I do. Most of my thoughts, I must admit, are within the private sector context. I haven't been privileged enough to see what takes place within those internal discussions between the Privacy Commissioner and a government department. I do believe—and I guess I would differ with my colleague—that order-making power is necessary, certainly in a private sector context.
I say that for at least a couple of reasons. I think the experience we've had over the last number of years demonstrates that real penalties matter. The Conservative government was sometimes criticized for its position on some privacy legislation, but one area in which it enacted very tough rules—and I think we've seen some of the effect of that—was the anti-spam legislation. There are debates about the legislation to be sure, but what I think is indisputable is that the legislation had the effect of getting businesses' attention in a way that legislation without teeth doesn't. We see that difference.
I would also say that we now have enough experience with companies being quite willing to disregard the Privacy Commissioner's views that I think a tougher position is needed. A classic example would involve Bell—it comes up again, I suppose—in the decision involving relevant targeted advertising. There has been a long process of investigation, with input from many Canadians. I think they got more complaints over that particular issue, when it started getting some attention, than over virtually any other. The commissioner has made a finding, and Bell's initial position is “well, that's nice; that's your view; we disagree”.
It's not clear to me, given the import we place and the responsibility we place on the Privacy Commissioner, how companies can adopt that position and basically say, “See you in court, and let's litigate this for a few years before we decide what will take place”. Bell ultimately backed down, but I think the presence of order-making power would have changed that dynamic considerably.