Mr. Chair, in essence I would have to agree. I cannot comprehend, nor can the private legal counsel whom we employed outside government, as well as my current legal advisor, who is a public servant, why we would not be privy to all departmental information. It's been argued that some departmental information may end up being protected under the Privy Council confidences. We're not only cleared for that type of material, but we're also charged with protecting that information. If anything, by offering us full and unfettered access to information, I can give a far more balanced assessment in providing the advice to n'importe qui of the situation as it pertains to veterans. Once again, my first instance is to understand the veteran's situation completely, but it has to be balanced by the information that's inside government. That's the only way I can give legitimate advice.
I dare say, in these recent incidents in the press, had we had complete access to information, things may not have unfolded as they did. It also depends on the government of the day taking the advice of the ombudsman who is offering it. As an example, we were on distribution for departmental notes, the preparation of question period notes that were going to the minister, and they came to our attention. We were on normal distribution at the time. I made the point to the department that if that advice goes to the minister, I will have to disagree, because they were embellishing the facts on the ground as I had seen them. The reaction was to remove us from the distribution list of the question period notes, not to examine the situation further or try to understand the perspective from the visits I had made on the ground. As much as I'm a fan of the ombudsman system, it very much depends.... To use an old cliché, it takes two to tango, in the absence of very specific legislation; it requires a professional relationship between the two parties.