We would want to give that some careful thought. If and when we appear at the INDU committee for the study of that bill, we want to be as helpful as we can with the interpretation.
Part of these issues come to something that we've advocated, which is the potential benefit of structural presumptions. This is how the U.S. jurisprudence around antitrust has evolved. It's basically the notion that past a certain increase in concentration and threshold, the onus should shift to companies to prove that they are not anti-competitive. That's certainly a discussion worth having.
There are changes in Bill C-59 that are important in that regard. We're removing a requirement that existed in section 92 so that we could not challenge mergers on the basis of market shares or thresholds. There might be a greater role to play in looking at market share and concentration in our work.
Of course, there are other factors that are always going to be relevant, such as looking at barriers to entry, effective remaining competition and the role of innovation in the marketplace. We hear there are significant concerns about concentration in the Canadian economy. We think it's important to debate these issues, especially when we look at our merger review framework and the law.