I will take the first one.
In every jurisdiction that we're aware of, it's typically a combination of the statute and then enforcement guidelines. At least, that's the case for the U.S., which we're more familiar with and which is very similar to us. In the statute, they don't have the substantial lessening of competition, but it has to substantially lessen competition or tend toward monopolization. You can see that there is, similarly, a high-level test. Then it's in the FTC guidelines on mergers that give the colour of what they mean by that. I think that is what the commissioner has quoted. Their intention is to restore...to completely resolve the harm caused by a merger. That is the stated intention of the enforcement agency.
In Canada, it's the same. We have the statute, and then we have the enforcement authorities that issue guidelines on how they go about it. Then we have the ultimate arbiter, which is the tribunal and the courts if there's judicial review. It's a bit of a feedback loop, because when the tribunal adjudicates something, it gets integrated into the guidelines and so on. With regard to your question, there is no regulation-making power in the law about what is defining a substantial lessening of competition. It is a statutory threshold that has been interpreted by the guidelines of the enforcers and then through the courts.