GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office
2017-2018 Client Satisfaction Survey - Final Report

Contract number: EP597-182681/001/CY
Original contract date: 2018-01-29
POR Registration Number: POR 088-17

Prepared for:

Public Services and Procurement Canada

Prepared by:

Environics Research Group

Final report delivery date: March 23 2018
PA 9815
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français
For more information on this report:
por-rop@pspc-spac.gc.ca

Summary

What is the GCdocs EPMO

The GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) was created in 2012 based on the Government of Canada (GC) IM Strategy Framework to provide an enterprise-wide coordinated approach and business transformation best practices. It assist organizations in their standardization, consolidation, and re-engineering of electronic document and records management (EDRM) practices, and helps fills IM gaps that hinder the broad deployment of standardized EDRM. The efforts of the EPMO focus on an active engagement with organizations looking to adopt GCdocs. The EPMO provides IM tools, templates, and best practices while assisting organizations in their deployment of GCdocs.

GCdocs is the official enterprise document and records management (EDRM) solution of the Government of Canada for saving, managing and sharing electronic information. It replaces the Enterprise Document and Records Management (EDRM) tool at PSPC.

The GCdocs Centre of Excellence provides GCdocs service to all PSPC Branches and Regions. GCdocs licenses are provided to Government of Canada departments and agencies by a central entity within Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) called the Enterprise Program Management Office (GCdocs EPMO).

Background and Purpose

GCdocs EPMO conducts regular research to measure client satisfaction, the results of which inform GCdocs EPMO’s performance indicator reporting requirements. The 2017-2018 Client Satisfaction Survey is a continuation of this ongoing research.

The purpose of this wave of the survey is to assess the satisfaction of other government department project authorities with the GCdocs EPMO’s program delivery.

Methodology

Environics conducted an online survey with 27 clients of GCdocs EPMO, from February 20 to March 16, 2018. As this was an attempted census, no margin of sampling error is calculated. The initial survey invitation was broadcast to 97 contacts provided by GCdocs EPMO. 27 responses were received, for a calculated response rate of 30%.

The qualifying population was defined as representatives of client departments and agencies who are members of the various Governance Committees and Working Groups administered by the GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) - referred to in this report as GCdocs.

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the MRIA, as well as applicable federal legislation (PIPEDA) and to the Privacy Act and Treasury Board and PSPC privacy policies, directives and standards. The survey was registered with the National Survey Registration System.

A more detailed description of the methodology appears as Appendix A to this report.

Using the Results

The survey results will be distributed to Branch management for information and reference and for arranging follow up as warranted, to identify opportunities for improving service.

Cost of Research

The cost of this research was $8,392.00 (HST included).

Key Findings

Clients of GCdocs EPMO generally identify the same service aspects as being very important to them: work being done correctly, getting what they need, and having their needs understood. GCdocs clients are largely satisfied, but the survey results indicate performance does not always closely align with expectations.

Political Neutrality Statement and Contact Information

I hereby certify as a Senior Research Associate of Environics Research Group that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not contain any reference to electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.

Brenda Sharpe
Senior Research Associate, Corporate and Public Affairs
Environics Research Group
brenda.sharpe@environics.ca / 613.699.6886

Supplier name: Environics Research Group
PWGSC contract number: EP597-182681/001/CY
Original contract date: 2018-01-029

For more information, contact por-rop@pspc-spac.gc.ca

GCdocs EPMO

A. Overall Satisfaction—Scale

The 27 GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) clients are divided in their overall assessment of services received: half are satisfied to some extent, while most of the remainder are neutral.

29.	Overall, how satisfied were you with the quality of service you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]?

B. Satisfaction with Service Attributes

Around half of GCdocs clients are satisfied to some extent with each of four service attributes. A notable number are dissatisfied with the time it took to receive responses to questions or comments.

Q1-4	Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following service attributes you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

C. Agreement with Statements about Services Received

The majority of GCdocs clients agree to some extent with seven of nine statements about the service they received, although they are more likely to be satisfied than very satisfied. They are most likely to agree personnel were respectful, and least likely to agree they went the extra mile or that the cost was reasonable.

Q5-13	Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the service(s) you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

D. Importance of Service Aspects

Most GCdocs clients think each of 12 service aspects is at least somewhat important, but the highest numbers give top priority to making sure the work is done correctly, and getting what they need in the end.

Q14-25	Please indicate the level of importance of each the following service aspects.

E. Quadrant Analysis—Satisfaction vs. Importance

The following analysis is designed to provide very general guidance to programs on which service aspects may require attention. Satisfaction/agreement with specific service aspects (the number indicating they are very satisfied or strongly agree) has been plotted against stated importance (the number stating each is very important). While it should be noted that all aspects are generally considered important, this grid uses a simple ranking to compare priorities.

GCdocs might consider concentrating efforts on ensuring work is done correctly, understanding clients’ needs and ensuring they get what is needed, as strong satisfaction with these aspects is not yet matched to their higher importance.

Q1-4	Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following service attributes you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

Q5-12	Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the service(s) you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

Q14-25	Please indicate the level of importance of each the following service aspects.

F. Service Improvement Suggestions

Those earlier in the process arc would like more assistance with implementation, and some take issue with the implementation costs. Others with more experience note improvements and express satisfaction. Some seek better communication and timeliness, and more flexibility.

The biggest area that would be helpful for us… would be more hands-on assistance with respect to adding on services. For instance, a guidebook, or a call-a-friend service for things like implementation of RSI’s or auto-classification would be very beneficial.

…since the service has been managed by PSPC and the EPMO, the level and quality of service has been excellent. We are very happy with the service provided.

It takes too long to get an initial response (days). I always need to follow-up and-or escalate. If the question is not standard (e.g. licenses) the knowledge of the personnel is lacking.

Nothing right now. We are in the planning phase of going to GCDocs.

Service is significantly better since sr. executives are now involved. My answers reflect the period before their involvements.

Étant donné que nous avons implanté GCDocs (Livelink) en 2004, les services requis se limite à la négociation du MOU.

Answer questions promptly with full answers; have ASP representation during client meetings

We are very satisfied with the level of service and quality of service from the GCDocs Team.

We are satisfied with the service.

Address the challenges in providing timely responses to inquiries submitted to your generic mailbox. Consider installing a help desk ticketing system such as Track-it if you currently do not have one in place.

If EPMO is to act as a broker between Partner Departments and SSC, we need to have more confidence that concerns are being addressed by SSC.

Faster response to Change Request.

The contract assumed travel to and from Ottawa only, our HQ is in Calgary. The Government of Canada is across Canada and all contracts should ensure that if there is a travel component it covers the whole of Canada. This delayed our ability to deliver on our project scope which is most unfortunate.

A lower cost GCdocs model, with better and more timely attention to related issues, e.g., single sign-on, CS16

MOU renewal process could be even more efficient. License management is somewhat convoluted and does not currently have a clear direction from TBS/PWGSC/PSPC. Appears to be confusion/lack of strategic alignment at some levels.

Communications manquantes quand il y a des bris de serveurs. Reunions annulées sans pre-avis. Longue attentes quand nous devons passer par Change Management.

Provide us with an opportunity to present our business needs at GC-wide governance committee meetings.

The service is incomplete with the provision of data migration services. Migration costs were upwards of $1M for a single small department. An Enterprise team that travels from department to department to support on-boarding and deployment would be more cost effective than individual departments procuring and duplicating services. Development and Test environments are critical to ongoing service delivery.

Helpful to this organization would have been to be more wary of our timelines and needs. A lot of the basics were left to the Department to create and formalize. The GCdocs application was merely a shell that had no instructions on how best to create the file plan; folder structure; filters, etc. etc. Helpful in the future would be to actually aGCdocs EPMOgn an EPMO person to a designated Department and aGCdocs EPMOst with the Project Management aspect. Too many uncompleted areas within the application leave a lot to Change Management to handle. Without communications to aGCdocs EPMOst, it was left to the Department to handle.

We usually have to push to get responses or services.

Responses to clients should be much more timely - often go days without a response. Would love to see EPMO take a stronger lead in building networking opportunities and inter-departmental team building, sharing of ideas and best practices and collaboration. There is little direct communication with departments and it appears that comms are focused on on-boarding to the hosted solution instead of the greater good of getting people to use the tool. EPMO should be the hub of a government wide community, collecting and disseminating knowledge and services and that doesn't appear to be happening. The potential is certainly there.

Be more flexible with regards to buying third party add-ons that would enhance our use of the tool.

Promote effective communication and information sharing.

Costing model for on premise client should be provided with a lower cost model license model reflective of concurrent users instead of per user licensing.

…we have yet to be migrated to the Government of Canada instance. Our requirements include integration with key systems including SharePoint and CRM Dynamics.

Everything is fine with the service.

30.	What could have been done to serve you better?

Conclusions and Recommendations

Clients of GCdocs EPMO programs consider the same service aspects to be very important: having the work done correctly, getting what they need, and having their needs understood are among the top identified priorities. The time is takes to receive responses to questions is also of notable importance to GCdocs clients. GCdocs clients are largely satisfied, but performance on specific aspects should more closely align with expectations.

The following are general conclusions and recommendations.

GCdocs: Clients give mixed reviews of the service, with a notable number being neutral. While staff are recognized as respectful, clients would prefer they go the extra mile, and the cost is considered high. Going forward, the priority should be on ensuring work is done correctly and that client’s needs are thoroughly understood, so that in the end they get what they need; responsiveness is also mentioned as an issue. Comments indicate satisfaction may be linked to increased experience with the service, suggesting more effort is required up front to ensure successful transition and utilization.

Appendix A: Methodology

Background and Purpose

GCdocs EPMO conducts regular research to measure client satisfaction, the results of which inform GCdocs EPMO’s performance indicator reporting requirements. The current assignment is a continuation of this ongoing research.

The purpose of this 2017-18 wave of the survey is to assess the satisfaction of other government department project authorities with the GCdocs EPMO’s program delivery.

Methodology

Environics conducted an online survey with 27 Government of Canada clients of GCdocs EPMO, from February 20 to March 16, 2018. To pretest the survey, Environics programmed the English and French questionnaires and sent test links to a list of identified PSPC employees on February 12, 2018. Comments were incorporated prior to the main survey. The data entered by the pretest participants were deleted prior to the survey launch and not counted as part of the final survey results.

An initial soft launch was broadcast February 20 and full launch followed February 21. Reminder emails were sent on February 27 and March 6. The program also sent out an e-mail on March 14. GCdocs EPMO provided bilingual broadcast e-mail text as well as bilingual text for the reminder emails.

All research work was conducted in accordance with the professional standards established by the MRIA, as well as applicable federal legislation (PIPEDA) and to the Privacy Act and Treasury Board and PSPC privacy policies, directives and standards. The survey was registered with the National Survey Registration System, as is done as a matter of policy for all Environics surveys, and the research met all federal government and industry standards.

Target Audience

The qualifying population was defined as representatives of client departments and agencies who are members of the various Governance Committees and Working Groups administered by the GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO). GCdocs EPMO provided a contact list in electronic format.

This survey was an attempted census, rather than a sample survey, and therefore no margin of sampling error is calculated.

Questionnaire Design

The survey uses Common Measurement Tool-style standardized satisfaction and importance questions. The questionnaire was designed by GCdocs EPMO using tracking questions from the 2016-17 survey, and provided to Environics in both official languages. From the draft questionnaire versions provided, Environics created a consolidated version for programming, with text substitutions as needed to distinguish the appropriate Program Offices. Changes were subsequently made in consultation with PSPC and PORD. The questionnaire averaged 10 minutes to complete. Both the English and French versions of the final study questionnaire are included in an appendix to this document.

Response Rate

The initial survey invitation was broadcast to 97 contacts provided by GCdocs EPMO. 27 responses were received, for a calculated response rate of 30% overall. The response rate is shown below.

Appendix B: Survey Instrument (English and French)

2017-18 GCDocs EPMO Client Satisfaction Survey - English

Choose language/choisissez la langue : English/Français

Introduction

GCDocs EPMO is currently providing your organization with a hosted application in a standardized, shared, multi-tenant environment used to automate a wide variety of business processes related to case management and client management as well as integration with GC standard corporate systems and data sources for client-specific systems.

You have been identified to participate in a survey to help us understand how GCDocs EPMO is performing as a service provider and to identify areas for improvement.

The GCDocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) within the Integrated Services Branch (ISB), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is committed to providing excellent service and to the continuous improvement of its service delivery. The GCDocs EPMO is currently providing your organization with supplier management and application solution services for the maintenance and support of GCDocs and/or RDIMS licenses as well as secretariat services related to the GCDocs Governance.

You have been identified to participate in a survey to help us understand how GCDocs EPMO is performing as a service provider and to identify areas for improvement.

The survey is being conducted by Environics Research Group on behalf of the Integrated Services Branch (ISB). It is expected that the survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. Your responses to the questionnaire are very important to us.

By participating in the survey you are giving permission to use your responses in the analysis of the data collected. Responses to this survey will be reported in aggregate form only. We will not report results by department or agency.

If you have any questions, contact SSIsurvey-sondageISP@environics.ca

Please complete the questionnaire and submit it by March 2, 2018. Thank you for your participation.

Sylvie Séguin-Brant
Director General
Enterprise Solutions Sector
Integrated Services Branch
Public Services and Procurement Canada

Privacy Notice

Provision of the personal information is collected on a voluntary basis pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and in accordance with the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity of the Government of Canada. The anonymous data will be used by the Integrated Services Branch (ISB) of Public Services and Procurement Canada for the purpose of evaluating client satisfaction. The personal information is described in the Standard Personal Information Banks Public Communications PSU 914. Your personal information is protected, used, and disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act. Do not disclose unnecessary confidential information about yourself or other individuals.

If you require clarification about this notice, you can contact the Director, Access to Information and Privacy by email at AIPRP.ATIP@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca; by phone at 873-469-3721, or by regular mail at the following address: Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Place du Portage, Phase III, 5C1, 11 Laurier St, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5. If you are not satisfied with our response to your privacy concern, you may wish to contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

SHORT NAME:

GCDocs EPMO

FULL NAME:

GCDocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) within the Integrated Services Branch (ISB), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)

A. Name of department or agency:

• (DROP DOWN LIST)
• My department or agency is not listed

B. If your department or agency was not listed in the drop-down menu in the previous question, please type it here:

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following service attributes you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

Select one for each row.

1. The amount of time it took to receive the service(s).
   • Very Dissatisfied
   • Somewhat Dissatisfied
   • Neutral
   • Somewhat Satisfied
   • Very Satisfied
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
2. The amount of time it took to receive a response to my questions/comments.
   • Very Dissatisfied
   • Somewhat Dissatisfied
   • Neutral
   • Somewhat Satisfied
   • Very Satisfied
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
3. The effectiveness of communications.
   • Very Dissatisfied
   • Somewhat Dissatisfied
   • Neutral
   • Somewhat Satisfied
   • Very Satisfied
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
4. The ease of access to the service(s).
   • Very Dissatisfied
   • Somewhat Dissatisfied
   • Neutral
   • Somewhat Satisfied
   • Very Satisfied
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable

Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the service(s) you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]:

5. I was provided with all the instructions needed to receive the service(s).
   • Strongly Disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly Agree
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
6. Personnel were knowledgeable.
   • Strongly Disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly Agree
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
7. Personnel were respectful.
   • Strongly Disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly Agree
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
8. Personnel understood my needs.
   • Strongly Disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly Agree
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
9. Personnel went the extra mile to meet my needs.
   • Strongly Disagree
   • Disagree
   • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
   • Agree
   • Strongly Agree
   • Don't Know
   • Not Applicable
10. In the end, I consider that the work was done correctly.
    • Strongly Disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly Agree
    • Don't Know
    • Not Applicable
11. In the end, I got what I needed.
    • Strongly Disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly Agree
    • Don't Know
    • Not Applicable
12. The cost was reasonable.
    • Strongly Disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly Agree
    • Don't Know
    • Not Applicable
13. I consider (SHORT NAME) to be a valuable partner in government operations.
    • Strongly Disagree
    • Disagree
    • Neither Agree Nor Disagree
    • Agree
    • Strongly Agree
    • Don't Know
    • Not Applicable

LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE

Please indicate the level of importance of each the following service aspects:

14. The amount of time it took to receive the service(s).
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
15. The amount of time it took to receive a response to my questions/comments.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
16. The effectiveness of the communications.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
17. The ease of access to the service(s).
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
18. The provision of instructions to receive the service.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
19. Knowledge of the personnel
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
20. Respectfulness of the personnel
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
21. Personnel’s understanding of my needs.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
22. Personnel go the extra mile to meet my needs.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
23. In the end, the work is done correctly.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
24. In the end, I get what I needed.
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important
25. The cost was reasonable. 
    • Not at all important
    • Not very important
    • Neither important nor unimportant
    • Somewhat important
    • Very Important

OVERALL CLIENT SATISFACTION

29. Overall, how satisfied were you with the quality of service you received from the [FULL PROGRAM NAME]?

• Very Dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied
• Satisfied
• Very Satisfied
• Don't Know

30. What could have been done to serve you better?

Thank you for your participation. Your opinion is important to us!
Please press the “Submit” button below to send your responses.

Appendix C: Broadcast Invitation and Reminders

2017-18 GCdocs EPMO Client Satisfaction Survey // Sondage sur la satisfaction de la clientèle du BGPO (GCDocs) 2017-18

(la version française suit)

The GCdocs Enterprise Program Management Office (EPMO) within the Integrated Services Branch (ISB), Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is committed to providing excellent service and to the continuous improvement of its service delivery. The GCdocs EPMO is currently providing your organization with supplier management and application solution services for the maintenance and support of GCdocs and/or RDIMS licenses as well as secretariat services related to the GCdocs Governance.

You have been identified to participate in a survey to help us understand how GCdocs EPMO is performing as a service provider and to identify areas for improvement. It is expected that the survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. Your responses to the questionnaire are very important to us. The survey is being conducted by Environics Research Group on behalf of the Integrated Services Branch (ISB).

By participating in the survey you are giving permission to use your responses in the analysis of the data collected. Responses to this survey will be reported in aggregate form only. We will not report results by department or agency.

Should you encounter any issues while clicking to launch the survey, open your internet browser first, then copy and paste the survey link directly into the internet browser. If you continue to have issues, please contact SSIsurvey-sondageISP@environics.ca.

Please complete the survey questionnaire and submit it by March 2, 2018.

Click this link to complete the survey:

Thank you for your participation. Your opinion is important to us!

Sylvie Séguin-Brandt
Director General
Enterprise Solutions Sector
Integrated Services Branch
Public Services and Procurement Canada

Please note that this survey is registered with the Research Registration System maintained by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA); the registration status of the survey can be verified at <<link>>.

Privacy Notice

Provision of the personal information is collected on a voluntary basis pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and in accordance with the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity of the Government of Canada. The anonymous data will be used by the Integrated Services Branch (ISB) of Public Services and Procurement Canada for the purpose of evaluating client satisfaction. The personal information is described in the Standard Personal Information Banks Public Communications PSU 914. Your personal information is protected, used, and disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act. Do not disclose unnecessary confidential information about yourself or other individuals.

If you require clarification about this notice, you can contact the Director, Access to Information and Privacy by email at AIPRP.ATIP@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca; by phone at 873-469-3721, or by regular mail at the following address: Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Place du Portage, Phase III, 5C1, 11 Laurier St, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5. If you are not satisfied with our response to your privacy concern, you may wish to contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Subject: Survey: Your participation is vital in evaluating client satisfaction! // Sondage : Votre participation est essentielle pour évaluer la satisfaction de la clientèle!

2017-18 GCdocs EPMO Client Satisfaction Survey // Sondage de 2017-18 sur la satisfaction de la clientèle du BGPO (GCDocs)

(la version française suit)

Dear members,

One week ago we sent you an email seeking your feedback to our latest client satisfaction survey. Thanks to all of you who have already provided valuable input. If you have not yet participated, please take a few minutes to do so now by clicking the link below.

Please complete the survey questionnaire and submit it by March 2, 2018.

Your particular responses are vital in helping us evaluate our programs. We really want to know more about our clients, and surveys such as this are the best way to help us align our services with your interests! The survey is being conducted by Environics Research Group on behalf of the Integrated Services Branch (ISB).

Should you encounter any issues while clicking to launch the survey, open your internet browser first, then copy and paste the survey link directly into the internet browser. If you continue to have issues, please contact SSIsurvey-sondageISP@environics.ca.

Here’s the link:

Thank you for your participation!

Sylvie Séguin-Brandt
Director General
Enterprise Solutions Sector
Integrated Services Branch
Public Services and Procurement Canada

Appendix D: Departments and Agencies Included in the Survey

The 43 federal departments and agencies below are represented in the 27 responses to the survey.

• Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
• Canada Border Services Agency
• Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
• Canada Revenue Agency
• Canada School of Public Service
• Canadian Dairy Commission
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency
• Canadian Heritage
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research
• Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
• Canadian Transportation Agency
• Chief Electoral Officer (Office of the)
• Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (Office of the)
• Commissioner of Official Languages (Office of the)
• Communications Security Establishment Canada
• Courts Administration Service
• Elections Canada
• Employment and Social Development Canada
• Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
• Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Global Affairs Canada
• Governor General of Canada
• Health Canada
• Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
• Infrastructure Canada
• Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
• Justice Canada (Department of)
• Library and Archives Canada
• National Defence
• National Energy Board
• National Research Council Canada
• Natural Resources Canada
• Public Prosecution Service of Canada
• Public Service Commission of Canada
• Public Services and Procurement Canada
• Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• Shared Services Canada
• Transport Canada
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
• Veterans Affairs Canada