If I were to be on the other side of the fence, arguing not to have an ombudsman, that statistic, the low uptake rate by veterans, would be a good argument for not having one because of the low numbers. So I guess it speaks highly of your veterans affairs department. In fact, I think our own department has an excellent reputation, so it would be interesting to see what the interest and the complaints would be.
It's evident from the chart you provided that this started as a government-wide ombudsman program, it would seem, and then it was broken down to the individual department level, as we see in the chart, whereas ours, if we do implement such a position, will start from the bottom, working it's way up, with the idea to propose an individual ombudsman for the department and there not being a government-wide ombudsman.
Do you see that as a benefit or as a disadvantage to the veteran? In this case, you have a master ombudsman overall, versus in our proposal a specific ombudsman for veterans only. Do you have an opinion on the merits or demerits of one way or the other?