Debates of March 16th, 2000

House Of Commons

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I refer to my previous intervention for those who are making catcalls. I would like to give a positive suggestion at this point.

The Clerk of the House and the law clerk are both appointed by the government. They are governor in council appointments. The Prime Minister's Office puts those people in place. One suggestion I can make is that these positions should be filled in the same way as the Speaker's position. The names should be put forward and approved by two-thirds of the members of the House.

I am asking if my colleague from the Bloc would agree that may be a positive suggestion. We have the whole question of confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege being put into question. The Speaker has a problem in that regard. I put that positive suggestion forward. I think we have to resolve some of these things.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform Party has raised a very important issue.

In a country that claims to be a model of democracy but that recently mocked parliamentary democracy as never before by passing a very vague bill on clarity, a bill that, according to the members opposite, was intended to protect the people of Quebec against themselves, we have a pretty strange democratic process, if we consider that the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed by the governing party, the returning officers in each of the Canadian ridings are appointed by the governing party and the Clerk and the Deputy Principal Clerk of the House are appointed by the governing party.

There are also a number of government agency officials that are appointed by the governing party, but at least the governing party has the decency to pretend to consult with the other political parties in the House, in some instances. Does it really take their opinion into account? That is another story. But at least, there is some sort of consultation.

It might be time now to consult more seriously with the political parties for the appointment of the main officials in this House.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only a short comment to make. If we have enough time, certain of my colleagues will speak to the motion as such.

Mr. Speaker, you can rest in peace. I heard nothing serious about you or about the Chair. I am not impressed with the fact that such an important motion, one that is very rarely used in parliament, has been moved. As we say in English, I ask my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois “Where's the beef?” in terms of the motion concerning the Speaker.

I have a lot of respect for the whip, who made a good speech. Undeniably, there is a problem, but then to make a connection with you, in a motion that takes precedence over everything else—I ask the whip to for an explanation. I also want him to explain to those who are watching us and who are calling my office to find out what is going on.

I ask the whip to enlighten me.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment made by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, I must say that I did not find his arguments very compelling either.

He should know, which does not seem to be the case, that members of the opposition have very few recourses in the House. I heard the parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party say this morning that, yes, the problem raised by the Bloc Quebecois was serious, but it was not the right solution.

I agree with him. We proposed another solution before that. We proposed that this whole issue be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but the Speaker refused. What kind of recourse do we have left after that?

Once the basic relationship of confidentiality and trust with certain officials of the House has been breached and once the Speaker has ruled that everything is all right, that there is no problem, that there will be no discussion and no attempt to find a solution, there is no other option for us, as members of an opposition party, than to say that we think the Speaker did not give a good ruling and that, consequently, we cannot have confidence in that ruling.

What kind of recourse do we have left? Maybe the brilliant and distinguished member for Richmond—Arthabasca will be able to find an answer to this question for me.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the motion before us. I would like to refocus the debate on the motion itself. I shall divide my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie. Motion No. 59, introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, reads:

That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the Speaker, since it is of the opinion that the Speaker exhibited partiality in determining that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis on Wednesday, March 1, 2000 was out of order and in rejecting the point of order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, to the detriment of the rights and privileges of all of the members of this House.

Thus two points are raised as a basis, in effect, for censuring the Speaker of our House. First, there is the censure language, that “this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the Speaker—to the detriment of the rights and privileges of al members of this House”. To this I say clearly and unequivocally that you have continued to earn my trust and confidence, Mr. Speaker, although from time to time I might have differed with your interpretation and adjudication of the application of rules. Furthermore, I say with equal resolute confidence that my rights and privileges have not been adversely affected.

I support your ruling given on March 13 on the question of privilege raised on March 1 by the deputy House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. It is this ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, that is used as one of the bases for the censure motion before us. No doubt the Bloc Quebecois did not particularly like your ruling, but I submit that dislike of a ruling in itself does not establish that you were partial when you rendered that ruling.

To allow the censure motion to prosper on the basis of this point would in effect condone a successful challenge to your ruling, an approach which is clearly forbidden and explicitly prohibited in the standing orders of our House. I will read Standing Order 10 at page six:

The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.

To allow the censure motion on this basis would also in effect say that the member for Rimouski—Mitis who initially raised the question of privilege has an impartiality and a level of wisdom superior to the Speaker.

I would submit that you continue to display superior competence and wisdom. I also believe that you have been impartial at all times. For these reasons I respectfully submit to the House that the censure motion before us loses ground and should be defeated.

I say to my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this approach, as unintended as it might be, on the part of the Bloc Quebecois by way of this motion, although it might be an imaginative tool to bring back debate on the clarity act bill, which received third reading and passage in the House yesterday and now goes to the Senate, and although it might be a tool to bring attention to other issues, allows challenge to the ruling of the Chair, the servant of the House. It is clear that to allow that would be in clear breach of our standing orders in the Chamber.

The rule is there and is intended to maintain decorum in and the dignity of the House. Without it there would be chaos. For the same foregoing reasons the House should reject the second point of the censure motion in rejecting the point of order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. Indeed, the sponsor of the censure motion said in opening debate that we must investigate and revisit that ruling. That is a clear indication of trying to challenge the ruling itself.

Let me state for the record of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the essence of your ruling on the question as found at page 4376 of Hansard for March 13:

In this case, I note there is no mention of any breach of confidentiality whereby the text of proposed motions of the hon. member or her party has been made known to persons working outside the field of legislative support operations or to other members. Confidential information proprietary to the Bloc Quebecois and several of its members remained completely and absolutely confidential. Consequently, I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege or a contempt of the House.

Your particular ruling was sound and impartial. It merits the support, confidence and trust of all members of the House in the best traditions of our parliamentary democracy. In compliance with Standing Order 10, a ruling of the Speaker should not be subject to appeal to the House.

Let me now address the argument raised by the House leader of the Reform Party in debating the censure motion before us. He said that the censure motion is not about the question of confidentiality, nor about the performance of the clerks and legislative counsel of the House. The Reform Party House leader went on to claim that the censure motion is a result of the government misreading the Bloc on Bill C-20.

The whip of the Reform Party also claimed that there should be a free vote as we judge our confidence in the Speaker based on the Chair's performance during your tenure, Mr. Speaker, since your election by the House a few years ago.

Let me just caution colleagues that the censure motion before us is very specific as to the two considerations which we have to vote on. They are the Speaker's ruling to which I alluded earlier as well as the timeframe during which the question of privilege and the point of order for which the aforementioned ruling was rendered, which was on or around March 1, 2000.

To extend the timeframe beyond the substantive scope contained in the censure motion as a basis for our voting would be ill advised to say the least. It would be reckless at its worst in the tradition of parliamentary democracy. It would be vindictive. It would be a mockery of our human conscience.

Let me end with a quote from The Procedure of the House of Commons by Josef Redlich. On the question of a vote of censure upon the Speaker it states:

It need hardly be said that such an event is abnormal and happens but rarely, and that such a motion would only be acceded to by the House if the circumstances fully justified it...it would appear seriously to undermine the exalted position and dignity of the Speaker if, in addition to his application of the rules being open to challenge upon special and important occasions, it was competent for every member to call in question the Speaker's authority whenever he chose, and if he was liable at all times to be called upon to defend the correctness of his decisions.

I appeal to my colleagues. Let us exercise due diligence and care. Let us vote based on reason, based on our established rules and order and based on wisdom. Let us summon the reason of goodwill in us. It has been with the gift of the Canadian electorate that we are here in the House. Let us use that gift wisely in a way that present and future generations can be proud of our place in this hallowed Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have confidence in you.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating a motion of non-confidence in the Chair. This motion was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.

A number of statements by my Bloc colleagues lead me to believe that this is just an excuse to keep on debating a bill the House has already disposed of, a bill I believe is strengthening my rights, my prerogatives and my duties as an elected member of parliament, a highly democratic bill, contrary to what my colleagues across the way might think.

Only seconds ago, the Bloc Quebecois whip claimed he is here to defend the interests of Quebecers. What a coincidence, so am I.

I do not intend to reopen a debate that has already taken place in full compliance with our democratic and parliamentary rules, but rather to tie this political issue with the motion before us today.

I will explain. In the speech he gave this morning, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said “The Prime Minister wants to arrive to the convention of his party with Bill C-20, the clarity act, in his pocket, not with scandals floating around”. I thought the issue was the Chair, not the Prime Minister.

This same member also said, referring to the Chair, “I am not saying there was malice, but that there is a problem”. To introduce a motion of non-confidence in the Chair does suggest that the Chair has lacked integrity and acted with malice. It is a blatant contradiction of terms by the leader of the Bloc.

The reason behind the motion is not the quality of the work of the Chair, but rather a political fight. The non-confidence motion in the Chair is a means being used for a political cause.

How can anyone pretend to be a democrat while at the same time being prepared to use for political purposes the very symbol of democracy, the Parliament of Canada and its Chair?

This morning, the hon. member for Joliette reinforced the extremely unpleasant feeling that, for the Bloc, the end justifies the means. He said in so many words that the issue was not a lack of confidence in the Speaker.

It may not be a matter of lack of confidence, but a motion of non-confidence in the Speaker has been moved. This is inconsistency at its best.

Obviously, Speaker's rulings may be challenged, but I do not think this a valid reason to question the Speaker's integrity. Our Parliament is an eminently respectable institution, but it was created by human beings. It is managed by human beings. This means that it is fallible. By essence, it can be improved.

When we have the privilege of being elected, we inherit many responsibilities, one of which is to constantly strive to improve this institution with due respect for all its members, with dignity, and by rising above partisanship.

We have just spent almost 40 hours straight voting on amendments. Regardless of the content of these amendments, the process itself is totally absurd. This is the second time in a few months that all members have been held hostage. Surely the operation of our institution could be improved.

The right of all parliamentarians to debate is a fundamental right. But systematically obstructing the business of the House is not a right. It is a practice that reflects great weaknesses, a practice, not a right, which should be more tightly controlled.

Should a suggestion be made that we try to improve the operation of the House, I would go for that. If the suggestion is to find new ways to protect the democratic rights of all members of Parliament, again, I agree. But I would not agree to withdraw the confidence of the House in the Chair.

This morning, the hon. member for Roberval expressed his respect for the Canadian institution. In that spirit, I urge him to withdraw this motion, which serves no one and does not contribute to the respect and dignity of the House and its Chair. Failing that, in the name of integrity and out of respect for our institution, I will have no choice but to vote against this motion.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I want our friends from the Bloc to understand that we want our people from Quebec to be part of Canada. We know it is a very emotional situation, we really do, but I want to say that we in our party have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe that anyone would put on the floor of the House a non-confidence motion in you, Mr. Speaker, in any of our clerks or in any of our people. I cannot believe it.

I understand that this is an emotional situation. I understand that there is a long debate, there has been and will continue to be I am sure in the future. But we want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we do have respect.

I know from personal experience having been here with only two of us in our party, Jean Charest and myself, that had it not been for you, Mr. Speaker, I would probably never have stayed. But you encouraged me to be here because my people elected me and you treated me fairly. I find that you treat us all with respect. That is what it is all about. Yes, if there has been a mistake and if we do not agree perhaps with every decision you make, that is life. You do not agree with all the questions that we ask and I can understand that.

Certainly that is what this is all about. That is the democratic process and our colleagues have to understand that.

I ask my colleagues to withdraw the non-confidence motion. That motion is not the right thing to do. I ask that they consider that immediately. Yes, we want them to be able to debate. Maybe they should have had the 1,000 amendments and have been able to debate them, but I cannot agree with putting forward a non-confidence vote on our Speaker. I will not agree with it and neither will my colleagues. I ask that they withdraw the motion.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague from Saint John and my entire caucus. We support you.

We recognize that this debate came about primarily because of the frustration that the Bloc was experiencing with regard to Bill C-20. None of us disagree with the Bloc's sensitivity to this issue. That was exhibited through debate with the frustration and so on. It has led to a high level of frustration. I think the motion was launched on the basis of frustration, nothing more nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it is the same frustration we all feel and which I know you felt when you were sitting here as a backbench member of parliament. I have taken the opportunity today to look at your career as a member of parliament. You are like any of us here. You earned your way to stand in this place and represent your constituents. I think you have done an extremely good job.

I was with you in a previous parliament, Mr. Speaker. I guess we share a commonality. We know what it is like to be a backbencher on the government side. My experience is it was probably more frustrating to be a backbencher on the government side than it is on the opposition side. This job by definition is frustrating regardless of what side we sit on.

There is a commonality between yourself and myself as members of parliament. You earned your way here. You sat out a term in that you were defeated in a general election in 1984 when your party was not very popular. I would not consider that a personal defeat but you had the fortitude to stand up and run for office again and you came back to this place. I did the same thing in 1993. I experienced personal defeat and came back to the House in 1997. Few members have that opportunity. Most of us will not go through that fight to earn our place, our right to stand in this place and defend our constituents, defend the things we believe in.

For the most part I think we do it fairly well. As members have stated here earlier in the day, it is one of the few countries in the world with a true democracy. We could almost identify with our 10 fingers, on two hands, the true democracies in this world. The number does not extend much beyond a couple of handfuls. It is a very small number of countries. Every night we see in the newscasts countries that have civil unrest, where decisions are made at the point of a gun and where there is no true democracy.

This is a place we can be proud of. People back home, my wife, my family, my own flesh and blood sometimes get a little discouraged by what they see happening in this place. It goes back, Mr. Speaker, to how you got here, how I got here and how everyone else got here.

It is a tough and brutal business. The weapons we use are merely words. From time to time we do get exercised. I have become exercised, because we are here fighting for what we believe in.

Members disagree in the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have seen it time and time again. We will fire away at a cabinet minister, or vice versa, and when it is all over we will walk outside, shake hands or pat each other on the back and go back at it the next day because we honour that tradition. We honour the right to do that in this place.

Mr. Speaker, you are merely the referee. You have the toughest job. Being prime minister is not easy. Being the leader of the opposition or the fourth or fifth party is not an easy job, but it is easier than your job. We elect you to referee this place and we expect you to be perfect. We expect you to rule every time according to the way we see things. We always want to be right, but we very seldom are, and you do the best job as a mere mortal to referee this very intense setting. On a day to day basis you do it as good as anyone ever has, including Speaker Fraser, for whom you have a great deal of respect, and a Speaker I served under.

You were elected by us. I was elected by the people back home to stand in this place to state how I see it. They gave me the right and the privilege to do that. We gave you the privilege to referee this very intense forum.

You have heard comments today that, as a mere mortal, I do not know if I could take them. I could not.

[An hon. member]

You could not, trust me.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our caucus is speaking. He often tells me that if I do not like what he is doing as chairman, then I could do it. However, I could not. My personality does not lead me to be a referee.

Mr. Speaker, you are defenceless. In this place our weapons are our words. Sometimes we go off the mark a bit, using words that might be unparliamentary or taking a jab here and there. It is a tough job in which we want perfection, but we will never have perfection.

There have been some debates which have taken place in the House over the years which have led to difficult circumstances for Speakers. During the pipeline debate of 1956 a motion like this was before the House and it had a disastrous effect on parliamentary decorum and the role of the Speaker.

I was here during the omnibus bill which set up the national energy program. The bells rang for 16 days. The Speaker was put in a very precarious position. At that time there was frustration on this side of the House, so the Conservative Party instituted that weapon and the bells rang for 16 days before the issue was finally resolved.

That incident happened because of frustration on this side of the House. The members were using the rules, as they saw them, to send a message home. We have seen it in the House on a couple of occasions. During the Nisga'a treaty debate the Reform Party moved amendments which required us to vote around the clock for 48 hours, but the bill still passed.

Obviously the Bloc did that this week with Bill C-20. There were some 400 amendments and we voted around the clock for 36 hours.

They are using tools which are available to them, but at the end of the day they are extremely frustrated by the outcome. However, it is wrong of them to take it out on the Speaker. They are using the rules that exist. If there is any fault, I suggest that it has to do with too much being on the agenda, forcing human error. There is too much pressure being placed upon the legislative ability of the clerks, who work through the procedure and have to deal with what is before the House.

Human error will never be eliminated in this business. We are all mortals. We are all human.

Mr. Speaker, we support you. I think this House supports you. This is only on the agenda today because of frustration, nothing more and nothing less. We want you there. At the end of the day, I think you will find that you have a clear majority in the House.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make about the non-confidence motion against the Speaker of the House.

I must first tell you that I have always considered you as a distinguished person, a person who is extremely polite in the House, fair, impartial and showing wisdom.

I suppose that the members of the Bloc Quebecois were extremely frustrated with Bill C-20 on clarity.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

This is irrelevant.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

I would like to demonstrate that, in rejecting some of the amendments made by members of the Bloc Quebecois, you did show wisdom.

I do not have the list of amendments you rejected, but judging by those you accepted—I would like to quote a few, to show how ridiculous the Bloc Quebecois was.

Some amendments read “That the act come into force on February 1, 2005”; “That the act come into force on April 1, 2005”; “That the act come into force on May 1, 2005”; “That the act come into force on June 1, 2005”—

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I asked if anyone wished to ask a question or make a comment. I saw only one member rise from his seat, namely the hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester, and I recognized him. Perhaps there were others. With five minutes remaining, I was going to give him two minutes and a half and then allow two minutes for the answer, because no one else had risen.

Consequently he has about 26 seconds left.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will never be able to finish in 26 seconds, but I can understand the temper tantrums of the spoiled brats in the Bloc Quebecois.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

These amendments said “This act shall come into force—”

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Just a moment. Enough of these stupid remarks. The member has to stop insulting us, and right now.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to respond to that, other than to say that this is a perfect example of how tough your job is from time to time.

I hope that we can end this debate in a civilized way. I know that emotions are running very high. It was very wise of the House to have this debate today to allow us to vent our frustrations.

In families, organizations and businesses when there is a problem, they deal with it. The good thing that is coming out of this exercise is that all members—Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Reform—will have a chance to stand on their hind legs, say it like it is, get it out, and then we can get on with the business of the House.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some pride and some disappointment. I am sure there are members who realize that I have known you for many years, probably longer than anyone in the House. I have known you since you were an educator and an administrator. I have known you through many elections, including the first time you were elected as Speaker of this great House, which was repeated four years later.

Mr. Speaker, I know the task that you have, to look after almost 1,400 employees, a large budget and to administer the House. Part of it includes our table officers and the people who serve to make sure that the House operates in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that many times you have asked for order in the House, not for your benefit but for the benefit of members. Many times you have to bring to our attention the fact that we need to get down to the orders of the day.

I know that you as an individual like to give as much freedom as possible to members and people in the House, and that sometimes we end up taking advantage of that, to our detriment.

I am sorry the member for Edmonton North is not here, but the member for Saint John mentioned earlier that you very strongly practise democracy and freedom. You support, probably more than anyone else, the underdog, the minority, the parties with one or two members. You give them a chance to speak, to debate and to be part of this institution. You do it not looking at numbers, but looking at the individuals who represent the people of this country. I thank the member for Saint John for her remarks.

You also tried, for many years, to improve the decorum of the House, working with members of all parties to focus on the reason we are here, which is to serve the people of Canada.

While you were a member you were the chairman of many committees, no matter which party was in power, because your abilities were respected and you were known to deal fairly with the mandate of a committee.

As Speaker you are not here to favour one party over another; you are here to encourage debate. I know that you defend outright that the attacks in the House should not be personal, but to the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have a lot of respect for this institution called the House of Commons. I know you believe very strongly in the importance of proper debate and teamwork of one party, another party, the table officers and the requirement for many people to work together to make sure the House of Commons functions properly. I know you review the precedents of the House many times and use it as your guide. You also protect this fine institution not just for today but for tomorrow and many years to come and to protect our country, Canada.

Mr. Speaker, members have mentioned today that you have ruled in favour of the Reform Party and you have ruled not in favour of the Reform Party. I know you have ruled in favour of the Bloc Party and not in favour of the Bloc Party. You have done the same thing for the other parties, as the member for Saint John said. You have ruled in favour and you have ruled not in favour. You have ruled in favour of the government and you have ruled not in favour of the government. I believe that is why you are there as the Speaker.

To me, this is an example of your impartiality and respect for the House and the House rules that we approve for you to carry out. Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I find this accusation of non-confidence totally outrageous and very disappointing. Although people have said it is not a personal attack on your integrity, I am afraid it is. That is very disappointing to me.

I know of your patience and your fairness, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, and will probably want to apologize, that the opposition has taken this opportunity to discredit you because they are trying to get at the government for no valid reason at all.

Before I conclude, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I have full confidence in your ability to fulfil the office of Speaker of the House so we, as Canadians, can represent the 301 ridings. We are representing Canadians and we will do it to the best of our ability, as best possible as human-beings, for the good of our country called Canada.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the member for St. Catharines. I think he has been a pretty good and calm individual in the House. He has obviously expressed his friendly relations with the Speaker.

The issue to me is really one of the legislative counsel. The legislative counsel brought this concern to the House. I would like to know from the member if he thinks that legislative counsel should be able to keep a bond of client-solicitor privilege with members it has received documents from. This is one of the things that causes me concern. I believe this is a very special privilege and somehow it seems to have been eroded a bit with this issue.

Could the member comment specifically on the issue of client-solicitor privilege as it relates to legislative counsel?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and his remarks.

I am not a lawyer. I am a team player. I know that the table, the legislative officers and the legal counsels all have to work together for the good of the hon. member, for me and for every member in this House. I believe, from the discussions we have had today and from the input that our table officers, our legal counsel and our legislators have received, that we will be stronger for that. I believe they have to work together to make this happen for us.