I can see how this could potentially turn into another two months. I just caution the committee against starting to reconsider at too fundamental a level the role of the Commission of the Environment. As Mr. Godfrey said in reading out parts of the mandate a little earlier, I actually think we're talking about working around the edges rather than approaching a new concept or anything like that.
The only suggestion I would have for the witness list is perhaps to have somebody who uses the commissioner's reports in their work to effect change. One of Ms. Fraser's criticisms was that the government hadn't responded enough. I think the PCO might be an interesting witness. But I think we should have someone we know has got much experience using the commissioner's reports to try to effect change, especially if that has been one of the criticisms, so that we talk to this person about how the effectiveness of the reports could be improved. I know that some in the NGO community tend to use them quite a bit. We'll cast about for a name or two of someone who has a track record with the reports, has seen them applied or not applied, and has got some thoughts on what will happen if you change this and that.
But again, I go back and caution against starting to dive deep into the mandate and the legislation.
I think Mr. Bigras' comment about the official languages is a good one; we have a model that makes sense.
On the mandate questions, let's not go too far. I'm one who believes the mandate is actually pretty clearly set. It's just the technical structure that needs to be changed.