Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lacroix, for being here today.
This committee has been seized with this question now for quite some time. My line of questioning is going to pursue the recent court ruling.
I appreciate the fact that you've given us a binder full of information to look at. It's quite nice and well organized--much better and probably more costly than the stuff we get from other witnesses who come here. But I'm just saying that tongue-in-cheek. I appreciate the information.
The question I have for you pertains to what the rationale could have possibly been. The Information Commissioner was before this committee and testified quite clearly that her agency has been totally professional when dealing with access to information requests. It has maintained and respected the integrity and confidentiality of information in certain organizations she has jurisdiction to go to. Yet the CBC has maintained all along that somebody other than the Information Commissioner should be making the determinations.
Your position was clearly not upheld in the decision yesterday. We can talk around it however you want, but the reality is that the information that came down yesterday clearly states that the Information Commissioner does have the ability to do that.
What was the rationale for pursuing the line of challenging this in the court? Clearly the legislation lays it out. Section 68.1 has been around for a long time. It has been well tested in the courts. We've heard other people speculate on what the rationale of the CBC might have been when it comes to this.
What has the Information Commissioner's office done to give you such grave concern that you would not allow that office the opportunity to examine the requests and information to determine what could be released in the public domain? What is in the nature of that relationship that's causing so much concern?