Once again, by wanting to set a minimum, we seem to be completely ignoring the fact that, when it comes to complicity, the provisions of the Criminal Code are extremely broad and, for a number of offences but particularly with fraud cases, they cover participants who can be at some distance from, and play a minor role in, the fraudulent operation.
Here is an example. Let us say that it is not the secretary who continues to send notices, to collect money and to make the fraudster's operation possible. Let us say that it is a broker who, in good faith, initiates activities for someone who decides to engage in fraudulent agiotage—that's the French word for this speculative kind of fraud. At the outset, he does not see that his client is involved in it. But he could still be charged because he did not get out of the agiotage operation quickly enough. I am sure that a judge would want to take that into consideration at the same time as he would sentence the main fraudster and anyone profiting from the agiotage to a lot more than the two years proposed here. Especially if the fraudulent speculation generated proceeds of more than a million dollars.
I see the same problem of injustice as I see in minimum sentences for any involvement, however minor, which is still an offence at the moment someone becomes aware that he or she is aiding the main player in committing the offence. That is what has to be understood when we set minimum sentences.
You design minimum sentences because you are thinking about serious matters and about the proceeds that offenders are getting from their illegal actions. But you forget that they have very often dragged people down with them, people working in good faith, but who have taken too long to realize that they ought to have gotten out of the situation.
Even with a sophisticated offence, like manipulating securities on the Stock Exchange, I am sure that you can see perfectly well that young brokers may have been dragged into something that they may not have gotten out quickly enough. But neither have they benefited from the main player's speculation. It seems to me that this is why we appoint judges who are supposed to be intelligent and independent so that they can listen to all the circumstances and decide on a sentence that is not only appropriate to the offence, but also appropriate for the victims and for the people who have been of only minor assistance to the principal player.