I think the real issue is about the mandate and responsibilities that would be given to a distinct office. Would it go beyond auditing to policy advice, evaluation of policy, and assessment of programs the government puts forward? Those are the kinds of issues that seem to be coming up more frequently, certainly in some of the draft legislation that is being put forward. That is not a role that the Office of the Auditor General or a legislative auditor can fulfill.
I think the issue is what role that independent office would be given. If it is a role of audit, I see no advantage in creating a separate organization. I would be quite concerned, because, as I was trying to point out in the opening statement, environmental auditing is incorporated into many of our audits. It's not simply the work of the commissioner's group. The commissioner's group also works with all the other audit teams within the office to bring forward environmental audits. Audits that could be classified as environmental in nature are not all reported in the commissioner's report. We have done a lot of work on the test ranges in national defence, fisheries, and a number of other areas that are not reported through the commissioner's work but are reported in the Auditor General reports.
So we would have to continue to do environmental auditing, and I don't see that there would necessarily be an advantage in establishing a separate office to do environmental auditing. If there were to be a separate office to do the policy advice, that of course is a mandate we could not fulfill.