Thank you.
My last question is around is another point of debate that is left over, I think.
In previous rounds and consultations that were done after Bill C-19 was passed, in the lead-up to Bill C-56 and Bill C-59, and those rounds of changes there were lots of conversations about what are called structural presumptions and the idea that within a merger review, we're looking at a number of different factors.
I think a lot of what we heard in the consultation was that market share could be an indicator of a substantial lessening of competition, but is not sufficient in itself to determine whether a merger should be blocked or not.
Bill C-352, the private member's bill that we're discussing, reinserts that into the bill. We repealed that, on the one hand, in Bill C-59. We repealed the section of the Competition Act that expressly prohibits the tribunal from concluding that a merger is likely to harm competition “solely on the basis of evidence of concentration or market share.”
The reason is that most of the experts say that market share isn't sufficient in itself because there are contextual factors. There are times where market share or concentration may increase slightly with a merger, but that doesn't necessarily harm competition in every case. The point is that the tribunal can still consider any factors. It's the same with the efficiencies defence. The tribunal can still consider efficiencies within its merger review process and it can still consider market share and concentration, but we don't want to reinsert that as a structural presumption that is the only factor that determines their decisions.
Mr. Charlebois, maybe I could ask you if you concur with that finding as well.
Should we stick with the things we heard in the consultation, which led to the change that Bill C-59 introduced or should we go backwards and reintroduce market share back into it?