Thank you, and thank you for raising this really very important question. It's a very important issue for our office, as to the limitations and extent of our mandate.
As a body that was created through an act of Parliament, let me say there are two kinds of ombudsmen. One, they are purely administrative appointments. They're appointed by either the minister or by a deputy minister through a policy declaration of that department. Second are the legislated ones.
My mandate is legislated, so it was discussed by Parliament. The regulations are made pursuant to the Federal Accountability Act, so it also has the same force as law. The mandate can't be changed readily, and it can't be interfered with once Parliament has approved it.
On the question of leases, when we had our discussions, and we were doing a consultation because we wanted to develop some systems and some processes of how we would deal with complaints relating to leases, we were told, and this is a really technical point, that the definition of procurement deals with the procurement of goods and services and construction contracts. Leases--the acquisition or procurement of accommodation through leases--were neither a good nor a service nor a construction contract, and therefore we had no jurisdiction over them. It was a technical definition.
Parts of our mandate mirror the mandate of the CITT. It's only recently that we have become aware that the same issue has gone to the CITT and they're considering the jurisdiction part. My understanding is that they will be providing a determination by about June 12, and we will follow that very closely because that will have an impact on us.