Hec Clouthier

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. When the Reform Party first got elected their mantra for years and years was that we have to reduce the deficit. There was really no talk about tax cuts. Its plan, fresh start, or no start, or behind start, or whatever it was, false start, kick start, clearly said to the Canadian public that we had to eradicate the deficit that was left behind by the Conservative government. I might add that probably 98% of those members—and I just saw a former Liberal, who is in the Reform Party, leave—were probably Conservative supporters before they joined this other party. They were responsible for a $43 billion annual deficit. We eradicated that deficit. We now have a surplus and are giving tax cuts. We have given $16.5 billion in tax cuts.

I do not know of what the member speaks. We are moving in a comprehensive manner. We will give further tax cuts. That is clearly in our red book agenda. I do not know where he is coming from. I might tell the hon. member opposite something which I said to the Civitan Club last week in Cobden, Ontario. One person got up and asked me if I liked paying taxes. I told him to get on the band wagon. I said that I do not like paying taxes but that they are a reality of life. If the hon. member opposite does not want to pay taxes he should move to some third world country where there are no taxes. However, my friend, there is also nothing else, no schools, no infrastructure, no security, no nothing. We will reduce and we have reduced taxes.

It is egregious, it is polemic, it is downright stupid for the Reform Party to stand and say “cut taxes” when we have already done that. All their mantra was to get rid of the deficit and we have done that. As a matter of fact, in the Reform Party's false start agenda it stated it would reach a no deficit in the exalted timeframe of the year 2000. Let me get this straight. I am not a mathematical genius, but we did it two years in advance and we will continue to do it. This is the first time there has been two balanced budgets since 1951-52. I hope that answers the hon. member.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the Ciceronian orator from Mississauga West.

I am privileged and pleased to stand in my place to speak on behalf of all constituents of the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to make a reply to that carefully crafted, compassionate, caring 1999 throne speech.

Last night I had the privilege of having the Minister of Finance appear at a function in my riding. I might add that he braved rather stormy weather to make it up to the Petawawa Civic Centre. When he spoke, and he spoke very eloquently, he thanked the many people of the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in the upper Ottawa valley, for everything they have done in the last 150 years to make Canada the greatest country in the world in which to live.

I looked around the room to see some of the people who were participating in this rather auspicious event. There were 10 other members of parliament who attended. Some of them are here in the House as we speak. As a matter of fact, some of them were from the opposition. I must say, unequivocally, that I agreed with the Minister of Finance that he had definitely hit the nail on the head. What the throne speech effectively did was tell the Canadian people that the government has done a great job. We hope that it continues to do so as we continue to build the country to greatness.

I looked around the room and at a table was my 83 year old father, Hector Sr., who has a grade four education. I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast wanted to talk about people with money. I will be the first to admit that my father has money. I have nothing. I do not even have hair. At the age of 83 he has more hair than I. My father worked very hard for everything he has accomplished in life. At one time he had two lumber camps on the go with 125 men in each camp. He paid his dues. He is a good French Canadian Catholic married to an Irish lassie. They had 10 children and, I might add, my mother said I was the best of the 10. I grew up to be the worst which I guess pointed clearly to a career in politics.

At that same table sat the two aunts of our current finance minister. I will not divulge their ages but my father apparently took one of the finance minister's aunts out on a date many years ago. What is interesting to note is that our finance minister's father, the late Paul Martin Sr., was born and raised in Pembroke. He went to school and launched his political career in Pembroke.

The hon. members opposite can talk about being American wannabes, but what do the Americans cherish most about Canada? They cherish our valued health care system, our medicare. Paul Martin Sr. was the genesis who promoted medicare back in the 1950s and 1960s. We would not have that valued program were it not for people like Paul Martin Sr. When they are talking about balancing the books and reducing taxes, in many instances the members of the loyal opposition are talking about a frontal attack on medicare. Let us keep things in perspective.

Sitting at that same table was a man by the name of Roy Geisebreck, whom the finance minister will remember playing hockey with back in the 1950s and 1960s in Pembroke and Petawawa. The Geisebreck family is not only famous for their hockey playing talents. The member opposite spoke rather eloquently about small and medium sized businesses. The Geisebreck family has been one of the business mainstays in my riding for well over 70 years. There were seven brothers involved in the business started by their late dad, Charlie. Now Roy Geisebreck, who is 82, is the patriarch of that remarkable family.

It is people like Roy Geisebreck and his family who have really built this county through hard work and determination. They did not skate around the issue like some of the hon. members from the Reform Party and some of the opposition. I might add that Roy Geisebreck's son, Don Geisebreck, and I are partners in a few racehorses. It saddens me to say that some of those famous Geisebreck brothers can actually skate faster than my horses can run.

John Yakabuski was there from Barry's Bay. His father was a member of the provincial government for over 23 years, the provincial government that Premier Mike Harris currently leads. John has seen the light. He has seen that I am going to support the Liberal Party. He was there last night supporting a well known Liberal in my constituency. His father was a former member of the Conservative Party. I believe that if Paul Yakabuski was alive today he would turn over in his grave for the way the provincial Conservative government has treated the quality of life for the people in the province of Ontario.

The hon. member opposite talks about tax cuts. They made tax cuts, no question about it, but with borrowed money. One should not make tax cuts with borrowed money. As a result of making those tax cuts with borrowed money, they had to do some closures.

In my riding they closed the Civic Hospital in Pembroke, Ontario. They tried to close a senior citizen's complex in Cobden, Ontario but there was a real brouhaha. We fought back, as only we can do in the upper Ottawa valley, and it did not close.

John Yakabuski, as we speak, is on council in Barry's Bay. He has also taken over his dad's hardware business and is doing a remarkable job. Again, I say to the member opposite, he is one of these people with a small and medium-sized business who is certainly promoting not only the quality of life for Canadians but also the Canadian culture. He was absolutely delighted last night with the throne speech that was brought down by Her Excellency Adrienne Clarkson.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of Renfrew, Ontario. I believe that you have a cottage up in Renfrew where on occasion you go canoeing and swim. You would know Mac Wilson from Renfrew. Mac Wilson was at this very auspicious event last night. Mac Wilson suffered some health problems about six or seven months ago. He was hospitalized in Ottawa because we have great medicare and he took advantage of the medicare system. Mac was on his back. What did he do? Did he give up? No, he fought back. He picked himself up and went back to work in Renfrew. He is the industrial commissioner but not only that, as you well know, Mr. Speaker by knowing Mr. Wilson personally, he is one of the great entrepreneurial spirits in Renfrew, Ontario.

We had big Len Shean there last night. He is the mayor of Arnprior. Len got up and asked the finance minister what we were going to do about the four-laning of Highway 17. I completely agree with Mr. Shean, the big mayor. He said we should have more funding set aside for the four-laning of Highway 17. The finance minister clearly indicated to him that we were looking favourably at it but that basically it was at the disposal of the provincial Conservative government. However, we will arm-twist and I am sure that we will get the job done.

We had Tommy Donohue there from the farming community of Douglas. He is another person that you know, Mr. Speaker. Stay in your own riding, Mr. Speaker, and do not run in mine because I would like to be here again and again and hear many more throne speeches to make sure that we take the lead in providing what the country needs.

One singular characteristic that is endemic to all of these people I have spoken about, and not only to those people but to many people throughout Canada, is simply that they have taken personal responsibility for their lives. They do not want us, nor do we want as a government, to infringe upon their entrepreneurial spirit or their joie de vivre by saying that we are going to tell them what to do. These people take personal responsibility for their lives. They have the vision. They have the values of this party and, I am sure, of every colleague in the House.

I am absolutely delighted to speak on this the last throne speech for the 20th century and hopefully, if the voters from the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke see fit, I will be here for the first of many throne speeches delivered from this side of the House I might add, so that we will continue to charge on to greatness for this wonderful country called Canada.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is simply unbelievable. The member for Brandon—Souris was indulging in nothing more than scurrilous rhetoric. He was talking about simple things. It is simply not true. The hon. gentleman, and I use that term very loosely, simply does not know. I forgive him and I know that the people on this side of the House forgive him. He indulges in rhetoric. He waves his arms like a big water buffalo, and I mean that amicably. He just keeps on flailing away, thinking that it is actually going to resonate with the people of the House and the voting public who are listening, but that is simply not true.

I listened with great interest to my colleague from Ottawa Centre and the parliamentary secretary give a pointed, coherent rationale of why we will oppose this motion.

I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette, but let me first look at it in terms of public relations. I might add that some members opposite could have used public relations firms to garner some insight and knowledge before they stood to make these rather insane comments about this motion.

Let us look at what we call the optics. How does it look? How does it look not only to the government side but to the Canadian public? There are circumstances under which this motion would actually make sense; not many circumstances, but there are a few. For example, if the House had no oversight on procurement, whether for the armed forces, the specific object of this motion, or any other department, it would make sense if this procurement were done secretly, but it is not.

The motion would make sense if ministers of the government were not accountable to parliament. Au contraire, we know that they are accountable and they will continue to be accountable. There are always elections to maintain the accountability of the government, as well as question period and when ministers appear before a standing committee.

The hon. member opposite is not a member of the standing committee on national defence so he knows not of which he speaks. His hon. colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, is a member of the DND committee. Quite obviously he is not here because he knows we are right in this regard and he has asked the hon. member to stand in for him. I must say that after listening to what he has said he probably will not ask him to do so again.

We can appear before standing committees which can address this and any other issue.

There are five major policy cornerstones which uphold the procurement process of the Government of Canada. They are: the pre-eminence of operational requirements, competition, fairness, transparency and accessibility.

Let us look at how this system works from a practical standpoint and not an impractical viewpoint as we have heard expressed on the other side.

First, ministers and their ministries are responsible and accountable for following stringent contracting regulations and Treasury Board policies on contracts. The preferred route for most contracts above $25,000 is always competitive bidding.

In the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke there is a person who takes bids by the name of Colonel Ken Dillabough. He says, as only they can say in the upper Ottawa valley “Okay, lads and lassies, get up and loosen the purse strings. Put your hand up and do the competitive bidding”. That is what we prefer to do at all times, but there are exceptions.

There are exceptions to each and every rule, regardless of where we are in life, when a contract must be sole sourced. One example is proprietary interest. If a supplier is the only one with the right to build and sell parts for the equipment it has developed and marketed, the government is obliged to use that supplier for that equipment. This makes sense and this government is committed to making sense, as opposed to some of my hon. colleagues opposite who come forth with nonsensical motions brought forward by people who do not know of what they speak.

Sometimes sole sourcing must be used in pressing emergencies. Quite simply, something has to be done fast and there is no time to get bids. When national security or the national interest is an issue, sole sourcing may be necessary. When that happens, ministers of the crown and officials must follow strict rules, and they are accountable to the government and ultimately to the House for their actions.

The truth is that most procurement is done through the competitive process and that competitive procurement is on the rise. In 1996, for instance, $83 of every $100 spent for procurement contracts over $25,000 were committed through the competitive process. In 1997, the last year for which Treasury Board has its full figures, $89 of every $100 was spent as a result of competitive bidding.

Let us consider another example of service contracts. I am talking about everything from building maintenance to contracting for medicinal services. In 1995, 55% of these contracts were competitively let. The hon. member opposite knows full well that 55% of these contracts were competitively let. I will hold up my fingers so the member understands. In 1997, only two years later, this figure had risen to over 80%. I will get to the member for Lakeland if I can get through this.

The system is transparent. Almost all procurement is done competitively, and competitive bidding is on the rise. The trend is toward more competition, not less competition; more transparency; and more responsible use of public money.

Comparing our procurement system to those of other countries, the treasury board secretariat has found that our performance is much better than that of either the United States or the European Union.

There is only one question remaining. Are the provisions for oversight sufficient, especially for the steadily declining fraction of procurement that is not done through the competitive process? I believe they are and the government believes they are. The mechanisms which ensure fair, transparent and accessible procurement are in place.

For example, interdepartmental review committees that determine defence procurement strategies review all procurements of $2 million or more. These committees may spot significant socioeconomic opportunities in procurement. When they do, they can suggest that conditions be included that open all or part of the process to minority or new business interests which might otherwise be frozen out. After the reviews are done, most of the procurement action proposed are posted on the government's electronic tendering service, on the Internet for bidding. To ensure fairness they are published in the government's business opportunities bulletin.

I occasionally disagree with the auditor general, but he does look at issues and does report to the House. If a procurement matter arises it can be the object of questions, of debate or of study by any number of standing committees.

What does the author of this motion suggest? Is it that we set up yet another standing committee for the sole purpose of looking at major military procurements? Is there no standing committee on national defence?

I know the hon. member for Lakeland mentioned that, but he used to be on the standing committee of national defence. I guess his own party basically pulled him from it because he knew not of what he spoke. He made rather pejorative, egregious comments by the DND SCONDVA committee saying that it had done nothing. The Canadian public disagrees and the military disagrees.

We gave pay raises and more money for quality housing. I suppose that is why the hon. member for Lakeland is no longer on the DND committee. I suppose his own party yanked him from it because he was doing no good there. He was of no benefit to us because we were doing the things that the Canadian military and Canadian public wanted. Is there no Standing Committee on Public Accounts?

My time has run out. In conclusion, let it be said that the government is opposed to the motion. We will not indulge in the scurrilous rhetoric of members opposite. We will oppose the motion because it is right that we oppose it.

[Hmcs, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a distinct honour and privilege to salute the World War II naval veterans of HMCS Eastview who have travelled from across the continent to be here today.

The HMCS Eastview escorted convoys from St. John's to Ireland through cold treacherous U-boat infested waters during the bloody bitter Battle of the Atlantic.

The Royal Canadian Navy lost 24 warships and suffered 2,024 fatal casualties. However, the Eastview 's greatest distinction is the fact that she never ever lost a warship.

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of Bill C-454. If the little Canadian horse was not in Canada, as my dad would say, perhaps I would not be here. That might please some, if not all, members of the House.

Let me explain. My father, at the age of 13, had finished his third book, could not afford to take the train from Petawawa to Pembroke to further his education, and had to work in the project camps, at which point his father consigned to him a team of Canadian horses. Their names were Pete and Prince. They were not very big, but at the project camp they worked for the princely sum of $5 a month. Those were big wages back in 1929.

This pair of little Canadian horses had to pull the same load as the big Belgians, the Percherons and the Clydesdales that were driven by other people and moving rocks. To put it in perspective, it would be the same as hooking up the hon. member for Wild Rose and the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Those two behemoths competed against me and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. It would be the little horses against the big horses.

Because my dad loved those little Canadian horses and they were not very big, once the load of rock was on the wagon he would conveniently forget to close the back end. Thus when he was going up the grade some of the stones would fall off and naturally the load would become a little lighter.

When the foreman of the job rationed the feed, because it was during the depression era, he said to my dad “Listen, you only need half the feed for your horses because they are only half the size”. However he expected those little Canadian horses to do the same job. Therefore in the middle of the night my dad would awaken and borrow some more hay and oats for his horses, because they were so darned good to him.

At the end of summer my dad took a job for the Pembroke Lumber Company for which he was paid 5 cents a log. This same team of horses, Prince and Pete, went with him back into the bush operation. They were without a doubt, according to my dad, the sturdiest animals he ever had. He is still alive at 83 years of age.

At one time we had a team of 55 work horses and a team of over 20 little Canadian horses. Their bellies used to touch the snow and they broke the trail to skid the logs out. These were the hardiest little animals. The other horses would get bogs and splints. They would get scratches from the ice between the hoof and fetlock. The scratches would open up and the horses would not be able to work because they were bleeding. The little Canadian horses were hardy little fellows and they would keep going. There was no denying the fact that they were the best workers.

My dad at 14 years of age used to cut logs with a crosscut all day. He would be so tired at the end of the day that he would get on one of the horse's back and fall asleep, and the horse would bring him back to the camp.

We must bear in mind that at that time people like my dad would get up at 5 o'clock in the morning. It would be dark when they would leave camp and they would not get back until 7 o'clock at night when it would be dark again. The only time they saw the light of day at the camp was on Sunday, and even then they would on occasion take Pete and Prince to church with them.

We have heard another speaker tonight talk about how courageous and fast these horses were. Let me tell a story about the crazy wheel. The crazy wheel is a mechanism that hooks on to the back of a sleigh. When going down a steep hill with a team of horses a cable would be hooked on to the back of the sleigh and the sleigh would be let down. Back in the thirties and forties the roads would be iced so it would be easier for the horses to pull the sleigh. Halfway down one of these steep hills, when my uncle Dave was driving the team, the cable broke. Members know what happened. The cable broke. The load started pushing the horses and the little Canadian horses were running down the hill. My dad shouted to my Uncle Dave “jump Dave, jump” because there was a sharp corner at the bottom of the hill before they got on to the lake.

My Uncle Dave, being a rather stubborn fellow, decided not to jump. They went around the corner and they broke the bunks of the sleigh. The bunks of the sleigh are what keeps those logs in line. My Uncle Dave went into the bush with some of the logs but the little team kept on going around the corner and out on to the ice. They were not hurt but they were terribly fast.

Other speakers have said that they used to actually race these horses at night. Many do not know that the little Canadian horse is one of the genesis of the standardbred horse. I happen to have my standardbred horse licence and race horses. There was one particular standardbred horse called Cam Fella which reminded my dad and I of these little Canadian horses. He was only a little horse but everybody who touched that horse made money. Doug Arthur bought him for $19,000, made $150,000 with him, and sold him for $2 million to a breeder. That breeder made $5 million with him and he sired 16 million dollar winners.

I know some of my other colleagues want to speak to this bill, but I will tell one little story about my father at the end of hunting season when he polished up his brass harness and took the horse on parade in Pembroke, Ontario, back in 1942. Some of the people started cawing at the horse, saying the horse was crow bait. My dad was so incensed and actually chased the people away. The little Canadian horses used to grow a lot of hair, something like my colleague from Ottawa Centre or my colleague from Bourassa. Their long hair kept them from getting sores on their bodies.

I congratulate the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. I was trying to figure out what he had in common with horses. We know he is a chicken farmer of fame. I have noticed that chickens have wings, but there was a legendary horse called Pegasus that had wings. When I raced my horse last Sunday night at Rideau Carleton, I wished that my horse had the wings of Pegasus and the heart, determination and charisma of the little Canadian horse because I might have won the race. To be honest, my trainer said that it was probably more the driver's fault than the horse's fault.

My father and Prince and Pete, those two little Canadian horses of 1929, would be honoured if somehow we could see fit to name the Canadian horse Canada's national horse. I thoroughly endorse the hon. member.

I will sit down because two members are giving me the evil eye. I think they are ready to give me a horse kick if I do not wrap up now and give them the opportunity to say a few words. Bravo, little Canadian horse.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, being a member of parliament for the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and having Canadian forces base Petawawa in my riding, I believe I know what kind of men and women wear the Canadian forces uniform. Their duty is to defend, protect and, if necessary, engage in the field of battle.

They are proud of this distinction and have never ever failed to follow that path. They have set high standards in the field of battle and have set high standards in conducting peacekeeping duties. They show tenacity and determination in defence just as they are intrepid in attack.

Above all else, their success is attributed to that superlative spirit found in every fibre and fabric of their being. Courage is the human quality which guarantees above all others. All Canadians must be proud of our courageous custodians of freedom, our military men and women, especially as the world watches events continue to unfold in Kosovo.

[National Agricultural Relief Coordination Act, April 26th, 1999]

I might add that we should on occasion try to help the opposition too. Perhaps we should muzzle them on occasion.

The systems are designed to deal with weather related disasters—I might say that the hon. member from the fifth party on occasion can be an unmitigated disaster; that is why he is sitting in the fifth party—and financial setbacks that are beyond their control. It is not their fault that they are in the position they are. In recent years the effectiveness of those systems has been amply demonstrated on several occasions.

For example, working in close partnership with the provinces, the Government of Canada gave badly needed assistance to farmers who were affected by the flooding in the Saguenay area of Quebec and in Manitoba's Red River Valley, as well as those who suffered losses due to the ice storm here in central Canada. We have also lent extensive expertise to farmers through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and organizations like the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration.

Personally I do not believe that Bill C-387 would add anything to the government's ability to respond to the needs of Canadian producers.

We have a colleague in the House, the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, who is our residential chicken expert. I notice the member for Brandon—Souris was talking about laying plans. The member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey would know only too well that the member for Brandon—Souris is laying one big egg when he makes these nonsensical remarks about Bill C-387. He is just a big yokel on occasion.

We will continue to look after one of the most cherished segments of our society, our farmers. We know what farmers mean to this country. The Liberal Party will continue to do everything it possibly can to ameliorate the situation for farmers and will not indulge in scurrilous rhetoric in which the member for Brandon—Souris indulges.

[National Agricultural Relief Coordination Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this time to talk about Bill C-387 and how our government is already working to help our farmers who face difficulties.

It is rather interesting to notice the member for Brandon—Souris who, in his rather expansive way that seems to match his ample girth, will say if only the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food of Canada would listen to the people.

Let me tell the entire House of Commons that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food visited my riding, the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke last Thursday evening and spoke to the Lions Club. It was farmers night for Renfrew county. During that time he listened to each and every concern that the farmers in Renfrew county had. He listened to them. They got their point of view across. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spoke rather eloquently and most passionately about farmers and the farming situation for over 25 minutes. After that 25 minutes when he opened it up for Q and A, there were no questions because he had answered each and every one of their questions.

The Government of Canada and all provinces have co-ordinated systems in place which are designed to help farmers—

[Sir Wilfrid Laurier, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 1999 marks the 80th anniversary of the death of a great leader who led Canada into the 20th century, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

As this century draws to a close, we must continue to champion the ideals of Laurier's lasting legacy as we pass the torch to a new generation of Canadians. We must continue to reach out to our fellow citizens to strengthen our bond and our identity as Canadians. We must continue to relentlessly challenge our own standards. We must continue to make our voice heard distinctly and bravely because we can and we will make a difference.

Let us inspire with intense passion and fervent conviction, proud of our noble heritage, enriched by our diversity of talent, invigorated by our unity of vision, and empowered by our infinite hope and undying loyalty. As Laurier would say, this is our responsibility and we must do so without fear and without favour.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, tonight's debate is a historic one, but there is a reason we are intervening in Kosovo.

The member opposite seems to be troubled by the fact that Canadians are risking their lives to fight for the peace and freedom of others. This is exactly what former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was talking about in his peacemaking efforts.

It is not our desire to risk the lives of our young soldiers, be they from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or any place around the world. However, on occasion situations determine that we cannot turn a blind eye. We must act. In this situation, we know there are hundreds of thousands of people dying. I find it unfathomable that the member opposite does not realize this. If it were the member's family, his brother, sister, mother or father, who were being slaughtered, would he not want someone to intervene?

I find it almost impossible to believe that the member opposite would not be rallying behind the Canadian troops saying “Canada you are doing the right thing”.

I hope he and his party are not saying that Canada should not be there. I firmly believe we should be. We cannot turn our backs on these people. We cannot turn our backs on the world community when it calls for help. It is an atrocity for him to even intimate that. I hope he is not saying that, but that is what I gathered from his comments.

If we are playing mere politics that is wrong. I firmly believe that our young troops, be they from Quebec, Ontario or from CFB Petawawa in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, want to be there to protect peace and freedom throughout the world.