Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor just sparked a long debate. The role of the ombudsman is to protect citizens. He should report to the House, and not to the minister.
How could an ombudsman who reports to the minister remain objective? As the saying goes, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Consider, for example, André Marin, the former ombudsman who submitted a fine report sometime around June 2003 regarding that infamous insurance, SISIP. His recommendations were so good that the Liberal government of the day told Mr. Marin that it would not renew his contract on July 5, 2005.
An ombudsman must report to the House, otherwise, it would be useless. The opposite would be impossible. We could not do any worse.
I do not lay blame on the ombudsmen. I would do the same thing. In order to save my job, I would not bite the hand that feeds me. It would mean one's livelihood.
The Public Protector Act has existed in Quebec for over 30 years and it is working well.
According to the presentation given by Mr. Marin yesterday before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, legislation exists similar to that of Quebec and it is working well. He said that New Brunswick has similar legislation that works and that produces good results. Manitoba has legislation regarding ombudsmen that works well and produces good results. It is going very well in British Columbia, as well, and they are seeing good results.
What is Ottawa waiting for? The messiah?