Thank you very much for your testimony and for being here.
Before I get into questions, for the benefit of my colleagues around the table, I want to put on notice that I plan to move an amendment. I don't have proposed text today, but I want you to understand the spirit of it.
During the minister's testimony, he explained that there was a conversation between the department and stakeholders with respect to proposed section 10.52. This is the Senate amendment. Essentially, I will propose to delete the clause as it exists—and thanks to the Senate for causing me to think about it—and replace it with some language that would do a few things. I want the new language to reiterate with certainty that the same remedies that apply to consumers will apply to dealers when it comes to the repair, the reimbursement, or the replacement of defective vehicles in the event that a recall is ordered, but also make clear that none of this is with prejudice to remedies that may have been negotiated on commercial terms. When I have a translated version of the language, I'll circulate it to the committee.
I am curious about one of the components of the Senate amendment from a consumer protection point of view.
Mr. Jack, you might be well positioned to offer commentary. One of the potential consequences I saw with the amendment was, when there's a 1% interest payment available to dealers, that might motivate a manufacturer to repair vehicles for which there's an economic consequence to not repairing, before they repair vehicles that are on the road today being driven by consumers.
Did you have a position or perhaps thoughts on this asymmetry, which might lead to a strange situation that put Canadians in danger?