First of all, I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc, Monsieur Ménard and Madame Mourani, for what I consider to be a principled stand and one of integrity. We may not agree on the substance of the bill, but I think it shows a respect for the process that I personally find very admirable.
I know that Mr. Ménard was a justice minister in Quebec, and certainly he has a very well-established experience with legislative drafting. So if he thinks this is in order, that opinion counts a lot with me.
I just want to say that Mr. Rathgeber uses one of the oldest tricks in the book, which is to name call. He called my amendment ludicrous. That doesn't speak to the logic of it; it's a name call.
I'll tell you where the million dollars came from, Mr. Chairman. On the million-dollar threshold, if my friend read the Criminal Code--read the sections he's calling ludicrous--which he obviously hasn't, the million dollars came from the Criminal Code. That is the standard that's extant in the Criminal Code in some of these offences. The million-dollar figure is referred to as an aggravating factor when sentences are given out; that's why we use the million dollars.
I also want to point out that the Criminal Code is filled with distinctions that seek to establish thresholds of seriousness. We have theft over, theft under.... That doesn't mean the theft of $20 is less serious than the theft of $200 million; only a fool would equate those two in terms of sentencing. They make a difference.