I think I know where the member is going with this line of questioning.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that what we've found is that giving judges pure discretion when it comes to setting sentences has resulted in the case that I gave you of the $5 billion, which large corporations have ripped off Canadians with bread pricing. The biggest fine that a judge levied in that case was $50 million, which is a slap on the wrist if you think about $5 billion in net revenue.
What I'm hoping to establish are some guidelines for judges. Judges follow guidelines. They're going to follow jurisprudence. The highest fine was $50 million. That's not going to be a significant deterrent.
What we've said is that the judge should be able to use deterrence to the extent of 10% of the revenue of a company. In the case of Loblaws, with $60 billion in revenue, the judge should be able to impose a fine of $6 billion. That is deterrence. Without having guidelines, judges won't go further than jurisprudence, and right now $50 million is the highest fine that's ever been levied. It's far too low.