I think it does. I don't wish to diminish the importance of the development of regulations under the act in relation to this section to provide the kinds of procedural protections, the procedure for gathering evidence, the kind of transparency and certainty that's going to be required for this provision to work. I haven't done any advanced work on those provisions, but I think they're required.
Yes, I think it does present a very proactive view of the competition. As I said, the two views are basically the competition commissioner as cop or the competition commissioner as being generally responsible for the state of competition in Canada and acting as an advocate and promoter, and someone who can point out where policy changes need to be made. I think that's a tremendously important role.
I think the first role is important in relation to the development of competition law, in particular on hard cartel offences and things of that nature. They're significant, but they're not the only thing. I have some confidence that the competition commissioner would be able to develop an appropriate protocol, both in terms of the regulations and in the way this act is enforced, to ensure that these studies are undertaken with a view to advancing the interests of competition.
I think it's a mistake to try to look at this as another way to dig up evidence to charge people in the market. That might be one result, but that's not the intent of the studies. The studies are effectively to give you a window on the industry to see what has to be done. These changes may not be with business; they may well be with government. They may well be with other things that have to be done. We're in the 21st century now. We can't take an approach that the competition commissioner is like a cop going out and busting a three-card monte game on the corner. It's more than that now. If we get it wrong, the price will be paid in the economy as a whole, not simply in relation to individual business.