Mr. Chair, it's indeed too soon for me to state categorically whether or not the mandate is too loosely written or not something that I'll be able to work with. However, in my opinion, I've always been the kind of person for whom the absence of direction is an opportunity, not a constraint. I think, in the first instance, there is the potential, in the way the mandate is written, for me to actually value-add to the position and turn it into something bigger than what the veteran community and indeed Canadians are expecting.
Conversely, as I said in my opening statement, if—and I must stress “if”—there's a problem with the veterans review and appeal process, I think it would be wrong. In fact, it would amount to bureaucratic smoke and mirrors to simply inject another level of bureaucracy to address decisions and get involved in the process. Indeed, I think it's far more constructive to have a source that can, on behalf of the veterans, troubleshoot the system and make recommendations.
With the mandate worded such that the office is to investigate systemic problems as well as emerging issues--that would suggest to me that I can go looking for smoke and not wait for fire--we can have a significant impact on any stage of the review and appeal process where it's being constrained by what I would say is bureaucratic imperatives.
Suffice to say that we're not allowed, by law, to get involved in reviewing decisions. Certainly I've met members who are involved in the decision-making process and I get the impression they are genuine. So if the system supports them, then I think the ombudsman will be in a position to enhance that process for the veterans.