Just to be clear for the record, when we asked both you and the Privacy Commissioner, we heard that there were conversations between your offices, but there wasn't any acknowledgement of seeking what Mr. Keddy talked about, a green light; there was never a moment when Finance sat down with the Privacy Commissioner and said, “We want your endorsement of this,” or “We want to know that this is in line with the Privacy Act stipulations.” There's one thing in terms of consultation. Consultation can mean what it simply means by definition: that you kept her informed as to whether there was condoning of the provisions in this act and whether we're going to see conflict.
Our concern is this, specifically—and I think what amendment NDP-7 seeks to do is to put it into plain legal text so that there is no doubt and so that it doesn't necessarily need an expensive legal process to clarify it later, which is, I think, what's going to happen under the bill as it's written—that when in conflict, the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Official Languages Act and Access to Information Act all will supersede this intergovernmental agreement.
If that's what the amendment says, if that is what this amendment today proposes, does it threaten any of the fundamental DNA of the intergovernmental agreement we have with the United States, in your view?