No. I was going to get to that as my third point. Those are the same thing.
Their approach to competition or antitrust—which are usually used synonymously—is much more aggressive on a variety of fronts. That is not, I think, a good path for Canada to follow.
Let me just give one example. It may well relate to what you're talking about. In Europe, a high price in and of itself is potentially understood to be abusive of a dominant position. That's not true in Canada. A high price in and of itself is not treated as an abuse of dominance.
The reason we don't treat it as an abuse of dominance in Canada is not that we like high prices, but that it's really difficult for competition authorities to know what the optimal price should be. At the limit, we're going to have competition authorities trying to set prices in a range of markets where there might be some market power. That's a difficult enterprise for an institution that's not that well equipped to address it.
What we've done historically—and I think it's the right approach—is if there are sectors where we think there ought to be price regulation, then we regulate prices. Energy production is a historical example. However, we don't do it in an across-the-board manner. Europe does and I think it's questionable. It would not be something I would recommend for Canada because I just don't think the institutions are well suited for it.