One of the concerns that's been expressed publicly, as I understand it, is that too much responsibility or authority is going to a single body, in other words, my office. Since the bill provides the authority to issue orders and significant fines, more procedural fairness may be warranted.
To address that concern, the government could say, yes, more procedural fairness is needed. That's the model used in Quebec and other parts of the world. You can't have the same process in a regime that includes fines and orders. The way the system works now, an investigation takes place and it culminates in recommendations. The level of procedural fairness isn't the same as that provided for in the bill.
Furthermore, the bill gives my office a new tool, the ability to conduct an inquiry. This tool ensures that procedural fairness and gives the parties an opportunity to be heard. It's something that exists in Quebec, British Columbia, Europe, Great Britain and France. The idea is that the commissioner can conduct somewhat of a more informal investigation at first, but once an order or a fine is issued, it becomes more formal and it moves up to the next level. That's where the procedural fairness comes in.
To my mind, following that model and allowing decisions to be reviewed directly by the Federal Court of Appeal wouldn't be an issue. The Supreme Court has recognized that an administrative decision-maker can have multiple roles. Obviously, it has to be managed properly.
That's my answer. I think the issue is the concentration of responsibilities or authority in one place.