The commissioner has the power already to educate and to publicize.
There are a number of issues inherent in your question, if I could break them out a little bit. The first has to do with public education. The commissioner can do that right now, and obviously that is constrained by certain resources. Then there's the second question, about the naming of names, the naming of companies that are subject to complaints. That's a tricky one under an ombudsman's model, which is premised on the assumption that there will be mediation and all possible effort will be made to work things out in private.
On the separate issue, however, about order-making power, I think the argument is that if you gave the commissioner powers to make orders, it would undoubtedly change the culture of the office. It would undoubtedly create some tensions between the current Privacy Commissioner's office and the Information Commissioner's office, but it would bring the federal Privacy Commissioner's powers more consistently into those of the provinces. It would, I think, give the commissioner some teeth and facilitate mediation, and hopefully--although I think this needs further study--it would speed up the mediation process. It could cut into costs and delays, and I think it would foster a proper jurisprudence.
That, I think, is the most important problem here, that you can look at the findings.... And I do not wish to appear in any way critical of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; I have enormous respect for what they're doing. But the current model does not foster a proper jurisprudence--for individuals or for organizations. And that's what you get when you have the more, admittedly legalistic, order-making model.