On the first question, as we said, perhaps the wording of the legislation could be clearer. But I think the very important question that's probably being decided at court relates to the arm's-length relationship between CBC and Parliament, the government. That is something that makes the CBC different from virtually any other department, agency, or institution of the federal government. It's that arm's-length relationship, which is why I think the section 68.1 exclusion exists, right? It is the same thing that is written in the Broadcasting Act--it's the same language, even--to preserve the independence of the public broadcaster precisely so that it can't simply be a state broadcaster.
I guess the question is whether the Information Commissioner is seen as an arm of the state who would be checking up after CBC's private information. I think that is the question for the court. That, I think, is the arm's-length relationship we always have to keep in mind, and it's a specific question for CBC.
On whether the ATI requests are harmful to the CBC, we have not seen them. I don't think anybody has seen those requests, except for the CBC and perhaps the Information Commissioner. We only know what we read in the press reports and what we've heard in the testimony. And as I just read from Brian Lilley, we know that at least two of the four examples he gives in his report from November 24, 2010--the one on sports bidding and the one on anchors' salaries--are things that suggest to us that they're asking for competitive information. Those are their own words. Those have clear competitive implications for both CBC and Quebecor.