That's one of the options we considered. Allow me to explain the strategy, because a lot of information was conveyed without me ever explaining to you what it was about.
It all started with a request from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that we review the due dates of our reports. We noted that, when we tabled our report in late November, Parliament had very few sitting days left to hold hearings. After considering the House's calendar, we decided to bring the presentation of our November report forward and to present it in October.
In reviewing all that, we began to question the Commissioner's way of reporting. We wondered whether we should table one report a year or whether we should report more frequently. Indeed, perhaps it would be useful for the committee if we tabled reports two or three times a year, rather than only once a year.
It is interesting to note that this possibility, that the Auditor General table report more than once a year, was raised during the discussions of the amendments to the bill in 1995. There was even some question of tabling reports on the environment and sustainable development more frequently during the year. That's where the idea came from. The idea wasn't to abolish the Commissioner's report, but rather to determine whether it would be advantageous to table reports more frequently.
Another question was also raised: would it be advantageous for the Commissioner to table his report at the same time as that of the Auditor General? Could we have a little more visibility? Because, apart from the last report, the Commissioner's report has had very little visibility in recent years. That, quite honestly, is what the suggestions were.
Mr. Chair, I want to say that, if the committee states that it absolutely does not want to change anything and that it wishes us to continue as we've done in the past, tabling one commissioner's report a year, we will maintain that practice.