One thing that perhaps is not fully appreciated is that the power of the Commissioner of Competition to initiate an inquiry is actually quite broad. The first thing is that the Commissioner of Competition can respond to a complaint, which is either made directly or, if the commissioner is paying no attention to a complaint that has been made, a six-resident complaint can be brought essentially forcing an inquiry. But on top of that, the commissioner can initiate her own inquiry without a complaint having been made.
My understanding is that in probably close to a third of the cases in which inquiries have been initiated, it was the commissioner and the Competition Bureau on their own volition suspecting that something might be anti-competitive in the market and initiating an inquiry on that basis. When we talk about the Competition Bureau behaving responsibly and properly exercising their mandate, I think that's exactly what they're doing under the existing law: looking carefully at a market, and if there's an inkling that somebody is doing something anti-competitive, which is what we've said in the Competition Act is a problem, then they go out and look into it. In the absence of a concern that something untoward or anti-competitive is going on in the market, the commissioner and the Competition Bureau say that if they're interested, they will look at it on a voluntary basis, will continue to think about it, will continue to monitor the market, and will listen carefully to market participants.
In my experience, people are not shy to complain if they think they're having a hard time competing in a market. Proceeding on that basis is I think sufficient. I don't see what is really being added by this open-ended power to undertake an inquiry, which we think in the end produces, as I've said, very little benefit.