Thank you.
I just want to clarify this before we move on, because I think the important thing about this bill is we want to create, out of this panel, legitimacy for our new legislation, so we want to be able to say that people were heard. We have a good list. I don't want to add to the list forever and ever and a day. If people were in, they're in. We might make some exceptions, depending on the importance, and I think we can talk about that.
I had said that I was interested in grouping people by themes, because I concur with my colleague Madame Lavallée that artists make their living through copyright. This isn't theoretical; this is what they do. They know copyright more than anybody and they have more of a stake in copyright than any single other person who's going to speak, so they should be heard. I reject just saying that ACTRA can speak for them. If we're going to bring in people about the private copy and they'll bring in people who don't want to have their iPod taxed.... Well, people who don't want to have their iPod taxed really have no stake in copyright. Unless they are involved in copyright, it's an opinion. These are people who make their living through copyright.
I don't want to make a fight about it, but I think there's no reason we can't have for one session three or four artists who are representing that point of view, who are not involved with ACTRA, who are not AFM, even though they might be members of other organizations. I think we have to have that sense of agreement that we're going forward. And we're trusting the clerk to group people, some by sector and then by themes. But I want to make sure the witnesses who we have here are going to be heard.