At the time, the Competition Bureau said that this deal was going to have a negative impact, but it still permitted the deal to go through. With regard to some of the questions you were discussing with your previous panel about what amendments can be made to the deal to try to make it palatable, I think that Bell MTS is a really good example of how that doesn't work. It's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, trying to figure out how you can tinker with the margins enough to feel better about the decision, but knowing that, ultimately, it's going down.
When we see what happened with Bell MTS.... We saw the jobs lost. We saw that they promised prices wouldn't go up, but they did. All of the things that were promised were to get the deal to go through. The small amendments that were made to try to built out Xplornet as a competitor didn't pay off because you're spinning out even smaller providers to try to compete where the regional provider couldn't keep up. I think trying to continue to carve things out smaller and smaller to justify the consolidation to the maximum legal limit is the exact opposite of what we're trying to do, which is to figure out what the end result is that we actually want, and that's a healthy market.