I think there's a lot of discussion around whether or not the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has enough tools in his tool kit to do his job effectively. I think any eventual next review of PIPEDA should focus on that question about the mandate and structure of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and whether or not the tools align well, looking at what other jurisdictions do. In many jurisdictions they do have AMPs.
I think we have a regime currently based on an ombudsman model, with a very collaborative approach where we're trying to get to a good outcome through education, negotiation, and discussion. It's very useful for creating an environment where businesses are able to test out new products and services, try to be innovative, and offer to Canadian consumers what it is they want. We want to maintain that kind of very innovative, open, inclusive kind of regime where innovation is enabled and allowed.
I'm not going to come down on a yes or a no on this one, but I would suggest that the formal review take a really good look at the nature of the concerns that are being raised and whether or not AMPs are the right mechanism at the end of the day, because it is a fairly heavy stick to be given to an office of Parliament to use. It's a balancing question, whether or not this is an effective mechanism and do we have a big enough issue that we need to apply that type of new tool to the problem, if there's a problem, and what the nature of the problem is.