Evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams Reserve Fund

Appendix B: Interview Guide

Policy Implementation Directorate

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) Reserve Fund. This evaluation is part of the regular evaluation five-year cycle for all Government of Canada programs and initiatives. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the extent to which the Reserve Fund helped defray exceptional costs associated with IMET prosecutions incurred by provincial prosecution services. The evaluation covers the period 2010 to 2015 and will focus on the relevance and performance of the IMET Reserve Fund. Relevance focuses on the continued need for the legal services; their alignment with government priorities and the Justice Canada’s strategic outcome of a federal government that is supported by high-quality legal services, and with federal roles and responsibilities. Performance focuses on effectiveness in the extent to which the Reserve Fund has achieved its objectives, and efficiency and economy on the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes. It includes interviews with Justice Canada representatives, IMET Working Group members, Provincial Attorneys General and prosecutors directly involved in the cases funded by the Reserve Fund.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions. Some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know and we will skip those questions.

As the evaluation focusses on the 2010-2015 period, please consider your experience during those years in your responses.

Introduction

Please describe your roles and responsibilities with respect to the IMET Reserve Fund.

Relevance of the IMET Reserve Fund

  1. In your view, is there a continued need for the IMET Reserve Fund? Please explain?

Performance - Effectiveness

  1. Based on the type and nature of expenditures that are considered as eligible expenditures in the Terms and Conditions of the IMET Reserve Fund, what challenges and opportunities in the past five years have had an impact (either positive or negative) on the accessibility of the Reserve Fund.
  2. Based on your experience, what factors could, in your view, affect the future demand of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  3. The outcomes of the IMET Reserve Fund are:
    1. Enhanced capacity of IMET;
    2. Increased effectiveness of IMET prosecutions;
    3. Improved integrity of Canada’s capital markets (not relevant to PID); and
    4. Improved Canadian and international investor confidence in Canada’s capital markets (not relevant to PID).

What factors, if any, have had an impact on the Fund’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes?

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

  1. To what extent has the Fund been administered efficiently and economically?
  2. In your view, are there alternative ways to achieve the objectives of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  3. Are there any best practices or lessons learned in managing the IMET Reserve Fund?

Thank you for your participation.

Public Prosecution Service of Canada officials

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) Reserve Fund. This evaluation is part of the regular evaluation five-year cycle for all Government of Canada programs and initiatives. The evaluation will focus on the relevance and performance of the IMET Reserve Fund. Relevance focuses on continued need; alignment with government priorities and the Justice Canada’s strategic outcome of a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system; and alignment with federal roles and responsibilities. Performance focuses on effectiveness in the extent to which the Reserve Fund has achieved its objectives, and efficiency and economy, on the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes.

This evaluation will assess the extent to which the Reserve Fund encouraged provinces to participate in the Strategy for Enhanced Protection of Canada’s Capital Markets, and how it played a role in the prosecution of IMET-generated cases by helping defray exceptional costs associated with IMET prosecutions incurred by provincial prosecution services. The evaluation includes interviews with Justice Canada representatives, IMET Working Group members, Provincial Attorneys General and prosecutors directly involved in the cases funded by the Reserve Fund.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions. Some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know and we will skip those questions.

As the evaluation focusses on the 2010-11 to 2014-15 period, please consider your experience during those years in your responses.

Introduction

  1. Please describe your roles and responsibilities with respect to the IMET Reserve Fund.

Relevance of the IMET Reserve Fund

  1. In your view, is there a continued need for the IMET Reserve Fund? Please explain.
  2. Are the activities supported by the Reserve Fund the most appropriate to address these needs? Why do you say that?

Performance - Effectiveness

  1. Based on your experience, what factors have affected the demand of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. The Fund is intended to contribute to the following outcomes:
    1. Enhanced capacity of IMET;
    2. Increased effectiveness of IMET prosecutions;
    3. Improved integrity of the Canadian capital markets; and
    4. Improved Canadian and international investor confidence in Canada’s capital markets.

What factors, if any, have had an impact on the Fund’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes?

  1. Considering the limited number of applications received to date, what factors, in your opinion, may have contributed to this?
    1. In your view, to what extent are provincial prosecutors aware of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. Are there areas or gaps where the Reserve Fund is not meeting existing or emerging needs related to prosecuting capital market fraud? If so, what are they?

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

  1. In your view, are there alternative ways to achieve the objectives of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. In your opinion, are the IMET Fund resources appropriate to ensure that the outcomes are being achieved and meet the demand? Please explain.
  3. If the Reserve Fund did not exist, what would the impact be?

Conclusion

  1. Do you have any further comments?

Thank you for your participation.

IMET Working Group

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) Reserve Fund. This evaluation is part of the regular evaluation five-year cycle for all Government of Canada programs and initiatives. The evaluation will focus on the relevance and performance of the IMET Reserve Fund. Relevance focuses on continued need; alignment with government priorities and the Justice Canada’s strategic outcome of a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system; and alignment with federal roles and responsibilities. Performance focuses on effectiveness in the extent to which the Reserve Fund has achieved its objectives, and efficiency and economy, on the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes.

This evaluation will assess the extent to which the Reserve Fund encouraged provinces to participate in the Strategy for Enhanced Protection of Canada’s Capital Markets, and how it played a role in the prosecution of IMET-generated cases by helping defray exceptional costs associated with IMET prosecutions incurred by provincial prosecution services. The evaluation includes interviews with Justice Canada representatives, IMET Working Group members, Provincial Attorneys General and prosecutors directly involved in the cases funded by the Reserve Fund.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions. Some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know and we will skip those questions.

As the evaluation focusses on the 2010-11 to 2014-15 period, please consider your experience during those years in your responses.

Introduction

  1. Please describe your roles and responsibilities with respect to the IMET Reserve Fund.

Relevance of the IMET Reserve Fund

  1. Describe the context with which you are working with respect to capital market fraud
    1. In your view, is there a continued need for the IMET Reserve Fund? Please explain.
  2. Are the activities supported by the Reserve Fund the most appropriate to address these needs?
    Why do you say that?

Performance - Effectiveness

  1. Based on your experience, what factors have affected the demand of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. The Fund is intended to contribute to the following outcomes:
    1. Enhanced capacity of IMET;
    2. Increased effectiveness of IMET prosecutions;
    3. Improved integrity of the Canadian capital markets; and
    4. Improved Canadian and international investor confidence in Canada’s capital markets.

What factors, if any, have had an impact on the Fund’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes?

  1. Considering the limited number of applications received to date, what factors, in your opinion, may have contributed to this?

In your view, to what extent are provincial prosecutors aware of the IMET Reserve Fund?

  1. Are there areas or gaps where the Reserve Fund is not meeting existing or emerging needs related to prosecuting capital market fraud? If so, what are they?

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

  1. In your view, are there alternative ways to achieve the objectives of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. In your opinion, are the IMET Fund resources appropriate to ensure that the outcomes are being achieved and meet the demand? Please explain.
  3. If the Reserve Fund did not exist, what would the impact be?

Conclusion

  1. Do you have any further comments?

Thank you for your participation.

Prosecutors involved in cases that received funding from the Reserve Fund

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) Reserve Fund. This evaluation is part of the regular evaluation five-year cycle for all Government of Canada programs and initiatives. The evaluation will focus on the relevance and performance of the IMET Reserve Fund. Relevance focuses on continued need; alignment with government priorities and the Justice Canada’s strategic outcome of a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system; and alignment with federal roles and responsibilities. Performance focuses on effectiveness in the extent to which the Reserve Fund has achieved its objectives, and efficiency and economy, on the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes.

This evaluation will assess the extent to which the Reserve Fund encouraged provinces to participate in the Strategy for Enhanced Protection of Canada’s Capital Markets, and how it played a role in the prosecution of IMET-generated cases by helping defray exceptional costs associated with IMET prosecutions incurred by provincial prosecution services. The evaluation includes interviews with Justice Canada representatives, IMET Working Group members, Provincial Attorneys General and prosecutors directly involved in the cases funded by the Reserve Fund.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions. Some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know and we will skip those questions.

As the evaluation focusses on the 2010-11 to 2014-15 period, please consider your experience during those years in your responses.

Introduction

  1. Please describe your roles and responsibilities with respect to the IMET related cases that were funded with the IMET Reserve Fund.

Relevance of the IMET Reserve Fund

  1. In your view, is there a continued need for the IMET Reserve Fund? Please explain.

Performance – Effectiveness

  1. Has there been more IMET prosecutions in the last 5 years?
  2. Did you consider applying? Please explain.
  3. The Fund is intended to contribute to the following outcomes:
    1. Enhanced capacity of IMET;
    2. Increased effectiveness of IMET prosecutions;
    3. Improved integrity of the Canadian capital markets; and
    4. Improved Canadian and international investor confidence in Canada’s capital markets.

What factors, if any, have had an impact on the Fund’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes?

  1. Considering the limited number of applications received to date, what factors, in your opinion, may have contributed to this?
    1. In your view, to what extent are provincial prosecutors aware of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. Are there areas or gaps where the Reserve Fund is not meeting existing or emerging needs related to prosecuting capital market fraud? If so, what are they?

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

  1. Do you have any suggestions for improving the way in which the Reserve Fund is being delivered?
  2. Are there alternatives to this Fund?
  3. If the Reserve Fund did not exist, what would the impact be?

Conclusion

  1. Do you have any further comments?

Thank you for your participation.

Subject Matter Expert

The Department of Justice Evaluation Division is conducting an evaluation of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams (IMET) Reserve Fund. This evaluation is part of the regular evaluation five-year cycle for all Government of Canada programs and initiatives. The evaluation will focus on the relevance and performance of the IMET Reserve Fund. Relevance focuses on continued need; alignment with government priorities and the Justice Canada’s strategic outcome of a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system; and alignment with federal roles and responsibilities. Performance focuses on effectiveness in the extent to which the Reserve Fund has achieved its objectives, and efficiency and economy, on the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes.

This evaluation will assess the extent to which the Reserve Fund encouraged provinces to participate in the Strategy for Enhanced Protection of Canada’s Capital Markets, and how it played a role in the prosecution of IMET-generated cases by helping defray exceptional costs associated with IMET prosecutions incurred by provincial prosecution services. The evaluation includes interviews with Justice Canada representatives, IMET Working Group members, Provincial Attorneys General and prosecutors directly involved in the cases funded by the Reserve Fund.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form and will not be attributed to individual informants. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions. Some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know and we will skip those questions.

As the evaluation focusses on the 2010-11 to 2014-15 period, please consider your experience during those years in your responses.

Introduction

  1. Please describe your roles and responsibilities with respect to the IMET related cases.

Relevance of the IMET Reserve Fund

  1. In your view, is there a continued need for the IMET Reserve Fund? Please explain.
  2. Are the activities supported by the Reserve Fund the most appropriate to address these needs? Why do you say that?

Performance - Effectiveness

  1. Based on your experience, what factors have affected the demand of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. The Fund is intended to contribute to the following outcomes:
    1. Enhanced capacity of IMET;
    2. Increased effectiveness of IMET prosecutions;
    3. Improved integrity of the Canadian capital markets; and
    4. Improved Canadian and international investor confidence in Canada’s capital markets.

What factors, if any, have had an impact on the Fund’s ability to achieve its expected outcomes?

  1. Considering the limited number of applications received to date, what factors, in your opinion, may have contributed to this?
    1. In your view, to what extent are provincial prosecutors aware of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. Are there areas or gaps where the Reserve Fund is not meeting existing or emerging needs related to prosecuting capital market fraud? If so, what are they?

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

  1. In your view, are there alternative ways to achieve the objectives of the IMET Reserve Fund?
  2. In your opinion, are the IMET Fund resources appropriate to ensure that the outcomes are being achieved and meet the demand? Please explain.
  3. If the Reserve Fund did not exist, what would the impact be?

Conclusion

  1. Do you have any further comments?

Thank you for your participation.