It's a great question.
I'll take a step back and look at the way this department and Minister Hajdu's department are funded through supplementary estimates.
It is a good chunk of that profile. A report like this looks only at the planned spending, which is based on the main estimates. They're highly technical for most people but very important in a profile of this department, which depends so much on supplementary estimates. There are billions of dollars going to historic settlements—and changing people's lives—for harm that occurred, sometimes over decades and even centuries. Gottfriedson is one of the particular examples secured through the supplementary estimates.
Again, if we were to take the report to its logical extension, it would be qualified as a resistance to change, which is bizarre. I'm pointing to page 12 of the report. What would have been beneficial is a proper back-and-forth with our departments to give some colour to that so that members could have a fully fleshed out report that would reflect the way these departments behave and the different articulations of the spending profiles that underpin them.
I'll take a quick moment as well to respond to MP Schmale's comment about some of these indicators.
We have sometimes collapsed indicators that we have met. Examples are the percentage of first nations with fiscal bylaws or laws and the percentage of first nations communities with financial administration laws. Those are two separate indicators. We met them, but we got rid of one of them because it was subsumed in one of the other indicators that were more general in nature.
There is some housecleaning involved in some of these. It isn't self-serving to remove them. In fact, keeping them separate would have been self-serving, because you'd have two substantially similar indicators indicating success.
I sometimes have the opportunity to look at these indicators and ask why we're doing them. I can't solely or should not solely change them, but it doesn't mean we don't scrutinize them.