Candidly, I marvel at that being only one year ago. I had just been appointed Interim Commissioner, and was finding my feet in some of the most exciting, but unfamiliar, waters we had seen in a long time at the Bureau, with pending legislative amendments of enormous significance, and within a Budget Bill process no less! As I sometimes feel about my five-year-old, while exhausting at times, the time has gone by in a flash. And in both cases, what an exhilarating experience!

It will come as no surprise, then, in light of the events that have defined this last year, that the amendments have been the primary focus of my first 6 months — explaining them, developing the best and most coherent ways of implementing them and, among other things, preparing for March 12, 2010, when the new criminal cartel and civil agreements provisions will come into force.

I need not go into detail about the amendments for this audience, but the rationale underlying their introduction bears remembering: to make merger review more effective for everyone involved in the process, as well as for those watching from the sidelines; and to ensure that we have the tools to better protect consumers and businesses from the most egregious types of anti-competitive conduct, while being ever mindful of the importance of not discouraging pro-competitive behaviors in the market.

It is clear to me that, as an enforcement agency, we must give Canadians reason to be confident that the law will be enforced, and that sanctions for violations of the Act will be sufficient to provide redress and deter future illegal activity — always with appropriate safeguards, maximum transparency and measure, but a firm hand on the rudder.

As we pursued these fundamental goals over the past number of months, we spent — and I personally spent — a great deal of effort listening to those most affected by our work, about their anxieties, practical concerns, and proposed practices and solutions. What have we learned? A good deal. Including that, by engaging in that exercise and by making ourselves accessible, we can ensure that these amendments accomplish their intended goals. In that regard, I would be remiss if I did not give considerable credit to many of those in the room tonight who have worked collaboratively with us, first on our Merger Review Process Guidelines and Competitor Collaboration Guidelines, and since then on numerous policy and case files, as we navigated our way through the first wave of mergers under the new rules and grew accustomed to the new environment more generally.

I am particularly proud of the "made-in-Canada" character of our approach, as captured in both sets of guidelines, and in our practice. By that, I refer to an approach that is sensitive to our context and tradition, where flexibility and creativity (necessities under our former merger regime, in particular, which did not fit the demands of the process for parties or the Bureau) will continue to play an important role.

Our successes thus far give me every reason to expect that the amended section 45 and new section 90.1 will be implemented smoothly as well.

By way of outline for my remarks this evening, I wish to offer a word about our preparation for that new environment; a comment or two on my philosophy and priorities at the Bureau, which continue to mature as we gain a greater comfort level with the new laws; and a short report on some key recent activities.

First, then, what are we doing to prepare for March 12^th?

We have conducted an internal exercise to align our resources with the new laws. In particular, this means adding new resources to the Civil Matters Branch, which will be tasked with examining conduct under the new section 90.1.

In the meantime, as you all know, we have produced detailed guidelines to articulate our enforcement policy approach in this area. I believe the Bureau showed courage in spelling out our conviction about the right approach to take. As you know, we have acknowledged the limits to the English language, and done as much as we can to provide guidance on what we understand to be the will of Parliament in this context. To that end, we did two things, in particular, in the Competitor Collaboration Guidelines.

First, we confirmed what I believe the legislation very clearly directs; namely, that if it's not a naked agreement to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict output, we will not review the agreement under the criminal provision. All other agreements will be subject to — at most, and only — review under a civil provision, where the civil burdens and standards, as well as the efficiency defence, can be relied upon.

Second, we have removed whole categories of agreements from the scope of criminal enforcement action. The Competitor Collaboration Guidelines state explicitly that the Bureau will not assess dual distribution agreements, franchise agreements or non-competes under the criminal regime (unless, of course, the agreement is a sham, and is, in fact, an agreement to restrain competition among the parties in their capacity as competitors, such as by allocating markets or fixing prices). This will, I believe, promote the healthy, aggressive, competitive forces and initiatives that we so badly want to encourage.

In preparing for March, we have offered advisory opinions during the transition year. While I cannot say we have been overwhelmed with requests (we have received only three), I like to think that this is attributable, at least in part, to the fact that we are inspiring greater comfort through our outreach and Guidelines about the parameters of the new provisions, and calming some of the anxiety that was apparent last March.

Finally, in terms of preparation, we established an internal working group to develop the procedures that our officers will follow on a daily basis when dealing with the application of sections 45 and 90.1. The working group is already well-advanced in its mandate, and we are confident that our teams are trained and will be intimately familiar with our revised analytical framework, well before these provisions come into force.

I will turn now to my understanding of our mandate and philosophy regarding the role of the Bureau.

To be clear, we have but one goal: the effective enforcement of the law. As defined by our reinvigorated mandate from Parliament, this includes playing an integral role in the pursuit of competitive markets, harnessing the innovation and productivity power that accompanies them.

As I discharge my duties as Commissioner, that enforcement mandate will be informed by several key principles.

First, our first choice will always be to reach a principled, expeditious, consensual settlement that resolves our concerns. That approach accords well with the best traditions of a public enforcement mandate to effect the right difference and reserve resources for when one must engage further.

Second, and consistent with those values, in cases where the anti-competitive activity is particularly egregious, or where parties are unwilling to provide an adequate remedy, we intend to proceed vigorously. We will not be afraid to litigate. I should mention that, while there are some areas where we are confident the law is crystal clear, there are some areas that are less well-demarcated, and parties may quite legitimately seek to test the limits of lawful conduct. That is the right of parties, and I welcome those challenges as an opportunity. Why? Because, win or lose, we advance the law, which is a particularly valuable outcome in areas that remain untested. At the same time, bringing forward principled cases leads to greater transparency and more effective deterrence. Nothing focuses the mind of those considering engaging in anti-competitive behavior more acutely than the knowledge that the Bureau will have the courage to enforce the law.

Third, we will be as timely as possible and clearly communicate our decisions to parties and other stakeholders, including the public, ex ante in detailed and informed guidelines, and on cases, where possible. While there are limits on our ability to be fully transparent, we are studying whether there are measures that we can take to provide more information about our work, particularly in the mergers context. To that end, we are actively participating in, and listening to, the international conversation about transparency that continues at organizations like the OECD and ICN.

Fourth, we will be accessible to stakeholders and endeavor to always enhance our understanding of the business imperatives that shape actions in the marketplace. We need to equip your clients with an appreciation of the way in which our interests mesh with theirs and with the overall health and productivity of the Canadian economy.

Finally, a matter of personal conviction that informs how I interpret my role as Commissioner: I am committed to engaging in major matters and appearing at key milestone events. This does not mean every case, or every meeting. We need to be mindful of the value to the right balance being struck between my ability to act as a final internal decision-maker, and being accessible so as to inspire confidence in parties that I am briefed and appropriately guiding the process. Parties do have a right to be confident that I am engaged in matters before me. And, even if they don't like my ultimate position, my experience is that simply knowing that I have been participating, even if not fully within view, enhances acceptability.

In sum, I assure you that we will be flexible and creative on means, but never veer from our mission of preserving and promoting competitive markets in Canada.

Well, I have mentioned legislation, guiding principles and priorities. But what about action? I confess to some natural impatience as we strive to deliver on our clear direction from Parliament. However, I assure you that I am keenly aware of how critical it is, when so much is at stake, to ensure that we are more zealous still in ensuring we take the appropriate care-measure in how we pursue our investigations and arrive at our enforcement positions. And I think it would be fair to say that I have learned to be patient, and to respect and promote that process.

We at the Bureau have every reason to be proud of the work that we have done over the past six months. For me, the cases that have ripened, as well as those we have in the pipeline, reflect the fact that we understand what Canadians expect of us. While, to some extent, enforcement matters choose us, what we then do with them is up to us. And we have done a great deal. I am regularly impressed by the breadth and depth of the work being done across the Bureau, and am reminded daily of how fortunate we are to have the committed and talented professionals that we do.

The Criminal Matters Branch has taken an active role in a joint task force investigating municipal bid-rigging in Montreal. You might have heard about such allegations. The Bureau also concluded a successful investigation that led to charges against a number of companies and individuals regarding close to $70 million in alleged bid-rigging involving federal procurement contracts. Several individuals have already pleaded guilty, and we are supporting the vigorous pursuit of the remaining accused. And just last week, a company was convicted and fined for rigging bids on a traffic signal project in Quebec City. As all of you know, criminal matters take time to develop. As some of you also know, several significant matters are in that process under the old provisions. What is important here is that we have not been sitting idly by, waiting for the amendments to kick in. Instead, we have been "on the beat", taking every opportunity we can to educate so as to deter, but also to crack down on harmful criminal cartel activity.

The Civil Matters Branch has been very active in recent months on several high-profile matters, some of which you may have been reading about in respect of certain industries that are highly relevant to Canadian consumers. We anticipate that the Branch will continue to be busy as other important investigations come to conclusion and new cases emerge under section 90.1.

Regrettably, the important work of the Fair Business Practices Branch is never done, as we seek to combat and deter fraudulent and misleading representations in the market that distort competitive forces and cheat honest businesses and consumers alike. Such behaviour appears, as feared, to proliferate in challenging economic times. I will confess to having been somewhat uncertain when I first joined the Bureau almost 5 years ago, as to the suitability of us engaging deeply in this work. I have since learned to appreciate the enormous impact of our work, particularly on the fraudulent side, and have come to see the power of our international partnerships in cracking down on these criminals. In engaging in this work, I have felt the very real satisfaction of making a difference to our most vulnerable market participants. While this work must not be allowed to overwhelm us by its unending opportunity, there is a critical role for the Bureau to play when the right economic emphasis and discipline are brought to bear. I look forward to achieving even more in this area by adopting a sharp focus to our case choices. As an example of the growing recognition of the reprehensible nature of this conduct, a recent decision of Justice Nordheimer resulted in a record $15 million fine against a Toronto-area company for operating a business directory scam targeting Canadian and U.S. companies. This is a promising development.

In the Mergers Branch, since the introduction of the new merger review process, we have had 168 merger filings. We continue to meet our strong record of clearing over 90% within 10 days, and plan to continue that statistic.

Notwithstanding the dire prognostications, we have issued only 5 SIRs since March, and have demonstrated appropriate discipline and restraint to ensure that, yes, we collect the information we require, but that we are also mindful of the associated burden. We have ensured that we narrow the issues and requests as much as possible, and have been, and will continue to be, responsive to practical constraints under which parties may be operating.

We cannot take all of the credit for the SIR process working so well. I very genuinely tip my hat to the preparedness of the Bar and their clients for recognising that we have a job to do, and for working constructively with us to achieve what we are all after — principled, focused, sufficiently thorough and expeditious reviews, and remedy implementation where necessary.

In terms of actual results, we have finalized six Consent Agreements in as many months. And these aren't cookie cutter or routine matters. Among them were Pfizer\Wyeth, Merck\Schering-Plough, Agrium\CF, Clean Harbours, Ticketmaster\Live Nation, and, of course, who could forget Petrocan\Suncor.

I would single out three for particular comment to shed light on how we are implementing our much-talked-about approach.

First, Petrocan\Suncor: This was a highly complex review, and the report card we received from players and the market alike was not only that we got it right, but that we did so in an impressive timeframe (fewer than four months). That matter, which confronted us right out of the gate with the new process, demonstrated our commitment (where parties are willing to work with us) to engage in dialogue both pre- and post-issuance of a SIR, and the enormous value we can all realize in approaching a review in that constructive manner.

Second, Agrium\CF: This review is an excellent example of our willingness to be creative in difficult circumstances, demonstrating our ability to find solutions to our competition concerns, while also ensuring that the public interest is fully protected.

Third, Ticketmaster\Live Nation: This is only one recent example of our close working relationship with our American counterparts at both agencies, and demonstrated how effective we can be in taking a united position or positions when appropriate.

At the same time, we have exhibited our commitment, in appropriate transaction reviews, to require minimal memorialization where we have confidence that a resolution designed in another jurisdiction in which we have faith will resolve our Canadian concerns. I hasten to say this is not ‘deference'. Rather, it is a rational, measured and effective way to use our scarce resources to the greatest possible effect. And it reflects the best ideals of comity. In the interest of clarity, if a Canadian resolution is appropriate, perhaps owing to the location of the assets, unique Canadian elements or impact on Canadian markets, we will insist on a full consent agreement and approval rights.

Ticketmaster, Merck and Pfizer are all shining examples of how regular contact and deep trust between the US Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau, on multiple levels, can lead to a settlement that works on both sides of the border and to the definite benefit of Canadians. But it does not stop there. In the criminal area, where I must necessarily be less specific, I can confirm that we had over 20 parallel investigations with the US DOJ this past year, along with daily and increasingly deep contact. And, of course, we anticipate ever-closer cooperation with the US as our laws will now be more closely aligned, which will enhance our ability to bring joint pressure down upon unlawful cartels. This is good news for businesses that do not seek to evade honest competition.

Before I close, I would like to add that we are actively reinforcing our commitment to excellence at the Bureau to enable us to better meet the challenges we face.

We have a leading consultant firm conducting a search to replace the (irreplaceable) Adam Fanaki as Senior Deputy Commissioner of Mergers. Jeanne Pratt has joined my office as Special Legal Advisor, where her presence is already being felt on many major files. And I am launching a search for a new T.D. Macdonald Chair in economics. These additions will join the already strong team of veteran Bureau executives to give us an optimal mix of experienced internal and external substance experts and leaders.

In addition, to ensure that we do the most we can within our resource constraints, we are in the final stages of completing a budgeting exercise to ensure that we are as focused as possible on our highest-impact work.

All of these achievements underscore my optimism for the future of the Bureau and our work.

Many of you know that this is not the first time I have spoken about the very significant amendments to our Act, and that I have taken full advantage of the interest the Bureau has garnered as a result of the amendments process to demonstrate our relevance to Canadians. In addition to meeting with many counsel and consumer groups, I have had the pleasure of speaking with more than a dozen business audiences across Canada, as well as to the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington and in New York. This is all part of our ongoing efforts not just to educate about the amendments, but to engage in what I hope will be a continuing dialogue about the importance of the law and our work. Of course, competition benefits every legitimate business and every consumer in Canada. And I believe our message is getting out.

I feel very fortunate to be Commissioner at a time when we are opening a new chapter in Canadian competition law, but I am also very conscious of the corresponding, and at times daunting, responsibility to ‘get it right'. In my commitment to achieving that, we will be as transparent as possible, we will listen, and we will adopt a principled and focused approach in all that we do. But, as a key element to that, we will be vigilant in adhering to our defining role as an enforcement organization. Parliament has handed us the opportunity and the right tools, and Canadians deserve no less.

Thank you for your attention.