I said it would depend on what the partnership looks like. At the end of the day, in my experience, partnership has such rigid parameters around it that it doesn't accommodate the way community people do things and the way that they are. Money matters, so it depends on who controls the money and who controls the structure of the partnership.
Of course, an influx of money that would build capacity in the community and create revenue streams makes sense. I think I would rely on an example in Ontario. It was amazing. The federal government moved more toward making sure that if somebody said they were working with indigenous communities, the money had to be held by the indigenous community, not by the support group. Ontario followed that model, and it was very interesting.
I work for a small native women's group. When that policy change happened, our group went from having $100,000 to meet all of the women's needs in our community to over $4 million, so it all matters. Who controls the money? Who controls the decisions? Is it really a partnership, or is it a co-optation?