Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon.
Like Mr. Ménard, I would like this discussion to continue all day, but I only have four and a half minutes.
I will take another half-minute to comment on Mr. Rathgeber's point, Mr. Chairman, to point out that I think in addition to deterrence it is quite a reasonable proposition that the legislature might distinguish between the gravity of offences by way of minimum sentences for the purpose of instilling confidence in the justice system and for the purpose of recognizing the concerns of victims. I think that those justifications, in addition to deterrence, give the legislature a right to distinguish between the gravity of offences.
However, my questions are for inspectors Joyal and Morin. I note the concerns that both of you have presented regarding front men or facilitators. I'm not sure if I got the expression right, les hommes de paille.
You may recall that Bill S-4, which is currently before Parliament, addresses certain items regarding false identification--that is, obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use it deceptively, dishonestly, or fraudulently; unlawfully possessing or trafficking in government-issued identity documents; and forgery offences in relation to those things.
I have two questions. First, will those provisions regarding false identity begin to make a little dent in this question of facilitators or front men? Second, apart from facilitation by way of false identities, can you suggest any provisions that might legislatively assist you in dealing with real people or people with real identities who are laundering or otherwise facilitating organized crime?
Perhaps I'll start with Inspector Morin and then ask Inspector Joyal to comment.