I'm not sure I would agree that it would necessarily ameliorate the points we've raised here. It's quite true that the overall ambit or thrust of the proposed amendment, as we understand the commissioner of competition's point of view and as my colleague has already pointed out, is about shifting a bit of the burden. The ease of enforcement versus the compliance impacts to businesses is the issue at hand.
Our responsibility as officials is to raise the consideration of how this could roll out in effect and what kinds of impacts it may have. That was the reason for pointing out that there may be a category of business, likely a significant number of very small enterprises, that may not have detailed pricing records.
As my colleague Mr. Simard already pointed out, the issue here is the burden of proof and on whom that burden is placed. I certainly take the point that under a subpoena situation or in an investigation, any business would have to then be called upon to provide the records. However, because the burden of proof would rest with the commissioner in the current formulation, it would not necessarily result in same outcome as the approach that would be followed if this amendment were to carry.