I don't think it's a condemnation of the program per se. I think the way this has come back to me—and I think the nutrition north program and the veterans' one are examples of this—is that sometimes what happens in a government department—not always, but sometimes—is they end up measuring the things that are easy to measure. In the case of the nutrition north program, they measure how much food is shipped because that type of thing is easy to measure. They don't necessarily measure the things that really tell them whether the program is achieving what it's supposed to be achieving. In this case what they need to measure is whether the communities are included on the basis of need and if the full amount of the subsidy is actually being passed on to the consumers.
If they were addressing the need, I think that would improve the program. If they were looking at whether the subsidy is being passed on or not, that may or may not improve the program, depending on what they find. But it would help them better understand the program.
In terms of the 8% that you mentioned, if I can just clarify that, it's in paragraph 6.48. Essentially that was a problem that happened with the annual reporting of the department where in one year, I believe it was the 2011-12 year, they reported that the cost of the revised northern food basket went down 8%. The year after that the cost of the revised northern food basket went up 2.4%, but when the department did its second annual report, it forgot to change the wording in that section of the report. In the second report it again said it went down 8%. We identified it really as a quality control issue. When they were preparing that second annual report, they just used the same wording from the previous year in the second year's report, so it was saying there was an 8% reduction when in actual fact there was a 2.4% increase.