Excellent. Just to make sure we didn't add any more confusion, that was my understanding. Thank you.
In terms of the third party, Mr. Denis, you did refer to the third-party notice, but of course one of the big points from Madame Legault is that the third-party notice provisions in the act don't explicitly apply. I think she'd be loath to say that the third-party notice procedure actually had been used, versus some, you would say, constitutionally mandated consultation taking place. The department knew that privilege was involved and therefore the department consulted Parliament.
But in the use of your language, do you consider that the best way to look at what happened is that the Access to Information Act implicitly contains a third-party notice provision on the parliamentary privilege issue, and that it sits there paralleling the general third-party application notice? Is that the way you would think of it?