I suppose in my non-expert way of looking at it, it seemed to me that some of these schemes are so sophisticated that they, by definition or by nature, require a degree of organization. So it would not surprise me, at least, if you see more along that trend.
The other item of interest for me in this has to do with what you just said, that these crimes are very lucrative. Of course, when it comes to fraud, we know that it's all about making a quick buck and it seems sometimes as if people engaged in fraud treat sentencing, in some cases, as the cost of doing business.
These offences are non-violent. The people involved in them are naturally good at charming people. Consequently, when they come to court, it's not a surprise to see that they are able to put on a convincing show and justify conditional sentences, reduced sentences. So we're wrestling with the idea that a million-dollar fraud is a serious crime that will automatically put people away for two years regardless, in fact, of whether there are any other aggravating factors.
What we want to do is restore confidence in the justice system. We want people to know that there is no chance an offender will be sentenced to anything less than two years. We feel that it will go a long way toward restoring the public's confidence in our justice system.
I wonder if you might comment on that. Do you agree or disagree? Have you any thoughts about how the victims of crime are going to react to that minimum mandatory penalty?