I heard you ask that question before, but here's the thing: it's a red herring. Basically, there are only 30,000 or fewer people who use the act. If we had a million, which would be great, we would really have a good act. Why don't we have a million? It's because we have a lousy act.
Let me give you two examples—and really, there won't be much use. I now have to go to the United States, which I'm entitled to do, to get meat inspection reports, because our Canadian government no longer has any. There is a reason why I need to use other acts.
Secondly, one of the key decisions in the courts in this country involved the Ethyl Corporation, which took the government to task and won, with the help of the Information Commissioner, a very significant case that allows cabinet discussion papers now to be released. It's an American company.
Let's get real here. What we want is an act that can allow as many people as possible to use it. Who are some of the major users of this act right now? They're people who fall under the citizenship and immigration rubric. Why don't you put in proactive disclosure and let the refugees or the landed immigrants who need their files have a system such that they don't need to use the access act?