Sure. I want to speak specifically to highlight the importance of this legislation and how important it is to include far-improved enforcement measures. I think the experience over the last couple of decades is that for many.... If all you're left with are non-binding findings, it is very tough to enforce, and it is, I think, tough for the commissioner to ensure that companies themselves are compliant, because they will naturally engage in a bit of a risk analysis, at least under the current bill. They'll ask, “What happens if I don't comply?” or “What happens if I push the envelope a little bit?” The answer is that you might face an investigation if someone realizes and files a complaint, and, at worst, at least initially, all you're going to get is a non-binding finding, and you need to try to do something. We've even seen that. I can recall an incident, I believe it was with Bell, which rejected some of the initial findings of the commissioner, so there was some pressure, and they came back.
We've seen companies take a pretty aggressive approach. I'm glad that the government has seen fit to really improve on the enforcement side, both in terms of the powers the commissioner has and in terms of the penalties that are associated with the legislation. I'm glad it's seen fit to begin to adopt some of the kinds of provisions that we've seen in Europe. It's long overdue, and they're not quite the same or at least identical, but, nevertheless, it moves us in a direction.
Absolutely, I think there are things that improve on our existing legislation. That legislation is more than 20 years old. We need to fix the legislation, but, as I said, the point of emphasis for me, and we've heard it from others as well, is that if you're, in all likelihood, fixing this bill or this legislation only every 10 or 20 years, you can't rest on your laurels and say, “Here, we got a bunch of things right”, when there are all sorts of other things that need fixing.