I am very concerned about the policy direction. I think that sometimes government does something that seems on the surface to be a good idea, and then it has unintended consequences, and the policy direction may be an example of that.
The policy direction talks about maximizing the use of market forces. I think all of us, and certainly I myself, strongly believe that market forces are to be preferred to regulatory actions, so how could one really be overly critical of the policy direction? But what we see now that it's in force is that it's thrown a huge spanner into the works of everything the CRTC does.
Just to give you one example from the world of telecom that we live in, the phone companies provide what are called colocation facilities. They are little rooms in their central offices that are used when you acquire unbundled facilities from them. You pay rent for those rooms, and you've got hydro and all sorts of other things.
Well, the CRTC determined that we were being overcharged for the hydroelectric power and overcharged for some of the other elements. They felt that the costing studies done by TELUS, in this case, were faulty. They so ruled. TELUS then appealed back to the CRTC, as they're entitled to do, and said that they couldn't overturn TELUS's own costing estimates, and that anyway they--the CRTC--had started this hearing five years ago, and it was too late to give a refund back to the competitor. Those are the sorts of battles we have all the time.
Now TELUS has filed documents with the commission saying that because of the direction, TELUS has to be right. Because of the direction, you can't challenge our costing studies and you can't challenge our legal opinion on the issues before you. They're creating this argument--which I hope the commission doesn't buy--that says the direction changes everything, and now all the old decisions have to be rewritten and all the old rules have to be thrown out.