I'm glad we're having this discussion because it really is a two-way street. I understand what Mr. McCallum is saying, that if we go from the high level authority down to another level, we are actually opening up where it does affect other groups. A simple response would be going back to Ms. Duncan's example, that parliamentarians don't feel—I think I even heard from the chair that there seems to be an attitude of disconnect from the estimates process itself.
So to me, the logical choice would be rather than giving more information that people at some point are not engaged in, you focus that information so that it's in easier to understand, easier to access terms.
Again, I think, after reading it, that's what the spirit of the report from this committee was. There have been multiple reports through the last century. I think there are about six different swings at it. For me, I think about how we use what we already have and use technology to leverage that. That's why I appreciate that.
Getting back to the implementation plan, I can understand it's a five-year process because there are a lot of operational changes that are required. On this letter we have from the President of the Treasury Board, it said year one parties would include establishing a small project office to manage the implementation of this initiative, communicate the decision, review and identify legislative policy and definitional issues.
Have you started with establishing an office yet?