Of course.
Let me interrupt you, because I have another question to ask you and time is running out. You know that time is a rare commodity on this committee.
With respect to the bill before us, with all due respect to Professor Charlebois, all the other experts we have heard from before today have told us that, when strict rules are imposed like those in Mr. Singh's bill—which does things like prohibit any merger or acquisition that would result in a combined market share of more than 60%—the rules pile up and create more opportunities for litigation about market share than competitive situations themselves.
We're told that abroad, in places like Europe, but especially the United States, competition authorities have a well-defined framework, but their ability to act is also much more flexible, and they are also entitled to be biased in favour of the consumer without having to justify themselves as much as the Canadian competition commissioner does.
Despite the good intentions behind this bill, do you think the approach taken in it, which is to add more restrictions that can lead to litigation, is the right one?