It is a very good question. In my remarks, I think I mentioned that this is complex stuff. One of the programs cited in the Auditor General's report is from the former Industry Canada. They talked about the computers for schools program. One of the challenges we're facing is the complexity of the way these program structures are designed.
So while you're quite right, in that the best way to go is to identify it in the policy research stage so that by the time the MC gets to PCO we know the gender implications of the program, and by the time it gets to Treasury Board we understand how it's going to affect Canadians—and that would be perfect—I guess one of the things that happens is that, through this process, program structures are complex. We often use third parties or other NGOs that work with us to deliver our programs and results, and sometimes the gender implications are not always obvious up front. It takes a bit of experience and understanding that the departments learn about implementing their programs.
One of the things I wanted to add to what my colleague from Status of Women Canada was talking about is that another way we can help with this is that we have a whole community of program evaluators who work in departments across government. They look at the stock of programs. Once every five years at least, programs need to be evaluated. We're going to better train that community to be able to look at GBA implications if we miss them the first time around. It's not the ideal solution, but it starts to close that circle, so that before a program becomes renewed, we can understand better the gender implications and make those corrections that are necessary if we missed them the first time around.
Thank you.