Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all colleagues for their good questions so far. I understand, however, this was a difficult period for every single one of the regional development agencies.
To the Auditor General, you've had a difficult job collecting data, in some instances, where data was missing. I want to recognize that.
I have a few questions to clarify some of the data gaps that I noticed in some of the review—they're very similar to Mr. Lawrence's—and my concern with how this program impacted particular regions.
I'm from Edmonton, Alberta. It's good to know that Mr. Jones is present. I never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Jones. I worked in the indigenous sector for six years in Alberta. It's the first time I've ever met you. There's going to be a target in these particular questions for you, to make sure we get some clarification on your statements and the glaring discrepancy between them and the report.
I listened to your statements early on. They sounded very promising, but I think there was some interesting positioning and interesting language you used to avoid some of the particular instances and glaring facts related to this report.
I'd like to turn the attention of the Auditor General and Mr. Jones to exhibit 14.4, “Businesses led by members of under-represented groups made up various proportions of approved applicants”. In that section, you'll see that there is a comparison graph of three different agencies: northern Ontario, southern Ontario and western economic diversification.
Within that, you'll see that western economic diversification failed to report youth as one of the categories for this study. I also want to point out that the percentage granted to indigenous people was 2% under the first stream.
Could the Auditor General, followed by Mr. Jones, explain why this graph and the information presented here are so different from the statements made by Mr. Jones?
Go ahead, Auditor General.