Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Sudbury and his support for the bill.
I want to touch upon the community impact statements and the restitution argument. In terms of community impact statements, the bill includes provisions to permit the court to receive a community impact statement that describes the losses suffered as the result of a fraud by a particular community, such as a neighbourhood, a senior centre or a club.
Perhaps the member could expand on what more detail he would want or perhaps his suggestion in terms of how the government would proceed in terms of specifically ensuring that these community impact statements are both received and acted upon.
In terms of restitution, which is the second point I want to raise, requiring judges to consider restitution from the offender in all cases of fraud involving an identified victim with ascertainable losses, judges would also be required to provide reasons if restitution is not ordered. I think this addresses the concern the member has raised. It allows judges some discretion, but then they have to provide reasons if restitution is not provided for.
Could the member comment on those two items and add more specificity to his critiques?