The primary example of that we have is Roberts Bank T2 and the fact that it was developed without a proponent. It was the port authority itself that made the decision that it needed to develop T2 Roberts Bank and to incur costs associated with that. Infrastructure is required to serve the new development. We're not necessarily saying that was a bad idea or that it shouldn't have been done, but the costs from that are being borne in large part by the existing tenants. The port authority has the ability to charge rents, according to its letters patent, and the ability to charge infrastructure fees on infrastructure to and from these new developments. We think that's a perfect example of an area in which the port was acting as both a developer and a regulator, and that put grain terminals in an awkward situation.
On November 1st, 2023. See this statement in context.