Yes, I'm just speaking to the reason why I feel the amendment is a bit short. I understand that there was a point raised by Mr. Pallister on the intention and necessity of this motion, but now that we are dealing with this motion and the intention seems to be well intended, I think it's very important that we have the continuation of the motion in its entirety, specifically talking about manufacturing and Canadian job losses, in the way it's worded.
On November 22nd, 2007. See this statement in context.