Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser, for having been thoughtful enough to inform us about changes to your organization rather than having us wait and find out from the media. It is very much to your credit. At the same time, I cannot but draw the attention of committee members to point 13 of your presentation. And I quote:One of the messages we have already heard from some of our advisors is that there is a gap between the expectations of some about the role of the Commissioner and the actual mandate as outlined in the Auditor General Act.
To begin with, I'd like to know the nature of this gap and the names of these advisors. Second, I feel I must ask you to what extent the Commissioner can or should be involved in an advocacy role where government policy is concerned.
I'm wondering if, as it turns out, point 13 isn't what actually prompted you to appear before the committee today and make this announcement. To my mind, and this will always be the case, the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner is the environmental watchdog. I understand that you may or may not wish the committee to address this issue, however the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner is duty bound to be vigilant and act as watchdog in relation to key causes or matters. You probably prefer the word “matters” to the word “causes”, as the latter implies some form of militancy. Are you in the process of telling us today that you consider the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner to be overly militant on environmental issues, and you may prefer a future commissioner to take a bit of a step back in this regard? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say to that. I didn't read your text, but I listened to you. I'm not saying that point 13 annoys me, because I myself am militant, but I just want to understand this better.