Thank you, and I don't expect to use all my time, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions and I'm just going to say some of the things that have been said. The ombudsman would be a non-political appointment, report to whoever requested the information--the minister, a veteran, MP--and would be an independent agent under the Minister of Veterans Affairs. That's the one point I want to make. By recommendation of Parliament is how he gets there, and he can be removed.
Some of that is somewhat confusing to me, and maybe it's because I just got here a little while ago. I don't know that all of that makes sense; we'd have to look at it. Is that the way they do it in the systems where they're successful right now? You mentioned some Scandinavian countries, some countries where they do have ombudsmen, and it is working. It's protecting and helping the veteran, helping the system improve itself, making sure everything works. One of your comments in here is that it's not his job to do the department's work. The department has to do its own work, which I appreciate. Is that the way it works in the successful countries? How did you arrive at some of these recommendations? Are they all in the Woods report?