I can just give you the examples that we had. The same group has litigated us eight times--three times after the Supreme Court denied leave to hear it. We've been awarded costs, which approximate 1% of our costs, by the court. We've paid millions of dollars. We've been awarded about $40,000 of costs. They've not been ordered to pay it. Three of those court cases are now after the Supreme Court has denied it, and the courts keep denying it on the principle of res judicata.
The simple fact is that the courts are cluttered with people who want to stop projects on the basis of litigating these things into the ground. That is the deep abiding concern I continue to have with this. I don't see anything that doesn't allow people who have legitimate standing. If people have legitimate standing, the existing rules allow them to get in, and it obligates people like me to notify them in writing, with registered mail, so that they have an opportunity to do exactly that. This gives people 4,000 kilometres away the ability to say “I disagree with the decision in Newfoundland”. I just think that's inherently wrong.