Perhaps I'll get started, and Ms. Angus can add in if she has additional points to add.
I think it's a really important point that you're raising, and it's one that we've been trying to elaborate for the committee's benefit over the last couple of meetings.
Any institution of this nature, whether in Canada or in comparable democracies abroad, would, by design, build in some procedural safeguards, build in impartiality and ensure that, in Canada in particular, the constitutional requirement for a fair and impartial hearing has been met. In the case of CPC-9, which seeks to remove the tribunal in its entirety, you are left with a scenario in which the Office of the Privacy Commissioner would be first prioritizing the investigations, prioritizing what to go in and investigate, and then conducting the investigation, taking decisions on the basis of the investigation and, in this case, levying very significant administrative monetary penalties as contemplated under the CPPA.
That approach, in our view, would open the OPC's findings and decisions to constitutional challenges in court. As we've previously highlighted, going to court is a more costly, time-consuming exercise, and it would be a de novo proceeding where there would be no deference paid to the commissioner's findings.
In addition to that, the risk of having the constitutional challenge result in the case being dismissed is quite significant. If that were to be the case, you'd essentially be back at square one, where we are today, where you'd have a toothless regulator without the ability to effectively govern and kind of guide companies' activities in the market.