Not at all. I'm not saying it's inappropriate. I'm just trying to explain, to the extent that there are gaps in my knowledge on particular matters, why that may be the case. But let me speak to the issue you're addressing.
The question raises an issue with respect to the application of the abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act. Broadly speaking, the way the provision works is that where a dominant firm engages in the practice of anti-competitive acts that are likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition in a relevant market, we may seek a remedy from the Competition Tribunal, and the Competition Tribunal may issue a remedy.
Your interpretation of the law is correct. One of the recommendations made by this committee was that the abuse of dominance provisions be amended to include, within the scope of remedies available to the tribunal, the ability to award administrative monetary penalties. In the recent amendments to the act brought in through Bill C-10, the government amended the legislation to allow the tribunal to award administrative monetary penalties for abuse of dominance in the amount of up to $10 million for a first remedy, if you will, and up to $15 million if a remedy is required a second time. So you're absolutely correct that administrative monetary penalties are available.
As to how those provisions would operate in the particular context of the grocery industry, I would just like to point out to the committee that we do have guidelines that discuss the application of the abuse of dominance provisions in the grocery industry specifically. I would be happy to provide a copy of those to the committee. They discuss the application of those provisions in the particular context of that industry in much more detail.