I will, Mr. Chair. I'll speak briefly and have this go to a vote.
It amends clause 249 of the bill to stipulate “that the purpose of an order made against an anti-competitive merger is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have prevailed without the merger.”
As currently drafted:
Bill C-59 does not address the standard for merger remedies under the [Competition] Act, which remains weak by international standards. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that remedies for anti-competitive mergers need only “restore competition to the point at which it can no longer be said to be substantially less than it was before the merger” and, moreover, that we should favour the “least intrusive” remedy that meets this standard.
As well, Mr Chair:
The emphasis, therefore, is on finding a remedy that makes the harm from anti-competitive mergers less bad, or more tolerable, rather than preserving the state of competition. And even then, the Tribunal has discretion not to order a remedy at all—section 92 only says the Tribunal “may” make various orders if it finds that a merger is anti-competitive.
As explained in the [Competition] Bureau's February 2022 and March 2023 submissions, most jurisdictions seek remedies that fully prevent the harm from anti-competitive mergers. This makes sense [to us, given that] anti-competitive mergers generally occur in concentrated markets where there is limited competition and little prospect of new entry in the future such that the effective markets are unlikely to 'self-correct'.
I'll end by further quoting the Competition Bureau. In March 2024, when they wrote this committee, they said:
Merger control should seek to preserve the level of competition in these markets as much as possible rather than allow it to be eroded through anti-competitive consolidation that is only partially remedied.
Accordingly, we recommend that Clause 249 be amended to provide that the purpose of merger remedies ordered under [section] 92 is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have existed without the merger, consistent with international best practice.
That's exactly what our amendment would do.