You raise three points. Let me address them be in the reverse order.
Concerning demise, you have somebody here who's a fan, an admirer, and a supporter of the CBC. I think they add considerably to the fabric of the nation. They have done so, and I hope they continue to do so.
At the same time, I'm a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I need to know and I have a right to know, and it's a quasi-constitutional right. If somebody goes through a formal process of requesting, CBC has all the tools and all the exemption at its disposal to redact what needs to be redacted. But in the fullness of time, in accordance with the delay specified in the act, it should release the information.
It may not be I as an individual who am requesting this information. Perhaps members of Parliament might be; the Library of Parliament might; people from outside the country could—or competitors. Well, we live in a very competitive world, and you could say the same, if not about the CBC, then about other crown corporations. The fact that somebody asks—and the court has looked at this frequently, in the air transport regime, for instance, when allegations were made that this was only to embarrass them, only to provide information to a competitor.... The act itself is beautifully synchronized and structured to provide for information to be protected and privileged.
Whether a competitor asks for it because they have the motivation to do so—or somebody alongside, an association or something else—who cares? The court says motive or purpose has nothing to do with it. You cannot modify the documents and the records therein only because your competitor asks for it. In fact, you should not know who asked for it. You are asked, you release it, it becomes part of the public record, we all become informed about it. That's the way democracy works.