The proposal would be to go to three times a year. A couple of the advantages we thought of, either a joint tabling or to do the—It's really about the tabling of the reports and to perhaps do a joint tabling. When the Auditor General tables, the commissioner also table reports at that time, or the environmental work be tabled at that time.
We saw two advantages to that. One was that when we deal with Auditor General reports we tend to get a broader variety of journalists, the kinds of journalists who are interested in government management issues. When we table the environmental reports, we tend to get a narrower focus. They view it as being an environmental issue and not that broad kind of government issue. So we thought we could get more journalists actually interested in the issues, and that might give us more attention.
Another issue too that we thought would be helpful is that all the Auditor General reports are automatically referred to the public accounts committee, and the public accounts committee really has a very rigorous kind of regime with departments about holding them to account for management issues. We believe that some of the environmental management issues should also be going to that committee.
That doesn't mean we can't find a way to do that anyway, but I realize the more policy kinds of committees like this committee don't have the same approach as the public accounts committee to bring the departments in with us to ask for an action plan and to hold them to account.
Those were the two main reasons for proposing a change.