Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll add my own congratulations to you, Mr. Frost, and to the Legion in general for its work on behalf of not only its members but the larger community. Among national organizations, the Legion is among the most visible in our communities. Almost every month, there's an event or several events in my own riding, and I'm sure it's the same in my colleagues' ridings.
On a veterans bill of rights and an ombudsman, we started this when I had a moment earlier on. To me, a bill of rights, whatever its elements are, is a more global statement, whereas the purpose of an ombudsman is the nitty gritty details of making sure that a bill of rights, whatever it looks like, gets delivered on behalf of the veterans.
I agree with my friend Mr. Perron, and I think Mr. Stoffer got into it as well. There's this line between whether or not an ombudsman can dictate, at any point in a process, that such a thing should happen. Or is it as we see with our provincial ombudsman positions, in that they are advocates? As members of Parliament, we act, maybe in a humble way, as ombudsmen for our constituents on many different matters.
I'm not arguing for or against one, but does there need to be a bill of rights for there to be an ombudsman, just generally? In other words, is it an all-or-nothing scenario, or is there enough need now? I know the Legion is going through the discussion on this, but to those of your members who believe in an ombudsman, is there enough need to justify an ombudsman even without a bill of rights, or are they mutually inclusive issues?