Thank you, Chair.
I think this will actually follow up a bit on Mr. Desjarlais' comments. I want to move onto the qualitative stuff. I told you that I wanted to talk “quantitative”, and we can do that for a long time, but let's move on, because we have only so many slots tonight.
The qualitative component focuses on the departmental results indicators, the DRIs, as you abbreviate them. These indicators are used to evaluate progress towards its goals. That's the whole purpose of this kind of management system. I've been part of that in my past.
You go on to explain some of the reasons and you talk about how some of these are more difficult to achieve and lever because of circumstances, but you also say, “Even if these components are excluded, ISC”—in particular—“still falls short of [its] ability to specify and maintain targets.” That's a clear conclusion you make.
I'm going to come back to Mr. Coates again and quote from his article. He says:
The government can and does change up targets and metrics, making it difficult to determine actual outcomes. But given the vast expenditures, such a conclusion is tragic.
This goes to exactly what Mr. Desjarlais is saying. It's about getting outcomes for the investments we're making. I'm just curious about your comment on Mr. Coates' conclusion on this particular aspect relative to the qualitative component.