Yes, for sure. There's always room to grow and have that dialogue.
I would say that a lot of that is under way. When we develop programs, they're co-developed. You've heard the term, obviously. That includes co-developing what we're doing, the monitoring and whether it's actually working for the people we serve. We're involving the partners.
We are trying to set up systems here so they can ultimately be transferred, because the goal of many is for self-government and autonomy. People have a vested interest in telling Indigenous Services Canada how to do things differently and how to do things better.
There are all kinds of tables with national indigenous organizations. My regional colleague could tell you about the tables they sit at with leadership in the regions to go over the contribution agreements. When they sign a contribution agreement, it's for something. There are reporting indicators. That's a two-way dialogue. There are reciprocal conversations.
There are all kinds of mechanisms where that's happening.
To your point, who actually looks at it at some point in time and aggregates it against the outcomes and targets that we've set? Is there a correlation? Do we need to adjust? I would say that's where the sustained attention maybe could be improved, so that we could be more deliberate about what we are doing and the conversations we're having, which happen from coast to coast and all over the place at the high level and low level. That can actually inform the targets we set and results we desire.