I guess it all comes down to your definition of “success”, first of all, exactly what you're going to measure. If your measure is quite simply an output of that person going through a program and getting a job, then that's fairly straightforward. You can use the national household survey or performance census data, a breakdown by data dissemination there. You can sort of get there. I'm not sure what that's telling you at the end of the day, though.
I would say that success is more likely long term. It's more likely longevity of a career path, or what I call economic resiliency. So how long has that person been in the economy? In what way do they participate? One of the problems with some of the measures coming out of government ASETS is kind of like that. It's an output measurement as opposed to a pure outcome measurement. So an output measurement wouldn't measure over a period of time, and that's a complicated thing to do. It's not easy. We do it under some of our youth programming to measure over periods of time. I think that's where it has to go because what you're looking for is what the demonstrable change is that we're making in the lives of aboriginal people.
So it may be okay to get a job for $140,000 working in the oil patch, but if you're out of that job in four years—you bought your shiny four-by-four, and then you get into all kinds of issues, maybe with substance abuse and other stuff, which we see at our centres all the time, in Fort McMurray and Lac la Biche, and all these areas—then we have a different problem. So there's success at one level, but long-term success is a little bit different. I think we're going to need to get smarter about how we measure that.
Those are the sorts of conversations we're hoping to have.