Thanks. I appreciate that.
It sounds as though it might be more along the lines of the Social Security Tribunal that you were mentioning. Certainly those follow-on processes through the court system would have a very extended time period. I understand that, because the only recourse after the tribunal would hear an appeal would be a judicial review, which is very different from the other path, as we were discussing, through the court system. That's interesting.
I think you were implying—and I just want to maybe get you to draw this point out a little bit further—that the OPC's new powers, which include the ability to impose the monetary penalties that are being proposed in this legislation, are really significant because they include the power to form compliance agreements and others. Significant power will be vested in the OPC as is contemplated in this bill. That is all the more reason perhaps to have a tribunal, given the principles of natural justice that having that investigative and adjudicative function in one office-holder or one person, the OPC, would perhaps be perceived as having too much of a concentration of power with no check or balance to that power.
That to me is what you said. I'm putting it in my own words, but would you like to maybe just clarify whether that's actually what you meant to say and whether or not I'm misinterpreting? I think that's what I heard you say, that the new powers vested in the OPC, which are above and beyond what perhaps other commissioners have, with the significance of the penalties, etc., justify having a sort of check and balance built into the system to ensure that natural justice can be preserved.