We certainly do not want to be in the way of parliamentarians wishing to table legislation. What we're asking for is an obligation to be consulted.
I'm coming from the standpoint of prevention of privacy violations. The current act is in large part curative. If there is a breach, an individual can complain; we investigate and we make a recommendation to remedy a breach of privacy that has occurred. Both this particular recommendation and the recommendation to make it a legal requirement to proceed with privacy impact assessments, for instance, are meant to facilitate prevention of privacy violations by ensuring that when programs are adopted, privacy impact assessments are sent to us so that we can give advice, or that when legislation is conceived—by the government, but I think it would apply to parliamentarians as well—the views of the Privacy Commissioner's office are sought.
We would not be an impediment. We would give views. The government is free to table legislation, and parliamentarians would remain free to table legislation. We think we have value to add to this process so that new rules, new programs, or new legislation receives advice from our office to mitigate privacy risks.