There are two aspects to that. First of all, you need robust investigative tools to get the job done. By “robust”, I mean power of entry, subpoena ability, the power to take testimony under oath, compulsion, cooperation, powers. You need those, on the one hand. I'm not advocating, however, that the role of the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs be anything more than recommendatory in nature.
So you have a robust, powerful investigative authority, backed up by offence provisions for lack of cooperation. Then, in classical ombudsman form, you make your recommendation, but that recommendation will be founded on the rich resources you are able to tap into. Those are the two things that I'm recommending.
The tendency in government, when they're looking at an ombudsman, is to say it's far too abrasive, it's far too offensive, that the people are nice guys, and so on. That's not the point. You don't want to put an ombudsman in the position of having to grovel, of having to arrive hat in hand, asking for you to please give them an answer.
One of the issues I used to have as ombudsman for the military was being told to put in an ATI request. Well, I'm not a member of The Citizen, I'm an ombudsman, but then I'd have to make some calls and so on. In the position I have now as ombudsman of Ontario, with subpoena ability, when I write to somebody and I say I require a statement on this, if there's any issue, I say they'll be subpoenaed. It's as simple as that.
So you need robust authoritative of power, but I'm not advocating any more than a recommendatory power in the end. The power of the ombudsman is one of moral suasion, nothing more, and that works.