No.
They are already in place. When we prepared Growing Forward 2, we negotiated with the provinces a performance framework for this policy. We had to choose very specific indicators. Everything is relative. We identified indicators and a performance framework.
That's the basis on which we're undertaking a survey right now on the cost-shared programming. It's relative to that performance framework.
When you think about evaluations, there are different levels of evaluation. There is an evaluation for the program itself and that is an obligation we have further to the Treasury Board policy on evaluations where we're required, every five years, to evaluate a program. Every single project has expected performance measures where we're providing money to a proponent on the understanding that there will be specific deliverables, so we are assessing every single project relative to what is expected to be achieved.
We don't necessarily give out all the money up front. We expect to see progress relative to those deliverables and that's the basis on which we provide funding to a proponent. Some of those projects last five years, some are shorter, and some are only one year, but each of them has a level of performance that we also evaluate.
On top of that we also perform audits as well as recipient audits where we will visit a proponent to make a determination as to whether or not the funding has been used for the activities that were approved. We carry out a level of due diligence in relation to approving a project but also afterward, as we're assessing the impacts of that project.