I'd like to take a few moments to focus on a definition that is perhaps poorly understood. I think we need to talk about the ombudsman's role. As I understand it, his role is to receive complaints, either from an individual or group, -- for instance, an association -- alleging that something in the system isn't working well, that there's a problem of some kind.
After receiving the complaint, the ombudsman must investigate to determine if the complainant -- be it an individual or an association -- is justified or not in making the complaint and whether an inquiry is warranted. If problems are discovered upon due investigation of the complaint, the ombudsman is required to make recommendations to the department, that is to either the minister, the deputy minister or a departmental representative, with a view to settling the complaint and ensuring the problem doesn't spread.
For that reason, the ombudsman shouldn't be taking orders from the department, or for that matter, issuing any either. To guarantee neutrality, the ombudsman must report to Parliament. Were he accountable to a political party or to a particular department, he would be caught between a rock and a hard place. By being accountable to Parliament, he can take on the role described by Mr. St. Denis, that is the role that Members of Parliament assume daily, although we don't necessarily have the same knowledge and the department doesn't listen to us as it would to an ombudsman.
For that reason, I disagree that an ombudsman should be a departmental employee. Once again, I'd like to call to mind my friend André Marin who served admirably as DND's ombudsman. He prepared a solid report on Quebec's health insurance system, emphasizing what was taxable and what was not and pointing out that some individuals were being shafted. His report was so on point that the Minister of National Defence informed him that he would need to look for another job after July 5, 2005. He dared bite the hand that fed him. And he suffered the consequences.