I don't, but what I've said previously at committee is worth repeating, I think.
Right now, at least in our understanding of the guidelines, unless it reaches 35%, the bureau is not in the habit of challenging. I imagine it's changing, aligned with the fact that it's changing in the U.S. They are intending to be more aggressive since the proposed 30%, but I don't have numbers for you.
It's important to understand that the effect of these things is not only in the cases the commissioner takes. I've talked about the pyramid before. There are many mergers in the economy in a given year. Only a subset are large and need the bureau to be notified. Then, usually, it's a consent agreement.
Someone mentioned sophisticated lawyers. Everybody can read the writing on the wall, and they get and have an agreement. It's only in the fringe cases, where both sides disagree about the state of the law, that they get challenged in the tribunal.
Adding the statutory presumption is quite meaningful, because every negotiation before the tribunal happens in the shadow of what people think will happen at the tribunal. By putting a rebuttal presumption, you are clearly strengthening the hand of the commissioner in these negotiations in many more cases than the number that end up in a tribunal.