I should say that we don't just rely on complaints. In fact, some of our better cases have come from the newspapers. Say we read that some company has a large market share; we may proactively look into that. Sometimes a complainant, a small business, will come in and tell us about a big company that is beating them up, and that will start a complaint. So there are various ways. Sometimes parliamentarians raise issues on behalf of their constituents, and we will seriously look at those, though unfortunately not every complaint that comes in meets the definition under the act.
So those are the ways that we could intake complaints. So we have various ways. We're not restricted in any way.
On abuse of dominance, to get to your second question, we can act before the company becomes dominant, when the company is dominant, or after the company is dominant. The wording of the section says that we have that ability.
To the third part of your question, what is abuse, abuse is really three things. The wording is not very helpful in understanding what abuse is. It was a former monopolization provision that was amended by Parliament in 1986 to make it more effective, and there are really three elements. You have to be dominant, i.e., you have to have market power. Market power is a large share of the market and barriers to entry. You have to have a practice of anti-competitive acts, which can be anything that excludes or harms competitors. And finally, you have to show that in that market there's a substantial lessening of competition. So it's a three-part test.