It joins, I guess, a group of other tribunals. I guess I'm not as familiar with this. I'm a New Democrat and we don't get appointed to GIC positions. That's just the reality of how this place works.
Where I'm at now, though, I think is important, because I've listened really carefully. I want to be open so that other members of the committee figure out where we're going on this. For me, I've always been open to considering the tribunal, and I haven't been presented a good enough case for it. I know there are some benefits to it. There is no doubt of that, but I still believe.... I think if there are resources lacking, then resources should go to the Privacy Commissioner, because I prefer building a model where the Privacy Commissioner has the first solid ground on this and then, following that, there's a process to go to the courts.
I've heard even from the past testimony we've had that, no matter what, we can always end up back at the courts—no matter what. For me, where I'm trying to work on things is..... People can sue, so I disagree with...but anyway, I'll let my friend explain that later.
For me at any point, what I'm looking for is a model, and it's why I'll support the amendment to abandon the tribunal as part of this legislation but to build one where the Privacy Commissioner has the first right of action, investigation and so forth. Then, if there's a case beyond that, a case that somebody wants to bring to the courts, they can do that. I don't believe that at this point in time, for this legislation, the tribunal is the right move.
I just want to make that clear for members, because I have an upcoming subamendment to adjust that part of the legislation we have.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.