When it comes to merger law specifically, the Competition Policy Review panel made several suggestions, but two are getting a lot of attention.
First, the panel said Canada should adopt the same review process -- and the same timing arrangements -- as the U.S.' Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. Interestingly, that process has been criticized in the U.S. as being unwieldy and expensive. Some antitrust experts both inside and outside of the U.S. agencies warn the system could have a serious meltdown because of technology improvements since the law's inception.
Going down this path is a bad idea, according to Paul Crampton, a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto. Crampton said he "would never recommend" that Canada -- or any nation -- take on the burdens of the U.S. system.
"A better approach would be to allow the bureau to make smaller, more tailored, requests for information as it proceeds through any second-stage review that it initiates for very complex transactions," Crampton said.
Currently, Canadian regulators have only about five months to review the most complex of mergers. If they miss an anticompetitive merger, Canadian regulators can sue to unwind a merger for up to three years.
Another review policy recommendation getting a lot of attention is the suggestion that the government be limited to only one year post-consummation. Unlike the first, this recommendation would be a huge divergence from the U.S., where antitrust regulators are unlimited in terms of the time they can challenge a merger that is found to harm consumers. - Cecile Kohrs Lindell
See the full text of the report (pdf)
See synopsis of report
A panel tasked with reviewing Canadian competition and investment laws issued Thursday its recommendations, which suggest making the antitrust regulation more -- and less -- like its southern neighbor. 
