Thank you, and my thanks to our witnesses.
Mr. Laurin, there's an important distinction that you're not making in your comments. First of all, according to the Access to Information Act, CBC is required to provide access to information. I don't think they're measuring up to the spirit of that act, and that's why we're here today.
You mention that private broadcasters don't have to provide access to information. True, but they're not receiving $1.1 billion from taxpayers. They're not subject to the Access to Information Act. They're not the largest crown corporation. They are not telling Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and virtually anyone else that sends in access to information requests that they don't have to answer the questions. They're not in court with the Information Commissioner. They are not dismissing requests before even pulling documentation to see whether the section 68.1 exemptions apply.
You said you've broken stories based on access to information, and that it's important. But I would argue that when the CBC breaks stories based on access to information, it's doing so from an awfully high hill of hypocrisy. It's not actually providing any access or transparency on its own actions, yet it is prepared to criticize. We can think of many stories in the last couple of years where CBC has broken stories based on access, has gone after the government or others on access, while they have been sending letters out with substantial redactions or simply dismissing requests out of hand, as though they should not even have to respond to requests for access to information.
Don't you see a problem with that?