Finance committee  We did take note of the provision to delete lines 31 and 32 on page 428. It's not entirely clear to us as a department what effect this would have. In our view, it may be a drafting error, in the sense that the purpose of that is to mirror a drip provision clause in subsection 74.01(1.1).

Finance committee  That is correct.

Finance committee  I think it's reasonable to assume that businesses would have to take on some degree of compliance activity in order to demonstrate compliance with this. An example of that might be a smaller enterprise. A corner store might be a reasonable example. Many businesses—90% of our enterprises—are small and medium enterprises.

Finance committee  In clause 236, the government had proposed to make an adjustment to the English version of the act to ensure that representations about prices—particularly a discounted product—are presumed to be making the comparison to their own prices, rather than potentially to an unspecified market price or the prices of competitors.

Finance committee  I would concur with the analysis presented by the honourable member. Our view in the department, when we reviewed the proposed amendments, was that BQ-2, BQ-3 and NDP-6 all touch the same section of the act and all, operatively, have similar effects. Based on the conversation that was just held by committee members and the motion that was adopted on BQ-2, I see very little or nothing left in terms of substantive differences between NDP-6 and the motion that was just adopted.

Finance committee  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).