Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think Mr. Woodworth has captured the rationale very well, so I'd only reiterate that: that this is not a gap. This was an intentional drafting of the MMP to apply only to subsection 380(1), because that offence has a monetary value attached to it and the others do not, so for practical reasons, it would be very difficult to determine the value of the public market manipulation.
The other point is that when we look at all the data about the offences that are charged, we see that there are very few, if any, charges under anything but subsection 380(1), so where there's an actual fraud that results, the fraud offence under subsection 380(1) is charged, rather than the other. So where the value can be attached to the fraud, that would be the applicable charge.
So for the other offences that involved perhaps more perhaps more preparatory conduct in terms of influencing the markets, where a person is charged and convicted, they would be subject to any penalty along the way, up to the maximum of 14 years, and all the aggravating factors that would apply would suggest that the sentence be increased in accordance with those aggravating factors and their applicability.