We don't keep making threats. You cited two examples. That's not a pattern.
For sure, if you're going to have policy that will fundamentally undermine an investment strategy, you have to act accordingly. If policy is going to change so dramatically that it would undermine future capital investments and the returns we would need to generate, we would certainly withdraw our investment.
However, with respect to broadband, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We've invested $6 billion already in fibre infrastructure, and, as I said, $1 billion of that was for what we would call “rural and small communities”. When I define a small community, it's 5,000 in population down to 20 to 40 people. In some cases, we've gone to places as small as 10 homes. They were on the edge of a boundary of a network, and we were able to justify it and make the economics work because we were there building at the time.
We are committed. If the regulatory policy is stable and the return economics are viable, we would continue to invest. We want to grow our network infrastructure. We want to connect more Canadians. We just want a regulatory environment and a framework that we can rely upon.