I recommend you leave it alone, because, as I said, the act was beautifully crafted, has been 30 years in existence, has been interpreted ad nauseam, and it covers all this. There's a provision in section 25 that you could have a document—I'll use another example—you could have a document that is advice by a lawyer to a public official, so it's client and solicitors. Even if the document is protected, there are some fragments of information therein that can be released. The fact that there is in existence a briefing note, for instance, the facts on which the opinion is based would be releasable.
So even if it's a hybrid document, there would be some portion of it that would be redacted. The Information Commissioner would recommend the portions that are and should be disclosed. In other words, if there were an aircraft accident, there were so many fatalities and so on and so forth, and CBC dispatched a crew, then that's part of the public record. It's factual. That information would be released. But you have to let the Information Commissioner do her job to make recommendations to the institution, the CBC, what to release and what not to release.
I also accept the fact that at the end of the day, CBC and the OIC may not see the same issue in the same way. I sometimes don't agree with everything the OIC does. Then I have a choice to go to court, but it should be one in a million, not the first reaction, which is what CBC does now: if you don't like it, take us to court.