Maybe we can have the researchers bring back a real figure for us on that per year, around $20 million in taxation benefits the government would have received from that.
There has been a lot of to-do about the original article that appeared, and then the number and the volume of violations that took place, and still no charges were laid. One of the issues that we've been discussing recently in this hearing is the real effect... The repercussions will come later through regulations. But we'll play no role around that here. If there are retailers out there who are benefiting from manipulation at the pump, what would be the penalty figure that you would suggest would have a fair effect upon them to curb that behaviour?
And it's hypothetical. I think there's a problem, to some degree, but at the same time I'm looking for some type of fairness here in that. But if there were problems in the system... The problem if we let regulation deal with this is that we have no input whatsoever as members of Parliament. It can ebb and flow.
It could be nothing, so the whole Fairness at the Pumps Act—which is actually ironic. That's why I actually am really stunned at a flyer that's gone out with public money by a cabinet minister on this issue. It's not just a member of Parliament deciding to freelance on an issue and get out in front of even hearings at a committee. The actual cabinet of this government has decided on communications that they want to put forth before we even have a report tabled to the House or amendments to the bill. There could be a bias there—