I'm going to backtrack just a bit and clarify my comments about Access Copyright. What I was saying is that they haven't been able to convince with evidence in courts that it is the case. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that they've come forward with, and stories that they've told, and I know from my own experience that what you said about Access Copyright cheques going down is happening. What I'm trying to say is that they haven't been able to demonstrate in a court of law that the evidence exists—to date.
What I would also like to say is that with respect to how school boards quantify what they spend on—quote, unquote—copyright, those costs go beyond what they would spend on a tariff, because reproduction rights are built into many of the resources they are currently purchasing, which is similar to what you were saying about paying for something twice. With respect to what a school board views as fair, we view the fair dealing guidelines as the most fair way to apply copyright to educational use of works.
With respect to authors who have regional interests in their works, I know that in Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces there are arrangements that the provincial departments of education—I'm sure this may happen in other provinces, but these are two that I'm aware of—have made with local authors to license their material separately and to provide some sort of subsidy or grant so that those materials can be used in the schools outside of their relationship with Access Copyright. This is something that a lot of provincial governments are looking at, particularly where resources have a specific interest for a local region.