Yes.
The ombudsman has to have the power to say the application is frivolous, without taking it any further. And that has been one of the strongest sort of modus operandi tools that an ombudsman has. At the moment, if the Canadian Pension Commission or the Veterans Review and Appeal Board were to turn down a man and say no, fine. What happened in the Woods report is that he said we will always allow a man one more crack at the apple.
It doesn't work when you get to your serious case. But the fellow who has a lot of time.... And he can have an advocate outside of the system, or within the system. On the whole question of frivolous applications, certainly we found--and all I'm doing is I'm saying what other ombudsmen have done and what ombudsmen felt--that if it's a frivolous application, they should be able to say no and turn it back to the minister, back to the veterans organization, back to wherever it came from. But he only does that after he's given it a lot of thought and re-investigation.