Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  My understanding of the amendments proposed is that this is to increase the criminal prosecution fines, not the administrative monetary fines. This would be the prosecution amount.

Transport committee  This is consistent with the language we have in every AMP regime we have. Two years is the longest prescription period for AMPs that we have. Most of them are one and a half years, one year, or two years. Yes, that is how it has been interpreted.

Transport committee  I don't know for sure that we've been challenged on it, but this is how it has been interpreted.

Transport committee  By the department when it issues an AMP.

Transport committee  In a normal circumstance, the department will readily become aware of an issue, but if the circumstances were such that the department discovered it—

Transport committee  It would be criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is another enforcement tool, but that's criminal.

Transport committee  It's in the act already.

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  They are all a bit different, but this one has been tailored to the most modern one that we've done lately. They're in line with case law. To go back to Ms. Block's comments, the case law, word for word, is that the purpose of an administrative regime is to ensure compliance with the regulatory framework.

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  Under an administrative monetary penalty, obviously none, because they don't exist. The introduction of the tool is in this legislation.

Transport committee  The only comment I would offer is that administrative monetary penalties are well established. Now at least there's case law that recognizes and confirms that they're administrative in nature and not criminal in nature. If they were to be criminal in nature, charter protection would be attached to the process of issuing an AMP.

Transport committee  I would like to add something. Once an agreement has been registered with the court, it is binding and becomes a court order. If a party to the agreement—it is never the minister—does not respect their obligations, there are contempt of court measures that may be taken under Federal Court rules.

Transport committee  The only issue with the language—and Kim can probably clarify as well—is that it would force a company to ensure that the defect is corrected before they are offered for sale to the dealers, as opposed to the dealers down to the consumers. The vehicles that are already within the control of dealers would be allowed to go to consumers without the protection of that section.