Yes, of course. We apologize for providing these amendments so late. It must be said that this is a bit complicated. That's why we made a mistake at the outset, when we started amending this clause. Briefly, we have always contemplated damages for victims covered by the Competition Act and PIPEDA, but when we made our changes, we forgot that aspect. That's why we made this change to paragraph (a) of the amendment. Paragraph (b), it should be said, explains in detail how the courts must interpret this clause and states the maximum amounts that can be imposed on a person who has contravened the act.
There are differences between the institutions and the nature of the contravention. That's why this is long. On the other hand, it corresponds to the objective that we had at the outset. Subclause (1.1) states:(1.1) The purpose of an order under paragraph (I)(b) is not to punish but to promote compliance with this Act...
That's entirely similar to what is found in the provisions under clause 20, which have already been approved. We made this clarification to avoid giving the impression that it was a punitive measure rather than a corrective measure.
The purpose of paragraph (c), once again, is to import the terms of the Competition Act. That's also the case of paragraphs (d) and (e).