Thank you for that follow-up question.
I have reviewed the amendments proposed by the minister, which make it clear that the joint purposes of the act are the protection of the fundamental right of privacy and the legitimate interests of business. I think that's an appropriate way to do it. One has to understand that every fundamental right, including the fundamental rights in the charter, is subject to the Oakes test, which is a balancing exercise. The purpose clause makes it clear that we have to balance that fundamental right and the interests of business. This gives the courts the appropriate tools to solve the problem.
I'll also point out that the “Appropriate Purposes” section is an override section. If there is something an organization does that, frankly, is offside, this trumps everything. When you put together the purposes of the act and “Appropriate Purposes”, the public is adequately protected.
I won't get into the fact that, also, the Privacy Commissioner has huge discretionary powers as to how to enforce it, with very limited rights to appeal. If the Privacy Commissioner believes a fundamental right has been violated and that it's an inappropriate purpose, the commissioner has all the powers required to do the proper calibration to protect the public.