When I left my post in March 2005, Mr. Stoffer, I published a white paper in which I recommended there be one office for both. My concern is that since the military so adamantly opposes a statutory ombudsman, if the option is to piggyback a veterans ombudsman on the military one, it would be a shame, because it is an inferior model. It should not serve as a precedent; it should serve as lessons learned on where not to go. I was in that job for seven years, and it was like pulling hair a lot of the time.
The Chief of Defence Staff is not interested in oversight; oversight brings bad news, bad publicity, and detracts from the mission. It is not a popular concept in the chain of command. They view it as meddling in the chain of command, diluting authority, and calling their good judgment into question. They have very thin skin. It would be a shame to say....
I'm quite aware that there are some economies of scale to be achieved if you had just one. In an ideal world you'd have one, but you have an opportunity here, because of the clear commitment by the Prime Minister, to create a strong veterans ombudsman--to do it from a clean slate and to do it right, and maybe have the military ombudsman later join in, as opposed to grafting a model onto an inferior model. That's my concern.