Sure. I'll just say that it is very important to get that balance right. I do think that journalists' source protection and the relationship between sources and journalists are important for a free media in a free society. I do think the proposed amendment on the CBC, regarding exclusion specifically for journalists' source protection, is a good one.
I think that providing an injury-based exemption for all other material—this is all good in principle. My only concern about that has been that the CBC has used pretty much any loophole to abuse that sort of trust that legislators and lawmakers have provided it for protecting information.
I remember an example of an access to information request on how many cars the CBC has in its fleet. It was revealed that there was only one Ford 500 sedan in the entire fleet of the CBC after an access to information request was “fulfilled”—we'll just use that word loosely. Pages and pages came back, all blacked out. Indeed, after being pressed by I believe the Information Commissioner, months later it came out that there were over 700 vehicles in the fleet. This has nothing to do with journalists' source protection. This has everything to do with the daily administrative costs of the CBC, which is in the interest of the taxpayers who fund it for what Mr. Boulerice described as a very reasonable amount and what you have described as being not really a modest chunk of change for taxpayers.
I do think we need to strike the right balance. I do think that, yes, journalists' source protection is paramount, and that's why it's so critical that we get the balance right and do it here.