45(1) Every one who conspires . . . with another person
(b) to prevent, limit or lessen, unduly, the manufacture or production
of a product or to enhance unreasonably the price thereof,
(c) to prevent or lessen, unduly, competition in the production, manu-
facture . . . or supply of a product, . . . or
(d) to otherwise restrain or injure competition unduly,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not ex-
ceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten million dollars or to both.
(2.2) For greater certainty, in establishing that a conspiracy … is in contravention of subsection (1), it is necessary to prove that the parties thereto
intended to and did enter into the conspiracy . . . but it is not necessary to
prove that the parties intended that the conspiracy . . . have an effect set out in
45(1) Every person commits an offence who, with a competitor of that
person with respect to a product, conspires . . .
(a) to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of the
(c) to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of the product.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
an indictable offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 14 years or to a fine not exceeding $25 million, or to both.
 We turn now to the interpretation of these sections,
remembering the guiding rule on statutory interpretation that
“the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in
their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the
scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of
Parliament”: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 
2 S.C.R. 559,  S.C.J. No. 43, 2002 SCC 42, at para. 26.
( ii) Plain meaning
 The appellants assert that the Divisional Court was wrong
to superimpose the principle of indeterminate liability upon the
clear language of ss. 36 and 45.