There are people who cooperate very well, and there are organizations that are very helpful. But we are finding more and more that companies get support from legal counsel, who generally want to advise their clients to be risk-averse. If it's not completely clear, their advice to their client would be that if there's a risk, and it says legal authority, then go get a warrant. Then you'll be covered; so don't release anything.
We're looking at the private sector and businesses who say, I'd like to give you this, but my counsel advises that I need a warrant.
So when we try to articulate our understanding that the act is actually enabling, they refer back to reduce the risk, and until it's clear, ask for a warrant.
In some cases, it's very good, we are happy, and it works. In others, it is not working. Our problem is that because it is not clear in all cases, there is a trend to move towards being more risk-averse and to release less information.
It was not our belief that PIPEDA was meant to do that. It was not meant to be a barrier to allowing communities to get involved, but in fact it was meant to be an enabler. So we are asking that the words be changed.
Where you might see a contradiction, it's not because it affects everyone the same—in some cases very well, in some cases no.