ECA Review - 2022-11-17
ECA Review - 2022-11-17
ECA Review - 2022-11-17
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2 November <strong>17</strong>'22 HANNA/CORONATION/STETTLER, AB. <strong>ECA</strong> REVIEW<br />
OPINION<br />
The opinions expressed are not necessarily<br />
the opinions of this newspaper.<br />
<br />
GUEST EDITORIAL<br />
Competition Bureau is not doing its job<br />
by Sylvain Charlebois<br />
Canada’s Competition Bureau has<br />
decided to investigate the Canadian<br />
food industry, specifically our grocery<br />
sector. Better late than never, I<br />
suppose.<br />
For years, many called for such an<br />
investigation while recognizing that<br />
the Bureau has little authority or<br />
power over anything. Even its new<br />
director admitted to the problem of<br />
powerlessness. For instance, the<br />
Bureau can’t force any company to<br />
submit any body of evidence for the<br />
upcoming study.<br />
It’s sad that the Bureau waited until<br />
food inflation became a political hot<br />
potato to call for an investigation.<br />
But make no mistake: this study is<br />
all about the Bureau, nothing more. It<br />
needs a different approach and a new<br />
perspective on things and clearly<br />
requires more knowledge about the<br />
food industry.<br />
When evaluating<br />
“<br />
mergers and<br />
acquisitions, the<br />
food industry<br />
deserves a longitudinal<br />
analysis<br />
– observing the<br />
same participants<br />
over a period of<br />
time – to better<br />
appreciate how<br />
consolidation can<br />
impact sectors<br />
over time, as<br />
we’ve seen in groceries<br />
and<br />
processing.<br />
Limited competition<br />
can work if<br />
independents and<br />
smaller players remain somewhat<br />
sheltered from overbearing market<br />
forces. Miscalculated compromises<br />
can only lead to regulators overlooking<br />
our market’s most<br />
fundamental element, the consumer.<br />
Consumers in many cities now<br />
have only one grocer, with fewer instore<br />
choices due to the continuous<br />
pressure imposed on food processors,<br />
especially smaller operators. Many<br />
have given up. Unlike other industries,<br />
food manufacturers must pay<br />
grocers to do business with them.<br />
Listing fees, marketing costs, and the<br />
list goes on – a foreign concept for<br />
people who may not understand the<br />
economics of food distribution.<br />
Canadians should not expect significant<br />
changes to the industry coming<br />
from the study anytime soon. For<br />
years, the Bureau has rubberstamped<br />
deals and investigated<br />
accusations of collusion countless<br />
times, with limited success.<br />
Chocolate, salmon, and of course,<br />
bread are some examples. That needs<br />
to change.<br />
Consumers were insulted in 20<strong>17</strong><br />
when Canadians learned about<br />
Loblaws’ bread price-fixing scheme<br />
– an ethical blunder by our country’s<br />
number one grocer. When it offered<br />
$25 gift cards as compensation, everything<br />
seemed forgotten and forgiven.<br />
Not quite. With higher food prices, the<br />
bread price-fixing scandal rapidly<br />
became a moral issue for Canadians.<br />
The bread price-fixing investigation<br />
actually started in 2015 when Loblaws<br />
admitted its wrongdoing. For 14 years,<br />
from 2001 to 2015, it, along with<br />
Weston Bakeries, owned by Weston<br />
Companies at the time, admitted to<br />
fixing bread prices in Canada. The<br />
scheme allegedly included five more<br />
companies; all denied involvement.<br />
After seven years, we still haven’t<br />
seen anyone being accused or fined.<br />
Competition laws prohibit collusion,<br />
and companies can receive fines of up<br />
to $25 million and 14 years in prison.<br />
But without a watchdog watching, the<br />
Bureau has a lot of unfinished<br />
business.<br />
Canadians<br />
are violently<br />
voicing their<br />
frustration,<br />
singling out<br />
grocers,<br />
mainly<br />
Loblaws, as the<br />
inflation<br />
boogeymen.<br />
The evidence<br />
of profiteering<br />
is weak at best,<br />
but it doesn’t<br />
matter. Even<br />
reporters from<br />
other countries<br />
couldn’t<br />
believe the<br />
backlash<br />
against Loblaws when it opted to<br />
freeze prices last week for its No<br />
Name products. Loblaws is arguably<br />
the most hated grocer in the world.<br />
This is no accident. Canadians have<br />
an awkward relationship with grocers<br />
for one simple reason – many feel<br />
unprotected and left hanging high<br />
and dry. Because the Bureau is idle on<br />
so many fronts, Canadians have been<br />
left to take matters into their own<br />
hands, and who can blame them?<br />
It’s different in the United Sta; it can<br />
take just a few months between lawmakers<br />
accusing food companies and<br />
getting them to write cheques to consumers.<br />
This happened in the case of<br />
JBS, the meat packer, which paid<br />
US$52.5 million to settle a price-fixing<br />
lawsuit. U.S. lawmakers are also<br />
pushing back on the $24.6 billion U.S.<br />
Kroger-Albertson deal, arguing it<br />
would create a monster of a grocer<br />
with a 15 per cent market share. The<br />
new company may be forced to let go<br />
of up to 375 stores and create a rival to<br />
get regulatory approval.<br />
This would never happen in Canada<br />
under the current regime. And by the<br />
way, both Loblaws and Empire/<br />
Sobeys already have more than 15 per<br />
Consumers in<br />
many cities now have<br />
only one grocer, with<br />
fewer in-store choices<br />
due to the continuous<br />
pressure imposed on<br />
food processors.<br />
“<br />
cent of the Canadian market. The<br />
Bureau is sleepwalking through these<br />
deals.<br />
The report should be complete by<br />
June 2023. Hopefully, the Bureau will<br />
give itself a road map for fundamental<br />
changes that will provide it with more<br />
authority to apply more rigour to any<br />
case presented before it. But before<br />
<br />
MAIL BAG<br />
that, the Bureau will need to do some<br />
soul-searching.<br />
Let’s call it like it is. Canadians<br />
deserve it.<br />
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior<br />
director of the agri-food analytics lab<br />
and a professor in food distribution and<br />
policy at Dalhousie University.<br />
Elder abuse? Yes.<br />
Dear Editor,<br />
In response to Oct. 19, <strong>2022</strong> Morrin<br />
council meeting).<br />
• Did council pass a resolution to<br />
check 2nd Avenue North sewer laterals?<br />
– YES<br />
• Did the check (September 2020)<br />
result in the camera not being able to<br />
get through line [Village lateral from<br />
Helton property] due to blockages?<br />
– YES<br />
• Did Village clear blockages, as per<br />
Sewer Policy, to complete mission of<br />
resolution – NO<br />
• If the Village had cleared the<br />
blockages, would Helton’s have had a<br />
sewerage backup? – NO<br />
• If the Village had cleared the<br />
blockages, would Helton’s have had to<br />
rent a portable toilet – NO<br />
• Does the Village still need to repair<br />
their 60+ year line due to the sag and<br />
20 feet of water? - YES<br />
• Did Village inform Helton’s of<br />
blockages? – NO<br />
• After numerous requests by<br />
Helton’s for camera report, did Village<br />
finally release result? – YES<br />
• Did Village clear blockages as per<br />
their responsibility under the MGA:<br />
Municipal Public Utilities-Section:<br />
35(2)? - NO<br />
• Did Village clear blockages when<br />
Helton’s expressed concern that a<br />
backup could occur? – NO<br />
• Did the Village clear blockages<br />
when a backup occurred? – NO<br />
• Did Village clear blockages when<br />
Helton’s informed council that they<br />
[Helton’s] were afraid of another<br />
backup and were hiring a portable<br />
toilet? – NO<br />
• Did Helton’s get another camera of<br />
line to confirm that there still were<br />
significant blockages? – YES<br />
• Did Village clear blockages when<br />
sent camera report showing blockages?<br />
– NO<br />
• Did CAO lie to Village counsel<br />
stating that Helton’s were not using a<br />
portable toilet? – YES<br />
Turn to Council, Pg 3<br />
R<br />
R<br />
R<br />
R<br />
R<br />
Published by<br />
Coronation<br />
<strong>Review</strong><br />
Limited<br />
Subscriptions:<br />
$52.50 in Canada; $98.70 in US;<br />
$183.75 Overseas.<br />
72 pt<br />
East Central Alberta<br />
EVIEW<br />
60 pt<br />
48 pt<br />
36 pt<br />
Website <strong>ECA</strong>review.com<br />
Office Hours Mon. - Fri. 9 am - 5 pm<br />
R<br />
30 pt<br />
4921 - Victoria Avenue<br />
Tel. (403) 578-4<strong>11</strong>1<br />
R<br />
24 pt<br />
Mail: Box 70, Coronation, AB Canada, T0C 1C0<br />
LETTERS POLICY • Letters to the Editor are welcomed •<br />
Must be signed and a phone number included so the writer’s<br />
identity can be verified. • <strong>ECA</strong> <strong>Review</strong> reserves the right to edit<br />
letters for legal considerations, taste and brevity. Letters and<br />
columns submitted are not necessarily the opinion of this<br />
newspaper.<br />
MEMBER OF:<br />
Local Journalism Initiative is funded<br />
by the Government of Canada.<br />
JOYCE WEBSTER<br />
Publisher/Editor<br />
publisher@<strong>ECA</strong>review.com<br />
YVONNE THULIEN<br />
Marketing/Digital 403-575-9474<br />
advertise@<strong>ECA</strong>review.com<br />
BRENDA SCHIMKE<br />
Editorial Writer<br />
JUDY WALGENBACH<br />
Marketing 403-740-2492<br />
marketing@<strong>ECA</strong>review.com<br />
STU SALKELD<br />
LJI Reporter 403-741-2615<br />
reporter@<strong>ECA</strong>review.com<br />
LISA MYERS-SORTLAND<br />
Graphic Artist<br />
R<br />
18 pt