Just to be very specific, obviously that was base funding. The $20 million is base funding for the Privacy Commissioner to operate.
Part of the thing I heard from him was, “Minister, if you modernize the law but we don't have the funding to have the tools to enforce it, it's not going to work to the extent that I think every member of Parliament expects.”
I must tell you, with respect to the competition law matter that you mentioned, as you know, this does not usually come from base funding from the organization or the Competition Tribunal in this case.
I thought long and hard about a tribunal. I'm a lawyer and I was wondering whether it should be the court of general jurisdiction or a specialized tribunal. I'm not inclined to create new structures. It's probably part of my DNA. I was wondering if we could use a court of general jurisdiction, but I was convinced by experts that having people who understand this matter more deeply as opposed to having a court of general jurisdiction would be better.
In addition, we have consent agreements. We expect that most of these things will be done through consent agreements, whereby the Privacy Commissioner can get to almost a plea bargain agreement with the offender so they don't have to go to the tribunal. We don't want to clog the courts. With respect to a specialized tribunal, I agree with you. Most experts would say that, in this particular case, as in the case of AIDA, you need some skills to understand it. That is better and it should improve justice and be faster and less expensive.
I think the real answer is to have consent agreements, because I think most offenders—I don't have statistics—would come to a consent agreement with the Privacy Commissioner.