You may have missed my opening remarks, but I've become practical.
The AMPs change is a change. I'm not going to pretend it's not a change. I do think that, on the whole, it's a good change. I understand the concerns of my friends at the Canadian Bar Association and in private practice. There is an uncertainty now where there wasn't an uncertainty before.
I think we need to remember a couple of things. The first is that these extra calculations are for amounts that exceed the current maximums. There will be circumstances where we do not need to exceed the current maximums. In fact, I would like to see scalable penalties across the board, rather than saying under $9 million, because that's a huge amount for SMEs. I think I said that last week. I think we have to keep in mind that for some enterprises, scalable penalties are really the only way you're going to be able to come up with the correct amount. Canadian courts do not have a good track record of picking a number out of the air and making it high enough. I think that tying it to a metric is important.
Yes, there's going to be a transition period, but I don't see the downside in allowing penalties to go up. Do we have to reach the levels of the U.S. and Europe? Not necessarily. I would highlight two things. We have a list of aggravating and mitigating factors that must be taken into account when you determine the amount. Those are relevant. This is not a random, arbitrary amount, contrary to the impression you might be left with. The other thing I would underscore is that, for misleading advertising—it's not the case for abuse of dominance—AMPs are only available if the defendant has not been able to establish that they were diligent. You're already in a zone where you could say the conduct is less justifiable.
I don't know if there's anything else you need, but I'm going to stop there.