My apologies, Mr. Chair, for intervening twice on one motion. The point of having the motion changed from an expectation to a requirement is still valid, but in reality I would hope we get them a lot more than 48 hours ahead anyway.
As I said, these audits are tabled. We don't usually get around to studying a particular report until many weeks after it has been tabled. In fact, by the time the Auditor General has even tabled the report, the department already knows what's coming and is already working on these things, and it is under pressure to demonstrate progress.
The panacea is actually that we have a comprehensive, coordinated report well ahead of the meeting—more than 48 hours. Not even having a requirement in the motion, however, is, I think, the weakness that the mover of the motion has identified.
I would support it for that reason, then; so that nobody could come to a committee and say they didn't have to respond.