Actually, from the moment it was decided that the CBC is part of the broadcasting system, it became important to ask whether we were willing to force all broadcasting companies to subject themselves to the Access to Information Act. If that isn't the case, we will have to go back to the exclusion.
That’s why we chose an exclusion. It protects the freedom of the press, journalistic freedom. Forcing a media organization, each time a request is made, to prove that there is harm that could cause a document to be disclosed very seriously affects its independence and flexibility to do investigative journalism, develop programs, be active in programming rights and the advertising market. That’s why there’s an exclusion.
That’s why I think an exception, an injury-based exception, isn't an adequate way of ensuring that the public broadcaster is operating in a way that respects the constitutional freedom of expression, and that also properly protects both private broadcasters and the public broadcaster. I also have a lot of doubts about the constitutional validity of a proposal that would force the CBC to prove every single time a person requests a document that it will cause some harm. This would be the same as asking a newspaper or television station to consistently prove that its editorial freedom is being affected.
But we’re talking here about an environment to produce a creative activity, programs and news. If a broadcasting agency like the CBC is required to take action to continuously defend itself against access to information requests, I’m not at all certain that it will still have the ability to ensure its own editorial freedom, which is recognized among broadcasters.