I do. As I started my comments, I think as we discuss specifics of the motion before us, it may give us an idea whether more information from witnesses is needed. Considering what the witnesses said, both witnesses had shared today that this is a very important decision we're making, and that more witnesses should be considered. I don't have a problem with that.
My question specific to the motion we're discussing is about the use of the word “advocate”. The first witness we heard from was the Auditor General. She addressed the word “advocate” with concern. She shared that there was a possible conflict in using the term “advocate”. She acquitted it to somebody who would help draft policy. If you're drafting policy, creating policy, and then in turn auditing yourself, you'd be in conflict and couldn't do that. So I think we need to very clearly know what the motion means.
The brief on New Zealand from the Library of Parliament is saying an advocate is investigating concerns that citizens raise about the environmental performance of public agencies and encouraging preventative measures and remedial actions.
So, through you, Chair, to Mr. McGuinty, is that what your definition of “advocate” is in your motion?