Thank you very much.
First of all, thank you for taking the time from your busy schedules to be here today and for the role you play in a good public discourse about public policy and law. We certainly do appreciate that.
I'm going to ask three questions up front, primarily to the Canadian Bar Association. As you know, I only have five minutes, and I'd like for you to wrap them all up at the end.
First of all, in the letter to us from the Canadian Bar Association, you talk about Bill C-452 proposals to amend subsection 10(1) of the Competition Act to mandate the Commissioner of Competition to cause an inquiry to be made whenever the commissioner has reason to believe that grounds exist for making an inquiry of an entire industry sector.
We had Mr. Bilodeau before us last week. He's the acting assistant deputy commissioner of the Competition Bureau—that's quite a title—and he says that in effect the commissioner now has access through the legislation to new and powerful provisions that clearly strike at the heart of this legislative matter. As you indicated a few moments ago, if the power exists, then the expectation is that it will be used.
My first question speaks to this issue. If the new provisions that were given to the commissioner eight or nine months ago in effect give them this power, why are you concerned that clarity or surety around those powers is a detriment? That's the first question.
The second question goes to jurisdiction. The committee has been told that jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union all have similar provisions. Yet in Canada there's a concern—and you're expressing it quite clearly—around this.
Could you talk about why it is in Canada that we would be concerned about having this when other jurisdictions, partners of ours in global trade, would have the provisions that are being proposed in this bill?
The third question goes to what I'm going to call frivolous or vexatious types of investigations. You're saying it might be costly to do the investigations. Are there safeguards to ensure any investigation that's done is required? If we do move forward with this type of provision, based on the fact that the commissioner already has these provisions and that other jurisdictions have them, is there anything you could suggest to ensure there would not be any frivolous actions taken?
I'll leave those three questions to you to answer. I'd appreciate it.