You have here that, “It is only fair that a supplier should be able to enjoy the benefits of the Code only if it has entered into a written agreement with a retailer setting out the commercial terms”. Isn't the whole idea of the code, Mr. Weston, that we actually provide some fundamentals?
I can appreciate that when you're negotiating with Pepsi.... Those are two different conversations. However, the idea of the code here—and you admitted it in your own testimony—for smaller food manufacturers or suppliers directly, is about creating some transparency and some elements that they can hold on to.
I guess I'll ask if there is an idea that you could have larger manufacturers not necessarily being subject to this, and it would apply to smaller food processors. What is it?
I can appreciate that if you're negotiating with Pepsi, that relationship is different from when you're negotiating with a farmer in my riding. Why is it that, if they're simply trying to lay out principles that you would negotiate with, somehow that's a contravention to the business practices that would be expected in this country?