They are significant, and in particular, subsection 4.(2.1), which requires there to be assistance provided to requesters. There are a number of them, but they aren't a comprehensive review of the legislation. It did extend to 67 more crown agencies, which is very good, but it also had a lot of exemptions in there for those particular ones.
In other words, it did a lot of very positive things, but I think what recommendation 1 is meant to address is this. It's comparable to other jurisdictions in Canada, where there's an express requirement to review every five years, and that may enable a more comprehensive review of the act. I agree that this was very significant, but the question is did it address the particulars of the act, as some of the members here have been raising the issue around using the Internet more? Again, in 2006 that proactive disclosure was a good example, but can we do better? Can we make things more transparent and modernize the act to achieve openness and maybe curtail the number of requests in that respect? If everything's open and things are there, you'll still have requests, but you may not have the numbers you have today.