That's the problem with this law. It sounds good: we trust the judgment of the commissioner. But you quoted two commissioners in the past, and then this commissioner has a different view. You trust the judgment of the previous commissioners, but not this one.
As my final point—and, Ms. Rodal, you have basically commented on it—my real concern, and Mr. Lake pointed it out and used better wording than I was going to use, is profiling. In my business as the politician locally, not just in industries but in immigration and in lots of areas, we get people calling who have opinions that in my view are not correct and actually are profiling, whether of an industry, a cultural group, or all kinds of things.
The danger, in my view, of an open-ended study, which I think this would allow, is that it would put the commissioner in a very difficult position. If the commissioner got hundreds of calls and letters and e-mails from a consumer group, or if another industry wants to compete, say, in the energy field and says they think another group is anti-competitive and they want the commission to study that group, is there a problem, based on your looking at this issue, that there might be a potential for profiling and for industries to use it as a tool to get at other industries?