I certainly heard the commissioner's testimony on that point, and I think that goes to the heart of the recommendations she's making about wanting to be able to have the discretion to make some information public, when those kinds of disclosures happen, in order to either correct misinformation in the allegation or otherwise try to at least keep the public record somewhat straight on what's going on. That's another area about which we're interested in hearing the committee's views as to whether or not there's something inappropriate there.
The other area that probably bears some examination is the commissioner's use of compliance orders under section 30 of the act. Generally speaking, that whole area was intended to be forward-looking, in that compliance orders were meant to be about the things you need to do to avoid putting yourself into a conflict situation.
We've had recent examples of compliance orders that actually draw conclusions on breaches under the act. I don't want to suggest there's anything necessarily untoward around that. I just think that when we're doing our review of the act, we should try to figure out whether or not there is proper procedural fairness balance in how the compliance order is being used under those scenarios. Again, that may be something the committee wants to look at, just to make sure we have the basics of procedural fairness in place for anything that's going to be a conclusion of fault or blame under the act.