There's very little interconnection. Statutorily, between the ATI Act and the Privacy Act, there is a link, and that is the protection of privacy. Under the ATI statute, there's the same sort of vigilance towards protecting privacy and disclosure as there is in the Privacy Act. That's the only link.
With respect to the minister's response about the ATI commissioner changing to a quasi-judicial role inconsistent with that of a parliamentary agent, that doesn't hold water for me. There is nothing in common between me and the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, except that we both report directly to Parliament. We get together as commissioners with the Auditor General and the CEO to talk about parliamentary issues. We talk about how we should conduct ourselves in relation to Parliament. We sometimes seek each other's advice before a committee appearance. It's all about this very privileged relationship that we have with this institution and the oversight that we exercise statutorily over various institutions. To change the core of one statute, say, that of Elections Canada, would be totally irrelevant. To change the core of what the Auditor General does, other than when she will audit me, is totally irrelevant to me. We have seven or eight parliamentary agents federally. I made a declaration to the lobbying commissioner every year because I was a GIC appointment. The idea that a change here would have an impact over there I don't think washes.