I think that's a tax policy question at the end of the day. Certainly from a privacy perspective, the fact that information is shared with the U.S. is an exception to the rule, but the exception to the rule is justified by the desirability of avoiding tax evasion. In terms of privacy, what I expect is for the objective to be clear and legitimate.
Avoiding tax evasion is legitimate. How do you define the information that will be shared with the U.S. for that purpose? A certain choice was made. You've heard from the minister and officials on the fact that there was some negotiation with the Americans on what information would not be sent to the U.S. government despite the general objective. I note that according to the rules and the compromise reached, there are people whose link to the United States is, I would say, tenuous, such as people who are dual citizens, citizens of Canada and of the U.S. whose U.S. citizenship may be due to their parents. They may never have worked in the U.S. You can imagine the number of circumstances in which the link of a U.S. citizen subject to this reporting requirement is tenuous.
From a privacy perspective, once the agreement is reached, it's all right for the information to be shared with the U.S. Would it be desirable that a different agreement had been reached? Probably, but this is the agreement we have.