These are two different things.
Should the government disclose everything all the time? I don't think it would be a good cost-benefit exercise, plus it would be an overload of information. Part of the way the other jurisdictions are developing this is that they're consulting their stakeholders to understand what their stakeholders value among the information sets they have, so that they will put priority on a disclosure of that information, if there's no restriction on their access to information.
On their access to information, ideally yes, we would post the access requests that are received and completed; then, if you speak to people such as David Eaves, he will suggest that you should have a tracking system on the processing of your access requests, because now, he says, the technology exists for that. People would be able to follow where a request is in the system, a little bit as you would figure out where your post is. If you have something sent by priority mail, you can follow the progress and see where it is. The technology exists to do that. This is something that could be added as well.
But there's a distinction between what you disclose proactively and what's disclosed through the Access to Information Act. The way we're looking at it now within the Office of the Information Commissioner is that when we produce documents we're going to look at whether or not these documents can be proactively disclosed and whether our stakeholders are interested in this information. If so, we will start posting it proactively.