Thank you. I'll just quickly follow up on Mr. Vellacott's point.
As was pointed out, if I am to take climate change as an issue, which the Commissioner of the Environment obviously has much to do with, the expense was pointed out for inaction or failed action when it comes to climate change. I was asked yesterday by people from the lower mainland in Vancouver what adaptation would cost with a one- or two-metre rise in sea level for the lower mainland.
Mr. Warawa will know these. The immediate estimates that are going around Richmond and Delta are in the billions. So if we want to do some costing in terms of effectiveness, the more we can spend on prevention—
I believe the Commissioner of the Environment's office is primarily about preventative action in some ways, in order to not have us go down the wrong track. So let me ask you a couple of things.
You just made a suggestion that I think might be somewhat helpful for the committee. In 1994, when the committee was seized with the same question, there was much more of an advocacy role imagined for this office, and perhaps there was some distinction that the committee would consider in terms of what a commissioner might be all about. There are five functions: guardian, advocate, auditor, information provider, and adviser. Those five functions are contained in one office. It seems that would be challenging, under your experience.