I'm going to hand this off to Ben as well.
I think there are four things I'd say in response to your earlier question.
I would say that the Competition Bureau seems to be handcuffed by a lack of a mandate and resources to look at what's happened after a deal has already been approved, so we need to have a retrospective assessment.
Second, we need to be able to understand the cumulative effects over time so that we're not just treating deals like the Rogers-Shaw deal as a one-off; but we need to see it as the second shoe falling after Bell MTS in 2017, and look forward from that.
There are also some problems with information disclosure powers that the Competition Bureau has, I understand, relative to the U.S. Those should be beefed up.
I really think a great big consideration is that we need to open up the Competition Bureau's review processes to much higher levels of public disclosure and participation, with support for the latter. There's an opportunity for us to participate, but it's all on our own dime, and that's a big ask.
Ben.