For educational purposes, let's say there is no tribunal. I repeat that this is for educational purposes, because I wouldn't want Mr. Turnbull to get angry. Based on what you're saying, if we keep the commissioner's analysis at first instance, that means that the commissioner conducts his investigation and submits a report and a recommendation. Afterwards, if the person is dissatisfied and wants to file a lawsuit, the person can turn to a civil court, such as the Court of Quebec.
Based on what you're telling us, if we were to remove paragraph 107(1)(a), including subparagraphs 107(1)(a)(i) and (ii), as well as paragraph 107(1)(b), which are proposed, a person could institute proceedings without having received the commissioner's report, but, as a result, they would have to bear the costs of the investigation, the discovery of the facts and so on. That in itself could be prejudicial to the person who has already been harmed. Did I understand correctly?