As to the definition, we should not pre-empt what we're going to put forward unless we're satisfied that we've got all the witnesses. If we're going to do that, then we've already taken the lead in saying what we're going to do. If we want to have witnesses from the provinces, we can do that. I think our clear direction is to learn about the ombudsman. But if we're asking witnesses questions that are not about ombudsmen, then it's not their fault but ours.
We need to make sure that we don't short-circuit it. When we put a draft forward, I believe we're getting close to making a decision. So if we're done hearing witnesses about the ombudsman, then we can get the clerk to draft a report. Until then, we may still want hear options. We've heard a lot of them already. Today was likely the most clear in direction given, no doubt about it. But on some of the other ones, there was a lot of talk about how they see it.
His report today laid out different options of how other people see an ombudsman. That's good to know. When we go to the House and defend this as a committee, they'll want to know whether we've looked at all the others, whether we understand what some of the other jurisdictions use in the way of an ombudsman.
So if we've heard enough about the office of ombudsman, then we start to do a draft of our final report to the House. That's how I see it.