I have a strong view on this. I feel that if you were to point out to us that these departmental performance reports are what I call “self-serving fluff”, and the deputy minister, now that he is an accounting officer as per the definition by the public accounts committee, has to come and explain why only the self-serving fluff is presented to us and the bad news has been eliminated, he might be encouraged to ensure it's in, in subsequent years—motivated—because I want to ensure that Parliament and Canadians are informed in a balanced presentation.
The departmental performance reports are the annual report of a department. They are the historical report of the department. They're not just used by Parliament; they go to academia and anybody else who has an interest in that particular department. It's important and fundamental that these present the facts as they are, and for them to think that it's a glossy thing with no criticism of themselves can't be allowed to continue. I do think we should find a way, including engaging the public accounts with the Auditor General, so that departmental deputy ministers feel obliged to ensure that this information is there.