This is the second time I've been asked this question, Mr. Chair. I guess I will have to make a choice.
I haven't travelled to Australia or the U.K. I've had more contact with the Americans, because they came to see us, and they came to explain what they're doing.
I really like the Australian approach. I guess, perhaps, it's a Canadian approach, in some respects. I thought it was well reflected. I think they had a task force. They had a set of experts.
It is complex. It is not easy. I think it's a measured way of looking at how to implement it.
I like it, as well, because as part of this exercise, they looked at the access to information act in Australia and updated it, which I thought was a key component.
That's my preference. I wasn't going to say it. I think it's important to look at the three models, but my preference is the Australian one simply because of the way they actually took some time to think about it, to consult, and to develop a more comprehensive document, which the government is acting upon. I think that is an important way of looking at it, because it is complicated.
The questions this committee is asking me are a lot of questions I don't have answers to. You need to bring together a community of experts in different fields: privacy, copyright, official languages, security. These people have to be consulted and have to be part of the equation.
By the way, David Eaves was one of the public policy experts from Canada who participated on the Australian task force. So we have the knowledge here in Canada. We're actually exporting it to Australia to benefit their initiatives. I think we should really look at what these people here in Canada know.