Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about subclause 380.3(5), which states:
If the court decides not to make a restitution order, it shall give reasons for its decision and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.
If the member is serious about dealing with white collar crime and proposing a mandatory minimum of two years, which is fairly modest, it does not do anything to address the elderly who have put their trust in people and have lost money.
I am wondering if he can explain why it is that the court would have the discretion on whether there is a restitution order but no discretion on what the penalty is for the perpetrator.