Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to give examples because this is the first time it has been done.
In other international treaties, chemical weapons conventions and others, we have not been in a position where we have had to actually use the question of principle. The normal test would apply, which is the seriousness or the gravity of the action. If under the act someone inadvertently provides information or sends one of the munitions abroad, not with deliberate intent to get around the legislation but inadvertently, then clearly the prosecutor has a judgment call for the lighter sentence. However, if it is done deliberately to contravene the act for malicious purposes, if someone wants to export land mines for use in another country as part of a military arsenal, then clearly the heavier weight of that would be applied.
That would be a judgment call by whatever prosecutor was used. They would have to weigh the gravity of the offence and use the temperate nature of our Canadian justice system to determine how it would work out.