Industry committee  As I was pointing out, because of the differences in rules of procedure and because of the differences in the deference offered, tribunal proceedings would be expected to be much more efficient and quick, not even considering the fact that you'd then have a final decision that could not be further appealed.

Industry committee  Thanks for the question. I think that's a very interesting case in point, because it is something that we've contemplated through our own analysis. Our assessment of that scenario is that the case would then be referred to the Federal Court, then onward to the Court of Appeal and then potentially onward to the Supreme Court, depending on the facts of the case.

Industry committee  There is another point I'd like to make as well about the deference piece that's really important to recognize. In a situation where the Privacy Commissioner is faced with a de novo proceeding at a court, the amount of time, resources and effort required on the part of the commissioner to litigate that single case would be absolutely significant.

Industry committee  Thank you. I think that's a very accurate encapsulation of the testimony we've provided.

Industry committee  I think Ms. Angus in fact provided probably the best estimator available, which is to look at how quickly other tribunals are able to get to cases as a way of estimating how this one would operate. You're thinking about a dedicated group of resources with expertise in the issues, who are able to be deployed to cases rapidly.

Industry committee  Sure. I'm happy to respond. Thank you for the question. Our understanding is that, at the moment, it takes two years on average for a case to reach the very first court, which is the Federal Court. As I'm sure many of the members of the committee are familiar with, it can take many years beyond that to go through the follow-on approaches of the Federal Court of Appeal and then to go to the Supreme Court.

Industry committee  There are a couple of elements in your question that I think are worth unpacking. I think the first is to understand that the tribunal would come into effect or be engaged in a case only where an appeal was sought by an individual involved in the proceedings, and it is designed to provide that procedural fairness and that recourse mechanism in a way that is much more efficient than going to the courts.

Industry committee  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.

Industry committee  It's important to point out that the GIC appointments process is rigorous. There are safeguards in place in terms of the approach that's taken and the recognition that there are also complementary skill sets and experiences that could actually benefit a tribunal in coming to its conclusions.

Industry committee  Thank you very much for the question. It's a really important one in terms of the resourcing of the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, the department and the government did anticipate this need and took action early. In budget 2023, the resources available to the Privacy Commissioner were increased substantially.

Industry committee  I apologize, but I don't have that figure at hand. I can certainly bring that back for discussion.

Industry committee  I'd be very pleased to come back to the committee with a written response on exactly how the funding flows are designed to function.

Industry committee  Thanks again for the question. All would need to be appointed by the GIC. I was just specifying that at least three members would need to have experience in the field of information and privacy law.

Industry committee  Thank you very much again for the question. I'll begin and then perhaps ask Ms. Angus to add in as well. I believe that over the last couple of meetings we've highlighted a number of other jurisdictions. In fact, I'd like to back up for a second and start by pointing out that it really depends on the specific question that we're asking.

Industry committee  There are scenarios in which they are in the same body, but expert tribunal models are used in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, so a variety of approaches are undertaken. Again, as we mentioned in the last meeting, there can be constitutional grounds for that. Attempting to just sort of pick out one feature and to do a comparison can be a little bit tricky, because doing that doesn't necessarily take in the full scope of understanding of the constitutional grounds upon which that framework is based.