Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, Mr. Frost, congratulations on your appointment as president of this great organization. I happen to think—and I know I speak on behalf of the committee—that Mary Ann Burdett did a great job in her role as president.
I also want to thank the Royal Canadian Legion and their convention for a couple of issues that were brought up. I tend to read your magazine when it comes out. Thank you for your support on the ending of the clawback of the military and RCMP pensions at 65, as well as the disability one. I also thank you for your support to assist veterans in terms of allowing more of their pensions to go to their spouses when they pass on. Instead of the 50%, I believe you're advocating 66%, so I thank you for that advocacy.
There is one concern, of course. It's important that veterans and their families know there's another body that can advocate on their behalf if they have difficulty with a particular aspect of government—in this case, Veterans Affairs. But as you know, the DND ombudsman can just make reports and publish his findings for public record. He can slam the government and he can slam the department, but none of his things are binding in any way.
One of the concerns I've heard in a pessimistic manner from most people I've spoken to is that they're in support of a veterans ombudsman, but they're concerned about the fact that it may be another level of bureaucracy that doesn't have the teeth to force the government into something that should be straightforward, in their personal point of view. Have you or the Royal Canadian Legion in any way advocated that anything from the ombudsman should have binding rules upon the government or the department? Or should it be just an advocacy role and an exposure role to go through the department's concerns with a fine-tooth comb and basically make the report to Parliament and that would be it?