I did highlight that in the opening remarks, but I'm happy to engage.
You're right. When we look at what we just saw most recently involving Rogers and Shaw, it's understandable why people would be skeptical about the creation of a tribunal that provides that kind of oversight.
With that said, one of the things we have seen over the years is that, because of the way the federal court treats Privacy Commissioner decisions on a de novo basis—if there are appeals, they go to the court, and the court then effectively starts from scratch—you are faced with a situation where it almost incentivizes challenging tough cases—and we've seen that—because you get another chance at it.
Creating a tribunal, provided it is viewed from an administrative law perspective as an expert tribunal that's going to be granted some deference for the decision by follow-on courts, if it does go to court, has the potential, in some ways, to strengthen the outcomes of that process, because there is some of that deference, but that requires ensuring that the tribunal is genuinely viewed as an expert tribunal and properly constituted.
The initial version of this bill didn't go anywhere near there, with just one privacy expert. We now have half.
Finding ways to ensure that public interest is well represented on the tribunal and that the tribunal has genuine expertise at least opens the door to the prospect that it might provide some advantages, although I recognize why some would say that these are already lengthy processes so we should just let the Privacy Commissioner handle it all.