I'll take the first run at that, and then my colleagues Monsieur Lapointe from the Department of Finance or Mr. Heiss may have something to add.
As to where the member has chosen to actually seat the amendment, I don't really have any comment to make on that. I don't know what the member was thinking in terms of the particular drafting that's being used.
In terms of putting the position within the Office of the Auditor General, the issue, I guess, is one of choosing and being clear about the role and mandates of the Auditor General versus that of the Library of Parliament.
The Auditor General's role and mandate is to carry out the powers, duties, and functions she has under the Auditor General Act. Those functions are fairly clear. It's her discretion. She determines what to audit, goes out and conducts those audits, and then reports to Parliament on the results of those audits.
The Library of Parliament is, of course, the vast research resource that is available to members of Parliament. So from the government's perspective, it certainly made sense that you would lodge a parliamentary budget officer, whose primary mandate is to be, again, a research resource for members of Parliament, in that existing structure as opposed to putting it in with the Auditor General, where there's just no connection to that particular mandate of what the parliamentary budget officer does.
Do my colleagues have anything to add?