Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'm going to focus my comments and questions on CIMA and CARCC, if I could. You both seem to suggest in your opening statements and throughout your testimony that you don't want to have to rely on litigation of any kind. I would argue that the only way to create a world like that is to have completely one-sided legislation. That would be nice, I guess, as long as you're on that one side of the legislation.
For example, with fair dealing for education, Ms. Seline, we've had students' groups, public schools, universities, colleges, school boards, and many other people come before us and say they need this, this is critically important, it's very important to balance the law. Why should we simply ignore the rights of those organizations and not have fair dealing for education? Why should you never have to litigate anything at the expense of what all these organizations would suggest is balanced?