Finance Committee on April 30th, 2024

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall clauses 219 to 233 carry?

(Clauses 219 to 233 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 234)

This brings us to clause 234, and we have amendment NDP-5.

MP Davies, would you like to move that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I will move this amendment.

In brief, this amendment closes an interpretive loophole in the Competition Act with respect to drip pricing provisions. It follows testimony that was given before the committee. It was also recommended by the Competition Bureau.

I understand that the change that's being proposed here is in a section that's replicated throughout the act. If we don't get unanimous consent to change it everywhere, then I will withdraw the motion here.

Mr. Chair, I'll proceed if we do have unanimous consent and withdraw it if we do not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Turnbull will to speak to this.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

We support this amendment and agree with Mr. Davies that there are numerous other sections of the act that would need to be updated in parallel.

Maybe I could ask Mr. Chhabra or the officials to respond—whoever wants to or whoever is most appropriate.

Could you please discuss whether similar amendments need to be made and where specifically we would need to adjust the act to preserve consistency across all instances where it refers to drip pricing?

[Samir Chhabra, Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you.

Indeed, the provision in question is mirrored in a number of areas in the act. If it were to be amended only in this area and not in others, there would then be an inconsistency about the approach that's being taken to drip pricing. If it were to be done uniformly across, it would open subsections 52(1.3) and 74.01(1.1).

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Given that this particular amendment adds to the criminally enforced anti-spam provisions in a new subsection that recognizes drip pricing as a form of false and misleading representation, that's what's at stake here. We would like to preserve consistency.

I would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to open the two sections of the bill, subsections 52(1.3) and 74.01(1.1), in order to make those amendments, consistent with the one that's being proposed in NDP-5, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The legislative clerk will just explain the best way to move forward on this.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would be better to move them one at a time rather than globally. We would go in the order in which it proceeds through the bill.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Would we start with subsection 52(1.3), then?

[The Clerk]

It would be NDP-5 first.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's no problem. It's whatever you advise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

First we need to vote on NDP-5.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have something to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm sorry. I did not see your hand up, Monsieur Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Before we vote on amendment NDP‑5, I'd like the officials to explain to us what this amendment does.

In any event, I'll be voting for the amendment and there will be unanimous consent.

[Martin Simard, Senior Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Directorate, Department of Industry]

Yes, I'm happy to explain.

I believe this amendment is founded on a suggestion from the commissioner of competition. In his testimony, he recommended tightening up the language around drip pricing.

What we have here in Bill C‑59 are consequential changes addressing changes made in 2022 to clarify that, according to the Competition Act, drip pricing is a form of misrepresentation. At the time, it was said that all attainable prices had to be displayed upstream. The best example of this is when someone is shopping online and, after they click “Next” several times, they're surprised to see another price at the end. That practice is not allowed. The total price, the attainable price, has to be shown upfront. However, there was one exception: amounts imposed pursuant to an act passed by the federal Parliament or by a provincial legislature. Such is the case with sales tax, for example. Consumers expect sales tax to be added on the final screen.

The commissioner was concerned that some businesses might allege that other types of fees they have to pay, such as those for staff training or security, are the result of some sort of regulation or act of Parliament and that they could use that as a loophole to add fees to the price at the end of the process.

The amendment specifies that the laws in question must clearly indicate that the fees apply to purchasers themselves. It refers to subsection (1), so to the purchaser. Fees that apply to businesses are therefore not eligible. Sales tax applies to purchasers themselves.

So that's what the commissioner suggested. I must say that because these are new statutory provisions, they haven't yet been tested in the courts. Have they already been interpreted that way? That remains an open question. The commissioner recommended that we not wait and that we go ahead and tighten up the wording.

I assume that the New Democratic Party supports this recommendation since it's covered in amendment NDP‑5.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's very clear. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall NDP-5 carry?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's fine as long as we are clear that we have unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We do have unanimous consent.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 234 as amended agreed to on division)

Members, we're now going back.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm asking for unanimous consent to amend subsection 52(1.3) to make it consistent with the provisions of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I think we have unanimous consent for that.

We're going to suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are all back. We are going to new clause 233.1.

Monsieur Méla is going to help us out here. He is going to read what new clause 233.1 is.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Turnbull, you can correct me as we go if I am going in the wrong direction.

We would have to create new clause 233.1 after line 30 on page 426. The text would read, “Subsection 52(1.3) of the Act is replaced by the following”, and then the text would be the text that you sent by email regarding drip pricing in subsection 52(1.3), in French and English.