WITHOUT A DOUBT, taking a tough stand against crime and criminals is always popular, and even more so when the criminal happens to be rich and famous.

Recognizing this, the Stephen Harper Conservatives say they will soon produce legislation that will mandate tougher sentences for white collar criminals by imposing minimum jail terms and barring judges from handing out conditional sentences with house arrest instead of incarceration.

The Michael Ignatieff-led Liberals, meanwhile, seem to be falling over backward in applauding the move, intent as they are to enter an election campaign where they will once more be accused of being "soft on crime."

The renewed focus on white-collar crime came after Montreal investment dealer Earl Jones was charged with fraud in July for allegedly operating a Ponzi scheme that swindled about 150 investors of at least $30 million. More recently, two Alberta men were charged with operating another Ponzitype scheme that netted them about $100 million.

But will this legislation actually accomplish anything beyond adding to our prison population at a huge cost to taxpayers? All the evidence we've seen suggests it won't.

For proof, all we need do is look south, to see what has been happening in a country that has the harshest sentencing of any in the Western world.

The same tough sentencing guidelines were in place when Bernard Madoff concocted a Ponzi scheme that apparently cost investors some $50 billion, and led to a judge imposing a 150- year sentence after the 71-year-old disgraced financier admitted to the massive fraud.

The main reason harsh sentences will never serve to deter fraudsters is that none of them ever expects to get caught.

(The same can be said about sentencing for drunk driving. Even the threat of a life sentence for impaired driving causing death hasn't had much effect.)

However, that's not to minimize the problem or to say there's nothing that could or should be done about it.

On the contrary, there's surely ample evidence of a problem that appears to have worsened in a period when there have been so many complaints about "big government" and over-regulation.

In fact, there surely is a connection between the successful scams and an absence of regulation designed to protect investors and the taxpayer.

Seldom has the old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," seemed more apt.

Of course, effective regulatory schemes invariably are costly, since they must involve enforcement, which in turn requires monitoring and inspection services.

However, the real question to be asked is not whether preventive regulation will be costly, but whether the costs facing taxpayers will be any more than those encountered by prosecuting the while collar crimes and incarcerating the white collar criminals.

And as for the investors, there surely is little doubt that effective regulation of the investment industry in the U.S. would not only have prevented Madoff from embezzling billions but would certainly have also prevented the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that triggered the current global recession with its attendant loss of jobs and life savings.

However, regulation and enforcement alone won't deal with one aspect of the problem in Canada.

Toronto lawyer Edward Greenspan, whose clients have included Conrad Black and Garth Drabinsky, complained recently that white-collar criminals are "the new object to focus public hysteria on."

However, Mr. Greenspan and others in our criminal justice system can be seen as contributing to the hysteria by slowing the wheels of the criminal justice system.

Although delays caused by the defence were only part of the problem, the Drabinsky sentencing this summer came 10 years after the same facts led to a fraud charge being laid in New York state and seven after the RCMP laid the charges that led to his conviction and a seven-year sentence, both of which are under appeal.

Obviously, such cases can be complex, but there's surely no excuse for any to take more than two or three years to complete, and electronic records should cut the time required for an appeal to months instead of years.

Mr. Greenspan happened to be speaking to an investigative and forensic accounting conference in Toronto that was told simple investigative procedures — telephone interviews, sharing and confirming information — would have uncovered the schemes of Madoff and other high-profile fraudsters.

"Just a minimal amount of investigative work, making phone calls and writing letters would have burst the balloon a lot sooner," one speaker, former RCMP investigator Craig Hannaford said. "It's a good lesson for investigators."

Instead, regulators had relied on high-profile reputations and auditors, and failed to understand the mechanics of the investment industry.