I'm not an advocate of extra penalties.
As you undoubtedly know, there are some penalties in the act, but they're small ones and they're only directed at failures to meet.... They're called administrative, monetary penalties, and they're directed towards failures to meet deadlines to get mandatory information in, and those have been used frequently.
Aside from that, one has to bear in mind that this is not a criminal piece of legislation; it's an ethical act. It's interesting that the word “ethics“ is only used in its title; it's not used anywhere in other parts of the act—not its title, but the title of the commissioner, actually. That's the only place that word is used. In any event, it's a civil level of proof that goes on under this act, reasonable probability, not the criminal level, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There are also lots of provisions in the criminal sphere, such as bribery, fraud or whatever, that would apply potentially in a similar situation. In fact, there's a responsibility to, if one appeals.... If there has actually been a criminal offence, as commissioner one is required to pass it on to the principal people who look after criminal matters, and one must discontinue the investigation, if one has begun.
Basically, that's my justification for thinking I'm not too concerned about penalties.