Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the Ombud Act was drafted, it appears the drafters went and took a schedule out of the Financial Administration Act, which sets out a number of public bodies. But for some reason, that doesn't include -- well, it doesn't include housing associations, which are not formed under the Societies Act. They're nonprofit societies that are agents to the Housing Corp.

I guess this is a larger problem, and I've asked the Housing Corp a number of times why we have housing associations and why we have housing authorities and the difference in the roles, and they've never been able to give me a clear answer. But they serve very much the same function, and people should be able to go to the Ombud when the Housing Association makes a decision that is not procedurally fair. So that simply does that.

And I guess the second thing is that by using the schedule and the Financial Administration Act that there is always different public bodies being created with various arm's length from government. But the most jurisdictions -- and we specifically pick the Yukon -- just provide a broad definition of government authorities that gives the Ombud some flexibility in deciding, you know, what public agency falls under their authority to investigate.

I really don't think there's any sort of floodgate issue here, and I think the Housing Association example is a prime example of why it's easier to just have a broad definition of who the Ombud can investigate. Thank you.