I tried in an earlier question to give a partial answer to that, but I don't know the full story.
Perhaps I can put it positively and ask what would be the most influential, the most useful role and structure that would most appropriately serve Canada in this, and I've already said a chief scientist or a science advisor, coupled with a science advisory board, is the way we should be going. I still would adhere to that view.
I don't know the full story of why the office was transferred, but certainly, to me, it is very important that the science advisor have the ear of the Prime Minister—or the President, as it is in the United States. In combination with that, you have access to an advisory committee, which is going to supplement the advice the science advisor gives. It doesn't make a lot of sense to not have the connection to the Prime Minister, nor does it make any sense to eliminate the office.
But what is the reason? I could only speculate on the reasons. I've given one possible suggestion earlier. That's maybe not a very satisfactory answer, but I can't really give you a satisfactory one.