It's a good question. I think I would start by saying that we fully agree with and appreciate the recommendation of the Auditor General with respect to developing the outcome and the ultimate outcome benefits for Canadians from the projects. It will in fact inform the path forward on any future investments.
You're quite right to point out that the indicators in the early stages of the plan were that the projects were in place, that they were available, that they were in fact working as outlined in the project. They were availability and deliverables under the plan. That was tracked very closely, and that was really the nature of the indicators.
Typically in projects, you need a certain amount of time before you can start to measure the longer-term outcomes and the changes that they will reap. I think the work we're doing now will benefit from some of the discussions we've had with partners over the period of the plan, to address some of the challenges we were facing in moving to the next border crossings, beyond the initial six or seven that were in place.
One of the realities was the evolution of technology, which rapidly accelerated during this time period, particularly mobile devices, and the capacity that mobile devices have to inform wait times. There was a great deal of discussion with partners, with the U.S. and with provinces, on the right technology solutions, the right approaches.
This information will be very useful in defining those indicators and in using that analysis to do the assessment of what the benefits in fact were of those projects. That will inform us going forward.
We fully agree that the utility of setting out those indicators earlier in the process is a good recommendation, and we agree with it.