I have a final question.
About a year and a half ago, I took part in a mission with the Speaker of the House of Commons, in particular to Australia and New Zealand. At that time, I had the opportunity to meet New Zealand's Commissioner for the Environment. He has independent powers. That's clearly stated in the act.
According to the definition of functions in the document our research officer has prepared for us, the Commissioner for the Environment is a guardian and an advocate.
Here's what I'm reading about one of the functions of New Zealand's Commissioner for the Environment:
Advocate: investigating concerns that citizens raise about the environmental performance of public agencies, and encouraging preventative measures and remedial actions.
That's a broad power. It isn't quite defending a cause, but almost. He's also an auditor, information provider and advisor.
You said earlier that before making that kind of decision, that is to say recommending that the Commissioner be independent, an analysis must be conducted of the advantages and disadvantages.
What disadvantage do you clearly see in the Commissioner of the Environment becoming independent? Is there any disadvantage so significant with regard to audits that the Commissioner should continue to report to the Auditor General?