First of all, it applies only to the CBC. I'm a great believer in traditions. We have a tradition of common law, and many of our legal systems come from the motherland.
Amazingly, in the U.K., in their freedom to information act they have also found it difficult on the simple reading of the act to say where the borders or frontiers are. The court has stepped in, including the high court itself, to define.... The way it works for the BBC, in annex A, which lists the institutions subject to the act, it says the BBC, except for journalism, art, and literature. That's what it says, which is pretty well the same as what we do. We came about it in a different fashion, but no more explanation. The court has defined what that is and defined where the balance lies.
I think we will need to wait for the Federal Court of Appeal, which has now reserved judgment on the hearing of October 18, to arrive precisely at a decision, if not on what journalism means then what the powers of the Information Commissioner are in response to a complaint. I'm looking forward to that.
I would suggest very strongly that we all wait until the Federal Court of Appeal, which has a considerable amount of experience in interpreting the access act, does so.