Obviously, Mr. Chair, it will depend very much upon the functions that are given. The specific duties and functions are not described in the motion. If it were an audit function, yes, there could be duplication. If it were not an audit function, then we would have to look to see whether there were other bodies carrying out the functions being proposed. So I can't really answer the question because I don't know what the expectation would be.
If you go back to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from 1994, what is actually quite clear is that they gave a different role to the independent commissioner that was being proposed by the committee. I can just quote from the foreword of that report. They are talking about the creation of an independent commissioner, and they say:
This proactive role is the purview of a Commissioner whose functions typically include policy evaluation, forward-looking advice, anticipation, prevention, advocacy, and the coordination of diverse initiatives.
Then they go on to say:
—the Committee has concluded that an expansion of the role of the Auditor General would enhance the accountability aspect of existing public policy—This rear view mirror role could provide useful insights on past performance, and would be a complement to the primary work performed by the Commissioner.
When we read this, it would appear that the committee back in 1994 saw the role of the commissioner and the role of the Auditor General as being very different. The Auditor General would do the audit function and the kind of review of the past, whereas the commissioner would have more of an advocacy role, commenting on policy, with a forward-looking kind of role. Those are very different roles.