I'm going to take absolutely no side comments today. This is going to be a well-run meeting.
Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to standing order 81(4), the main estimates 2018-19: vote 1 under the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, vote 1 under the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, vote 1 under the Office of the Senate ethics officer, and votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, referred to the committee on Monday, April 16, 2018.
This morning we're very pleased to have, from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Madam Bélanger and François Bertrand.
We will begin with your opening remarks.
Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and good morning, members of the committee.
This is my first appearance before you as Commissioner of Lobbying. I want to let you know that I feel quite at home in my new position. The staff has been most welcoming and supportive since my arrival.
The team is comprised of professional and dedicated employees. I am quite fortunate to have them assisting me on the delivery of my mandate aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability of federal lobbying activities. This objective contributes to Canadians' confidence in public office holders' decision-making.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the main estimates and outline the priorities of our office in the coming year. I am joined by François Bertrand, who is our director of registration and client services. Unfortunately, the CFO could not join us today.
The Lobbying Act mandates three key activities: maintaining the Registry of Lobbyists; developing programs that foster awareness of the act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct; and enforcing compliance with the act and the code.
The 2018-19 main estimates for the office come to about $4.5 million. This is essentially the same amount as last year and, in fact, as the last 10 years.
Our office is currently comprised of 26 full-time employees, and salaries continue to represent about two-thirds of the expenditures. Of the operating budget of approximately $1.5 million, about 40% is allocated to acquire services for program support and corporate services, such as HR, finance, and contracting services. These services are obtained from other government institutions. This approach provides access to a broad set of expertise in a cost-effective manner. In addition, about $500,000 is expended towards obtaining IT services.
Allow me to give you an overview of last year’s highlights. The registry is the primary tool for enabling transparency in lobbying. It is an online source of information on who is lobbying federal public office holders on what topics. The timeliness of reporting communications with designated public office holders remains high, as 94% of the over 23,000 monthly communication reports of last year were filed on time. This is positive, as timely information leads to increased transparency.
On the outreach front, I am particularly proud of the recent signing of a MOU with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on matters related to education and outreach.
With respect to compliance and enforcement, two files were referred to the RCMP, and one report was tabled in Parliament. We currently have a caseload of 50 files. I am pleased to report that our employees developed a three-year strategic plan to set priorities for the office. This plan identifies four key result areas, and I will share with you our priorities for 2018-19.
The first key area is a modern lobbyists registration system. A team develops and maintains the registry while another provides guidance and advice to support registrants. Our office will undertake an evaluation of its registration and client services functions and begin implementing recommendations from last year’s technical review. Work will focus on ensuring that data continues to be secure, keeps up with technological advances, and enhances not only the user experience but also compatibility with mobile devices.
The second key area is enhanced outreach and communications for Canadians. Informing stakeholders of the requirements arising from the act and the code is important to increase not only their knowledge, but also their compliance.
Upon my arrival, I reviewed the existing organizational structure. As a result, I decided not to appoint a deputy commissioner and to operate with only two executive positions. I also eliminated the position of senior adviser to the commissioner. This allowed me to create a team dedicated to communications and outreach.
To this end, our office will implement the recommendations from last year's evaluation of the program. We will update outreach materials and renew the website to make it easier for all to access the information they need.
Following the signing of the memorandum of understanding with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we will set up joint webinars on issues of interest to both lobbyists and public office-holders.
The third key area is effective compliance and enforcement activities. The responsible team monitors and investigates allegations of breaches of the act and the code. The priority in this key area will be to continue to review our investigative procedures and practices in order to identify further efficiencies so that our findings are timely and relevant.
Fourth, but certainly not least, is an exceptional workplace. I wish to make our office an employer of choice by establishing a positive and healthy work environment that fosters engagement and innovation.
Our office has developed and is implementing its strategy on mental health. We will explore initiatives to provide tools that will assist staff in developing positive mental health habits.
We will also look at creating career development programs and opportunities for our employees as career advancement is limited in a small organization such as ours.
Our office is preparing to move to a new location in 2019, providing an opportunity for us to better integrate knowledge across the organization and to modernize our IT systems. This project will require resources that were identified in the government’s budget of 2018. We are also preparing for the pending legislative review of the Lobbying Act. We will be ready to meet with you when this exercise begins.
Throughout my mandate, I will focus on initiatives that offer value for money to Canadians and that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations. However, the fiscal constraints associated with our small organization cannot be overlooked. The budget of $4.5 million allows for very little flexibility to reallocate resources and to really plan long term.
The current registry is 10 years old, and important investments are required to ensure that it remains up to date with rapidly evolving IT standards. The registry is vital for transparency. I will therefore continue to explore opportunities and, where necessary, make the funding requests to ensure that the registration system measures up to Canadians’ needs. The year ahead will be an exciting one for our team, and it is with great enthusiasm that we take on these priorities.
Mr. Chair and committee members, I thank you for your attention.
I welcome any questions you have.
I can tell you that the transition was organized incredibly well. When I arrived, the team welcomed me with open arms. I had five or six briefing books to read, which I did. The appointment of a new commissioner had been expected for a while, so the transition was really quite smooth. Thanks to the team in place and the former commissioner, the staff were ready and so was I. It was really quite fluid.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't encounter any major issues when I took office, nothing that posed a serious challenge. I did have to get to know the staff, but with 26 employees, it's not very hard to build a fairly good relationship with each person. I had to learn the internal workings of the office and the process. I have been working with officers of Parliament for a decade, so I know how investigations and the like work. I had to become familiar with the process.
On a personal level, my biggest challenge was the organizational structure. That's the aspect I grappled with the most. For instance, did I need a deputy commissioner now or in the future? There were people acting in positions, and I wasn't sure whether I should appoint them to those positions on a permanent basis. I really wanted our focus to be outreach and communications. Two people were in place.
As I said in my opening statement, I didn't see the need for a special adviser. That person is now responsible for the office's outreach and communications activities. That was my biggest challenge. Right now, I think we're in a good place to tackle the year ahead and work towards our goals.
I agree with you about websites.
Finding a way to reach out to Canadians is important. It's something we're still thinking about, but I will tell you, in all sincerity, that, before we can reach out to Canadians, we have to reach out to parliamentarians, MPs and senators. We've seen many articles in the news that suggest people do not know what obligations lobbyists have when it comes to our office.
I therefore think we need to start with the basics. I sent you an email, and we received about a dozen replies. I've already started meeting with people individually. It's really about educating and doing basic outreach with lobbyists. We just updated our Twitter account. I will also be travelling to meet with as many people as possible, initially, during the first year.
I've already started working on it. I was asked in December whether I could be ready for the spring, so I knew it was coming and I've been working with that in mind. I'd like the review to address a few main themes.
How can the act be amended to improve transparency? How can the act be amended to improve and strengthen outreach and communications, as well as implementation?
Those are the three things I want to focus on.
In terms of transparency, we have a good piece of legislation. It's fairly sound, but there is some work to do. One area that could probably be improved is the “significant part” of duties rule, which we will discuss a bit later. That's definitely an element in need of improvement.
One provision requires that pre-arranged meetings be reported. That could be withdrawn. If people meet on the street, there is no requirement to file a return through the registry. Clearly, then, we can do certain things to improve transparency.
In terms of education and outreach, I'm considering whether we should make training mandatory for lobbyists.
From a compliance perspective, obviously, a range of sanctions are needed. The consequences for those who violate the act or code need to be revisited.
In a nutshell, those are my three priorities.
In a perfect world, all of our investigations would be done jointly, because, honestly, very often it's the flip side. I worked in that office for six years, and obviously, you can come out with two reports that will have opposite findings. Of course, in a perfect world, again, it would be great to do that.
The problem right now is our respective legislations don't allow us to do that. We cannot exchange information about investigations. They're all conducted in private and so I don't know about the investigations that Commissioner Dion is carrying out, and he doesn't know about mine, unless they've been made public.
The thing is, with the particular file that you are talking about, it's a jurisdiction issue. The Aga Khan is not a lobbyist, and so people may have expected to obtain a report, but a decision had been rendered—and I did not know this when I appeared in December—back in September by the previous commissioner that he did not meet the threshold of a lobbyist because he does not get paid. This is all in the public domain, and this particular decision right now is subject to judicial review at the Federal Court.
So although people expected a report, the decision had already been made that he was not a lobbyist, I read Commissioner Dawson's report, and the interactions with public office holders are with everybody. So he needs to look at the relationship that all of you have with everybody. I only look at lobbyists and in this particular case, there was no flip report to be made.
Certainly, the bigger ones are in the area of transparency, and yes, removing the word “arranged”, I think, is not a big change to be made in the law. It would certainly enhance transparency, because right now the obligation is only to report monthly those communications that are oral and arranged in advance. The word “arranged” should be dropped, as far as I'm concerned.
The big one is the significant part of duties. That is extremely difficult to enforce.
Certainly, on the enforcement front, to develop a spectrum of sanctions.... Right now, the way the act is written, we start an investigation, and if there is an indication of an offence—offence being someone is not timely, has lobbied without being registered, or is lobbying while prohibited—I have to suspend everything, and send it to the RCMP. We wait, and then we come back. We then do a report, which is usually a report under the code, because, really, the commissioner has no authority to declare there was an offence.
For timeliness, there needs to be some discretion to possibly impose administrative monetary penalties or even simply a prohibition on lobbying. There needs to be a spectrum, because right now, it's criminal, or a report to Parliament, and an attack to the reputation...and that's it. It would be nice to really think that one through, with all of the procedures that need to be put in place. It's been done elsewhere, so it is possible.
Thank you, Madame Bélanger. It's a pleasure to have you at our committee, and I want to say that I have enormous respect for your predecessor. I think she always felt the issue of the spirit of the act was very crucial. We've had situations, again, with two reports—from the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying—but the Federal Accountability Act didn't foresee every possible loophole. It couldn't, so the spirit of the act is crucial.
This is what I want to speak with you about this morning, because in every Parliament we deal with different sets of issues, different conundrums that we didn't face before. Our committee right now is dealing with the Facebook scandal. The issue of the sudden massive rise of very powerful U.S. data oligarchies is becoming a real concern. The Bank of Canada is actually saying that their power is now so great that it's actually threatening economic competitiveness in Canada.
In the United States we've seen Google, Facebook, and Amazon not just move very heavily into lobbying, but actually put key people into government positions because they do not want to be regulated. So this is the question I raised in my letter to you about Kevin Chan.
I know you're not in a position to talk about specifics, but the 20% rule, to me, is a very outmoded thought. If you have someone who is very connected to government, who can phone up and can meet politicians and be really friendly with them and meet with all senior ministers, his goal is to make sure that they really like him, like the company, and don't want to regulate him, and he doesn't meet the test of lobbying.
What do you think we need to do to ensure that there is greater compliance between giant companies like Facebook and the spirit of the act?
The significant part of duties is a threshold for in-house lobbyists. Historically it's been interpreted quantitatively, rather than qualitatively because when you read “significant part of the duties”, you could think that “significant” also means the importance of the issue for them, but historically it's always been calculated in time. So it's 20%, meaning one day a week for about a month, total, and it has to be the total of the whole organization and not just one person, so you add up everybody's time.
The problem is that the act is written in such a way that it's not transparency by design; it's the reverse. You only have to register if you meet that 20%, so the onus is on the lobbyist to decide whether he meets that 20%, rather than the reverse, that you must register unless.... Then we need to have that discussion of whether you want every single in-house lobbyist to register. That's a policy decision. There must have been, at some point, a discussion when the act was enacted that you wanted someone to be paid and it had to be about a registerable activity. That's the second thing we need to look at. It has to be about the change of a state of affairs—about a law, about a regulation, about a program, about a policy, or asking for money. That's the second thing we need to look at.
The law is quite prescriptive in a way, and I think that needs to be fixed.
I hear you on the significant part of duties, and I will always interpret the law to meet the spirit of it, but I also have to look at the second step of whether it's an activity that is actually registerable.
I like this idea of transparency by design as something we should be considering.
On the issue of a significant threshold, the act is written for the average lobbyist who does the day-to-day job, knocking on doors, trying to sit down with their flip charts and stuff. But when you hire someone who has enormous political power, you're hiring them not to go knocking door-to-door; you're hiring them to make one phone call because when that person makes a phone call to the Prime Minister's Office, people pick up. The people with that kind of influence don't do that 20% of the day in order to register, but that's why they're hired.
It seems to me that some of the issues we dealt with in the last Parliament kept coming back to this 20% rule. Very powerful companies are going to hire very powerful people to make that one call to open a door to fix something, and they don't have to be registered. That's the question of how we address the 20% threshold in a fair way.
I am bound by the way the law is written right now. I'll do what I can to look at the facts of the case and apply the law as best I can.
It was a priority back in 2012. One of my recommendations will be to eliminate it.
I can tell you that across the country there are a few provinces that have the threshold of a significant part of duties; the rest have a threshold of hours per year. Every time they have an opportunity, they also recommend getting rid of that.
The solution is not necessarily to look for the number of hours. It really is to give significance. What is the importance of the issues? In terms of looking at criteria, who do we want to register as lobbyists? It's not just about their time; it's also the importance of the issue. Maybe you'll have to think about whether you really want to involve everybody.
There might be some thresholds in number of employees, the operational budget, and so on. We might have to look at criteria to remove it, but I certainly understand what you're telling me.
Has it been resolved? No.
Back in 2012, because of the reduction exercise, 5% was given back, and now we're continuing to survive with less money to play around with. I don't mean playing; I mean, to transfer into the registry.
The registry is our main tool. What we've been doing since 2014 is maintain it. We continue to develop some parts, but we never have enough money to look at the whole thing and develop it.
It's 10 years old. The team is extremely concerned that some components of it may no longer be supported, and then we would have to continue to almost put band-aids on, instead of looking at it as a whole and relooking.
In the fall, the predecessor asked Treasury Board for additional money for the registry. It was not granted in the budget, but I will continue to look at ways to invest in the registry to make sure that it continues to be modern.
A little while back, the gentleman I defeated, Bryan Hayes, an MP for the Conservative Party, came to see me. He had lost the election, he didn't get his job back in the Sault at his place of employment, his wife was in a car accident, and he has no pension. He is thus in a situation in which he has to make a decision.
He wanted to move to Ottawa to work for the Canadian Cancer Society or Big Brothers or something like that, doing stuff that he enjoys, but he wrote and got a negative letter back because he was a backbencher and had to sit out for five years.
I've been doing some research and have been talking to many MPs from both sides of the aisle, and they find this interpretation rather ridiculous: Bryan is able to pick up the phone, as has been talked about, and reach the .
It seems too restrictive. I have a job when I go back; I have a five-year window in which I can make my decision to run again, etc.
I want to bring that to your attention, because I think that rule or law first of all doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but then the interpretation of it as well.
As a final point, just recently—in December—I was handing out Canada 150 pins to various people; we had a small allotment. I went back and met with the former MPs—NDPs and Conservatives—and they all tell the same story. We didn't talk about lobbying or anything like that; they talked about the difficulty of transition for an MP back to the world and jobs.
I'd appreciate having your comments on that.
Yes, I do have some advice.
The only thing I can recommend is to be diligent about writing down the names of the people you meet with and the issues you discuss. You can also advise them to register if they do satisfy the 20% rule. I don't think, though, that it's up to you to make sure they satisfy the rule. You already have enough on your plate.
However, if you do have doubts, I suggest that you contact our office. We keep a close eye on what goes on in the news. We try to be proactive. If anything shows up on our radar, we contact lobbyists. We endeavour to check the information and make clear what their obligations are. If you have any doubts, let us know. We can't know the name of every single company or organization you meet with.
The only piece of advice I can give you is to write everything down, because I could ask you to confirm the information I was given. If any information needed to be corrected, you would have to tell me that. I could also ask you to confirm whether you had indeed met with certain people.
I want to follow up on Mr. Sheehan's line of questioning. I think it is important for us to start to clarify because, again, the act was brought in 10 years ago to try to cover off all manner of things.
We have a case like Bruce Carson, who was in the Prime Minister's Office, steps out, comes back, and starts selling a product and is evading the Lobbying Act. That's a fairly clear-cut case of someone using their power to open doors and avoid the responsibilities of the Lobbying Act.
The case of a backbench MP who wants to work for the Cancer Society would strike me as a very different thing. I've met other former MPs who have wanted to do international work and have been told they can't.
Would we define it by the nature of work, or would you feel it would be better if you as commissioner simply had the discretion to look at them and decide whether or not this was a reasonable use of someone's skill to better society as opposed to pecuniary interest? Is that how we should be looking at changes?
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I am pleased to appear before you today for the first time since my appointment as Information Commissioner of Canada.
Joining me are Layla Michaud, Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Governance, and Gino Grondin, Deputy Commissioner of Legal Services and Public Affairs.
Let me first thank you for placing your confidence in me to carry out the duties of the Information Commissioner. It is an honour to serve Canadians in this role, and I look forward to the next seven years of working to ensure openness and transparency at the federal level.
My first two months on the job have been very busy and an interesting time of learning. I met with each and every employee at the office during my first two weeks. It did not take long for me to see that I have an excellent and experienced management team, as well as a very dedicated and professional staff. My meetings with employees and managers allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the work done by my office. I also gained a greater appreciation of the 35 years of institutional knowledge that my office holds, and the strong foundation I have to build on.
In addition, I became more familiar with the challenges and the opportunities that the organization faces. This has allowed me to determine where to focus my efforts in the coming months and years.
I have four priorities that I would like to share with you.
My first priority is to address the inventory of complaints my office has yet to complete, while investigating new complaints as they arrive. I will also work with my team to improve operational efficiency and streamline the investigation process to reduce delays when possible.
My second priority will be to take steps to implement the anticipated amendments contained in Bill . These proposed changes present potential operational challenges for my office. For example, if the bill is enacted as currently drafted, my office will have to manage, potentially for a number of years, three distinct complaint and investigation processes due to transition periods in the bill.
My third priority will be to ensure that the day-to-day work of my office is open and transparent. I will also stress these values in my interactions with institutions, members of Parliament, and Canadians. In addition, work is already under way to enhance and refresh my office's web and social media presence.
My goal is to make the complaint process simple and transparent for Canadians. I also want to provide more guidance to both complainants and institutions on the investigation process and the decisions taken, and more timely updates on access to information news and activities.
Finally, my team will work closely with institutions to help them meet their obligations under the Access to Information Act, and we'll address systemic issues. In the coming months, I intend to personally meet with access to information coordinators and the heads of a number of institutions to reinforce the importance of this collaborative approach and promote openness and accountability.
I will embrace every opportunity to collaborate with you and with Parliament as a whole, with institutions, and with other stakeholders, including the Privacy Commissioner. I will also emphasize the importance of sharing best practices. Canadians deserve to have institutions that are open by default and that make access a priority.
For the coming year, and just like the last six years, my office's main estimates are $11.4 million, and I have 93 approved full-time equivalents. Approximately 80% of this funding will go to deliver our investigations program. The other 20% will be dedicated to our corporate services, such as finance, information technology, and human resources.
As you likely know, the government announced $2.9 million in temporary funding for my office in the 2018 federal budget. I plan to use these funds for the resolution of complaints. In particular, I would bolster my investigations team for 2018-19.
I would fill vacant permanent positions and rehire the experienced consultants that my office engaged in past years. This would be good news for Canadians. My office would be able to complete more investigations in the coming year because of this additional funding.
Ideally, however, my office would be provided with permanent funding to allow me to permanently increase the size of my team and bring stability to the office. The volume of complaints my office receives is increasing. My team registered nearly 2,600 new files in the year that just ended on March 31. This is a 25% increase over 2016-17. As more and more Canadians submit requests under the act, the number of complaints will keep growing. I'm very much of the view that temporary funding and temporary staffing will not address the challenges my office faces. To meet this demand, my office needs more permanent funding.
I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board announced last June that my office's resources will be increased on an ongoing basis in response to the adoption of Bill . However, this funding will not be sufficient to meet the growing demands on my office and serve the needs of Canadians.
In closing, I wish to emphasize two aspects of the positive impact an increase in permanent funding would have for my office. First, as I've said, it would bring stability to the organization. I could hire enough employees to ensure the act is appropriately applied and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I could also retain these employees from year to year, providing needed continuity. Second, I could pursue innovative options for making the investigation process more efficient. I would like to capitalize on technology to enhance my office's service to Canadians.
That being said, thank you, again, for inviting me to appear today. I look forward to further opportunities to report on the progress I am making against my priorities and on my statutory mandate.
I would be pleased to take your questions.
It's interesting to note that, over the past six years, access requests have increased by 215%.
Our office saw a 25% increase in the number of complaints last year alone. We started the year with 3,495 complaints in the inventory, and we would like to do exactly what you are suggesting.
Currently, people have to wait about seven months before a complaint is assigned to an investigator. I therefore recommended that we create two teams, one to handle incoming complaints and the other to deal with outstanding complaints. We are working at both ends in an effort to climb Mount Everest, so to speak. I think that, if we are able to speak with the individual as soon as we receive their complaint, we will have a much easier time finding the information they are really looking for and endeavouring to meet their needs immediately by supplying the relevant information from the outset.
Of course, we have some very old files and some very big files. Rather than concentrating on the number of complaints, I would prefer to focus on how our investigators approach their work and interact with institutions. No one wants to touch the big files because those are the ones that are avoided when the primary focus is always on quantity.
Going forward, then, we are really going to be focusing on investigation quality and institutional co-operation. In order to close a file, I won't hesitate to issue orders under the new legislation, or recommendations under the current act, if an agreement clearly cannot be reached.
I can't really comment on this particular file. I'm not even sure we have a complaint about it yet.
From my reading of the article, it was a request that would require the processing of 780,000 documents. I understand that sometimes there's a calculation, and depending on the number of pages some people have a little calculation. They're not supposed to do that, but they come up with how much time it's going to take one analyst to review this amount of paper. It is not acceptable that we would ask somebody to wait 80 years for an access. The question is then, how can we help the requester to narrow down, to scope down, what they're really looking into?
We're doing the same thing with complaints. That's why I talk to the complainants right away when we receive their complaints. If they know right away what they're looking for in 1,000 pages, then we can focus on the 100 pages that they really need. We are going to have a very successful and timely response. If we let it go and we don't respond right away, or we don't scope down the investigation or the request, it's going to take forever. We need to work with the complainants. We need to work with the institutions to help them understand that. They have an obligation under the act. I think most institutions do it; they have a duty to help. I think sometimes some stories like that come out and they focus on the wrong idea.
Congratulations, Caroline, on your recent appointment. I saw the release from the Prime Minister's Office. You have quite an impressive resumé, and I look forward to your commitment and ideas, going forward.
Some of your ideas that you talked about, your remarks, were about how you can employ technology in the office to help deal with the increased number of requests for information. As you mentioned, this government is about openness and transparency, and as we continue that messaging, we're surely going to get more and more interest and requests. You did mention the $2.9 million in temporary funding over the $11.4 million. You talked a lot about some of your ideas in taking your temporary workers and making them into full-time workers.
Would you share with us your philosophy? You don't have to get into the details precisely about the technology and the computers you're using and whatnot, but rather just your comments about employing technology to help deal with the open and transparent environment.
It's interesting because technology is at a lot of different levels, and it could be as easy as.... I was surprised when I started my new position that I had only one screen in my office. I was used to using two screens and people were questioning me. However, when you do a paper review, and you have your file on one screen, you can work on your Word document on the other screen, instead of going back, up and down and up and down. Nobody seems to have used that, so I ordered two screens for everybody at the office. That was one of my first decisions.
There were a lot of people doing reviews on paper, still, and changing words with a red pen like a teacher. We're now using track changes. Yes, things like that, it could be as easy as this.
It could be as complex as how we interact with the institutions on a more efficient basis. I'm not talking about emails. We'll also try to interact more face to face. If you have a thousand pages, sending an email for each line that is being redacted takes a lot longer than if you do it face to face and we go through it together. There is going to be some of that.
The exchange of information is still all done by mail and we've just, in the last year, started using emails to send our responses to complainants in institutions. I want to do a lot more of that, and I want to receive the complainant's arguments and the institution's representations through electronic means. However, we need to have a protected system for that because there is a lot of personal information and a lot of secure information. For any top secret or secret information, we'll never be able to use this technology, but for any normal cases where there is the protected B type of information, I think we can get to that, where we'll have a portal, maybe, and the information will be sent to us. We're looking into all of that.
I am also talking with the Privacy Commissioner because they're looking at some technology also to find, just within the document, information that is repetitive, so you can do a search. There is a lot of technology at that level that we're going to be looking into.