Certainly. Not having any teeth in the legislation I think is ultimately problematic. Forcing the individual concerned to be the one who goes to court and has the onus of proving to the judge that somehow their rights have been infringed I think places too much of a burden on the individual. Also, when you simply look at the economics between the two—the government and an individual—that's a pretty daunting prospect for an individual.
There is probably greater opportunity when the commissioner doesn't have the ability to compel the person to do something, but does have a lot of authority in terms of the ability to sit down and discuss it. I've certainly seen this in the private sector. It's a much less confrontational approach. The commissioner would have the ability to work with the public body in order to exercise moral suasion to convince them that “this is it and that ultimately this is the recommendation”. Then, if the government institution decides that they're not going to follow that recommendation, they should be the ones to stand up in front of a judge and say that they're not legally required to do this. You can clearly have a difference of opinion.
To me, it's as much not wanting to change the character of the interaction between the office and the individual, or the office and the institution, and wanting to make sure that the onus is properly on the right party, and also that the burden ultimately is on the right party. I do think it also allows a greater degree.... If the commissioner has an education mandate and an advocacy mandate and all these other sorts of things, you don't want to turn the commissioner into essentially a tribunal as well. You want to separate that as well. The commissioner makes a recommendation. If the institution decides not to follow it, the onus could be on them to justify that.