Yes, we have. As I stated earlier, the board is a quasi-judicial, arm's-length, independent board, so it would be inappropriate, to a certain degree, for an eventual ombudsman to get involved in the decision-making of its members. The member who hears and rules on a case has the quasi-judicial benefit of being independent. He's arm's length from the minister. He's also arm's length from an ombudsman. He's also arm's length from the chair of the board. He has to be secure in the fact that he makes his decision impartially and independently. From a member's perspective, that has to be protected for the board's credibility as an independent agency.
That is not to say that an ombudsman could not bring practical, realistic, pragmatic comments and criticisms to the board. He could obviously come to the chair. He could easily come to the deputy chair, for that matter, and say that our scheduling could be done better, that he's getting complaints from veterans that we're not doing enough hearings in their locations, or that we're too slow when we prepare our cases. In that sense, not only would it be important, it would also be very useful for an ombudsman to give us feedback on how we do our job, on whether our process is good and if it is working. I don't think the ombudsman could get involved in the particular cases.