What you touch on is something that's very challenging. The question is, how many people are going to come forward and request the service of the ombudsman?
Of course, we've looked at the Australian model, as was discussed here on Monday. Mr. Winzenberg is working with us on this particular file. I've met a number of times with Monsieur Côté, and he has outlined to me some of the volumetrics that his office has—the number of staff, the number of complaints.
At the end of the day, the person who is appointed, the ombudsman, will have to use what I would call best professional judgment. It's a matter of making sure you have sufficient staff to be able to deal with the intake, because if somebody goes to the ombudsman, and if, for example, they're complaining about slow response time or delay and the ombudsman is no better at responding, the credibility and faith in the system is going to be lost extremely quickly. But by the same token, you don't want to go overboard and staff up an organization with so many people that all of a sudden you don't have sufficient....
My recommendation would be to start with a core group and allow for capability to expand or contract based on the needs. I think it's probably fair to say that maybe in the first year there might be larger numbers of inquiries than maybe there would be so many years out, because of the attention that it will probably attract. Certainly from speaking with veterans organizations, I think there are people out there, undoubtedly, who will pursue the services of the ombudsman.