From what we understood, those were if a tribunal were to be in place, but their preference would be to not have a tribunal and give more power to the privacy commissioners themselves and their office.
Just to counter one other claim as well, they've asked for and have said that they need more resources to carry out the duties they'd have. To handle the burden you mentioned, there would be a whole division that handles the fines and the penalties, and then the commissioner would be freed up to be able to handle more of a caseload. I think that was what was stated in testimony.
I'm just going to mention witnesses who were against the tribunal, because we have a list of those, if you're still looking for the list of those who were for it.
We had the Centre for Digital Rights. The Privacy Commissioner of Alberta was against the tribunal. The Option consommateurs was against it. The former U.K. privacy commissioner was against it. You could say that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre was against it. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was against the tribunal. The Privacy and Access Council of Canada was against it, as was the University of Ottawa. A lawyer at McInnes Cooper, David Fraser, was against it. Daniel Therrien, the former Privacy Commissioner, was against a tribunal. Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada now, is against the tribunal as a whole.
While you're looking for your list of the ones who supported it, these are all witnesses we had who were against the tribunal. Have you found your list?