is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten million dollars or to both.
 The relevant portions of the present version of the
Competition Act, as amended by the Budget Implementation Act,
2009, S.C. 2009, c. 2, s. 410, provides as follows:
45(1) Every person commits an offence who, with a competitor of that
person with respect to a product, conspires, agrees or arranges
(a) to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of the
(b) to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the produc-
tion or supply of the product; or
(c) to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the produc-
tion 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.
(7) The rules and principles of the common law that render a requirement
or authorization by or under another Act of Parliament or the legislature of
a province a defence to a prosecution under subsection 45(1) of this Act,
as it read immediately before the coming into force of this section, continue
in force and apply in respect of a prosecution under subsection (1).
 Section 36(1) of the Competition Act provides that “[a]ny
person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of (a) conduct
that is contrary to any provision of Part VI . . .” may sue for
and recover damages from the person who engaged in the conduct. The versions of s. 45(1) at issue are in Part VI of the
Competition Act. Thus, the appellants rely on conduct that constitutes
an indictable offence to ground their claim against the respondents for damages.
 At least in the context of provincially regulated conduct,2 for
the regulated conduct defence to be available, the law providing for
2 In Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co.,  1 S.C.R. 629,  S.C.J. No.
21, 2004 SCC 25, the court discussed the need for “leeway” language in a
federal criminal statute to create room for a “valid provincial regulatory
scheme” to operate, giving rise to a regulated conduct defence: at para. 77
(emphasis added). There is some suggestion by scholars, practitioners
and the Competition Bureau that the exercise in statutory interpretation
giving rise to the defence may be different when it is raised by a conflicting
federal regulatory scheme: Robert Mysicka, “The Regulated Conduct
Doctrine” (2011), 24:1 Can. Competition L. Rev. 18, at p. 25; Michael
Trebilcock, “Regulated Conduct and the Competition Act” (2004), 41 Can.