Well, I've never seen anything so detailed so far. I want to congratulate you for coming forward. I'm not even going to ask any further questions. That's enough for me for this year.
It was very helpful--to me, anyway--that you identified five specific things under “What Do We Do?” We've been talking about this, because in the blue books here, on page 3, you talk about striving to reduce the number of access to information requests and say that you're going to do this in three ways, including educating managers in the federal government.
On page 3 you also mention trying to develop an informed and well-trained federal workforce. I think that's a very good thing, because people who are properly educated as to the Access to Information Act will, we hope, make consistent and statutorily correct decisions when they're making their decisions as to what should or should not be blocked out.
This brings me to what's been questioned by Mr. Van Kesteren, this program you're involved in. I'm going around this the long way. You indicated that you really have no education mandate, yet you're in effect undertaking an education mandate, whether you have it or not.
Then back to Monsieur Vincent. When you got to Mr. Van Kesteren, you more or less suggested to us that if we're studying access to information, it might be a good idea for us to consider recommending that you have an education mandate, and obviously that would clearly require further funds, etc. Am I right in thinking that's where you'd like to see us go, and that's where you think the Office of the Information Commissioner should go, in terms of educating the ATIP officers around town?