Leon Benoit

[Energy Price Commission Act, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on private member's Bill C-220, an act respecting the energy price commission.

This bill would establish an energy price commission to regulate the wholesale and retail prices of gasoline. The purpose of price regulation is to avoid unreasonable increases which affect the cost of living and depress business. This is the reason for the bill and the justification for setting up an energy price commission as given by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.

I too am extremely concerned about the price of gasoline. Every time I pull up to the pumps or get a load of bulk fuel delivered to my farm I am concerned about the price of gasoline. I often wonder why it is as high as it is.

This legislation does not provide a answer to the problem. This is a typical NDP solution to the problem, a socialist solution to the problem. It is not a practical solution. It has been tried before for other commodities and in other countries. This type of action has completely failed. In fact, as the hon. member who spoke from the Liberal Party said, regulation often leads to higher prices. Clearly this is not the solution.

Setting up an energy price commission would provide another opportunity for patronage appointments. Such a body would employ high priced, taxpayer funded civil servants. There is no other way to make a commission like that work.

Canadians do not need a higher cost of government. We need smaller government. We need less money spent by government. We do not need any more bodies to provide opportunities for the government of the day to make patronage appointments. It is clearly the wrong way to go.

I would like to mention a few figures presented by Michael Ervine, president of QIS Solution Inc., in his presentation to the House of Commons natural resources committee when speaking on the topic of the price of gasoline. Mr. Ervine pointed out that the average price of regular gasoline in Canada today is 55 cents a litre.

Of this price about 15 cents a litre represents the cost of the crude oil. About 30 cents a litre is the tax on this fuel at the pump. Only 10 cents a litre is what is left for the oil companies to refine the fuel, to transport, to lease equipment and to sell the product. Therefore, 10 cents a litre out of 55 cents a litre is to provide all of these costs.

When looking at a breakdown of costs of gasoline the tax component is by far the highest single component. What is a practical way of dealing with the problem? There is one most effective way for the government or the New Democratic Party to deal with this issue of what they perceive to be high gasoline prices. Again I say I feel they are high too. I feel it every time I buy a litre of gasoline for my farm or for my car. The most effective thing to do is to lower the tax component.

Saskatchewan has a reputation for having high taxes on gasoline in that province. Again, the way to deal with the problem is to reduce the tax component which is over half of the total cost of gasoline.

How is the tax component reduced? There is only one way to do that. Reduce government spending so that it does not have to tax at these totally unreasonable levels.

The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden is correct in one respect. The price of gasoline is too high. It is higher than it should be because the tax component is too high. That is the area on which the hon. member should be working.

The hon. member referred to a survey which appeared in the Regina Leader Post . In that survey about 93 per cent of the people who responded said they favoured this type of a commission. When going to the people on an issue it is important to do the background work before the survey or the poll. The background work is to make sure that all the information gets out before the survey or poll is taken.

I wonder if on this issue the Regina Leader Post or the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden did their work and got the information that I just presented on the cost of gasoline, which stated that over half the cost is taxes. Did they do their job to get the message out to the people that the tax component is the problem here?

I do not know for a fact that gasoline is not higher than it should be even acknowledging the high portion of tax. I am not saying it is not too high. But the way to deal with the problem is not by setting up an energy price commission, but to make sure of fair, good, strong, competition legislation which is enforced.

I acknowledge that some progress has been made over the last 10 years. The body that deals with the Competitions Act has made some progress. I believe it is much better than the old legislation that was in place. This Competitions Act, and the people who administer it, have gone a long way in trying to make it easy for people to let the bureau know if they feel there is unfair competition. I am sure it has heard from a large number of people who feel that the price of gasoline is too high.

The competition bureau's services are readily available to people through a 1-800 toll free number. This allows people who feel there is not fair competition to complain that companies are not dealing with prices fairly.

Progress has been made. I cannot determine if there really is a problem of fuel prices being too high other than the tax component which is clearly much too high. Over half of the cost of gasoline is tax at the pump, plus royalties and other taxes built into the rest of the price.

The way to deal with this is to make sure that we do have good, fair competition legislation, that the Competitions Act is strengthened if it needs to be strengthened, and that it be used and enforced.

I cannot support the legislation. It is up to other members of the Reform Party to determine how they will vote on this issue. Some Reform MPs may support the issue, but I doubt it very much when we look at the facts behind this.

I will not support the bill. Other Reform MPs can make their own decision. I believe this is a socialist, bureaucratic solution which will not work. The matter must be dealt with it through the competitions bureau.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on private member's bill C-202, an act respecting national organ donor day in Canada.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Ontario riding for bringing this private member's bill to the House. I believe it is a very worthwhile bill for several reasons.

First, there is merit in having recognition of something as important as donating an organ. The public becomes more aware of the issue, of the shortage of organs and of the long lists of people who are waiting to receive an organ so they can have their life improved or prolonged. Therefore I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ontario for bringing this motion forward.

Any kind of media attention that can be brought to an issue like this will help. I seldom would wish this for a Liberal member of Parliament, but I wish him all kinds of extremely positive coverage on this issue. It can only help to make people aware. Perhaps it will encourage some people within their families to talk about the possibility of organ donation should one of them die prematurely.

As I was coming here on the little green bus from the Confederation Building I was thinking about how I would feel. I have five children, three boys and two girls. I have identical twin sons and also a twin son and daughter. The identical twin sons came to mind. If they were, God forbid, in a serious car accident-they are 17 years old so I cannot help thinking about that possibility-if they were both critically injured and one of them died and could through donating an organ prolong the life of the other, I could not help thinking what a terrible loss it would be if the arrangements had not been made so that the people who arrived on the scene did not know immediately that the intent was that my sons wanted this to happen.

As well, I could not help thinking of the good feeling and possibly the way that this could make it a little easier to suffer through the loss of this child, knowing that a part of this child who had died could remain alive in the life of the other.

Therefore, I congratulate the hon. member opposite for bringing this motion forward. I wish him all the media attention that he can get on this. Any kind of education and awareness that we can help promote on this issue is extremely valuable and will save lives.

While I congratulate the member for bringing this bill forward, I do not think it is enough. What we should do in the House is actually draft a bill that will in a far more substantive way allow, provide for and encourage more people to donate organs so that there is not this long waiting list we have in Canada now.

It is important on an issue like this, if we are to debate it in the House, that it be done in a non-partisan way. I am talking about a bill which will become law and which will provide for a much better organ donation system than we have now. It is important for that to be done in a non-partisan way.

In legislation the Liberal government brought forward in 1994 there were some changes made to chapter IX of the standing orders. One change allows the government to put a bill before committee before second reading. This legislation has been used. A change to Standing Order 68(4)(b), a provision which has not yet been used, allows a private member's motion to be put before committee before second reading so that legislation can actually be drafted by committee.

I am in the process right now of presenting a private member's motion to Journals which will ask the House to send a motion dealing with organ donations to committee before second reading so that the appropriate parliamentary committee can actually draft the legislation, which will help take some of the partisanship out of the process. This will enable the committee to draft the legislation which will help in a very substantive way to make the organs needed readily available.

I will read this section of the standing orders:

A motion by a private member to appoint or instruct a standing, special or legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill, pursuant to section (1) of this standing order, shall be considered as a motion under Private Members' Business and shall be subject to the procedures in that regard set down in Standing Orders 86 to 99, inclusive. A motion by a member other than a minister of the crown to concur in the report of a committee pursuant to this section or to section 4(a) of this

standing order shall also be taken up as a motion under Private Members' Business pursuant to the aforementioned standing orders in that regard.

This section will allow this process. I hope my private member's motion, should it come before the House, will add something even more substantive to the bill presented by the hon. member for Ontario. I am in the process of presenting this motion to Journals. I hope it will be unanimously supported when it comes to the House.

I will shorten my comments because many people before me have talked about statistics and have expressed very well the need for an improvement in the mechanism. They have talked about the long waiting lists. They have talked about people who have died waiting for an organ donation. I believe all of us know someone who has died unnecessarily because organs were not available.

I have 295 organ donor cards which have been provided by the Kidney Foundation of Canada. I ask for unanimous consent of the House to have these organ donor cards transferred to the table so that all members of Parliament can show by example the importance of everyone who is willing to sign an organ donation card. In that way the list of people waiting for organs will be shortened substantially and fewer people will while die waiting for organs.

[Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member, my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap. I will read the motion again so that we know what we are debating today.

This is a motion that is meant to be a guideline for future legislation. We are not debating legislation now. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows: "Every citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a), with or without a lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein".

I would like to touch on three areas related to this motion. First, I would like to talk a little about how we got to where we are, how we got to be in the House debating whether or not prisoners should be allowed to vote. It seems absolutely incredible that things have slipped far and we have to be here debating this motion today.

Second, I want to talk a little about what my constituents said when a court decided that prisoners should have the right to vote.

Third, I would like to discuss briefly the issue of people who have committed so-called less serious crimes and whether they should be allowed to vote.

What was the direct cause for the debate today was the decision in Sauvé v. the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. There are many other things behind that and I will talk a little about a few of them.

Prior to this decision, persons imprisoned in a correctional institute who were sentenced for two years or more could not vote in federal elections. In Sauvé, the court declared this law to be invalid because it violated the prisoners' right to vote under the charter and because there was no compelling justification for violating this right.

I would like to touch briefly on the purpose for removing the right to vote in the first place. Some of the reasons given was the enhancement of civic responsibility, the respect for the rule of law and the imposition of an additional sanction on persons committing serious anti-social acts.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap covered very well why prisoners should not be given the right to vote so I will not get into any more discussion on that. The question I have to ask is: Are these not far more important to society than the rights of individual prisoners? In other words, are these reasons given that disallow prisoners from voting not more important than the rights of the individual prisoner? I will talk a little bit more about that later.

The Sauvé decision concludes that disenfranchising prisoners would make prisoners feel isolated from the community, would impede the subsequent reintegration of prisoners into the community and would prevent prisoners from experiencing any of the rehabilitative effects which flow from political participation. These are the main reasons given by Sauvé in his decision.

Again, by removing the franchise from prisoners, Judge Sauvé reasoned that this could make prisoners feel isolated from the community. Well, prisoners are isolated from the community. The intent is for prisoners to be isolated from the community. That is part of the punishment and part of the deterrent for criminals to discourage them from committing crimes. The other reasons given by Judge Sauvé really do not make any more sense than that.

When my constituents heard that the supreme court had ruled that all prisoners, including people like Clifford Olson, would have the right to vote, they could not believe it. Few issues had sparked this kind of reaction from my constituents as this issue had. People just could not believe it had happened. They asked me how we had come to this. They wanted to know how this kind of thing would happen and how we had arrived at this. They also wanted to know how the court in Canada was making the law. They asked me whether it was not my job as a member of Parliament and the job of the House of Commons to make the law.

Those were some of the feelings, some of the questions and some of the reactions of my constituents to this decision. I wonder whether the constituents of the members across the floor, who are heckling and speaking out against the motion presented by my hon. colleague, reacted any differently. I doubt very much that they did. In fact, they have acknowledged that their constituents reacted in exactly the same way which does not surprise me.

How have we arrived at this point? If we could pick a pivotal time in history, we would have to go back to 1972. It was a Liberal government. I have seen the quote in Hansard where Solicitor General Goyer said that the Government of Canada should change the main focus and the priorities of the justice system so that no longer was the protection of the citizenry the most important focus and the top priority. He said that we should change that focus so that the rights and rehabilitation of the criminal were top priority and only secondary were the rights of citizens to be safe and to feel safe in their homes. It is unbelievable. That is not a direct quote; it is a paraphrase but it is accurate.

It was a Liberal solicitor general and the present Liberals have no different view from that. They still believe that the rights and rehabilitation of the criminal should be top priority. They are wrong and Canadians say they are wrong. The top priority should be the protection of our citizens in all cases.

Some people would argue that criminals who have committed so-called petty crimes should be given the right to vote while those who have committed more serious crimes should not have the right to vote.

I want to refer to something that happened in New York City a few years back. William J. Bratton was a former police officer who became head of security for the New York subway system. Bratton enforced this kind of environment in the subway system. He said all criminals, including those who commit the crime of writing graffiti on walls or panhandling, should be treated as serious offenders. He cracked down on this so-called petty crime.

By cracking down on petty crime Mr. Bratton lowered the serious crime as well in a dramatic way. When he later became the police commissioner of New York City he engaged the same policy to take petty crime seriously. When he did that the crime rate in New York City dropped dramatically.

When considering this motion it is important that people who commit petty crimes know that even a petty crime is serious and is a good enough reason to lose the right to vote.

[Agriculture, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to give Canadians farmers the right which has been given to others in Canada and around the world to market their products in the way they choose. We would expect the government would not have to be asked by farmers for this right, but that is exactly what is happening.

I will talk briefly before I get into my presentation about one farmer who is in the third week of a hunger strike to get what we would expect would be given willingly in this country. Tom Jackson, a farmer from Fort Saskatchewan, is continuing to try to force the government to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act through a hunger strike.

This is drastic action, but he feels this is important enough that he is willing to take this drastic action to force the government into the change that he and the majority of Albertan farmers and probably the majority of farmers across the country want for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The subject I will deal with in relation to the topic the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster brought forth today is the supply managed sectors of the agricultural industry.

Supply managed sectors must be talked about separately because unlike all other sectors of the agriculture industry many farmers, probably the majority, do not want to have the supply managed aspect removed. They are not as willing to have their industry opened up to competition and to have that freedom to market in any way they want.

I would concede that probably the majority feel like that. They have done very well under the supply managed system. The reality is most likely this will happen anyway. That is, supply managed sectors will be opened up to competition from outside the country. It is very likely that will happen.

It is true there are some discrepancies between some Reform ideas and supply management. Reform members have been saying for some time that they want what is best for the farmers in the supply managed sectors of agriculture.

It is important, at least for me, to have those involved understand what Reform has been saying and what we do want for farmers and others in these industries. It is important to give this message unfiltered by the media and by some leaders in the supply managed sector. So often what Reform MPs actually say and what the media portrays can be quite different, interesting but quite different.

To relieve stress and anxiety, on Sunday mornings a neighbour of mine, a farmer who lives down the road from me, takes his little 5-speed and works through the gears, gets it up to 120 kilometres per hour and accelerates around the curve so he is going out of that curve at 140 kilometres per hour. That makes him feel good and helps relieve his anxiety.

One Sunday morning my neighbour drove out to the end of his driveway and started working through the gears, heading down the road and saw a car on his road. Then he saw the car swerve. He said: "Oh my gosh, a drunk driver on my road on a Sunday morning".

As the car came closer it slowed down, and so he slowed down but did not stop. It was a lady driver. He said: "Oh my gosh, a lady driver on my road on a Sunday morning". The lady stops the car and opens the window. As he goes by he hears the driver say "pig". He was mad. He said "sow" and went speeding down the road into the curb at 140 kilometres and hits the pig.

This farmer because of his attitude problem refused to notice the signals that would have allowed him to miss the obstacles, to miss the pig.

I will talk about some of the signals I sincerely hope farmers in the supply managed sectors of agriculture will not miss. I am talking about the warnings of change which would lead to an end to supply management as we know it, change which will lead to more access to our markets by other countries, especially the United States.

There is the possibility of Canada's losing the NAFTA chapter 20 dispute settlement initiated by the United States. If Canada loses the U.S. challenge our current system of supply management will undergo radical change. Although many farmers and others in the industry are confident we will win the dispute, others are less convinced. In any case they are concerned about their future regardless of the outcome of the panel hearing.

Another threat to the supply managed industry is the Chilean accession into NAFTA and the opening up of this agreement. The Government of Canada has told Canadian farmers again and again they do not have to worry about that. It will not open NAFTA up to negotiation even if it wants to let Chile in.

The government said during the election campaign it would not sign NAFTA unless certain criteria were put into the deal. They were not put in and it signed it anyway. The government cannot be trusted when it comes to promises made about these trade deals. We do not know what will happen.

Looking ahead a little further, what will happen to our current system of tariffication after the next round of negotiations starting in 1999? Will the GATT countries continue to allow Europe, Canada, the United States and others to keep high tariffs on imported dairy, egg and poultry products? I believe this round of negotiations will be much shorter than in the past. We are not looking at a 5 year to 10 year negotiation period, as happened last time.

The world and particularly the United States will have more access to Canadian markets in the supply managed sector than they have now as a result of the negotiations. I believe they will have much more access.

Another signal that I hope farmers are thinking about, which might allow them to avoid the pig, is the possibility of bilateral trade negotiations with the United States. This is a very real possibility.

There are several different factors that could spark these bilateral negotiations. It could be the result of a panel hearing. It could be the result of negotiations with Chile getting into NAFTA. It could be that the Americans finally are willing to reduce protection in some of the protected areas, like peanuts, sugar and coffee.

If the U.S. agrees to make changes in its export enhancement program, will the government agree to lower our protective tariffs? Who knows? I can honestly say I have more questions than answers. In the more open trade environment which is building around the world, I can be quite sure that the change will come sooner than many would predict.

When I mentioned these possibilities at a meeting in Richmond, Quebec, the first question was what about another possibility? What about the possibility of Quebec leaving the country? That would lead to the end of the supply managed sector overnight.

In closing, I ask the question, what have I left farmers with here today? Nothing really very positive but that is because I have made the same mistake that most people make when they talk about the possible end of supply management. I focused on the threats resulting from the change. What about the new possibilities and the new opportunities that farmers in the industry will have? They will have more competition in products coming from the United States. However, on the other side they will have the huge American market open to them. I know Canadian farmers in the supply managed sector can compete very well with their American neighbours. They will do well.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since this government has come into office and as a result of the budgets the finance minister has put forth so far the debt will increase by about $120 billion. The debt is ever increasing with no sign of that increase ending.

The government has made some cuts in spending but those cuts have been more than lost due to increases in the interest payments it takes to service the debt. The only reason deficits are decreasing in the projections is due to increased revenue, more money brought in by this government from taxpayers. Is this situation satisfactory to the member?

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in the last election campaign when Reform proposed targeting old age security to those most in need, the Liberals promised that they would never end universality of old age security. Now the finance minister has done that.

We could not believe them on the GST. We cannot trust them on old age security. The numbers the hon. member used in terms of deficit reduction are yet to happen sometime in the future.

The Liberal government has made a little progress on the deficit. Canada's debt is the second highest in the industrialized world and it is still being added to every year.

It is so difficult to understand how members of that party can say with a straight face that they are doing what has to be done to assure that the money will be there for social programs into the future because they have not.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member indicated that her government is concerned about maintaining social programs into the future. She is concerned particularly about maintaining pensions.

If that is the case, why does her government continue to increase the amount of money spent on interest payments on the debt from $38 billion to about $50 billion since it has come into power? Why did her government leave in place a pension plan that is totally out of line with what is acceptable to Canadians? If the government was serious about maintaining social programs and pensions, it would not have left in place the pension plan that it has.

How can Canadians believe that her government is really, truly concerned about the future of social programs when its actions say otherwise?

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the speaker on his comments concerning the fact that this Liberal government is passing the spending cuts on to the provinces.

All the cuts that the finance minister has passed on to the provinces still are not enough. Would the member comment on why he might think that the Liberals have not done the job in terms of cutting spending?

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, appreciate the awe that the member and all Canadians feel for this place. However, what governments have done and the irresponsibility they have shown in handling taxpayers' money causes me to feel disdain for this place.

Governments have been totally irresponsible. Finance ministers since the early 1970s have said that they realized that the deficit must be dealt with. John Turner in 1975 said: "I come now to specific measures. None is more important than the control of public expenditures".

When the Prime Minister was finance minister in 1978 he said: "Significant reductions in deficits can be expected". They did not happen. Many previous finance ministers promised to deal with the problem of overspending. It did not happened. Canadians cannot feel awe for this place with these kinds of actions on the part of governments when dealing with taxpayers' money.

The member also spoke about the trillions of dollars in assets that Canada has. That kind of thinking is terribly upsetting to me. In Mexico assets meant very little when it did not deal with its overspending problem. The United States took over its oil reserves for the next number of years because Mexico needed the money. The United States along with other countries through the International Monetary Fund provided the money.

This finance minister, with the ever growing interest payments on the debt increasing to $50 billion, has not dealt with the problem.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words today on the proposed amendment by the Bloc to Bill C-19, the bill which implements the agreement on internal trade.

The motion the Bloc has put forth really is not unlike the amendment put forth by the Liberals on the Reform Party's motion which said that a parliamentary committee should study the allegations of sedition against the Bloc. The amendment the Liberals brought forth on that motion struck all the words before "that" and all the words after "that" and really left nothing of the original motion.

The Bloc by putting this amendment forward is saying: "We do not really want to pay any attention to this agreement for internal trade which we have signed" or: "We do not trust the dispute settlement mechanism". It is one or the other. Either way it is saying that it wants to ignore the agreement or bypass the dispute settlement mechanism and have new negotiations with the federal government in the area of bulk trucking.

This indicates to me that the Bloc has absolutely no faith in the original agreement or it does not trust the dispute settlement mechanism. I can understand some of the Bloc members' concerns with that. The dispute settlement mechanism has no teeth and it could be a very long procedure. However, it is the mechanism that was agreed to when they signed the agreement and I think it is worth giving it a try. This mechanism has not been tried yet. It really cannot be fully tried until the legislation that this motion amends is passed. Bill C-19 will implement the agreement on internal trade. There is so much leeway given in the dispute settlement mechanism that it should be more than enough to protect the trucking industry which this motion deals with.

In the agreement there is a list of legitimate objectives that a province can have which will allow the province to really get around honouring the intent of the agreement. These legitimate objectives are based on public security and safety; public order; the protection of human, animal or plant life and health; the protection of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; and the affirmative action program for disadvantaged groups.

Any of those so-called legitimate objectives could be presented, in this case by the province of Quebec in regard to its bulk trucking industry, and examined by a panel. Surely the Bloc should trust that the panel would examine the legitimate objectives and determine that one or more of the legitimate objectives would allow the panel to tell the industry that it can continue to operate in a way which is different from the rest of the country, or to tell it that there is no reason for it to be given special treatment in this area.

The Bloc motion is really an attempt to disregard the agreement and to get around the dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute settlement mechanism, after this legislation is passed and implemented, will allow five panellists chosen from a pool of 65 panellists to decide in this case whether the trucking industry in Quebec should honour the intent of the agreement or whether it should have special protection.

Two of the panellists will come from the federal pool, two will come from the provincial pool, from a province other than Quebec, and those four panellists will choose a chair. There will be five panellists from the federal and provincial governments and a chair who will determine the issues.

I challenge Bloc members to demonstrate why they do not have any faith that this process would deal with the problem which their amendment is trying to deal with today.

We have to give the process which has been put forth a chance to see if it will work. Granted, a lot of parties, think tanks and people who have examined the agreement do not have a lot of faith in the dispute settlement mechanism as presented. I have grave doubts that it will work, but let us give it a chance. If we find that it does not work, then we should tighten it up very quickly and give it some teeth.

If the Government of Quebec is concerned about the way this agreement will deal with its trucking industry, then it should take it to a panel. When the legislation is passed it could put it through the dispute settlement mechanism. It could put it through the negotiation process first. If that did not solve the problem, it could submit it to a panel and have the issue decided in that manner.

The Reform Party will not support this motion. It really is a motion which disregards the agreement and the dispute settlement mechanism. I do not think it is worthy of being supported by the House.