I think the difference between our structure and the statutory one is primarily around flexibility. If you're a regulator, your job is to apply statute in regulation. We are asked to take on a mandate of finding fairness in the circumstances, which as you can appreciate is very specific to individual fact situations. We're designed with the flexibility to find the right outcome.
Regulators require clarity of regulation to be able to apply their regulation to the many situations they encounter. What you end up with is a very rule-based approach to market conduct regulation and to the resolution of consumer complaints. It's hard, if you don't anticipate what the problems may be and encapsulate that sense in regulations. It takes away some of the flexibility.
As to the differences between our office and ADR Chambers, again the lack of transparency makes observations difficult, but I would speculate that they fall into three big categories. One is the approach to systemic investigations. Those are investigations in which a single complainant may indicate that there are other customers affected by the same type of complaint. We have in our mandate the ability to look at those, investigate them, and recommend that the firm compensate the clients who may have been affected. If they refuse to do so, then we bring it to the attention of the regulators. It's still a private, confidential investigation—