Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to Ms. Fraser.
I noted your comment that environmental considerations are integrated through all aspects of your work, because what struck me was that in any organization, as we would find in the Canadian population, you will have individuals who have a different level of intensity of concern about the environment. So it's pretty hard to ensure that their look at issues is going to involve a consistent and even level of concern.
It strikes me that when you look at whether or not you should have a separate Commissioner of the Environment, the question is whether we consider this issue important enough that it warrants, as government and Parliament have decided privacy and official languages warrant, a separate structure. And is it worth—I think it was Mr. Warawa who was talking earlier about it—the cost? If we feel that privacy is important enough to warrant spending some dollars and having a separate office, and I think it is, as is official languages, then why do we not feel that the environment is important enough to warrant a separate office? Perhaps what he's telling us is that his party doesn't feel that it's important enough to warrant that.
I guess this brings me to this question: If the Privacy Commissioner is not within the Office of the Auditor General, then should it be, and if not, then why should the Commissioner of the Environment be within it? When Parliament looks for someone to be the Commissioner of the Environment, their top consideration will be whether this person is going to be focused very strongly on the environment above all else. It's a different consideration, obviously, from what Parliament looks for in filling your role. I think what I'm trying to get at is whether it should be separate on that basis.