I'll give you an example that we looked at when we did the audit. One of the land claims had an objective of increasing the employment of the Inuit, I believe it was, in the north. That was the overall objective. Then there were a number of specific actions that were laid out, one of which was to have a meeting once a year with interested parties.
When we did that audit, we were asking whether employment of Inuit in the north had increased. The department came back and said, well, we had the meeting and we met our obligation to do the specific action. We basically said that isn't good enough; you have to know if you are making progress on the overall objective and to even evaluate if those actions that were initially listed are successful in attaining the objective. You have to be looking at the overall objective, not simply limiting yourself to that action.
At the time, there was actually a disagreement with the department. They said in their response that they were not tasked with the objective, but rather that their responsibility was to meet the activities that had been specified. After that, the minister changed the position of the department. But I think it's still not clear to us if it's fully accepted that the department should be trying to attain the overall objective and that it doesn't just have a responsibility to do the actions that are listed.