Thank you very much for being here today.
I would like to talk about the notion of positive measures. In your last report, you said that for a measure to be considered positive, it would have to involve concrete action.
It is one that is designed to yield positive results. That's a good definition. I understand that.
I think some of the interpretation comes into what's a positive result. I'll give you an example. If a program is funding certain organizations and the expectation is they will provide results A, B, C, and D, that's the expectation. Instead, they're only delivering results A. They are not realizing their full potential or they're not delivering the full results. This can come down to money. The government would like to see $10 worth of results for their investment and they're getting $2 worth of results for their investment, for the investment of taxpayers. If you talk to the organizations that were receiving that money, they will complain because they just lost funding. They will say they were achieving result A. They will forget the fact that A, B, C, and D were what was anticipated.
The question of positive results has a macro and a micro view, I think. On the micro view, as I said, the organization or organizations will complain they've lost funding and that even that modest result of A is now going to go away because they don't have funding any more. However, from the macro point of view, if the program is not managed well or if it's inefficient or it's not delivering the full results package for the money that's being invested, that money could be better used to serve, for example, official language communities with programs that are delivering a full suite of results, ones that are meeting expectations.
As the commissioner, how do you incorporate that into your understanding of positive measures, the micro versus the macro in terms of results? How would you respond to that?