As for the basic principle at issue here, namely that the Commissioner of the Environment should operate independently with a separate budget, I think there is unanimity on this score. However, what I can't understand is that to my knowledge, the Commissioner already enjoys these privileges.
I believe the problem between Ms. Fraser and Ms. Gélinas had more to do with the activities carried out in connection with these reports than with the actual reports produced by the Commissioner of the Environment. Ms. Fraser said that she had approved and backed the reports, that they had been tabled and that there weren't any problems. There are limitations to the job, regardless of who holds the position of Auditor General.
We mustn't delude ourselves either. Fundamentally, the opposition's role is to comment on a report released by an auditor general. The Auditor General must not usurp the opposition's role, which is to comment on reports. I can't see you giving an official the power to comment on a report that she herself produced. She could only agree with herself. I have some questions about this, questions that I will ask when we hear from the witnesses.
That's not all. We already have an office that goes by the name of the Office of the Auditor General.The name means that the Auditor General oversees other areas of responsibility, including the environment. If ever we amend these responsibilities, what message are we sending out about the position of Auditor General? It would be tantamount to saying that we no longer have confidence in the Auditor General's abilities or judgment.
These are questions that I will be putting to the witnesses. I hope that we have an opportunity to hear from some witnesses and to discuss this matter with them.