Okay, that's great, and on that note, I have some questions. When you first denied the pipeline variance for the proponent, what changed to make you later approve it since that was one of the delays that drove up costs?
Second, you made 16 recommendations on TMX that fell outside of the scope of the CER's regulatory mandate. Your organization said that itself. We have a body of 600 people with 53 projects on hold in the most important sector of the Canadian economy. Those 600 people can't get through the processes, but somehow you made 16 recommendations on TMX that added to the delay and were outside of the regulatory scope. That's an additional question.
My other question is this: Since the Supreme Court indicted this government's failures on Bill C-69—which, by the way, the Conservative opposition warned of for every single issue the Supreme Court ruled on, and then the government just stuck some of its tweaking legislation into its budget implementation bill—how has that impacted your work at the Canada Energy Regulator, the clear vacuum for your regulatory parameters since the Supreme Court of Canada decision?
What kind of guidance or insight has the government given you about your organization's scope and mandate as a result of its legislative changes to its mistakes in Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court of Canada and all 10 provincial and territorial leaders have indicted and which is the cornerstone of regulatory assessment for the most important sector in the Canadian economy for affordable lives for all Canadians in every community?