Let me go back to my question, then.
I was informed by the chair that the RCMP witnesses were asked if they were aware that the mandatory minimum of two years being proposed under government legislation--the bill that is before us--did not appear to apply to a number of criminal acts that we find as separate fraudulent offences in the Criminal Code. One of them is a representative of the integrated market enforcement team, the IMET. They were surprised and told me and the committee that they would like to see the mandatory minimum apply to those other offences.
The chair then informed me that during a short period where I was absent from the room, he asked for clarification and was told by the officers that as a general rule, if someone is charged, for instance, with false prospectus, which is found under a separate section of the Criminal Code, they also would have been charged with general fraud, which is found in section 380, and therefore would be convicted of both, and therefore the minimum mandatory would apply.
Is that in fact the way in which criminal prosecutions take place, where if someone is charged with a fraudulent offence, which is not described in subsection 380(1), they would automatically also be charged under section 380, the general fraud offence--