I would be a reluctant supporter of this motion, but when we have to hire more auditors to start checking up on other auditors, this to me could be a real growth area for number crunchers. I personally wouldn't want to work in an organization where I was looking over my shoulder at auditors all the time to get my job done. It's not the way to get things done.
I'm really disappointed that we're actually talking about having to audit performance reports. I'll refer to a person I've got a high regard for, Warren Buffett, who makes a differentiation between snow jobs and sale jobs and reports. A report, to him, is a frank assessment of the negatives and the positives for the organization. If there were real professionalism within the organization, the performance reports should clearly set out the negatives and the positives in that story. You shouldn't have to read the fine print to decipher what's going on in here.
I find it really unfortunate, if that's really the state of affairs with these performance reports, that we have to hire more auditors to check up on their reports. It's really a disappointing state of affairs that we have in the public service. I'm not sure that ultimately would be the cure. If that's a real problem we have here, I'm not sure hauling in more auditors, with all due respect to Mr. Williams, is the cure for that problem. It's a leadership problem in those departments.
That's my frustration with having to reluctantly support this thing. I don't see it being the answer.