That's a great question, and it should be a concern. But this is why you can't look at that option or recommendation in isolation.
This committee has a key role. If you don't hold that minister accountable, if you don't get the information you need to hold that minister's feet to the fire, then it won't work. But the fact is there are other things around it to ensure that holding the minister accountable isn't negated by other problems.
On the other hand, if you do split it, my view is you won't get performance measures. The reason it's hard to get performance measures today is that no one likes to stick their neck out when they cannot be accountable for the whole. “I'm not going to do it if in fact you are part of the system, because maybe you are delaying it.”
If you hold one minister accountable, you can honestly and legitimately demand measures of performance. You can know how money is being spent, why things are proceeding, and where the delays are. So I think that clear accountability overrides everything.
But in order to safeguard, you have to make sure that the other players in the system are doing their oversight roles too—which means this committee in particular doing its legitimate oversight and examining role.