As I said earlier—and obviously I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree here—from our point of view, it seems to us that if commercial harm is going to be a part of the process in the determination of the recourse, then why the heck wouldn't we just leave the clause alone? It's just that simple. We just don't follow the logic. With all due respect to the Alberta government, they look at it from the point of view that the glass is half empty as opposed to half full. I think it's just that simple. That's where we're coming from. We don't see any benefit to taking it out. That is the simple way to put this.
