I'll just conclude with two brief points, Mr. Chair, and then I'll leave it for the vote.
My first point is just that the tribunal has discretion as to whether it wants to pursue a case. One would have to have some confidence that the tribunal would not pursue a business that is clearly acting in good faith. Rather, we would want to give the tribunal the power it has to go after a business when it really perceives deceptive practices in the marketplace.
The second thing I would say is the reason I'm being a bit passionate about this is that the businesses themselves are in the best position to know their prices and the history of what they've charged. Rather than play a game of cat and mouse whereby the tribunal has to go to extraordinary lengths, like subpoenas, getting documents and all those processes, if there's a complaint or a question about whether a price is a legitimate sale, it should be a relatively easy thing for most businesses to be able to say, “Look, this is a discount. Here's what we were selling it at.”
My next point would be on the “substantial volume” and “substantial period” issues that you raised. I think they are fair points. To me, they build in a lot of discretion, because to take in the various examples that you put in about Black Friday, etc., generally, you have to show that you were selling at a substantial price for a substantial period of time. This would give discretion to the tribunal.
Finally, the last point I will make is that I think you're absolutely right. Thank you, Mr. Simard. I think you caught the deletion of lines 31 and 32. Exactly as you said, I think it's a housekeeping matter related to the drip pricing.
I've said way too much on this, but that's my position on it. As the mover of the motion, I just wanted to be very clear about why I thought it was necessary and to respond to Mr. Turnbull's concerns.