Debates of Oct. 4th, 2010

Resignation of Member

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deeply mixed emotions. Where has the time gone? It seems like yesterday that I first walked into this august chamber. It was so intimidating and, in some ways, even after nearly 17 years, it still is. What an honour, privilege and, most days, a pleasure it has been to have a seat here, one of 308.

I wish I had a minute for every year I have been here for there are so many to thank in such a short amount of time.

First, and perhaps most important, I want to thank the constituents of Prince George—Peace River for their trust, loyalty and consistent majority support throughout six elections and three party incarnations.

Second, I thank my party loyalists, those who served so generously on my board of directors or on successive campaign teams and who worked so hard over the years to win me this job pounding the election signs through snow and frost of winter campaigns, sitting through countless town hall meetings or all candidate forums in one of the eleven communities, large or small, in northeastern British Columbia.

The folks back home know who they are and there have been far too many of them over these many years to name them all. However, I do want to mention one, my mentor and great friend, Short Tompkins, a man of unshakeable integrity. His eulogy was another very difficult speech, for saying goodbye is never easy.

Third, I thank my caucus colleagues. There are about 250 MPs, past and present, who have served in the caucuses I have been privileged to be part of. Politics is best played as a team sport and I have been honoured to be a part of some of the best. I hope they will somehow forgive me for all those years I expected and asked so much of them as their whip or House leader.

Fourth, I thank colleagues from other parties because, no matter what our personal party of choice, we are all here for the same reason: to try our best to faithfully represent our constituents in this, Canada's house of democracy.

Fifth, I thank my staff, current and former, the dozens I have been privileged to have on my teams over the years, loyal, talented, committed and hard-working Canadians.

I only have time to mention the longest suffering, er...I mean serving, Mr. Speaker. These are: Charmaine Crockett, more than 14 years; Christine Wylupski, 10 and still counting; Ann Marie Keeley from the whip's office, on and off for the last 15; and, in my hometown of Fort St. John, Carol Larson, my senior constituency assistant for more than a decade, including serving as my campaign manager for the last three elections. Their steadfast support, exceptional talent, hard work and friendship over these many years made this life not only tolerable, but enjoyable. I will miss them all.

I thank Kera and Kenzie for being here as well today, along with a number of close personal friends.

My best parting advice for new members is that they choose their staff wisely because their choices can make or break their career.

Sixth on my list to thank is you, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of sucking up, for your guidance in all things procedural, your friendship and our shared adventures abroad as part of your delegations. On behalf of Leah and myself, thank you, Mr. Speaker, or should I say, PMilly? You have not only been our longest serving Speaker but, in many ways, one of the very best, despite what I may have said recently.

I also want to thank and pay special tribute to our table officers, clerks, guards and all the staff on Parliament Hill, especially for their terrific leadership, our Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms.

I have had the honour to serve four times as the whip and twice as House leader both in opposition and in government. I thank the leaders who had that much faith in me, Preston Manning, like Short, a man of impeccable integrity and a true visionary.

I would like to thank our Prime Minister, whom I first met in Calgary's Heritage Park more than 22 years ago, prior to both of us running for the fledgling Reform Party in the 1988 election. Much later he and I shared adjacent offices in the attic of the Confederation Building, between 1994 and 1997. I was honoured and humbled when he brought me into cabinet in 2007 as secretary of state to assist the Prime Minister in addition to being his whip, and I hope I was of some assistance.

Then following the 2008 election I received the ultimate privilege when he named me the leader of the government in the House of Commons. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for entrusting me with such weighty responsibilities.

Next is my family: my father, now passed away, tragically something else that the PM and I share, for we both lost our fathers on the very same day; my mom, how can I every thank her enough; my older sister and three younger brothers, their partners and families; my three wonderful children who really were just kids when I began this journey, Holly, Heather and Heath. I hope someday they will forgive me for subjecting them to the political life and that someday they will be half as proud of me as I am of each of them and their partners. To Leah's father, Bill Murray, who is here today supporting us as he always has, and his wife Michelle, thank you.

Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I saved the best for the last, and you know her well. I thank Leah for helping with my transformation, not just from being the second worst dressed MP into the member who is notable for his terrific ties, but for chiselling off the rough edges, for making me a happier man, a much better person and a stronger representative for the great people of northeastern British Columbia. Leah's unwavering support, constant encouragement, persistent good humour and unbelievable work ethic throughout the past 11 years have been a huge part of whatever success I have managed to achieve.

Lastly, I want to say that the thing I will miss most about politics is the people, vibrant, passionate people. For life is about relationships, our personal ones with family and friends, our professional ones with workmates, staff and colleagues. Because of politics I have been privileged to meet great Canadians in every corner of our great nation, and indeed great men, women and children of many nationalities, religions, cultures and colours all around the world. It is those relationships and the ones with friends here on both sides of the aisle that I will always cherish and that I will miss the most.

However, in the end it is ultimately up to each of us to determine when it is the right time to leave, when the passion has begun to wane, when we may no longer be sufficiently motivated to give the job the 100% that our constituents deserve. We are fortunate if we get to choose the time of our departure rather than our constituents making the choice for us. For me that time is now, Mr. Speaker, for you will soon receive my official letter of resignation effective October 25.

Over the past 17 years I have come to respect, to honour and to cherish the traditions, practices and history of this place but in the end, I would ask all colleagues to reflect upon and to keep in mind the title of Erik Nielsen's biography, The House is not a Home.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with the remarks we have just heard from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, I hope that these few minutes in the House today may prove to be one of those rare occasions when this place can climb above itself to a better plane. I think the hon. member has started this in a good direction.

The member for Prince George—Peace River, the former House leader and whip for the government, has told us that he is not only not running in the next election but that he will be stepping down from his office as a member of Parliament very soon. For most of the member's time in House leadership, various roles as whip and particularly as House leader for his party, it was my lot to be his counterpart for the Liberal Party and I can tell the House honestly and sincerely that I am sorry to see him go. That is not because we usually agreed on everything, or indeed anything, but for the most part we had what was a constructive and most importantly, respectful relationship.

We are both from the west. We both share backgrounds in agriculture and in rural Canada. We were both elected to this place in every election since 1993, although I did have a head start on him in 1974. Neither of us really wanted to be House leader for our respective parties, but we were on both the government and the opposition sides. Both of us have a great deal of respect for Parliament and for the fundamental institutions of democratic governance in this country.

We both now, by coincidence, share offices here in the Centre Block side-by-side each other. Until today's announcement I was thinking that it would be absolutely impossible to shed this guy because he moved in right next door.

The member for Prince George—Peace River was one of those MPs who could hear and understand and respect somebody else's different point of view. I found that I could always deal with him on a straight-up basis.

I remember one incident when I prepared a very detailed email about House tactics and I fired it off to my assistant whose name started with “Ja”. His first name was Jamie. In the flow of emails, I hit the wrong button and that very detailed memo went to another guy whose name started with “Ja” but ended with “y”. I called him and said he just might want to ignore that email. He said that he did not think it was intended for him and not to worry, that it had already been destroyed.

More generally, we could have candid discussions about serious issues as House leaders. We would rarely agree, as I mentioned before, but we could come to a conclusion about how the parliamentary procedural dimensions of those issues ought to be handled. We could look each other in the eye, shake hands on it and be absolutely confident that each would keep his word. That element of trust is fundamental to the functioning of this place and is a rare quality, and I always respected that in that particular gentleman.

I say to my friend from Prince George—Peace River, yes indeed I am sorry to see you go. I will not have to listen anymore to your long-winded answers to my very short and succinct Thursday questions about House business, but I will miss your goodwill, and your respect for Parliament and for the people who work here on all sides of the chamber.

I want, on behalf of the official opposition, to wish all the best to the member for Prince George—Peace River, to his wife and to his family. He leaves this place with a reputation for decency, and that is a high accomplishment for all of us who serve in public life.

May I leave him with a short poem that I think neatly sums up the life of a House leader in the House of Commons. All party leaders should pay attention to this:

It's not my place
To run the train
The whistle I can't blow.
It's not my place
To say how far
The train's allowed to go.
It's not my place
To shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell.
But let the damn thing
Jump the track...
And see who catches hell!

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, as deputy leader of my party, to pay tribute to the member for Prince George—Peace River, who has announced that he is retiring from politics after 17 years of service to his constituents in northern British Columbia. It surely cannot be easy to leave his political family and his colleagues who have walked this road with him over the years. We can understand how intense the emotions must be when one decides to leave politics.

When we think about the career of the member for Prince George—Peace River, the true meaning of the phrase “public service” becomes apparent. Over the course of his political career, the member for Prince George—Peace River spent many years as parliamentary leader and party whip, which required his continued presence on Parliament Hill during periods when the House was not in session.

This work, which is demanding for any parliamentarian, is particularly so when one's riding is thousands of kilometres from Parliament Hill, as is the case for the member for Prince George—Peace River.

This desire to serve his constituents has undoubtedly had significant repercussions on the personal and family life of the member for Prince George—Peace River, which makes his 17 years of public service all the more admirable.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I have had the chance to work alongside the member and we have seen just how determined and thorough this man is and how courageous he is in defending his convictions concerning decorum in the House of Commons.

Sometimes we have worked together, sometimes we have disagreed, but no matter what the circumstances, we have always appreciated the honesty and availability of the member for Prince George—Peace River. He respects his opposition colleagues, which is worth mentioning because it is such a rare thing these days.

In closing, I wish the member nothing but success in his future endeavours. We share with him the joy of being with his family members who, for the past 17 years, have been waiting to spend more than just a little time with him.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today on behalf of NDP members to say a few words about what I think his constituents always think is the guy from Peace River. That is how they will remember him.

I had the good fortune, as well, to work with the hon. member as House leader for the NDP when he was the House leader for the government. Over the years, I have become used to the member and his straightforward way, his blunt way of just laying it on the table, no BS, there it is, this is what it is, and he is to be respected and admired for that.

We heard the member say that he was elected six times, but maybe what some members have forgotten, and maybe even his constituents, is that the first time he ran, in 1988, he came in third after the NDP. Therefore, maybe there is hope for us yet in Prince George—Peace River. We are counting on that now.

In reviewing his various party affiliations, to which he alluded, we should go into this just a bit more. I think people might see that the member is a bit of a radical. He started off with the Reform caucus, the Canadian Alliance caucus, the PC/DR Coalition. He then went on to an independent caucus with some of his colleagues, then back to the Canadian Alliance caucus and now his political resting place in the Conservative caucus. There is quite a lot of switching around, so the member might have a bit of a radical bent to him.

I also noted that his bio does not list his publications, but our whip, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who worked with him as whip, reminded me that there is one that we will not forget. That is the great publication, the committee handbook of dirty tricks. It was not quite a bestseller and I do not think it made it to second printing, which probably is for the best.

On a serious note, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has always been a fierce whip and House leader for his party. I think it is possible that his own members feared him more than we ever did in the opposition.

However, as I worked with him as House leader, I know one thing he did really try to work on very hard and that was decorum in the House. How many discussions did we have about that? Maybe in his political retirement he can write a new handbook on decorum in the House. That would be much appreciated.

We know the member as a dedicated parliamentarian, a very snappy dresser and someone who has served his constituents and the House well. We wish him and Leah, his wonderful partner, all of the best.

The member for Prince George—Peace River has always been forthright and upfront with us and we have respected that. I remember when he told us loud and clear that he was fed up to the teeth with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and that he would cut the debate. That is exactly what he did, and we expected it.

We thank the member for all of his work. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We wish him all the best in his new life outside of this place, and we know there will be many good years.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has nothing he can usefully add to the discussion that has already taken place.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for what he has done and especially for his work on the Board of Internal Economy.

The Minister of Transport is rising on the same point and he will have something to say.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, responding to a retirement announcement, thankfully, is not the same as a eulogy although a twinge of nostalgia might be allowed as the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River moves on to enjoy the next chapter of his exceptional life.

My friend and I were both elected back in 1993 and even before then I clearly recall him saying to me “We'll get elected, partner, we'll go to Ottawa and we'll look after each other's backs”. Seventeen years later, we are still best friends and, true enough, we have been looking after one another's backs since the beginning.

As might be expected of best friends, our careers have had some similarities along the way. We both started out life in the resource sector, running heavy equipment and learning to manage a crew of pretty rough characters. It probably prepared us for what we are doing here today.

We have both been whip and House leader for our parties, although my colleague did it better and longer than I ever did. We were both asked to serve in the cabinet. Throughout it all, we came to appreciate that the support of the voters at home was the underpinning of all good things political.

What members will hear and read is that within our party and within Parliament the MP for Prince George—Peace River has had an exceptionally productive career and an exceptionally positive influence. While all of that is true, it is also true that our colleague has always been an impact guy. In early days he earned a reputation as a pugnacious political fighter. Right from the start, our colleague was a local folk hero in his beloved Fort St. John, consistently topping the polls in our province. He was “Jay of the North”, a no-nonsense guy who knew what he knew and was not afraid to tell anyone how things were in the real world outside of the Ottawa bubble.

However, somewhere along the line our colleague made a conscious decision to change tactics. It was not enough to simply challenge the status quo. He decided to make the most of the leadership opportunities offered him, and a leader is what he has become, using his considerable abilities to positively influence not only his political party but the House of Commons as well. It was a big shift for a crusty old roughneck from the oil patch, but he did it. He did it successfully and with panache, and let us face it, in the early days he would not even have known what panache was.

Like all of us, our colleague has a private life and there, too, he has emphasized the things that really matter. Being a good father is important to him and his positive relationships with his three children, Heather, Heath and Holly, now all adults, has been and always will be a priority, as is his relationship to his soulmate and partner, Leah Murray.

He is passionate about relationships and that means those fortunate folks who are closest to our colleague get to see a man who cares about them and is not afraid to show it. Deb and I are proud to call all of them our friends.

Our colleague will soon move on to the next stage of life, secure in the knowledge that his legacy in this place and as a member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River is safe in history. He was and is principled, direct and results-oriented. He is a straight-shooter everyone wants in their corner when the going gets rough.

The member for Prince George—Peace River should enjoy the next stage of his life and he should know that wherever he goes and whatever he does, I have his back.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am happy to join all hon. members in wishing the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River the very best in his retirement from the House. I am sure we will see him around and about occasionally with his wife. We hope that happens on a continuing basis.

Passport Fees

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls on the Canadian government to negotiate with the United States government to reduce U.S. and Canadian passport fees. American tourists visiting Canada are at the lowest level since 1972. It has fallen by five million in the last seven years, from 16 million in 2002 to only 11 million in 2009.

Passport fees for multiple member families are a significant barrier to traditional cross-border family vacations and the cost of passports for an American family of four can be over $500. While over half of Canadians have passports, only one-quarter of Americans have them.

At the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments, attended by myself and 500 other elected representatives from 11 border states and 3 provinces, a resolution was passed unanimously, which reads as follows:

RESOLVED, that the...Conference calls on President Barack Obama and [the] Prime Minister...to immediately examine a reduced fee for passports to facilitate cross-border tourism;

...we encourage the governments to examine the idea of a limited time two-for-one passport renewal or new application; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this resolution be submitted to appropriate federal, state and provincial officials.

To be a fair process, passport fees must be reduced on both sides of the border. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism and to promote a limited time, two-for-one passport renewal or a new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.

Multiple Sclerosis

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of fellow Canadians, mostly from the national capital region, although some of them might be a bit outside of it. Therefore, they are mostly from Quebec and Ontario.

They call on the ministers of health of Canada and the provinces to get together to discuss allowing hospitals, private clinics and individual doctors to test for and treat CCSVI in all Canadians who desire testing and treatment and to plan and implement a nationwide clinical trial for the evaluation of venography and balloon venoplasty for the treatment of CCSVI in persons diagnosed with MS.

Animal Welfare

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present.

The first is for the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare. There are hundreds of petitioners from Windsor and Essex County who call for the strengthening of animal welfare rights across the world.

There is a recognition that animals around the world suffer during natural disasters, as well as during cruelty inflicted on them on a regular basis. The petitioners call upon the government to support the universal declaration on animal welfare and that Canada become part of that effort.

The second petition also relates to animal welfare. The petitioners call for strengthening animal transportation regulations. They understand that sometimes animals can be transported for hundreds of kilometres, for hours and even days, sometimes without food, water or basic proper shelter.

Hundreds of petitioners call upon Canada to strengthen this act to ensure there will be proper humane conditions for animals in transport.

Sri Lanka

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with an issue related to Sri Lanka. The petitioners call for humane and just support for those who have been affected by the war there and to be a country that supports ensuring that human rights abuses are not committed upon them.

Canada Post

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is signed by hundreds of petitioners from Windsor and Essex County. They call for the retention of Canadian postal services. They are worried that postal services will be reduced, which they consider vital infrastructure for their communities.

The petitioners call upon the government to maintain those facilities as they currently stand.

Prorogation

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners note that the prorogation of Parliament is becoming an ever-increasing event used in the House. They also note that each occasion of prorogation creates a delay in parliamentary activity and that there is a potential for prorogation to be used to avoid the expression of parliamentary will.

The petitioners ask that Parliament enact legislation to prevent the use of prorogation unless deemed necessary by the majority of the members of Parliament. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's answer.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Premature Disclosure of a Private Member's Bill--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before we proceed to orders of the day, I would like to take a minute to respond to the question of privilege raised on September 30, 2010 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the premature disclosure of a private member's bill sponsored by the hon. member for St. Paul's.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter, since any time that this happens, it is, as he said, a very serious matter, particularly when it involves the privileges of members.

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

In response, on the same day, the hon. member for St. Paul's rose in the House and apologized for having inadvertently posted the bill in question on her website in advance of the House having been privy to its contents. In fact, she stated that she would “never do anything purposely to go against the rules of this place”.

As it is also a long-standing practice in this House for the Chair to accept the word of hon. members and indeed their apologies, I now consider this matter to be closed and disposed of.

Motion to concur in seventh report of industry, science and technology committee

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a point of order that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons last Thursday regarding two motions that were before the House last week. One was a concurrence motion by my colleague from Windsor West on a report from industry committee; the second was a supply day motion by the official opposition. The parliamentary secretary's argument was that the rule of anticipation applied to these two motions.

Although we had started the concurrence motion, we had not completed it. In fact, we still had a little better than an hour and a half to go before the debate would have been completed and the motion put to a vote. The parliamentary secretary argued that it should be ruled out of order because the same issue had been dealt with in the official opposition's supply day motion. That is the factual situation.

I was a bit disturbed by the parliamentary secretary's argument. He quoted selectively from O'Brien and Bosc, leaving the clear impression, at least to me, that the rule of anticipation was a standing rule of the House.

The reality is that it never has been a rule of the House, and this can be found on page 560 of O'Brien and Bosc. It is a rule in Westminster, but it has never been one here. When attempts were made to apply it in the past, at least in one circumstance, it was determined that it did not apply, as O'Brien and Bosc specifically state. In the other times, its application was inconclusive.

A debate was going on when the rule was applied initially. Questions were being asked in anticipation of a supply bill that was to come later in the day. Initially the Speaker ruled the questions out of order because debate was anticipated later in the day.

As a result of a 1997 ruling that was surprising to a number of members of the House, the issue was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Mr. Marleau was asked to attend and he made certain representations to committee. As a result of those representations, a report went back to the House, and subsequently the Speaker ruled that questions of that nature were applicable, and that the rule of anticipation was not. And so it was allowed to go ahead.

We are not dealing with the same factual situation here. We are dealing with two separate motions, one being a concurrence motion from a committee.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you take into account that in 2004 changes were made to the Standing Orders of the House. The change with regard to this particular motion makes it clear that a concurrence motion is one on which the House is guaranteed a vote. The rule provides for that. It applies to the factual situation we have here. It carries more weight than what is really a nonexistent rule.

One might be able to argue that the rule of anticipation could have some application in the House, because we often draw on precedent from other Parliaments, Westminster in particular. But when we have a specific rule, as we do here, that guarantees the House the right to vote on a concurrence motion on the work done in a committee, our rules govern and they are clear.

My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that, if you have to choose between the Standing Order with regard to concurrence reports, including the right to vote on them, and a rule of anticipation that arguably does not exist, except in one area, I believe you should apply the Standing Order that allows us to have the debate and the vote on a concurrence motion.

In summary, the position we are putting forward to the House today is this. We have already had the ruling that questions in the House are not barred by the rule of anticipation. We believe that if you make the ruling we are proposing, that motions, whether they originate from private members or the government, are not precluded by the rule of anticipation.

However, in our view, if two pieces of legislation are identical or very similar, they should not be allowed on the order paper at the same time. We believe that the rule of anticipation should in fact apply to that situation. Otherwise, we would have extended debates, perhaps repeatedly. A bill could be put forward, defeated, and then brought forward again and again. The House could end up being tied up forever on it. There are good arguments for applying the rule of anticipation to bills but not to questions or motions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for his remarks. I will take them under advisement as I have with the parliamentary secretary's submissions on this point and get back to the House as quickly as I can, given the urgency of this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the debate concluded on this matter the last time it was before the House, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe had the floor and had completed his speech, but there are 10 minutes allotted for questions and comments consequent on his speech.

I therefore call for questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a question came up this morning about what the government is doing to recover money from tax havens around the world. There is no action at all on the part of the government. In fact, the government basically gives an amnesty to people with money in tax shelters who come forward and report their ill-gotten gains. For example, last year a Liechtenstein bank employee turned over tax records to the German government, and 100 Canadian names filtered back to Canada. That is how we found out about it. Just the other day, there was an article in the Globe and Mail in which a Swiss bank employee was reported to have turned over computer discs resulting in about 1,800 Canadian names being forwarded to Canada. Once again, I believe the amnesty applies.

The government is not doing anything concrete to try to shut down the tax havens. In fact, it is negotiating free trade deals with Panama, which is a known tax haven, having over 350,000 foreign companies doing business there. Mexican drug dealers are laundering money through Panama. Meanwhile, we are working on trade deals with the Panamanians, when Conservatives should be doing something to shut down these tax havens and collect from Canadians who have money in them.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about tax havens during the debate, but this bill does not have anything to do with tax havens. It would be nice for the government to take action on tax havens, but I am not sure that is the domain of the Criminal Code.

However, the member and other members of his party are absolutely correct and relevant in respect of the lack of prevention measures. Where are the preventive tools to deal with fraud? Surely the government, in other bills that might come before the House, could come up with methods to attack the fraudsters. As the law newsletter from Miller Thomson, a firm I have never been associated with and am not advertising for, says, the three big names in Canadian fraud, along with Earl Jones, would not have been affected by this bill.

Agreeing somewhat with my friend, I ask: when is the government going to tackle fraud in a serious way with all the resources it has at its disposal?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, my colleague had gone into a great deal of analysis of the difference between general fraud and white collar fraud in terms of the kinds of people who are victimized. People are victimized through their inability to understand the technology. Organizations are defrauded by very unscrupulous and skilled individuals. He also said just now, as he had repeated before, that there is not enough emphasis on prevention.

What I wonder about, and I think the House would be interested, is if those who benefit from the proceeds of crime knew in advance that the full spectrum of law enforcement and the judicial system would come hard on them, whether it is a tax haven or wherever the proceeds were, they would not be able to count that in the future as part of their ownership.

Does this bill come anywhere near to talking about the proceeds of crime, and if it does not, should that be elevated in terms of the committee's understanding and perhaps recommendations brought forward in that respect?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this chamber knows about community it is this member. He has served as chair of the greater metropolitan area of Toronto. His father was the mayor of York. This man knows community.

Crimes of fraud touch all aspects of age, gender, location, geography, et cetera. What this bill does not do, anymore than the existing law, is crack down specifically on the greatest fraudsters.

I want to answer my friend's question. There is not enough attention paid to specific fraudsters here. In these cases that have been pointed out by law newsletters, regarding Earl Jones, Stan Grmovsek and Vincent Lacroix, the penalties meted out were well in excess of the two-year mandatory minimum that is in this bill. In other words, the existing law gave sentences variously of 14 years for Earl Jones and 39 months for Grmovsek, and led to in that case, under the existing code, the disgorgement or return of $8.5 million.

We ought to be considering what the United States does with respect to the control of assets and the control of money, because at the end of the day, the victims want their day in court. They want to see sentences, but also, and maybe primarily, they would like to have their money back. This bill does nothing towards that, so we ought not to raise false hope in my community or in the member's community that this is a panacea. It is not.