If the law is there, and if the law provides for substantial penalties, and if the Crown is either not prosecuting the law or the judges aren't giving the substantial penalties—? The law is already there. We already experience this in many other aspects of maximum sentences not being given for whatever crime you want to pick, and yet the law provides for a maximum sentence. Any particular judge or crown prosecutor will not seek the maximum sentence, so the people come back here saying, change the law. Well, what's the point if the judges and the crown prosecutors aren't even using the law that is already there?
In my remaining time, Mr. Hoffert's point, however, is a good one, and that is I think this general breakdown of respect for the rule of law. I find it difficult how we as legislators can deal with that. Way back in the early nineties, when we were dealing with the GST, one of the arguments about the GST was that it was going to create an underground economy of people dealing with cash and costing the federal government billions of dollars. In fact, this indeed occurred, and to my personal knowledge, it still happens. If you pay cash for something, you don't pay the GST or the PST and they don't charge it.
That, to me, is a breakdown in respect for the rule of law. What the legislators can do about it, I'm not sure. It's the same with how we expect people to include all of their tips and all of their cash earnings in their declarations for income tax purposes. We know they don't.
So, Mr. Hoffert, what suggestions would you have for us to bring back a respect for the rule of law?