Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Brad Sallows]

If we want government action on groceries, we need anti-trust action and blow up loblaws, empire, etc.

That would be counter-productive. Generally I find the smaller the retailer, the higher the grocery prices.

 

[MilEME09]

No one at Brookfield Corp. has spoken with Prime Minister Mark Carney about company business since he resigned earlier this year to run for the Liberal leadership, according to chief operating officer.

Nobody has met with Carney about Brookfield since his resignation, COO says

MPs at committee probe PM’s potential gain from role in US$15-billion fund

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[PrairieFella]

That would be counter-productive. Generally I find the smaller the retailer, the higher the grocery prices.

Not necessarily. Im sure most of us here have been to the local chain or the local Chinese grocery where someproducts beat the wheels off of the major chains in terms of value. My favourite Asian grocery normally has 1.50 a lb pork and real cheap veggies usually for example.

All of major chains have monopolistic no compete policies with each other and have been found to price fix, as evidenced by the bread fixing scandal. Having more independent chains and suppliers would certainly inject some competition into the system. Id also love more Euro presence in the market but thats a different kettle of fish.

In terms of suppliers, here is a really good video that highlights part of the supplier consolidation problem. Sysco is a major player in the Canadian market, along with GFS who uses the same tactics. This is responsible for a lot of the price increases in restaurants.

If you think competition isnt the answer, what do you think is? Price ceilings?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Past predictions of higher beef prices right now for exactly those (and other) causes were made, but I suspect most people tune out when farmers are interviewed and don't even bother to read the print/online articles.

Another example: predictions that retailers have been trying to hold status quo supply/price together just long enough to get consumers through Christmas have been made, with expectations there will be shake-ups in the new year. These are founded on practical analyses of inventory and what retailers were able to do to front-load as much as they could at mostly pre-tariff-world prices and compensate other ways, all through the past 8 months.

If adverse supply/price shocks do happen, people will still be surprised.

So....not a direct result of federal policies then? It is more complicated than that?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not necessarily. Im sure most of us here have been to the local chain or the local Chinese grocery where someproducts beat the wheels off of the major chains in terms of value.

Over time I've had a succession of small green-grocers I favoured. In all cases, it was necessary to be choosy. Lower price is the consequence of not paying someone to pre-filter the lower quality produce out.

All of major chains have monopolistic no compete policies with each other and have been found to price fix, as evidenced by the bread fixing scandal.

That isn't evidence they do it routinely. Corporations are acutely aware of Canadian law governing anti-competitive practices. The reputational damage was worse than the financial penalty. That was their warning. If they get caught again, they're cooked. They reasonably know this.

Having more independent chains and suppliers would certainly inject some competition into the system. Id also love more Euro presence in the market but thats a different kettle of fish.

Absence of "enough" (whatever that is) competition generally means one of two things: the market is already highly competitive, or governments have created a regulatory regime that favours incumbents. But a promising market almost immediately invites competition without external intervention. So chances are high that if people want more competition, they should be marching on the legislatures and parliament to demand regulatory reform. Blackguarding "corporations" will get them nothing. It is one of the great tricks politicians have managed to pull, that they can whip up rhetoric against evil corporations when it is usually the politicians who are at fault.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So....not a direct result of federal policies then? It is more complicated than that?

Of course not. Also a direct result of provincial policies, and foreign policies.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Absence of "enough" (whatever that is) competition generally means one of two things: the market is already highly competitive, or governments have created a regulatory regime that favours incumbents. But a promising market almost immediately invites competition without external intervention.

A textbook example of textbook economic theory that ignores.. well, reality and businesses actually doing business things like successfully executing business strategies to build sustainable advantage and create non regulatory moats/ barriers to entry.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A textbook example of textbook economic theory that ignores.. well, reality and businesses actually doing business things like successfully executing business strategies to build sustainable advantage and create non regulatory moats/ barriers to entry.

To compete is to build sustainable advantage. Publicly owned companies in particular have an obligation to seek every possible advantage. They are constrained by law. Regulatory capture exists. Those who assess a market (conceive strategies) and decide they can't compete except at a loss decline to enter. If they think they can profit, they enter (execute on strategies). That is all reality.

As long as governments permit themselves to be lobbied with effect, they will be lobbied. That is on governments. They set the conditions for "fair" competition, and then create holes to serve the interests to which they are beholden. A major corporation with thousands of employees can afford 50 lawyers. A small corporation with 100 employees cannot.

There's nothing abstract or theoretical about any of it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

High beef prices are the result of drastic herd reductions by producers to staunch the losses from successive drought years out West. Without imports of frozen beef, prices would be even higher.

Yeah I don't know whether to blame the Liberlas, Conservatives, or homeless. I just think it's time we invade someone to get prices down.

Brazil seems like a great choice. Largest exporter of beef AND we can see how the Gripen holds up in combat.

 

[MilEME09]

Canada ranking second for perspective investment

 

[IKnowNothing]

To compete is to build sustainable advantage. Publicly owned companies in particular have an obligation to seek every possible advantage. They are constrained by law. Regulatory capture exists. Those who assess a market (conceive strategies) and decide they can't compete except at a loss decline to enter. If they think they can profit, they enter (execute on strategies). That is all reality.

Your implied premise was that the only reason for there to be "not enough competition" - a situation contextually understood to be one where consumers are being harmed by price fixing, surplus harvesting etc. was if the government artificially created regulatory barriers to entry.

That is demonstrably not the case. The bold is the case. The bold and the initial are irreconcilable. The end result of long term capitalist competition in a given industry is not always a free and competitive consumer facing market, because successful business execution is by nature to avoid it being so.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Your implied premise was that the only reason for there to be "not enough competition" - a situation contextually understood to be one where consumers are being harmed by price fixing, surplus harvesting etc. was if the government artificially created regulatory barriers to entry.

That's not what I wrote. Firstly, I'm skeptical of the vague idea of "enough" competition, but whatever amount there is does have explanations. Secondly, when I write "generally", it does not mean "exclusively", and I cited two, not one, reasons. The point I make is that if someone thinks there is not "enough" - leaving it to him to define "enough" - there are two common causes that don't require nefarious attributions. One is simply based on the efficiency of the incumbents and might have nothing to do with regulation - some markets just aren't that heavily regulated. The other is definitely founded in regulation.

That is demonstrably not the case. The bold is the case. The bold and the initial are irreconcilable. The end result of long term capitalist competition in a given industry is not always a free and competitive consumer facing market, because successful business execution is by nature to avoid it being so.

The part you bolded leaves unstated any reasons, and does not assert there can only be one. The bolded part is just a summary of the net effect of factors, plural.

There is no requirement that markets be perfect.

Prices at the pump go up and down. Retailers offer price matching. Innovators bring new products to market, or new ideas that allow them to undercut incumbents. Some corporations lobby for decreased, not increased, protectionist regulation. The Fortune 500 list churns. Companies found in breach of anti-competition law are taken to court.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/ottawa-close-uranium-deal-with-india-worth-28-billion-globe-mail-reports-2025-11-25/

Ottawa close to uranium deal with India worth $2.8 billion, Globe and Mail reports​

Just in time to help fuel an arms race between them, China and/or Pakistan?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Canada ranking second for perspective investment

Huh? not seeing it in that graph unless I am missing something

 

[PPCLI Guy]

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/ottawa-close-uranium-deal-with-india-worth-28-billion-globe-mail-reports-2025-11-25/

Ottawa close to uranium deal with India worth $2.8 billion, Globe and Mail reports​

Just in time to help fuel an arms race between them, China and/or Pakistan?

Or to invest in large-scale and SMRs for their teetering powergrid

Nuclear Power in India - World Nuclear Association

India has a largely indigenous nuclear power programme and has ambitious plans to expand nuclear capacity. The country has a vision of becoming a world leader in nuclear technology due to its expertise in fast reactors and thorium fuel cycle.

world-nuclear.org

 

[Haggis]

Rumours of a cabinet shuffle are circulating. Joly, Freeland and Blair could be Europe bound. Safety Gary might be out leaving the door open for Prevost to get her shot at the front benches. Will McGuinty hold onto the expanded defence portfolio?

 

[dapaterson]

McGuinty is a grey man. He will hold.

 

[Haggis]

McGuinty is a grey man. He will hold.

I met him, briefly, when he stopped by our office on his way back from Washington last May just before he left Public Safety. His son works for us.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Rumours of a cabinet shuffle are circulating. Joly, Freeland and Blair could be Europe bound. Safety Gary might be out leaving the door open for Prevost to get her shot at the front benches. Will McGuinty hold onto the expanded defence portfolio?

He’s clearing out the Trudeau fro t and centre people, the last of the main cast of characters.
Hopefully he’ll find some nice old fashioned Red Tories….

 

[daftandbarmy]

Rumours of a cabinet shuffle are circulating. Joly, Freeland and Blair could be Europe bound. Safety Gary might be out leaving the door open for Prevost to get her shot at the front benches. Will McGuinty hold onto the expanded defence portfolio?