It's still true that true predatory pricing, that is, low prices that are designed explicitly to cause the exit of a rival firm, is very difficult in practice to separate from low prices that are part of big-risk competition that should be encouraged by competition law.

In the South, increased competition reduces prices, while in the North high fixed costs of operation and price inelasticity make lower prices from higher competition unsustainable in the long run, and particularly in smaller markets can actually increase prices.

The predator engages in the low pricing and establishes a reputation in the marketplace for toughness, meaning that if someone comes in and competes with it, it's going to take the price down to a level where that new entrant can't make money.

With respect to complaints about unfair labour practices, I would like to draw your attention to proposed clause 99.1.

One of the things we did talk about in the report was the fundamental changes that are sweeping the Canadian economy in the areas of new technology, increased pace of innovation, and these sorts of things, which have direct implications for how you think about competition law, dominance in a market, low-pricing strategies, and things like that.

More visibility in Google's search results has increased traffic to Google's comparison shopping service, whilst demotions have decreased traffic to rival services: Since the start of the abuse in each country, Google's comparison shopping service has made significant gains in traffic, whilst rival comparison shopping services have suffered a decrease in traffic from Google's search results pages on a lasting basis: a) For example, since the beginning of the abuse in each country, Google's comparison shopping service has increased its traffic 45-fold in the United Kingdom, 35-fold in Germany, 29-fold in the Netherlands, 17-fold in Spain ...[+++]and 14-fold in Italy. b) Traffic to rival comparison shopping websites has decreased.