Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me add my voice to Gilles'. We have no doubt that you're sincere and that you have the best of intentions. But I for one am very disappointed to hear about the status they've ascribed to your position.
Essentially what I see is that your scope has been limited. The status of your position relative to the defence ombudsman impacts your role in matters that overlap between the two departments. After all the rhetoric this government has given in putting veterans first, the government has made the position of the ombudsman at Veterans Affairs a junior one. My personal feeling is that now that the government has created the role, they have to elevate you to the status the veterans deserve. I don't think it should be done at some place in the future; it should be done immediately.
Having said that, I have one last question to ask. To the issue of scope, could you relate the role you expect to play in improving the quality of care in the long-term care facilities around the country? Previously there were VAC employees who held varying titles, from ombudsman to quality care officers, in this regard. How do you intend to work with the existing internal monitoring roles within the department itself to deal with potential complaints arising from patient care? You're going to have to go through the entire bureaucratic maze. I wonder if you could share some insights as to how you think you're going to deal with this.