No. Certainly what I read in the testimony was that the views were fairly divergent, I think it's fair to say, and some were very passionate. But I think at the end of the day we have to boil it down and say what makes sense and what is doable. You could probably pick some things from each of the presentations that were given here; there were some commonalities, but there were some other things that were fairly divergent. You have to really think about it in the Canadian context and say we want a made-in-Canada solution that is for our veterans.
For example, just to quote Mr. Winzenberg on Monday, he talked about the fact that the ombudsman was created in Australia many years ago. He talked about the size of the population, for example. They made the decision that based on the size of their country, the size of the population, that they didn't want to go with multi-ombudspersons.
That's a decision that the Government of Canada will have to make here, whether they go with multi-ombudspersons; i.e., someone for Veterans Affairs and DND. And there are a number of others around town that you're probably aware of. It has to be something that's going to work for Canada, but more importantly, at the end of the day, that's going to work for veterans and give them the type of representation that they deserve and that they feel will work for them.