I would add that regular reviews are a good idea. I think five-year reviews have been among the recommendations for both the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I think they are a great idea.
You mentioned that it's been over 30 years, and there haven't been any amendments. Canada was, I think, the eleventh country in the world to pass an access to information law. There are now, I believe, 113 laws that have been passed around the world, so standards have advanced tremendously in the intervening years. There's an important need to keep up, so regular reviews written into the legislation are a very good idea.
I would add that I completely agree with writing things in a technologically neutral fashion. That's always a good model for legislation generally.
I would also mention that progressive implementation of proactive disclosure obligations can be a good measure, as we see in a lot of different laws in which obligations for what should be disclosed ramp up over time. We do see this happening to an extent with the government, which is pioneering new open data initiatives and expanding new ways to engage with people. That is great.
However, what some countries do is that they allow the Information Commissioner—and I sort of hinted at this in my presentation—to set regulations about what levels of disclosure should be expected, and then those obligation levels can level up over time.