That is a broad question. I think I am contributing three main things, the first being legal rigour. Interveners must be given the chance to think and believe that we are listening to their arguments and their submissions. I have lived through that, and I understand the sacrifices made by the people presenting the arguments and who have to find the right word. I also understand that we must be in a position to justify our decisions at the CRTC and that even if people are disappointed that we did not accept their point of view, at least they understand the logic and overarching interest behind the decision.
On March 23rd, 2011. See this statement in context.