You may be able to anticipate my interest here, because there is something that has not been mentioned. It's something that manufacturers in my riding have raised in the past, and it hasn't had a lot of play in terms of the overall perspective of food manufacturers. It is the issue of there being very few players left to which to sell your products. It seems to me that if you have only two dominant players in Canada who actually sell groceries in this country, both of them demanding various trade allowances--slotting fees or shelf space--that would be inefficiency, and only those who have the deep pockets would be able to sell. Those who may have an innovative product or an efficient product would not be able to get it onto the shelf, unless they were prepared to pay these premiums.
The Americans have gone through a fairly substantial study and have tried to discourage this situation through a number of pieces. We know--although my information is somewhat dated as it's at least three years old--that on a per square foot basis, American consumers get more variety and diversity in foods than Canadians do, and some have attributed this to this measure.
In terms of manufacturing, how much of a disincentive is there to me, if putting my product on the shelf at a certain eye level requires my paying charges that may not be the result of efficiency, but that may keep me from being able to financially afford to get on the very shelves I need to get on to stay viable as a manufacturer, unless of course I go to a no-name brand....