That's good.
I sincerely hope for the sake of taxpayers that the CBC, after looking at this ruling and doing an assessment—and that's your legal department and your right to do that—will be looking at this. For the sake of taxpayers, I sincerely hope that this doesn't go any further in terms of appeals.
We've had experts here testifying that the law has been clear, that section 68.1 has been tried, tested, and true, and that there is adequate case law protecting journalist integrity. There's been case law from the Supreme Court protecting journalistic integrity. I'm not so sure what the issue here is.
I have to tell you that what has transpired here just looks so bad for the CBC. The optics and everything surrounding it look so bad that, for policy-makers sitting around this table and for people who spend money on behalf of taxpayers, you're putting us in a difficult situation when trying to defend the public or state broadcasting system. It would really be a black eye, unless there is something you could provide me here that would rationalize going on and pursuing an appeal beyond what's already transpired. It's very frustrating.
My last question is going to be to you, Mr. Lacroix, regarding expense accounts. I appreciate the fact that you've outlined your expense accounts and you've given some very clear examples of your particular expense accounts. What percentage of CBC employees actually have to disclose these kinds of expense accounts? Do any of the people who are employed in the programming or journalistic activities have expense accounts that wouldn't be otherwise opposed to access to information based on journalistic integrity?