Yes, you would find parts of them that you would have to put together and make the jigsaw puzzle make some sense, because we looked at various ombudsmen.
Basically, if you go to Mr. Garner's report, which I included, you would realize that in there is the situation we were faced with, and we're still faced with--that is, he really can't overstep. If the ombudsman oversteps, he's in trouble. And how can you count on him being fair? It's very difficult.
If you use, for example, the case of the ombudsman for DND, the decisions that have come down--one in which I was involved, concerning a group captain, which was successful--there is so much about it that maybe what we're doing here is trading Peter for Paul and neither of them are going to do their job.
We think the ombudsman is worth a try; otherwise the Woods report would never have touched it.
I'm just looking at it very closely, but I did a comment for Mr. Justice Bora Laskin and Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who were looking over my shoulder saying, “Let's make sure that as a reporter you're picking up what we think we're picking up.”
That report was published in the Canadian law review journal and two or three other places. That was going beyond our mandate, and some people didn't like it, I might say. But we really reached a point where we said we have to come up with something. You just can't spend three years of your life and come up empty-handed, because the information we had was a lot more than we had when we started. Distill that information and maybe you're going to get somewhere.