Mr. Bigras, the words that I had initially had to do with how broad the scope of the originally proposed bill would be. It seemed to sweep in all levels of government, and I wasn't sure whether the commissioner situated within the Auditor General's office or an independent commissioner could actually deal with all of that, at least not in the initial stages.
I was also concerned that a bill as broadly defined as that might not get off the ground because you'd have to get too many people involved and make too many arrangements up front that it might never get started. So that was one of the areas that worried me a bit. I tended to think it might be perhaps easier to have the bill focus on federal programs and federal measures.
Another issue that came to mind, and I gather it came to mind to colleagues around this table as well, was that there's a fundamental principle in both management and accountability, and that is, that the entity that's running the business--in this case, environmental protection or environmental sustainable development protection--would prepare a report periodically and present that for either assessment or audit or what not. You wouldn't have the auditor or the assessor, on the one hand, prepare a report and then, on the other hand, provide an assessment of whether or not it's fair.
So I've suggested that those two issues--the preparation of a report and the assessment of a report--might be better held by different entities, on the one hand by the government, on the other hand by a commissioner.
So those were two of the issues, Mr. Bigras, that I suggested we maybe could have a look at.