I'm not sure if you are familiar with the testimony we heard from Mr. Winzenberg, who is here on secondment from Australia. He has a pretty senior position in their equivalent veterans affairs department in Australia, as I understand it. He didn't represent the ombudsman's office there, but he seemed quite knowledgeable. In their model, Australia has what you could call a master or super-ombudsman; then that's broken up into six different divisions and broken down from there. They have created an ombudsman and then worked it down through all of the various departments and agencies.
This proposal starts at the other end. It starts within a department. We already have, as you've noted, a defence ombudsman. This is a proposal for Veterans Affairs. There may be other departments with ombudsmen at future times; that's not our concern. Do you see any problems in starting from the bottom and working up, versus the Australian way of starting from the top and working down? This presumes that you agree with the idea. Maybe you can answer whether you agree or disagree on either side.