Agriculture committee  To answer your second question first, we would have approved those mergers under a review. While 35% is a set guideline and is what we call a safe harbour, in certain circumstances we'll allow a merger that attains a higher market share than that, particularly when the barriers t

Agriculture committee  We would look at that too, if they looked at exclusive supply contracts with some of the larger producers of cattle, beef, and pork.

Agriculture committee  Yes, we are, and we receive complaints from time to time on it. We look at those complaints seriously, and I would urge anybody with those complaints.... We had a complaint a number of years ago against Monsanto for tying their canola seed to Roundup Ready herbicide. The seed wou

Agriculture committee  I certainly see the issue, and it's an issue that is obviously of great concern to all Canadians and the bureau: that our farmers, who are deeply respected across the country and produce some of the best food at the best price, are having trouble. It is of concern to us. The iss

Agriculture committee  Loblaws' profitability may or may not be due to their own errors, to the entry of Wal-Mart, to the growth of Costco, to a whole lot of other factors that are changing the dynamic of our food retailing and distribution industry. The George Morris Centre, which is a leading indepe

Agriculture committee  I don't know that. I don't have those numbers. The Competition Act is very much concerned about maintaining competitive markets for consumers. It's in our mission statement. It's in our whole DNA.

Agriculture committee  No. That's quite true.

Agriculture committee  The commissioner for competition runs a number of units. We've talked about cartels. And we're very busy in cartels. That's agreements among competitors. They have always been the basis of any trust laws around the world. It was the first provision in Canada, well over a hundred

Agriculture committee  That is dominance in prices. Profitability may or may not be indicative of dominance, but it can be.

Agriculture committee  What I would say is that if it is dominant and has monopoly power, it's not doing a very good job of exercising it.

Agriculture committee  Even if the stores lose money on them, they may make money up, because you buy your Coca-Cola at $7.99 a case and you may buy your carrots at $3 a pound, in which case overall for your $120 bundle of goods, they may make their little margin, which is 4% or 5% in the grocery busin

Agriculture committee  That's acceptable if they're not dominant. It's no abuse of dominance. It wouldn't violate Canadian laws if they're not dominant. There are a number of other firms that are competing also for that supplier's product. The supplier that is looking at paying $100,000 to Loblaws as a

Agriculture committee  I'll just point out that we do protect the consumer. It's only when there's dominance. Dominance is synonymous with a price rise—

Agriculture committee  I shop at Farm Boy, and Farm Boy is a very successful local chain out of Cornwall that has about 10 stores and is growing by leaps and bounds in Ottawa. I don't know what beef it is, but they have Canadian beef. If they're having trouble getting beef, or chicken, or a major produ

Agriculture committee  Again, it's a question of whether the company selling them at $1.19 is in a dominant position. The laws in Canada don't require firms that are not dominant in competitive markets.... We don't monitor the prices to make sure every price they charge makes a profit, especially in a