This is mainly to avoid apologizing for indicators that we haven't been able to meet.
After reading the report, according to my analysis, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer could have benefited from more active feedback from our two departments responsible for the indigenous affairs portfolio. There are some statements that should be corrected that tend to be misleading, particularly when we talk about current spending and planned spending, which is on page 12 of the research and analysis document. These expenditures don't take into account a fairly unique factor of our two departments. We operate mainly after additional requisitions that are reviewed each time new supplementary estimates are tabled. It's hard to draw conclusions without considering this very important factor.
In terms of the departmental performance indicators and the report itself, those are qualitative indicators, so it's important to look at the quality of these indicators, particularly the number of communities with certain laws in place to remove from the Indian Act. We have to wonder whether that percentage was achieved and how close those indicators were to the objectives to be achieved. That's another factor that isn't necessarily reflected here.
When I looked at the report, I thought that there was some accountability and that we had to look at the indicators in question to determine where there was a failure, even if it meant correcting the situation. Still, this is a report that your committee had requested. I have all the tools at my disposal to ask these questions.
When your committee received this report, it didn't have all the indicators so that it could then scrutinize the details to see if there was a failure or if the indicators, broadly speaking, were achieved, and ask us questions that are therefore more relevant.
It's not a question of criticizing anyone, but of ensuring that feedback is provided in advance so that the committee can have a clearer picture of our two departments.