My advice for the jurisdiction of the ombudsman is to keep it simple. I ran into this in my other job when we were defining our mandate in 1998. You shouldn't have a list from A to Z of what the ombudsman shall do and try to define everything, because every time you have a case someone will say, “Well, this falls between B and C, so technically....” Then all the lawyers get involved and you're tearing your hair out for days and weeks. So you shouldn't have a list of what you can do and a list of what you can't do, because that's just inviting legal quagmire. It's not the way to go. It should be simple.
If the government wants an ombudsman it should make it simple, all-encompassing, and that's it--or don't have one. The competence should be simple. “The ombudsman of Veterans Affairs shall oversee all Veterans Affairs initiatives, decisions, policies, and decision-making to ensure that decisions, policies, and practices are fair, just, and reasonable.” That's simple. That's the way to do it. “The ombudsman shall not review decisions of the minister as part of the executive.” That's it. Have a good time. It's simple. You get away from all the lawyer stuff.
Philosophically and legally there's absolutely nothing preventing you from doing that. It's very simple. “Every public servant shall be compelled to cooperate with the ombudsman in a prompt, full, and complete fashion. The ombudsman may compel the appearance of any public servant to advance the case. The ombudsman shall publish reports as necessary to advance the public interest.” There you go--a one-page act.
The objections you will hear as a committee, when you dig deeper through the surface of them, will be because people are reluctant to relinquish control. If you were to write a mandate like that you wouldn't have control of your ombudsman. But either you want an ombudsman who has the independence to do the job, or you don't have one.