Maybe we'll break that up between the two of us.
I think for the purposes of today's discussion there are two parts of the amendments that I'd like to flag for you. In 2009 the Competition Act was amended. There are two provisions I think are most pertinent to today's discussion. The first was that Parliament amended our merger process. What that did was introduce a two-stage process so that it streamlined the process but also put us in a position where we're better able to receive information and get the information we need from the merging parties so we can properly and effectively assess the competitive impact of the transaction and then impose remedies as required. I think in my opening remarks I mentioned the Suncor and Petro-Canada transaction. That was the first one that we actually moved through the process in 2009. That was the first set of amendments that came through that I think has relevance today.
The second provision is the criminal conspiracy provisions. Those came into force in March 2010, so a year after the bill was passed. Those removed the requirement to prove there had been economic harm as a result of the conspiracy. It used to be that we had to prove economic harm as well as the cartel. Now all we have to do is prove the existence of the cartel—for example, that there had been fixed prices or there had been an allocation of markets. Then we also increased the penalty from $10 million to $25 million, I believe, and then from five to fourteen years.
With those new provisions, we believe we are in a much better place to first of all get the information we need when we're doing merging transactions, and then also, when we are able to prove and have evidence of a cartel, more effectively move ahead with those cases.
I think those are the relevant provisions of the 2009 amendments.
I'll turn it over to Richard.