Thank you, Chair, for that question.
Again, as you said, we have not audited these specific reports, so the comment I will make is a much more general one.
I think I'd highlight two real challenges, both of which have been summarized already, including by the chair in his opening remarks.
The first is the importance of balance. This is a political milieu and we all know that very, very well.
I think the thing that we often find with departments is that there's an elephant in the room. Sometimes it's a major incident during the course of the year and sometimes it's a major report by a royal commission or an inquiry.
Often, reports don't talk about the elephant in the room, and often when we're talking to departments we say that if they don't address the elephant in the room, their report risks losing credibility. so I think that whole question of balance is the first one.
The second thing I would say—and again, there have been many examples here today—is just how important it is to have very clear expectations set out and, then, very clear measures against those. I think one of the ongoing challenges in performance reporting, and one of the many reasons why the reports are where they are right now after several decades of trying to improve them, is that it is often difficult to get really good indicators.
Nonetheless, there are indicators there and a lot of data that creative people within departments can find. Statistics Canada has lot of information and the OECD has information, and I think both of these reports show some use of those things. There are always ways to find things that shed light on these important questions. Greenhouse gas emissions are another example.
So I think I would mention those two things: the importance of balance, and clear measures and clear expectations, which those measures then report on.