' culture was respected and acknowledged in the planning and hosting of the 2010 Games.[33]

The City of Richmond

The City of Richmond was not a signatory of the MPA. It became 2010 Games partner when it was chosen as the location of the Olympic Oval. As the venue of the speed skating competitions, Richmond became one of the main sites of the 2010 Games.

Appendix B

Planned budget

GoC
Appendix B—Table 1: Plannedservices and budget for the 2010 Games, December 2009
STRATEGIC INVESTMENTSBudget* ($000,000)
Federal Coordination
Canadian Heritage Capital for Sport and Event Venues 290
Canadian Heritage Venue Legacy Fund 55
Canadian Heritage 2010 FS Operating Budget 35
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada First Nations Legacy Grant 34
Canadian Heritage Paralympic Operations 32
Canadian Heritage Official Languages 7.7
Promotion and Participation
Canadian Heritage Torch Relays 24.5
Canadian Heritage Host First nations 2
Canadian Heritage Cultural Olympiad Digital Edition 0.4
Canadian Heritage Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games 20
Canadian Heritage Canada Pavilion 10.4
Canadian Heritage Athlete's Recognition Activity 1.7
Canadian Heritage Live Sites 20.2
Canadian Tourism Commission Tourism Strategy 26
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade International Business Development and Protocol 3.69
ESSENTIAL FEDERAL SERVICES
Games Security and Public Safety
Royal Canadian Mounted Police[34], Department of National Defence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, PS, Transport Canada including NavCanada, Industry Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canada Post Corporation and Canadian Coast Guard   867.8**
Health Canada   A-base
Health Safety
Public Health Agency of Canada   2.7
Health Canada   2.275.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency   A-base
Tax Issues
Canada Revenue Agency   A-base
Intellectual Property
Industry Canada   A-base
Entry of Goods and Individuals
Canadian Food Inspection Agency   A-base
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada   A-base
Health Canada   0.325
Meteorological
Environment Canada   9.3
Sustainability
Environment Canada   4.1
Fisheries and Oceans Canada   0.6

Sources

*Integrated RMAF-RBAF for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, November 2009.

**Games Security and Public Safety for the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games

RCMP Led Horizontal Evaluation Report, DRAFT, November 18, 2011.

Appendix C

Service areas and Essential Federal Services (EFS) partners

1. Federal Coordination—The 2010 Federal Secretariat coordinated the EFS partners in the delivery of the EFS services and acted as the liaison with 2010 Games partners. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) also provided services linked with the federal coordination.

2. Promotion and Participation—Outreach, pan-Canadian engagement, and promotion of the Olympic and Paralympic Games were provided under PCH lead. Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) also delivered services. These included services and activities such as:

  • Outreach, pan-Canadian engagement, and promotion
  • Aboriginal participation
  • The torch relays and associated celebrations
  • The Live Sites initiative
  • The Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games
  • International Business Development and Protocol
  • Canadian Tourism Strategy

3. Games Security and Public Safety—This area coordinated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) involved 11 federal departments/agencies, a central agency (PCO) the Canada Post Corporation and NavCanada.

4. Health Safety—Health Canada (HC), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) implemented infrastructures and systems to ensure the health and safety of 2010 Games athletes, delegates and spectators, and the travelling public.

5.  Tax Issues—Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) provided the necessary information to ensure compliance with Canada's tax laws.

6. Intellectual PropertyIC ensured the protection of intellectual property by creating a marketplace framework for the protection of trademarks of merchandise and other types of intellectual property associated with the 2010 Games.

7.  Entry of Goods and Individuals into Canada—Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), and HC led this service area. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) also contributed to the results of this service area. The results are reported in the RCMP-led evaluation of the 2010 Games Security and Public Safety.

8. Meteorological Services—Environment Canada (EC) offered accurate and timely weather forecasting.

9. SustainabilityEC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) conducted environmental assessments, and EC provided advice and guidance to promote the environmental sustainability of the 2010 Winter Games.

Appendix D

2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games Logic Model
Link to detailed text description follows this image.

View this image in text format

Appendix E

Evaluation matrix

2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games – Evaluation Issues, Questions, and Indicators
Issue/QuestionsIndicators
Relevance [Was supporting the Games a worthwhile endeavour in that they created social, economic, cultural, and athletic benefits for Canadians?]

1. How does the federal contribution to the Games align with departmental (PCH, EFS, and strategic investments departments/agencies) strategic outcomes and government-wide priorities and strategic outcomes?  Do the horizontal outcomes, government-wide priorities, and MPA commitments align?

Assessment of the alignment of the common horizontal outcomes of the initiative with the goals of the Multi-Party Agreement, as well as with the government-wide priorities

Assessment of the match/alignment of goals and objectives of the 2010 Federal Secretariat and PCH funding/services related to the Games with the PCH strategic outcomes and the Multiparty Agreement goals

Assessment of the match/alignment of Games-related PCH funding/services of “foundation” documents

Assessment of the match/alignment of the funding/services offered by essential federal services departments/agencies to their respective foundation documents and authorities

Assessment of the match/alignment of the funding/services offered by strategic investments departments/agencies with the goals of the Multi-Party Agreement

2. Does the Canadian public support the federal contribution to the Games?

Has public support for the Games changed over the 2007-2010 period?  If there is a change over time, what accounts for shifts in public support?

What is the level of support from different groups and regions in Canada? If there are variations in support, what accounts for these differences?

Public opinion awareness of federal involvement in the 2010 Winter Games

Perspectives of opinion leaders (domestic and international)

3. How does hosting the 2010 Games contribute to the development of high performance athletes, including those with disabilities?

Perceptions of senior PCH and federal government officials

Changes in world rankings 1998 – 2010

Opinions of athletes

Carded athletes' appreciation/use of new or upgraded sport facilities developed for the 2010 Winter Games  

Lead coaches' opinions

Performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy)
Design/Delivery and Risk Mitigation [Have the Federal Secretariat and EFS partners effectively coordinated the contribution of Canada to the 2010 Games?]

1. Is the contribution by all FS and EFS partners recognized and budgeted in the policy and planning documentation of all Partners supporting the Federal Secretariat? Are there expenditures not identified? If so, what is the magnitude of the deficit relative to the total commitment?

Financial flows (commitments by department)

Perceptions, opinion, and analysis from FS and EFS partners

2. Has the federal government, as embodied by the FS, communicated effectively with VANOC, BC, and other 2010 Partners?

Communication between FS and 2010 Partners (VANOC, BC, and other 2010 Partners)

Communication mechanisms in place

Attendance at meetings of FS and VANOC

Perceptions of VANOC, BC, and other 2010 Partners

Perceptions of FS staff

3. Has cross-ministry/agency coordination and communication been effective?

Did the Federal Secretariat manage Canada's contribution to the 2010 Games effectively and efficiently?

Have all federal Partners (EFS, strategic investments) and other supports responded and cooperated sufficiently?

Have DMs and ADMs communicated the importance of support for the horizontal initiative?  If not, what other exigencies impeded the mobilization of departmental/agency resources?

Have any lapses in support by any federal partner occurred?

Number of cross-ministry meetings (Deputy Minister Level, Representative Working Group, EFS committees, and other interdepartmental committees)

Communication between FS and participating departments and agencies

Attendance at meetings

Perceptions and level of satisfaction of FS and EFS managers about the response and commitment of federal Partners

Perceptions of the federal Partners about the coordination and communication from the FS

Number and type of coordination mechanisms in place

4. Was the funding provided to VANOC and other funding recipients characterized by clear business and operational planning?

Federal Coordination (capital – sport and event venues, venue legacy, First Nations Legacy Grant, Paralympic operations)

Promotion and Participation (host First Nations, celebration sites, torch relays, opening ceremonies, Canadian tourism)

Essential federal services – excluding security

Funded (Transport Canada, Industry Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Public Health Agency, Health Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Foreign Affairs)

Non-Funded (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).[35]

Was the funding timely and sufficient?

Percentage of funding received on schedule

Percentage of contribution agreements negotiated in a timely way

Delivery of outputs and outcomes as indicated in the contribution agreements

Requests to cover cost overruns

5. Did all funding recipients provide accurate and complete reports on the disbursement of the funding and the activities and outputs delivered with the resources provided by the federal government? 

Did these reports span the period from initial receipt of funding to time of cessation of involvement? 

Were these reports sufficient to allow the Federal Secretariat to manage the federal funding effectively?

Information on funding commitments

Timing of the completion of essential deliverables

6. Have relevant federal parties (RCMP, DND, PHAC, etc.) coordinated, developed, and executed an effective strategy to ensure a safe and secure Games for athletes, participants, and the public?

Number of incidents reported

Response records for each incident

Perceptions of athletes, participants

7. Were all key risks identified in the RBAF?  If not, what risks were not identified and did PCH, other federal Partners, and signatories to the Multi-Party Agreement respond effectively to unforeseen risks?

Perceptions of PCH, FS, and EFS managers

Record of events not identified in the RBAF

Response of Games management in dealing with unidentified risks

8. What lessons have been learned in the design and delivery of this horizontal initiative?

Perceptions of PCH, FS, and EFS managers

Perceptions of 2010 Games Partners

Perceptions of IOC

Media reaction to Games coordination

Record of resource use

Success and Impacts  [How successful has the Government of Canada been, as a key financial partner, in achieving: a) results per service area; b) immediate outcomes; c) intermediate outcomes; and d) final outcomes?] (F) Final Outcome; (IN) Intermediate Outcome; (IM) Immediate Outcome

1. Did all federal Partners present the required outputs to support the Games prior to Feb. 12, 2010?   (IM)

Funded EFS

PHAC

Implement monitoring and coordination plans

Develop plans for mass gatherings

Communications strategy specific to the Games

Augment capacity to handle increased traffic at ports of entry

DFO

Consider effects of regulatory decision in advance of need

Ensure that applicable projects incorporate Habitat Management Program requirements

PWGSC

Translation

INDUSTRY CANADA

Create a marketplace framework to allow the private enforcement and management of trademarks and other intellectual property

HEALTH CANADA

Develop emergency plans to ensure that response capacity and access to health services are of a high standard

Develop plans to ensure IPPs health contingency needs are met

Perform routine and quarantine-related inspections of conveniences to ensure they meet public health standards/guidelines

PCH

Plan, develop, and execute memorable and visible ceremonies (opening and closing, as well as torch relay, Canada pavilion, Events and recognition for Canada's athletes, Own the Podium, victory medal ceremonies, host country protocol, etc.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA

Develop infrastructure and supporting technologies to provide timely weather services to federal Partners and Games operations

Deliver weather services in support of Federal Partners, Games operations and for the benefit of the public and visitors to Canada

Provide advice and expertise to help incorporate environmental sustainability considerations into strategies, practices and policies  (with VANOC)

Create promotional materials to increase awareness among Canadians of the environmental sustainability of Games

Develop a plan to showcase Canadian innovation and best practices in environmental sustainability

Non-funded EFS

CFIA

Communication on import restrictions on food, plants, and animals

Delivery of inspection services in collaboration with CBSA

CRA

Communication on tax issues to ensure compliance with Canadian tax laws.

HRSDC

Foreign worker program

Directives and communication regarding regulations and procedures

Planning guidance and instruction

Written communication on requirements

Perceptions and reports of EFS managers

2. Did the performance of Canada's athletes (Olympics and Paralympics) meet expectations (medal count, advancement of world standings)? (IM)

Comparison of performance by Canadian athletes over last four Olympics

Perceptions of Canadians

Perceptions of sports media

3. Have the Games been inclusive? Have Canadians from all regions and socio-economic levels participated in sport, economic, social, and cultural activities? Have Canadians had the opportunity to participate in outreach events and activities? (IM)

Number of and attendance at Games-related activities held in Canada (minor and major events)

Number of and attendance at Games-related activities held abroad (minor and major events)

Number (percentage) of activities/events that highlight the linguistic duality, multicultural, and Aboriginal community

Number (percentage) of activities/events that engage representatives of the linguistic duality, multicultural, and Aboriginal community

Self-reported participation in Games-related activity, including torch relays

Viewership in all Games-related activities

Perceptions of FN leadership

Participation levels of FN in competition, ceremonies, and other Games-related events

Community development activities, especially in Vancouver

Participation levels of lower-income Canadians in various aspects of Games (venue construction, operations, and other)

4. Were a safe and secure Games provided for athletes, participants and the public? (IM)

When a safety or security issue occurred, it did not result in a disruption to the games.

5. Are Canadians aware of the federal contribution to the Games?  (IM) (See Q2 under Relevance)

Awareness of Canadians

Number and percentage of events that identified the GoC support

Number and percentage of advertising and Games-related material (e.g., programs, websites, etc.) that identify the GoC as a funder/partner

6. Were all official languages requirements met?  (IM)

Number of documents with references to both official languages

Number of events with both official languages

Proportion of Games promotion and other materials in both official languages

7. Have the expected social, cultural, economic, and community benefits been realized?  (F)

Social, cultural, economic, and community benefits

Recorded outcomes by 2010 Partners

Perceptions of Canadians, especially residents of BC

Perceptions of opinion leaders

8. Have Canada's values and excellence been promoted domestically and internationally by the Games?  (F)

Editorial opinion in international media

Perceptions of IOC

9. Have the Games contributed to Canada's reputation in hosting international sports events?  (F)

Editorial opinion

Perceptions of IOC

Canadians express pride in hosting the Games

10. To what degree were the Games environmentally sustainable and did they leave a positive environmental legacy for the future? (F)

Environmental assessments

Records of adverse events as reported by provincial regulators

Cases of specific remediation and mitigation in support of environmental sustainability

11. Will the 2010 Games provide a future sport legacy for all athletes, including athletes with disabilities and First Nations?  (F)

Number of legacy facilities

Plans for future use

Management structures (business plans, governance) in place to support continued use of facilities

Scheduled activities for remainder of 2010 and beyond in Legacy facilities

Opinions of Canadians

Projected participation by First Nations in sports and cultural legacies and events

Appendix F

Methodology - In-depth description

A. Key Informant Interviews

In this evaluation, interviews served:

  • to clarify the perspectives of various Essential Federal Services (EFS) partners regarding the relevance
  • to offer perceptions regarding operational issues under the performance

As such, data collected through the interviews offered context and information to support interpretation of the other evaluation evidence.

In collaboration with PCH Evaluation Services Directorate, senior management of the 2010 FS invited key informants to participate in the evaluation. The research firm mandated to conduct the evaluation followed up to confirm participation, set up appointments, and conduct interviews. In collaboration with the Canadian Heritage (PCH) Evaluation Services Directorate, the research firm developed separate interview guides for each category of key informants.

Five (5) categories of key informants were targeted as the primary actors in, or as beneficiaries of, the GoC's contribution to the 2010 Games:

Categories of Key InformantsPotentialInterviewed
Personnel of the 2010 Federal Secretariat 6 7
Senior management at PCH 13 5
EFS partners and other federal departments/agencies 44 20
VANOC; the International Olympic Committee (IOC) / Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) / Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC); the BC government; municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond, and Whistler; and official language minority community stakeholders 44 13
Four Host First Nations  / Four Host First Nations Society 4 2
Total 111 47

The evaluators contacted the potential key informants in the order they appeared in the list until they reached the sampling quota for each category.  A total of 47 interviews were conducted, some of them with small groups of individuals. Interviews lasted an hour on average.  The evaluators were not able to schedule interviews with anyone from the IOC, COC or the CPC or with chiefs of the Four Host First Nations.

Interviewees were offered the opportunity to receive the interview guide in advance to give them time to prepare considered responses. Interviews were conducted in key informants' preferred official language, by telephone. A few exceptions were conducted in person in Ottawa, Victoria, and Vancouver. Key informants had the opportunity to review a summary of the interview. 

B. Review of public opinion research and monitoring of media coverage

The review of pre-and post-Games public opinion research, and the tracking and analysis of media coverage of various aspects of the 2010 Games, are also included in this evaluation.  This method yielded information regarding the perceptions of Canadians, in general, and of media opinion leaders, in particular. The analysis showed that there is clearly, some interplay at work, since public opinion is often shaped by media stories and that, to a limited extent, media representation can also be influenced by opinion polls. Therefore, the information from these lines of evidence was found to be sometimes complementary and sometimes overlapping.

B.1 Public opinion research

Starting in 2007, the 2010 FS contracted with an external supplier to provide public opinion research studies. These consisted of successive telephone-based surveys of the Canadian public intended to measure awareness of the 2010 Games, the role of the federal government and perceptions of benefits accruing because of the 2010 Games. There were four public opinion research commissioned, three pre-Games surveys—in June 2007, February 2009, and February 2010—and a post-game survey in April-May 2010. At the request of the evaluators, additional questions were added to the post-games survey questionnaire in order to collect data targeted to the needs of this evaluation.  The results of the four surveys are used in this evaluation.

B.1.1 Pre-Games public opinion research

The three pre-Games surveys, in June 2007, February 2009, and February 2010, probed the following themes:

  • Awareness of the location of the 2010 Games
  • Understanding the role of the federal government
  • Perceived impact on:
    • Canada's image abroad, national pride, and promotion of world peace
    • Canada's tourism industry and Canadian arts and culture
    • Economic, social, and trade and investment opportunities
    • Individuals facing social challenges.

The pre-Games surveys consisted of a national independent survey, using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. Across Canada, 2,020 respondents completed the survey in June 2007; 2,036 respondents in February 2009; and 2,040 respondents in February 2010. All respondents were 18 years of age or older.  The respondents were selected using a current version of Canadian Survey Sampler, and every Canadian household with a valid telephone number had an equal chance of being selected for the study. The overall response rates for the three surveys ranged from 2% to 4%. The data were weighted to replicate actual population distribution by age and gender within each region, according to the most recent census data.

B.1.2 Post-Games Public Opinion Research

The post-Games survey (April–May 2010) probed the same themes as in the pre-Games surveys and questions about the following themes were added:

  • Viewership of the 2010 Games activities, such as the Torch Relays, opening and closing ceremonies, and sporting events
  • Perceptions of Canadians concerning the success of the 2010 Games, including athletic performances

The post-Games survey also consisted of a national independent survey, using CATI technology. Across Canada, 3,039 respondents completed the survey in April–May 2010.  Because pre-Games surveys revealed less positive responses in BC to the potential benefits of the 2010 Games, an oversample of 1,000 respondents was interviewed in the BC Lower Mainland.  The overall response rate for this survey was 10%. The higher response rate post-Games probably reflects higher awareness and positive response to the 2010 Games by the Canadian public.

B.2 Media monitoring

The evaluators undertook daily tracking of print media from November 2009 to March 2010. Exceptionally significant articles published earlier in 2009 or in previous years were also consulted. Resources limited the amount of time spent on media tracking and the number of formats tracked (electronic and print). The evaluators tracked the following print media outlets:

  • The Globe and Mail
  • National Post
  • La Presse, Le Soleil and Cyberpresse web site (various regional papers in Quebec)
  • Le Journal de Montréal and Canoë website (various regional papers in Quebec)
  • Le Devoir
  • Maclean's
  • The Province
  • Times Colonist (Victoria)
  • The Vancouver Sun
  • Winnipeg Free Press
  • Radio-Canada website
  • CBC website
  • CTV website

These were selected to provide a cross-section of national, regional, and local print media in both official languages. The study focused exclusively on print media for two reasons:

  • Any substantive issue would be captured in print media, including if it were to emerge in the electronic media (including web-based sources)
  • Print media is more easily archived and classified

The evaluators also considered feature articles in other publications, and reviewed Monthly Media Issues Overview and Weekly Media Analysis documents prepared by the Communications Branch of PCH, to ensure all appropriate outlets and issues were included.

C. Review of Documents

The evaluation drew on three categories of documents to gather data for the evaluation. They are Business plans and operational documentation by 2010 FS; EFS departments' and agencies' performance reports, and other research studies related to the impacts of the 2010 Games.

C.1 Business plans and operational documentation by 2010 FS

The first group of documents reviewed consisted of:

  • foundation documentation (GoC planning documents related to incremental spending, business plans, senior management direction, etc.); and
  • operational documentation (meeting agendas, minutes, plans, and other material used to coordinate activities).

For the former, the 2010 FS provided access to documents on site.  For the latter, the 2010 FS provided electronic copies of documents directly or through the 2010 FS extranet site. Documents of primary interest for the report focused on governance and implementation, such as the Multiparty Agreement; the 2010 FS Business Plan for the 2010 Games; various progress and annual reports; meeting documents from the Deputy Minister, Essential Federal Services, and Representative Working Group (RWG) committees; contribution agreements; and activity and financial audits. These documents were used to address the following evaluation issues:

  • the demonstration of the relevance of the 2010 Games
  • their alignment to federal priorities
  • evidence of effective coordination and communication between the 2010 FS and EFS partners and between the 2010 FS and Games partners (e.g., VANOC, BC government, municipalities)
C.2 Performance reporting by EFS partners

The status report on accomplishments against specific performance indicators identified in the Horizontal Performance Measurement Strategy (HPMS) for each participating department's and agency's was reviewed. The 2010 FS presented these accomplishments in the Performance Monitoring section of its Internal 2010 Games RMAF/RBAF Progress Report dated May 2010.

C.3 Other research studies related to the 2010 Games

The 2010 FS had contracted external suppliers to provide outcome and performance reports on various aspects of the 2010 Games. These other research studies were expected to contribute findings related to several evaluation issues. However, not all were available at the time of this report.  The evaluators reviewed:

  • VANOC's Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2008-09;
  • The University of British Columbia's Olympic Games Impact Study for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: Pre-Games Results Report, December 1, 2009;
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers' The 2010 Games Effect: Report 5 – Impact of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games on British Columbia and Canada, 2009[36]; and
  • The University of Ottawa (Parent, Rouillard, and Loepckey) study on Issues and Strategies Pertaining to the Canadian Government's Coordination Efforts in Relation to the 2010 Games (September 21, 2010).

Finally, the PCH Sport Programs Evaluation was conducted in parallel and also contributed to this horizontal evaluation, since it assesses the three programs managed by Sport Canada—the Athlete Assistance Program, Sport Support Program, and Hosting Program—and the funding toward international activities.  Preliminary findings from the Sport Programs Evaluation are included in this report.

Appendix G

Additional tables

Table 1 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.1.3.

Appendix G–Table 1 Awareness of the Games – In general Can you please tell me where the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will be held in the year 2010?
  June 2007
(n=2,020)
February 2009
(n=2,036)
February 2010
(n=2,040)

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Includes respondents who said Vancouver, Whistler, British Columbia, and/or Canada. Source: Pre-game-surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in June 2007, Feb. 2009 and Feb. 2010.

Overall correct awareness* 61% 87% 95%
Vancouver/Whistler 55% 82% 89%
British Columbia 4% 4% 6%
Canada 2% 1% 1%
Other country 5% 2% 1%
Don't know 34% 11% 4%

Table 2 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.1.3.

Appendix G–Table 2: Awareness of the Games – BC Lower MainlandCan you please tell me where the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will be held in the year 2010?Post-Games Survey, April-May 2010
  Overall
(n=3,039)
BC Lower Mainland
(n=1,060)
Rest of Canada
(n=1,979)

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

* Includes respondents who said Vancouver/ Whistler, British Columbia, and/or Canada. Source: Post-Games survey undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.

Overall correct awareness* 96% 99% 96%
Vancouver/Whistler 93% 98% 92%
British Columbia 3% 1% 3%
Canada <1% 1% <1%
Other country 1% <1% 1%
Don't know 3% 1% 3%

Table 3 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.1.3.

Appendix G–Table 3: Awareness of the Games – by regionCan you please tell me where the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will be held in the year 2010?
Identified correct location (Vancouver, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada)Region
AtlanticQuebecOntarioPrairiesBritish Columbia

Source: Pre-Games surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in June 2007, February 2009 and February 2010.

June 2007 (n=2,020) 50% 43% 60% 67% 97%
February 2009 (n=2,036) 85% 76% 90% 92% 97%
February 2010 (n=2,040) 93% 92% 96% 97% 99%

Table 4 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.1.3.

Appendix G–Table 4: Role of the Government of CanadaWhich one of the following three roles do you think the Government of Canada plays in hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games?
  June 2007 (n=2,020)February 2009 (n=2,036)February 2010 (n=2,040)
Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Source: Pre-Games surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in June 2007, February 2009 and February 2010.
The Government helps finance the Games and is responsible for services like security and customs 67% 73% 73%
The Government is responsible for everything related to organizing and financing the Games 17% 13% 15%
The Government is not at all involved 9% 7% 6%
Don't know 8% 7% 7%

Table 5 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.1.3

Appendix G–Table 5: Role of the Government of Canada by regionWhich one of the following three roles do you think the Government of Canada plays in hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games?
The Government helps finance the Games and is responsible for services like security and customsRegion
AtlanticQuebecOntarioPrairiesBritish Columbia

Source: Pre-Games surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in June 2007, February 2009 and February 2010.

June 2007 (n=2,020) 71% 64% 67% 68% 67%
February 2009 (n=2,036) 79% 68% 72% 78% 72%
February 2010 (n=2,040) 79% 71% 72% 77% 70%

Table 6 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.1.

Appendix G—Table 6 : Watched or attended any competitionsDid you watch or actually attend any of the 2010 Olympic/Paralympic competitions during the 2010 Games in February/March? Watching includes live programming on TV, video shown over the Internet, and recording for later viewing.
  OlympicsParalympics
Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,060)Rest of Canada (n=1,979)Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,060)Rest of Canada (n=1,979)
Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Source: Post-Games survey undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.
Yes 89% 89% 88% 48% 60% 47%
No 11% 11% 12% 52% 40% 52%
Don't know/no response <1% <1% <1% <1% - <1%

Table 7 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.1.

Appendix G—Table 7 : Watched or attended the opening ceremoniesDid you watch or actually attend the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic or Paralympic Games? Watching includes live programming on TV, video shown over the Internet, and recording for later viewing.How would you rate the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic/Paralympic Games, on a scale of 1 star to 5 stars, where 1 is disappointing and 5 stars is outstanding?
  OlympicsParalympics
Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,060)Rest of Canada (n=1,979)Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,060)Rest of Canada (n=1,979)
Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. *Average rating does not include ratings of 0 or non-response. Source: Post-Games survey undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.
Yes 79% 87% 78% 27% 50% 27%
Those who watched or attended the Opening Ceremony (n=2,407) (n=921) (n=1,546) (n=835) (n=527) (n=524)
Outstanding or somewhat outstanding (4 or 5 out of 5) 78% 81% 78% 73% 74% 73%
Neutral (3 out of 5) 16% 14% 15% 17% 19% 17%
Disappointing or somewhat disappointing (1 or 2 out of 5) 6% 4% 6% 4% 3% 4%
Don't know/no response 1% 1% 1% 6% 4% 7%
Average rating out of 5* 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1

Table 8 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.2

Appendix G—Table 8: Role of the Government of Canada As far as you know, what was the Government of Canada's role, that is the federal government, in hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games? Would you say…
  Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,060)Rest of Canada (n=1,979)
Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Source: Post-Games survey undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.
The federal government shared financing with other levels of government, including security 57% 60% 57%
The federal government shared financing with other levels of government 25% 26% 25%
The federal government was responsible for everything related to organizing and financing the 2010 Games 4% 3% 4%
The federal government was not at all involved 2% 3% 2%
Don't know/no response 12% 9% 12%

Table 9 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.3.

Appendix G—Table 9: Sport Matters poll questions on the 2010 Games and the Own the Podium Initiative
  % of respondents
(n=1,008)
Source: Sport Matters Group, 2010, in: PRA. (2010). Summative Evaluation of the Sport Canada Programs - Secondary Data Review. p.6.
Positive impact on motivating more Canadians to get physically active in general 75%
Positive impact on motivating more Canadians to participate in winter sport programs and clubs 78%
The $117-million investment in Own the Podium was very or somewhat worthwhile 77%
Strongly or somewhat supportive of the Government of Canada investing $22 million annually in an initiative like Own the Podium 72%

Table 10 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.3.

Appendix G—Table 10: Perceived impact of the 2010 GamesPlease indicate whether you think that hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will have a positive impact, negative impact, or no impact on each of the following: Canada's image abroad; national pride in all regions of the country; and the promotion of world peace through sport.
Canada's image abroadJune 2007 (n=2,020)February 2009 (n=2,036)February 2010 (n=2,040)
Source: Post-Games survey undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.
Positive impact 86% 85% 87%
No impact 8% 10% 8%
Negative impact 2% 2% 2%
Don't know 3% 4% 3%

Table 11 supports findings presented and discussed in Section 4.3.3.

Appendix G—Table 11: Impact on Canada's image abroadPlease indicated whether you think that hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will have a positive impact, negative impact, or no impact on each of the following: Canada's image abroad.
  Overall (n=3,039)BC Lower Mainland (n=1,052)Rest ofCanada (n=1,783)

Note: Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding. *Average rating does not include ratings of 0 or non-response.

Source: Post-game-surveys undertaken by DECIMA Research in April-May 2010.

Very or somewhat positive impact 95% 94% 95%
No impact 2% 2% 2%
Very or somewhat negative impact 2% 2% 2%
Don't know/no response 1% 2% 1%
Average rating of impact out of 5* 3.6 3.7 3.6

Notes

[1] Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events, Canadian Heritage website: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/sc/pol/acc/2008/doc-eng.cfm

[2] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 1: Transition Entity.

[3] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Whereas: Paragraphs G, H.

[4] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Sections 17-21 – Contributions.

[5] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 23 – Other Assistance.

[6] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.1 – Multi-Part Agreement Signatories.

[7] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 2.1 – Organizing Committee for the 2010 Games.

[8] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 8 – Official Languages.

[9] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 34 – Legacy Endowment Fund.

[10] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 36 – Whistler Legacy Society.

[11] Multiparty Agreement for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, November 14, 2002, Section 31 – Physical Legacy.

[12] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, subsection 3.2 – 2010 Federal Secretariat Mandate.

[13] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, subsection 7.1.2 – Central Agencies.

[14] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, subsection 4.1 – Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events.

[15] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 5.1 – 2010 Games Framework for Federal Coordination.

[16] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 5 – Governance.

[17] In several key documents, this leveraging of activities and services was referred to early on as Auxiliary Services, but is referred to in later documents and in this report as Strategic Investments to better reflect the fact that this funding is an investment of a more strategic nature in order to meet GoC policies and priorities.

[18] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 3.3 – Strategic Objectives.

[19] Findings related to an additional evaluation question related to Games Security and Public Safety are presented in the Report of the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games — Games Security and Public Safety Summative Evaluation” led by the RCMP. The report will be available from the RCMP website when approved. The URL will be provided at that time.

[20] The Own the Podium Initiative began in 2005 through a partnership of some 2010 Games partners. It acts as a high-performance technical advisory body, identifying sports for targeting, recommending funding levels to the national funding partners for high-performance sport, and providing technical advice and leadership.

[21] The final report of the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games — Games Security and Public Safety Summative Evaluation” led by the RCMP will be available on the RCMP web site when approved. The URL will be provided at that time.

[22] Parent, Rouillard, and Loepckey, Issues and Strategies Pertaining to the Canadian Government's Coordination Efforts in Relation to the 2010 Games University of Ottawa, September 21, 2010.

[23] Audit of the “Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games contributions agreements, October 2007.” PCH website http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/assurnc/2007/index-fra.cfm

[24] The “Final Report on the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games” was published in December 2010 once the data collection for the evaluation was completed. It is available at http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/stu_etu_122010_e.php

[25] The evaluation of the Sport Canada Programs was conducted in the same timeframe as this evaluation. The evaluators have had access to the preliminary draft of the evaluation report in 2010.

[26]Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2009-10” was published once the data collection phase had already concluded.  It is available at http://media.olympic.ca/files/gamedocs/SUS-1261_Sustainability_Report_09-10.pdf

[27] The Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2008-09 is available from the IOC website.

[28] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.2 – Government of British Columbia (B.C.).

[29] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.3 – City of Vancouver.

[30] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.4 – Resort Community of Whistler.

[31] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.5 – Canadian Olympic Committee (COC).

[32] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.6 – Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC).

[33] 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Federal Secretariat, Business Plan 2008–2010, sub-section 7.2.7 – Four Host First Nations Society.

[34] Including the Office of the Coordinator for Security (OCS) and security contingency.

[35] Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, and parts of Health Canada will be evaluated under the Games Security and Public Safety Evaluation.

[36] The PricewaterhouseCoopers report is key to evaluation questions S3 and S7; however, a fuller response to these issues will not be possible until the release of the report for 2010. Note that annual reports are planned until 2013.


Text descriptions of images

Figure 1—Percentage of surveyed Canadians that watched or attended any competitions and watched the Opening Ceremonies (Olympic Games and Paralympic Games)
Type of gameGeographic locationWatched or attended any competitionsWatched the Opening Ceremonies
Olympics Overall 89% 79%
Olympics BC Lower Mainland 89% 87%
Olympics Rest of Canada 88% 78%
Paralympics Overall 48% 27%
Paralympics BC Lower Mainland 60% 50%
Paralympics Rest of Canada 47% 27%

Back to Figure 1 image

Figure 2: Opinions of surveyed Canadians on the performance of Canadian athletes in the 2010 GamesRespondents were asked:"As I read each statement, please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree… The performance of our athletes was a credit to Canada".
Strongly agree 80%
Somewhat agree 16%
Neither agree nor disagree 1%
Somewhat disagree 1%
Strongly disagree 1%
Don't know/ No response 1%

Back to Figure 2 image

Figure 3 Canadians surveyed who report that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact Canada's image abroad; national pride in all regions of the country; and the promotion of world peace through sport
DatePercentage of Canadians who report that the 2010 Games would have a positive impact Canada's image abroad; national pride in all regions of the country; and the promotion of world peace through sport
June 2007 86% (n= 2,020)
February 2009 85% (n= 2,036)
February 2010 87% (n= 2,040)

Back to Figure 3 image

2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games Logic Model

In the context of the Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events, the logic model was designed to measure the impact of the contribution of the Government of Canada to the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) for the 2010 Games through various outcomes and in nine service areas.

Back to Appendix D image