Naturally I think the level of comfort is very important. What I'm seeing is that if an ombudsman were to come about, then the two-year period would be very important. Having said that, is the ombudsman out there to make certain that the system is fair?
What if you had a situation where the adjudicator had messed things up pretty badly, and the applicant was very unhappy? If the applicant gets to the right track, puts his case there, the ombudsman would be looking at an administrative system. If he felt that despite everything else the system really was working, he'd have to say so. This doesn't mean that's the end of it. That means that in the opinion of the ombudsman, the system didn't work.
That might sound like so much hogwash, but you have to realize that the Woods report was three thick volumes and written by wonderful men, who have all passed on now. Of course Justice Woods was well known and at one time was the president of the Legion. The army was represented by Judge Gerry Nantel, and, of course, there was Mr. Walter Lindal.
I think one of the things we were striving for was a system where the applicant would feel that his case was being handled fairly. That's been one of the big complaints. I have spent a lot of my years working as an advocate, and they've been delightful. Quite often, when you find out what went wrong, you say, well, we have to fix that.
I remember the case of a man who felt he was entitled to a pension, even though he was not enlisted in the army. He wasn't in the armed forces, but he got his day in court, so to speak. That's the kind of thing that establishes an area of discomfort in the system. It soon gets around that it isn't going to work.