THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER of an application by the Director cf Investigation and Research for ordera pursuant to section 92 ot the Competition Act R.s.c. 1985, c. C•34, •• amended1 AND IN THE MATTER of the acquiaition b Holdinqs (Canada) LiJnited ct !6t of of Canada Pack•r• Inc. B:ETWEEJh THE OIRtCTOR or I~"V'ESTIGATION ANO COMPE: 1 1 nu1>.i rRtbUNAL - and -TRl8UNA'... DE LA CONCURRENCE c..,1-q1/u1 HILlSDOWN HOLDINGS (CANADA) LIMITED, File No. --, MAPLE LEAF MILLS LIMITED, No du~dcssim ~ CANADA PACKERS INC. and f)v...- e v t _... . ONTARIO RENDERING COMPANY LIMITED Exhibit No _B._ -~ ~ ·--- No. de la piece f . l/ / t./ Filed on ~ 10 - ~ 1 • / · i.. 10 Deposec J) l A~ REPLY APFIDAVI'l' OP DR. Em E. SHANNON Registrar --+.~=---fl-Greffier / ___ " I I, Earl E. Shannon, of the County of Oxford, in th• Province ot Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am currently the Reqionai·· Manaqer, o~ .t...a rio Region, at CH2M HILL·;· "an anvirorunental consulting firm specializing in water, wastewater, hazardous waste, aolid waste, transportation and other lik• matters.
2. On August 2, 1991, I executed an affidavit anclosinq my report in the present proceedin;s, which I prepared tor Maple ~ Leaf Food• Inc. That affidavit describes ~y background and qualifications.
SEP-05-91 THU e9:21 C! P.03
j Hi Im__ __,_ __ e e:oimnon~:altar••,~•:. r::::::.:.; ' i,1,1 ~ ;;~ ~;\ c:.:,:.~~,:~:~:,::~ p R F I L S~? 17 1G91 ;v~ y E D T R~G:STRAR - RtC!ST:lAIR ---·· " ·-----·····--- ..., . .. t:f-1- -· OTTAWA, ONT. 1-r Applicant, Respondents
P.4 3. 'l'his reply affidavit provides my reply to the rebuttal affidavit• of Thomaa Rosa and David Smith, filed by the Applicant• en Auquat 23, 1991.
4. At paragraph 7 of his rebuttal affidavit, Dr. Rosa conclude• in effect t.hat any new entrants into Ontario'• renderinq industry would face the regulatory barriers and approval and i~ple.mentation ti~a frames I aet out in my August 2, 1991 affidavit for the Moorefield Facility
• Thia conclusion is incorrect • 5. At paraqraph 17 Of hi• rebuttal affidavit, or. Smith suqqest• that my Auquat 2, 1991 affidavit provides evidence that it could take three years to cornplete the construction of a new rendering facility. This au9gestion is incorrect. 6. Th• regulatory time fra~es estimated in my August 2, 1991 report are apecific to an expansion of an exiatins rendering plant, namely itothaay's Moorefield facility. This facility is located on a small sensitive reoeivinq stream in a small rural ha~let with a population sensitized by the plant's past environmental problems. One cannot readily generalize that a new entrant would face the same requlatory obstacles. For example, a new entrant may be able to locate in an industr~~lly zoned area ot a large municipality, where wastewater diechars•• would have to meet only the municipality'• sewer use by-law li~its, which in 9eneral are ~uch less strin;ent than the effluent limitations for the Moorefield facility.
., SE:P 05 '91 09: 23AM BL.AK£ 19TH rLOOR P.5 7. A new entrant could obtain •nvironmental approval for a rendering plant in a considerably •horter period tl:l•n Rothsay would require to obtain •nvironmental approval to expand the Moorefield facility.
,. . . .. : , ..... or. Earl E. Shannon A Commissioner, etc. 9685011-3