Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's a good amendment. There's nothing revolutionary or extreme in there. It simply limits misleading advertising. If a merchant says they are offering a $100 discount on a product and, in the end, the customer pays the list price, that's unacceptable. The amendment seeks to address such practices.
Provisions are already in place in Quebec's Consumer Protection Act to keep this kind of thing from happening, and they work. I hear all the hypothetical fears being raised, but I must say that, to my knowledge, those fears have not materialized in Quebec, where the Consumer Protection Act is in force.
Today, merchants use cash registers, and even the local snack bar has one. What's unique about these registers is that they record transactions and the prices associated with them. So we have a footprint.
Furthermore, how can a merchant advertise $100 off the list price of a product and then say they don't know the list price? I don't find that argument very strong, with all due respect. I also want to point out that sworn testimony from a merchant is admissible evidence in a court of law.
I therefore invite all my colleagues to support this good amendment. Quebec already has similar provisions and they work, so it would be good if Canada had them as well.
I understand that the bill we're studying here already proposes many amendments to the Competition Act and that the act rarely gets reviewed, but this amendment aims to improve it. Yes, there may be a lot of housekeeping to do and directives to issue. The fact remains that this amendment will improve the act, and that's why I'm supporting it.