Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Colonel, for being here--with the incoming president, I understand.
There are levels of issues within the question of what an ombudsman's office should look like. Minor issues like how long the mandate is and the budget and so on are important questions. Among the major issues is the reporting question, and that's been covered quite a bit today, so I'm not going to go there. Also among the major questions is access to documents--what access to documents an ombudsman would have to pursue a particular issue and so on. As well, one of the major things would be on what the mandate is. Is it a broad mandate, including the pensions and appeals process, or is it constrained?
It was actually our colleague Colin Mayes who was probing the issue of whether an ombudsman would be more involved with systemic issues, issues of general concern that are impeding veterans' access to one program or another, or whether the ombudsman would get involved in individual cases. That's a debate we will continue to have.
I'd like your comment on, for example, a recruit who entered the military going into World War II--and as you're well aware, there are declining numbers of veterans around from that time--versus a recruit going in now. I'm assuming that between the recruit 50 or 60 years ago, or the recruit going in for Korea, and a recruit now, the recruit now is a lot more aware of what's going on simply because there is more information available.
Would it be a role for the ombudsman to account for that difference in the level of naïveté, say, of a recruit 50 or 60 years ago versus a new recruit coming in now who later becomes a veteran? Would it be the role of an ombudsman to deal with the different levels of record keeping? The records 50 and 60 years ago were maybe as good as they could be at the time, but presumably record keeping is better now.
Finally, there are generally, if I could simplify it, three broad categories of injury; there is the physical wound; there is the trauma or stress kind of injury; and then maybe a chemical type of injury. There may be other categories, but those are three big ones. Would an ombudsman need different levels of expertise, given the three different general areas?
In the few moments remaining, could you comment on old records versus record keeping now, naïveté for recruits a long time ago versus now, and the general areas of injury?