With respect to recognition of my independence, I view myself as being independent. I am functioning independently, regardless of what might be read between the lines.
With respect to support, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman needs access to information so that we can make a balanced, unbiased assessment of the issues that we are confronted with from the veterans. We also need more personnel. There are 10 full-time equivalents in the department, misemployed right now, who were supposed to be working for the department and reporting to it, but are working on issues related to the veterans ombudsman.
In my last 18 months as an ombudsman, I have learned that we do not work through intermediaries. We need to have first-hand evidence—I will not comment on or use as evidence in my public commentary information that has passed through third parties. Our evidence needs to be as sound as the evidence that's used in our courts.
The third thing I'd throw out is the rank and stature afforded to the position in the GIC appointment. This reinforces my suspicion that the so-called ombudsman is more of an internal complaints department. The position is roughly equivalent to a public servant of the EX-2 level, a director or director general. This person, however, is charged with overseeing a department overseen by a deputy minister with a complete cadre of ADMs at the EX-4 level. The stature of the office is significantly lower than that of the organization it's charged with overseeing. How does a person of EX-2 rank have any credibility in sitting down with the DM and his ADMs to resolve issues before they go to the minister? Conceivably, that person may not have the necessary experience at that rank level.
So there are things that are working against the office. Those are the three, I think, that should be addressed.