1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of Justice Canada’s Reconciliation Secretariat. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016), which requires departments to measure and evaluate performance and use the resulting information to manage and improve programs, policies and services. The evaluation was undertaken by Justice Canada’s Internal Audit and Evaluation Sector as per its 2021-22 Departmental Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan.

1.2 Evaluation Scope

The evaluation covers five fiscal years (FY), from 2018-19 to 2021-22 and, to the extent possible, activities undertaken in 2022-23. The scope was informed through a review of available information, as well as consultations with key internal stakeholders. The purpose of the consultations was to obtain input regarding issue areas and questions that may be of interest to explore through the evaluation.

Given this is the first evaluation of the Secretariat, relevance in terms of alignment with government and departmental priorities, such as the implementation of the Calls for Justice stemming from the National Inquiry into MMIWG, was examined. Although the Secretariat is relatively new, its roles and responsibilities have changed and evolved over the last five FYs. As such, the evaluation focused on an assessment of its design and delivery.

As per Treasury Board’s Policy on Results, evaluations are to include assessments of the extent to which Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) was considered in design and delivery. In the case of the Secretariat, it has made efforts to put theory to practice by adopting and applying specific diversity and inclusion measures in its human resources strategy. The evaluation will examine and assess the impacts of this approach.

Lastly, as part of assessing effectiveness, the scope of the evaluation included coverage of all of the Secretariat’s work. Given the IEF has only recently been put in place and it is therefore too early to assess impacts, the evaluation limited its assessment to early implementation.

The scope of the evaluation was determined based on a review of available information and informed by consultations with stakeholders regarding issues and questions of interest. The work of the evaluation was guided by an Evaluation Working Group, consisting of key representatives from the Secretariat.