As I said in my remarks, the Supreme Court has already held that the two pieces of legislation should be seen together as a seamless code. What does that mean specifically? Certainly, both statutes provide a right of access. In the case of the Access to Information Act, access to general information held by the federal government and its institutions, and in the case of the Privacy Act, a right of access to personal information held by the same institutions. That is a very important common element.
In both statutes, there are provisions that call for certain exceptions or exemptions to that right, to protect certain interests: law enforcement, international relations, etc. The right of access and the exceptions to the right of access are extremely similar in the two pieces of legislation, and I think that is the core of what the Supreme Court is referring to when it says the two acts constitute a seamless code.
If you amend the right of access or the exceptions in one act, normally you should do the same, or certainly you should consider whether to do the same, in both pieces of legislation. My colleague, the Information Commissioner, also has a number of recommendations that have to do with coverage, i.e., which institutions should be covered by the Access to Information Act.
I think that, if you change coverage in one act, you should at least consider whether to amend coverage in the other act. This would deserve some thinking and consideration, but I am inclined to think that if coverage is extended in one piece of legislation, it might not work very well if the same decision is not made for the other act.
However, there are limits to the seamless code idea. For instance, it is not obvious to me that if one commissioner has order-making powers, the other commissioner needs to have the same powers exactly. I could envisage the two acts working differently on that point. It might be desirable to let the acts work in the same way, but it might not be necessary. Certainly, for right of access and exceptions, and most likely for coverage.... On other issues, there might be room for separate decisions on the two pieces of legislation.