Industry committee  Except that—without “nerding out” and getting too down in the weeds—there is a distinction to be made between agents of Parliament and GIC appointees. GIC appointees act under the minister and under the authorities set out by statute. This means there's a line of accountability in the Westminster system, from the duly elected government down to the appointee, as opposed to agents of Parliament appointed by some summary of Parliament but not actually accountable under the statutory obligations set out in a particular piece of law.

Industry committee  There are a number of models out there. The particularities of our situation—in which you're converting an ombuds function into an enforcement function and then putting them with the AMPs—is quite distinct. I'll let Mr. Chhabra weigh in.

Industry committee  I think it's important to make sure we're segregating the arguments in their purest form to make sure we're understanding where there are considerations or concerns that are being raised. There is a rationale about courts versus tribunal in terms of resources and capacity, because in the instance of the creation of the tribunal you are essentially creating a purpose-built body for the purposes of administrative monetary penalties for privacy violations.

Industry committee  There is a consideration around whether the OPC issues those AMPs. That introduces a different set of considerations. One is that you're converting an ombuds that was created as an agent of Parliament and has a very particular function. An ombuds is not a determinate body. It's an advice-giving body.

Industry committee  Yes, in that case, the person would have the option of waiting for the commissioner's report, for example, to strengthen their case, but nothing would require them to wait.

Industry committee  Yes.

Industry committee  Yes. As you said, the person would have the option of waiting, relying on the resources of the commissioner and using his report to bring a civil action. The person would also have the option of not waiting for the commissioner's report, but that option would cost them more. It's also possible that this option poses a challenge to the interpretation of the act.

Industry committee  It's the interpretation of the penalty, yes. This is such an important thing. That may be one of the open‑ended questions. That's also why we want to create this tribunal: It's an effort to separate the concept of sanction from the concept of violation of the act. There are two options when it comes to considering the penalty.

Industry committee  There are the—

Industry committee  Yes. The examples are clear. There may be one of the options where the costs are going up or are higher.

Industry committee  No problem.

Industry committee  [Inaudible—Editor]

Industry committee  Yes, you understood correctly.

Industry committee  If I understand the question, you want to know if proposed paragraph 107(1)(a) and subparagraph 107(1)(a)(i) require that the commissioner to have concluded his investigation, otherwise the person has no opportunity to file a complaint in a civil court.

Industry committee  Can you clarify your question?