I want to go back to your observations on section 3, because the Government of Alberta submission really does say this issue about commercial harm is a non-issue. I think they even use the terms. It's some art and some science, but the agency is still obliged to consider all commercial factors and therefore the harm factor.
Is this an accurate assumption on their part, or, as Mr. Watson referred to earlier on, is this an exaggeration by the Competition Bureau that says maybe there is no need for this? You took some pains to say you don't think you should be tested twice, that one test is sufficient when you're providing relief. I'm really not clear on your position, since everybody else says the agency will determine the relief, if any, that's going to be determined, and it gives a list of factors it must consider, including the commercial impact. What's the problem?