After the hundred and something witnesses we've had, it seems we're all going back to first lessons, so it's good that we have you here. Queen Anne's law was the law to encourage learning, so when we deal with fair dealing, we're finding ourselves back with that first principle.
I'm interested in what's been said about fair dealing today. My colleague from the Liberal Party suggested that the ministers representing education in every province in Canada were trying to get something for free—that was their definition of fair dealing.
I'm concerned also with my colleague from the Conservative Party. He suggested all along that technological protection measures have to do with the market; if you have a problem, take it up with the market. He's modified that somewhat. Now he says we can trust the minister; the minister would be all-knowing and all-wise, and if there's a problem we can take it to the minister. He says that user rights are casually mentioned in the Supreme Court's decision in CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada. Yet when I read the decision, it says, “User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.” And it says that this interpretation is to ensure that the user rights are not constrained.
Is it not the role of the federal government to bring forth legislation that defines what fair dealing is, so that we can move forward and get on with education and ensuring that artists are protected?