Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the previous speakers on this particular motion. Similar to my colleague from Frame Lake, I share similar concerns.
It, to me, seems to be a little bit unbecoming of a government that is developing an Ombud's statutory office to begin with, because we recognize that there is a need, and yet, we are going to put ourselves in a position where we will limit and/or not even consider those needs until starting now. We are presenting a compromise that is going to go back a couple of years, but that is hardly going to make up for those whom may or will require the services of this office.
Let's be clear: the Ombud will have the discretion to decide on those cases or on those submissions that they feel fall within their abilities and their realm and their capacity to hear.
It is not to say that, if we put no limit on it, even if there was a whole lineup at the door of a bunch of people who had a bunch of cases that needed to be heard by the Ombud, that the Ombud would, in fact, listen to all of them. There would be some discretion on that. To develop an Ombud's office and then just start today with issues that might come forward as of right now, it is not acceptable.
I appreciate that we are trying to make a compromise here and there will be some in favour, but unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I won't find myself in favour of the motion. Thank you.