That's what New Zealand has in its Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That's outlined as their role.
The one in the United Kingdom, which has had some great amount more success than we have had—and I wouldn't attribute it only to this—has three particular roles, according to their website: “Respond openly to Government policy initiatives”, which is clearly into the realm of commentary on what the government's plans are; “Invite debates on controversial subjects”; and “Undertake watchdog appraisals of Government's progress”.
It seems to me that it's an old adage in business that you can't manage what you can't measure. With an issue like climate change, where early action pays long-term benefits and inaction is very expensive, the stakes are quite high if we get this wrong. So far, we have gotten it wrong, I think, and the commissioner's reports and auditor's reports have said so in terms of what we hoped to do and what actually happened.
To not have somebody in that advocacy role, as Mr. Vellacott or Mr. Calkins mentioned, allows the issue of what the government's doing with respect to climate change to go to the to-and-fro of the political moment. Other things get attention. The accountability on something like emissions reduction, which is difficult to do, is not very strong.
I think you've made a suggestion to us that perhaps the original mandate or envisioned mandate for the Commissioner of the Environment—and one that's used by other nations that have been more successful than Canada in that advocacy or policy discretion role, while occupying a central place within the bureaucratic structure—might be something this committee should consider in regard to Mr. McGuinty's proposal.