That's another comment that just dumbfounded me. The reality of what we call multifunctional administrative organizations is a concept that is very well known in Canadian law—and, I believe, in British law and arguably in Australian law, to take laws that resemble our public law the most. Both my Australian and U.K. colleagues have different functions: they do education, they do arbitration, they do mediation, they do public outreach, and they also can either impose fines themselves—that's my U.K. colleague—or can go to the court and ask for fines of over $1 million Australian—that's my Australian colleague, so this is a model that's well known internationally.
It's also well known here. Again, my B.C. and Alberta colleagues do education work with us. We've issued several guidance documents together with them. They have a public outreach office and so on, and they are tribunals. They make binding conclusions. Therefore, I don't know why all of a sudden it would be impossible for us, when it has been possible in Alberta, B.C., and Quebec for the last 15 years and it's the rule abroad.