I will agree on your first condition. I'll disagree with you on your second, because when it comes to climate change, the whole point has been the planning. Ineffective plans have led to the results we have right now. I don't say this for partisan reasons. I'm looking as objectively as I can at the case as it was made to Canadians in signing Kyoto and then in laying out some plans to achieve Kyoto. It was not until two or three years after the fact that we as parliamentarians from all parties were able to go through the audit of the programs and say, my goodness, I think we're off track. Now we're so drastically off track that the debate is just by how much as opposed to whether we can get back on.
I'd like to make a point about the costs. If you look at the costs of creating a separate, stand-alone office, Ms. Fraser's testimony would probably show that at the time costs were against that. My staff has pulled up some of the actuals, and we're talking about $5 million or $6 million, as we've heard from Ms. Fraser and from others as a cost estimate. Compare that to the multi-billion-dollar mistakes available.
The effectiveness of the commissioner's office must be improved. I disagree with Ms. Fraser's comment on the policy options available to this point, and that it should be housed in her office and should file a report four times a year. That is the suggestion at this point, and I fundamentally disagree with that.
It seems to me when we talk about the autonomy of the office--Mr. McGuinty alluded to it at the very end of questioning--there's a distaste in my mouth, and I think in many Canadians', as to what exactly happened with the Commissioner of the Environment's office in the last month. We don't know.
As a former Auditor General before a parliamentary committee, you answer, I assume, almost every question given. You were an officer of Parliament when you were functioning in that role?