Ms. Latendresse, I must say that we were a bit disappointed by the way in which the Access to Information Act was explained when Ms. Legault appeared before the committee. Parliamentary privilege was not taken into consideration, although it is a pillar of the Constitution and a parliamentary principle that is very well recognized.
Naturally, we do not share her legal interpretation. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but we insist on the fact that the documents, for instance in the famous case of the Auditor General, are protected by privilege. It is not that they were confidential.
In my opinion, what Mr. Martin was saying a few minutes ago makes an enormous difference with respect to access to information. In certain cases, you may be dealing with confidential documents, such as when you sit in camera, for example. However, in the situation that was of concern to everyone, that was not the case.
There is quite a marked difference. My colleague, who is a lawyer, may have some comments in this regard.