Thank you. I have only a minute left. My apologies for being curt.
I'm hoping that you as a lawyer may be familiar with the case of Dagg v. Canada—or the Minister of Finance—in 1997. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that the overarching dual purposes of access to information are to, one, “facilitate democracy” by ensuring that “citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully” in democracy; and two, to have “politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable” to citizens.
Do you believe that the continued inefficiencies of access to information are the result of the government prioritizing self-preservation over the democratic processes and accountabilities to its citizens?