Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to take a second to tell Professor Quaid that thinking in French is fantastic. You have to keep doing it, especially in Ottawa.
I now turn to Mr. Iacobucci.
We've talked about the concept of structural presumption. As I understand it, some competition authorities may have a presumption against mergers and acquisitions. So, in their minds, companies that want to merge may be wrong by default.
This concept would be operationalized differently in many places. For example, in the U.S., competition authorities are often considered to have a pro-consumer presumption, but there is no quantified, quantifiable and very rigid test to operationalize it. As a result, the commissioner, or the commissioner's equivalent, has more latitude, the authorities have less to justify, and their decisions are less likely to be challenged in court and overruled.
In Canada, is there a way to make the structural presumption against mergers and acquisitions so that it's easier to protect the consumer, while not imposing a 65%, 60%, 58% or 57% test, which is too rigid for the commissioner?