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.