Regarding your point about how not all aspects of the private member's bill that the Suzuki Foundation and you helped draft were implemented, it's my understanding that one of the reasons that the commissioner or the reason that the commissioner is not an independent actor is because that would have required a budgetary outlay, which wouldn't have been allowable pursuant to the rules of private members' bills.
In hindsight it's kind of interesting. As I understand it, the commissioner is—and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Gelfand—actually appointed by the Auditor General, which shelters it in certain circumstances from the Governor in Council providing that nomination.
I wonder if you would comment on the appropriateness of that circumstance. Would you recommend having it become an independent parliamentary agent appointed by GIC or do you think it should remain under the Auditor General?