Thank you for that question.
I agree that it would be possible. What is most important is not whether it's an independent structure but whether the function is independent. In fact, in the Netherlands the rapporteur is located in the Ministry of Justice, and it is supported by a bureau. Of course it makes a lot of sense, given that extraordinary precautions need to be taken to protect the information, to ensure its integrity and to protect the victims, because the rapporteur might have information about them. For me, it's a red herring to talk about structure. It's not so much about the structure but about the independence of the function.
I disagree with some of the previous comments. I really believe it is absolutely essential for that function to be kept totally separate from operations, victim assistance, advocacy, and all of those other functions--not that they are not important, but they need to be different.
In preparing for this meeting, we were in touch, again, with the office of the rapporteur in the Netherlands. That was one comment they basically re-emphasized, that the function has to be absolutely separate from all of the others. Of course, as Mr. Perrin has said, those other functions of advocacy, coordination, and all this are important, and having a rapporteur is only one element of the solution.
I would conclude by saying that we have to be very careful about the expectations of the rapporteur. Notwithstanding what was said, the difficulty of collecting that information in Canada is huge. We're not talking about the Netherlands, a country that you can cross in half a day. We also have a federal system. We have different police forces. The task here is huge. It is very difficult. Therefore, if the committee decides to recommend the establishment of a national rapporteur, one would have to have fairly modest expectations of what could be produced in the first two or three years as all the actors begin to trust each other, to develop relationships, and to exchange data that is of value.