There are two things. Ours is also a medium-sized country where scale economies are going to be more difficult to come by in domestic markets, so that's a consideration.
The other consideration is that I think those big studies are the wrong studies to look at when it comes to evaluating the efficiencies defence. I have some problems with the way the law has been interpreted. I won't get into those, but I would say that the right question is this: When efficiencies have been proven in a tribunal proceeding or to the satisfaction of the Competition Bureau, are they realized?
That's separate from these broad-scope studies that look at the efficiencies, where they haven't gone through any kind of legal vetting. It's an announcement by a firm saying that one of the reasons they're merging is that they think they'll realize efficiencies, and somebody ex post facto says, “No, you didn't.”
This is a very narrow subset where you're putting their feet to the fire. I think the law could be clearer that it's up to the firms to prove that the efficiencies are likely to come about. That would be a different sample, I think, from the sample that you're quoting—