Well, I know from the law society experience that fraud is complex and difficult to investigate, and difficult to prosecute as a result—certainly one that has any sophistication to it. Therefore, these investigations take quite a commitment of resources.
I'm not expert on law enforcement, but if I had to guess, a law enforcement agency would look at an individual who is potentially guilty of mortgage fraud, see that they have been prosecuted by their law society, see that their law society has disbarred them—it would almost certainly be an offence that they would get disbarred for—and see that a potential victim has been compensated through the law society's lawyer-funded compensation funds. I imagine that in the world of scarce resources, which I understand law enforcement labours under, it may seem like quite a lot has been done in that particular case. Therefore, the public interest imperatives of a prosecution may be partially satisfied.
From my perspective, a huge part of the solution is a resource question. Of course, I know you've heard this, as I've read the testimony so far before the committee. I know there are many people saying that there are resource problems, which are part of the challenge for FINTRAC, for example. I suspect it is a problem for law enforcement at every level, one that requires money.