When I appeared in 2011 and recommended the discretionary exemption, I did say, if I recall correctly, that I was an outlier internationally. That's why at that time I provided the committee with the international models, because in other jurisdictions like the U.K. and Australia, for instance, which are good comparisons, their national broadcasters are covered by their freedom of information act. However, most of the information is excluded or derogated. They use different terms. It's difficult to compare. They're essentially excluded in their programming and journalistic activities. The difference is that their exclusion or derogation works like our exemption, in the sense that their commissioners are entitled to review the records, including journalistic sources, as far as I can tell.
We did contact the U.K. and Australia following some of the debates in the House of Commons, because I was alerted to this concern as to whether or not this would affect the competitiveness of the public broadcaster if there was a distinction in being covered by the act, its journalistic sources being covered by the act, and other broadcasters. Neither of the two jurisdictions has indicated that this has been an issue. That's the extent of what I know.