You're helping me to waste my five minutes so I don't have to actually ask a question.
I'm still trying to get my mind around what you did here. You start off by saying that “The analysis conducted indicates that the increased spending did not result in a commensurate improvement in the ability of these organizations to achieve the goals that they had set for themselves set for themselves.”
By the goals, you mean the department results indicators, right? It seems to me that what you're doing is you have a bunch of these targets set up there and you're counting how many times the government hit those targets. Am I right? Some of the times, you actually didn't shoot at the target because you took it down beforehand. You decided beforehand that that wasn't going to be a target. On the other hand, you put up other targets that you haven't had a chance yet to count.
I'm not sure of the significance in this conclusion that the government is inefficient, we're spending more, we're not hitting the targets, when it seem like it's random. We didn't actually start off with these targets and shoot at these targets. Am I wrong with that?