My understanding, Mr. Volpe, is that the Alberta position is that there are other provisions that would look after commercial harm. Our view is that the provision has been around for many years. It's not unusual commercial practice, when you get into disputes, to have a two-step process. Step one, you determine the validity of the dispute, and then step two, you try to determine what is reasonable recourse. Part of that recourse, of course, depends on what commercial harm was inflicted as a result of somebody not doing what they were supposed to do. Our view is pretty simple. That's pretty standard practice. It's worked for many years in the CTA, and I guess we look at it logically from the other way around. We're not hearing good and valid arguments to say why we should deviate from standard commercial practice. The only argument we've heard to date is that they're going to do it, but they're going to do it using some other provision of the legislation. There still will be some determination of commercial harm. We're just sitting here asking, why fix it if it isn't broken? That's really where we're coming from.
On November 27th, 2007. See this statement in context.