Pat Martin

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the commitment my colleague has to this issue. For the number of years that I have known him he has been a tireless champion of the free movement of goods and services across international borders for trade purposes with special attention to national security issues. No one has been more outspoken on this issue. It is fitting then that when someone with his background and expertise blows the whistle on legislation that may be faulty or have shortcomings we should take note.

We as Parliament should be seized of this issue. I am satisfied, given the arguments that I have heard, that this amendment is justified and that the bill should be sent back to committee for the specific purposes of reconsidering at least clauses 7 and 24 which deal specifically with the duty to consult.

No one denies that Bill C-3 was necessary to complete the work that began as Bill C-44 in the previous Parliament to finally put some regulatory regime to the development of new or the expansion and rehabilitation of existing bridges and tunnels which cross international borders. We welcome this. It is overdue.

However, in our haste we should not ignore the basic principle of natural justice, which is the duty to consult. More learned people than I have pointed out that consultation has legal meaning. It means more than simply telling Canadians what we intend to do to them. It means inviting their views and accommodating some of those views when those views have merit.

We have all seen sham consultations where the touring task force blows into town, rents the local town hall and, with a very fancy power point presentation, announces what the government intends to do to people with their tax dollars. Objections are raised at all the microphones as to why this should be done differently and the bureaucrats pack up their books and their power point presentations and go off to the next town. At the end of the process we read in the newspapers that consultation took place in 33 Canadians communities and therefore they are ramming ahead with the legislation. That is not consultation.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley just said, “Just ask first nations about the federal government”. I am not critical so much of the current federal government because it has not been in government long enough, but the past record of federal governments in this country in their dealings with first nations have made an appalling travesty of any semblance of true consultation.

My colleague from Windsor West was talking about consultation. He rose today on an issue of principle. He is not arguing about the merits of the bill so much as with the shortcoming in the bill that he cannot live with. I cannot live with it either based on his recommendation.

If the bill is all about the free movement of goods and services, expanding, accommodating and facilitating trade, it should have no barriers in the way of consultation. I cannot imagine the government allowing such an important issue to be tripped up by the denial of such a basic and fundamental right; the right to consult, the duty to consult and the duty to accommodate in the context of what one has heard.

I do not accept the fearmongering that we heard from the parliamentary secretary, that the duty to consult is so onerous, as contemplated by my colleague's amendment, that it would grind the process to a halt even in the event of national security. He said that in the event of a terrorist threat if the minister were duty bound to consult everybody and their grandmother, the terrorists would be running roughshod over us. That is nonsense.

There are other security measures in Canada where the ministers have broad sweeping powers to take what actions are necessary in the interest of national security. That kind of fearmongering trivializes an important debate and it does not do any of us a service to deviate from the issues of the day with that kind of thing.

I thought that the duty to consult all levels of government or interested parties was the norm in any situation like that. I was surprised by the parliamentary secretary's vehement reaction to that idea. Let us look at the language being proposed here. It would be helpful if we all started from the same base level of information in the debate.

What is being proposed is that, “before recommending that a regulation be made...the minister shall consult with the other levels of government that have jurisdiction over any place where an international bridge or tunnel is situated...”. That is not too onerous. That is just common sense. It continues with, “...and with any person who, in the opinion of a minister, has a direct interest in the matter...”.

What if private property is involved? What if a school or a school board needs to be consulted? With the tools and the bureaucracies at the minister's disposal, surely this level of consultation would not grind things to a halt.

We are not talking about the chamber of commerce. The minister used the example that, for heaven's sake, we will have to consult with everybody and their grandmother and that levels of government could mean chambers of commerce. Chambers of commerce are not governments. They are organizations that are part of civil society. The way this is phrased, “...if, in the opinion of the minister, that individual has a direct interest in the matter...”, the minister may decide that he does not have to consult with the chamber of commerce.

Let us be realistic and honest in our debate. What we are talking about, I think, is a basic fundamental principle and the amendment, to which I am trying to limit my remarks, addresses a concern that I certainly share.

When I was the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I remember when we went through a contentious piece of legislation that would have affected the lives of aboriginal people, first nations. At that time, during our research and demanding that true consultation take place, I looked at some of the Supreme Court rulings that made reference to consultation. That was where I learned that the duty to consult meant far more than just engaging in a dialogue. The duty to consult includes some reasonable accommodation. If the other party makes a valid point and there is no compelling reason to ignore that point, then we are duty bound to accommodate that point if we want to claim there was consultation.

Consultation is often one of the stepping stones to infringing on a person's rights. There are times when it is justified to infringe on a person's rights, whether they are human rights, property rights, et cetera, but the courts have held that in such a situation there are two things that must take place in order to justify infringement of a person's rights, and the first aspect of that is the duty to consult in a thorough and comprehensive manner.

I enjoyed listening to the speech from my colleague from Windsor West because he kept bringing us back to the key salient point of what we are debating on two levels. First, he reminded us that we had an obligation to be thorough, complete and to make good laws. Each day in the House of Commons we begin the day with a prayer that reminds members of Parliament how duty bound we are to take every step possible to make good laws.

In the profound and well-defined conscience of my colleague from Windsor West, we would not be making good laws if we passed into law Bill C-3 without clarification on this duty to consult, without the natural justice associated with the obligation of the minister to consult.

He also reminded us of another worrisome trend. This is a theme, almost a motif that threaded its way throughout the entire Liberal regime of 13 years, that almost every piece of legislation that I have had to deal with since I have been a member of Parliament, most of them introduced by the Liberal government, expanded the discretionary powers of the minister and undermined the powers of Parliament to have the final say and, in this case, the powers of various levels of government.

My colleague from Windsor West has drawn our attention to this in the bill. Again, without this duty to consult being folded in and factored into the bill, the discretionary authority of the minister is enhanced once again, where ultimately it will be the minister who will decide what, when, where and how much to do with any new bridge or tunnel on an international crossing, and there are 24 such sites, or even the expansion, renovation or development of an existing crossing.

That should be worrisome. That is a trend that undermines the authority of Parliament. It gives too much power to the executive and not enough power where it should properly reside, which is with us the elected legislators and the legitimately elected representatives of other levels of government.

I am very surprised that the Bloc did not find fault with this. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are usually the first to remind us when a minister oversteps jurisdiction. I have heard a great deal of hue and cry from my colleagues from the Bloc when the federal government puts in place legislation that even hints at the fact it may be able to exercise control over another jurisdiction, in their case a provincial jurisdiction, without even the duty to consult. Surely that offends the sensibilities of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. It certainly offends mine.

There are bogus arguments abounding throughout this debate. I do not understand the resistance and reluctance on the part of opposition parties to insist that the bill be the best it can be. I found the official opposition members' arguments so vague and nebulous that they have almost no opinion. They do not have any opinion on Bill C-2, the most earth shattering and life changing piece of legislation in this Parliament surely. They have no opinion on that. They have no opinion on Bill C-3. They do not want to take part in pressing the Minister of the Environment to be a better minister of the environment. I do not know what they are doing to earn their keep lately, but they have an obligation to get involved in the debate as the official opposition. They seem to be willing to leave being the official opposition to the NDP. We do not mind assuming that role, but we would expect a little support from time to time on some of these pressing issues.

I will not dwell on that because I feel strongly about this issue. I have been invigorated and inspired by the speech given by my colleague from Windsor West and his dedication to the issue. He reminded us of the critical importance of international crossings. Until today I was not aware that there are 24 such crossing points.

The one we have heard most about is the Ambassador Bridge going from Windsor to Detroit. A lot of Canadians would probably be surprised to learn that the bridge is privately owned. Given that 40% of Canada's trade with the United States crosses at that very juncture, that the Province of Ontario would be the United States' fourth largest trading partner were it a nation, from a national security and public policy point of view or virtually any way we consider this, it is surprising that the bridge is a privately owned enterprise. We would think the jurisdiction and control and the expansion of it would be of such public importance that we would want it to be a public enterprise. It gets to be a matter of Canadian sovereignty, as my colleague pointed out.

We test the merits of an argument by challenging the argument. We can test the mettle of a piece of legislation by whether it can survive intelligent debate in the House of Commons. All I have heard so far is boosterism for a bill that has a serious, fundamental flaw and has had very little critical analysis. There has been lots of analysis of some of the merits of the bill, with which we do not disagree. There has been lots of analysis of the need for the bill, with which we do not disagree, but no one seems willing to get into an exchange with us, or with my colleague from Windsor West who moved the motions anyway, about the idea of consultation.

Where is the debate in this place? We would think there would be an appetite to have a real exchange on such a fundamental principle as the duty to consult. It is something upon which the Supreme Court has commented on many occasions. I feel duty bound to incorporate those principles into virtually all pieces of legislation that come through here.

There should be a screen through which all pieces of legislation should be viewed, to make sure they pass basic tests of ethics, of fairness, of accommodating basic principles that we as Canadians stipulate ourselves to. We want to be operating at the highest possible standards of ethical practices, of principles of fairness and equity with a duty to consult.

Let us think this through. Taxpayers' dollars can be used to change their atmosphere and environment without an opportunity to have meaningful input as to how that takes place. It is almost taxation without representation. Revolutions have been fought on basic issues like this. Canadians have a right to participate in the way that our tax dollars are being spent, up to and including a bridge being built in their backyard or expanding an existing bridge that is in their backyard.

It is one of those basic things that I would demand as a citizen, the right to full participation. Any government that did not want to listen to my views is not worthy of being my government. That is the way I would view it and I would certainly deal with that at the ballot box the next time around.

Bill C-3 is a component of Bill C-44 which, if we remember from the 38th Parliament, was an omnibus bill that died on the order paper. It was an ambitious omnibus bill that was set out to modernize the entire Canada transportation system really, with a Railway Safety Act and a new Via Rail Canada Act. What we are seeing with Bill C-3 is a hiving off of a section of a complex bill that died because of a lack of support from the rail line companies. It got complex.

The Conservatives opposed Bill C-44. All of these elements of Bill C-3 and others would be in effect today were it not for the Conservatives blocking the previous omnibus bill because they felt that Via Rail should be privatized and not accommodated with its own act. They opposed some of the changes in regard to monopolies and the selling off of rail lines and railcars, et cetera.

When we got Bill C-3 back, it was the most necessary, the most time sensitive component of a much larger and, I would argue, an equally necessary review of the entire Canada transportation strategy. That strategy, we should point out, is incomplete if we do not recognize the east-west dynamic as well as the north-south. I live in Winnipeg where the Red River corridor is a north-south corridor for trade, for the movement of goods and services that we value very much, but we should not value it at the expense of the necessary trade and transportation links, both east and west.

A country that is as geographically challenged as Canada must be seized of the issue of transportation. We would not have opened up the west without that commitment and without enabling the prairie farmers to move their grain with some accommodation by the federal government.

When we heard the member for Windsor West argue passionately for the details of how this affects his riding, I hope Canadians understood the motivation of my colleague. Some of the things he was explaining about the Ambassador Bridge cry out for involvement of other levels of government, of the level of government closest to the people affected.

We do not want to impose change from Ottawa. It fuels resentment of Ottawa when change comes from above without the participation of that local level of government. No one knows the facts on the ground better than the good people who are elected to represent people at the municipal and provincial levels in that area.

There are such complicating circumstances associated with the Ambassador Bridge, with 10,000 trucks per day lined up, idling, belching pollutants all over the school grounds, et cetera. How can we say that we would not consult with the local school board, or bypass that level of government, when some of the very air quality problems that are created by the inadequate Ambassador Bridge affect school children? How can we be so callous as to ignore those legitimately elected representatives?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Windsor West for the dedication and the commitment he has shown on this issue, and also for recommending a way forward from this point. The member spent the bulk of his speech pointing out the reservations that he had with Bill C-3 going forward unamended as it was.

From what I understand from the member's remarks, we also recognized and paid tributes to some of the very necessary aspects in Bill C-3. The member's concern can be embodied in dealing with the two clauses separately.

Given that the member had to terminate his speech by moving the motion, could take the opportunity to explain the impact of the amendment that he has recommended in reconsidering clauses 7 and 24? Does that mean that the rest of the bill could go ahead? Is it only clauses 7 and 24 that would be referred back to the committee? Could he perhaps expand on the strategy here?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the first time I met my hon. colleague he was the chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We were in a public debate on CPAC, I believe, on some environmental issue. At that time, I am sure he would have been adamant that groups and private organizations would be consulted thoroughly in dealing with something as major as the infrastructure we are talking about. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between who he was then and who he is now.

I do have a specific question about the Liberals generally, I suppose. I noticed a bit of a backhanded aside blaming the NDP for the Liberals losing power. That seems to be a theme that the Liberals never lose an opportunity to raise. I think they should get over it. It was the people of Canada who unelected the Liberals, not the New Democratic Party.

I do have a question that is specifically related to one of the hon. member's Liberal colleagues. Does he know or can he share with us why the Liberal member for North Vancouver introduced a motion at the committee that would allow a bridge or a tunnel to be twinned without any environmental assessment? I presume the member for North Vancouver was talking about the Lions Gate Bridge, perhaps, from Vancouver proper to West Vancouver.

I cannot imagine anybody having that mindset about any structure over open water. I come from the building industry and I know the lengths that we go to and the hoops we have to jump through to build over open water to ensure that contamination does not take place from that activity. Perhaps he could explain that to me without the jabs about the NDP somehow being responsible for bringing down the former Liberal government.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Windsor West raised some very valid concerns about consultation. The parliamentary secretary seems to be seized of this issue that too much consultation is a bad thing, and I do not think my colleague from Windsor West would agree with him.

I do agree with my colleague that some levels of government that he sees as being burdensome would not necessarily be bound by the amendment that my colleague is seeking. For instance, I personally do not consider chambers of commerce to be levels of government. Maybe in my hon. colleague's world chambers of commerce are considered levels of government, but not where I come from.

However, he is right when he says that consultation has a legal meaning. The term consultation means more than simply posting a notice on a telegraph pole telling people what the government intends to do. That is not genuine consultation. Consultation implies some meaningful exchange and some accommodation of what one has heard. A town hall meeting cannot simply be called, an announcement made about what is going to be done and then claim that consultation was done with the town of Windsor or the town of Niagara Falls about one's intentions for the international crossing. That, in and of itself, is not good enough.

Would my colleague agree that consultation is a good thing and that it is something we can never have too much of, short of grinding a project to a halt? However, nobody would take it to a ridiculous extreme. Would he also agree that the definition of consultation, in its broadest sense, must incorporate some meaningful exchange of information and accommodation of the other person's point of view?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly hear myself think with the catcalling from my colleague. She is being so rude in not giving me the floor. I used a lot of restraint to not shriek at her, such was my outrage. Now she will not be quiet.

The other misinformation is this. The Liberals actually defended the status quo of election financing currently when they defeated the attempt we made if minors wanted to participated in the political process. If my 14 year old wanted to donate $50 to my election campaign, that would be fine, but that amount would be deducted from the donation limit of the parent or guardian. This would not preclude participation of youth, because we all have a youth wing in our political party. The Liberal amendment was that no one under 18 years old could make any donations. I do not think that was wise, so I did not support it.

What I do ask the Liberal Party to do is stop this campaign of misinformation about how I voted regarding its floor-crossing amendment. No one voted for its floor-crossing amendment. No one was allowed to vote for it. If my floor-crossing amendment was ruled out of order and the Liberals' was allowed to stand, I would have voted for theirs because it would have been the only one on which we would have been allowed to vote.

I hope that helps to set the record straight. I hope they can perhaps issue a second press release to correct the deliberate misinformation of the last one.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will use what little time I have to explain the other election financing piece the Liberals and the Bloc voted against. It dealt with these huge Liberal leadership loans, which are more like corporate donations. If they are not paid back in 18 months, they are treated as donations. A $100,000 loan becomes a $100,000 donation, which is illegal. In fact, if it is not repayable, they can forgive it.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share some views from the New Democratic Party. At the outset, our party is proud to support Bill C-2 and I am proud to have played an active role in getting the bill to this point of time in the first session of the 39th Parliament.

So much that is embodied in the bill finds its origins and can be found in the very ethics package that the NDP was proudly promoting at the fall of the 38th Parliament. This package was put together by our former leader, the former member from Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent.

The NDP found it very easy to relate to Bill C-2 and support the many initiatives. Parts of the bill read almost verbatim of the NDP election campaign platform on accountability and transparency measures. It is only natural that our party would support the bill. We are proud that we were able to in our view improve the bill as well.

Our party was eager to support speedy passage of the bill. The NDP was very concerned that, if the bill lost momentum and dragged on into the fall or possibly even into next spring, its likelihood for success would diminish as the time went by. That is the very nature of this place, that competing interests prevail sometimes.

The committee improved Bill C-2 in very significant ways. The committee achieved roughly 20 amendments to the bill, some of them were huge. I can speak proudly that the public appointments commission, which will exist as a result of Bill C-2, will put an end to patronage as we know it in Ottawa today, the unbridled patronage that used to dominate and so offended Canadians. That alone would have been justification for the NDP's support for the bill. I am happy to say it is only one element.

I will limit my remarks to a few points. I need to clear up some misconceptions that have arisen and some that have been promoted by other parties.

First, I find it humorous that I am being accused of being too close to the Conservative Party in this matter. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. When good ideas arise, people gravitate to them. I spent much of my career being red-baited as being too left wing in the labour movement. They called me a commie. Now I am being blue-baited. They are accusing me of being a Tory. I cannot seem to win in this regard.

I am a fiercely proud social democratic. I am a trade unionist and I am an NDP member of Parliament. I will compare my left wing credentials with anyone who may wish to challenge them. Another thing, I am a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist. Unabashedly, and I say this with great pride, I believe that what we have done today with Bill C-2 is the greatest possible thing we could do to advance the cause of national unity in this 39th Parliament.

The weakest link that Canadian federalism has is to be corrupt, not trustworthy, of maladministration. All those things play into the hands of the enemy of Canadian federalism. If we want to be champions of Canadian federalism, we have to put forward a face of federalism of which we can be proud. That means erasing the stain that was put on the good face of Canada by the last administration. I believe, in my heart, that we are doing something right for Canada when we advance transparency and accountability.

The other misinformation I have to correct is this. The Liberal Party has put out a press release saying that I personally voted down its anti-floor crossing amendment. This is an absolute fabrication and untruth. I want to state it very clearly here today. What happened was the Liberal anti-floor crossing amendment was ruled out of order. The Liberals did not vote for their own floor-crossing amendment because it was ruled out of order.

If we could possibly clarify that, then the Liberals may stop saying this around the country. If the Liberals will stop telling lies about me, I will stop telling the truth about them.

In terms of election financing, the Liberals and the Bloc voted down a corrective measures put forward by the NDP to stop the atrocity of shaking down school children for their lunch money and trying to circumvent the election financing laws by laundering money through children's bank accounts. We had a perfectly viable proposal at the committee, which would have ended this practice forever. The Liberals and the Bloc voted that down. I invite anybody on either side of the House to challenge that.

The NDP thought it brought forward meaningful amendments in election financing. There are changes in Bill C-2 that we support. Lowering the annual donation limits to a reasonable amount, will take big money out of politics. There should be no corporate donations. There should be no union donations. There should only be donations from individuals. With a limit of $1,000, we believe no one will be able to buy an election any more. That in itself is something of which I am proud. That stand-alone item would have had me voting in favour of Bill C-2.

There are six or seven individual items in Bill C-2 that by themselves would have earned my support and vote. It seems only natural to me that we would enthusiastically support the whole package.

Some of the other opposition parties are sensitive, and I do not blame them. Every page of Bill C-2 reads like a condemnation of the past practices of the Liberal Party of Canada for the past 13 years. I do not blame them for being sensitive about that.

It is true that the first session of the 39th Parliament had to be dedicated to ensuring that no political party could exploit and abuse the public trust the way the last administration did. It was necessary work. It was like pulling a tooth. It is good we are getting it out of the way fast, like ripping off a band-aid. We want to do this quickly and get it over with so we can move on with the other important work and challenges facing our country.

One of the other things I am very proud we managed to get done was on the lobbyist registration. It has always bothered people that peddling influence by insiders in Ottawa has corrupted and jeopardized democracy in that certain people have undue influence because of who they know. That will not be allowed any more.

We have seen what lobbying has done to the United States. It has virtually ground Capitol Hill to a halt in many ways. Nothing happens without satisfying the hordes of lobbyists. We are not going to allow that to happen here. If we are on that slippery slope, I believe we have taken important measures to clean that up, to preclude the influence peddlers having undue influence in Ottawa. I think we can celebrate that move on behalf of Canadians.

I know I do not have much time and I will not dwell on this for long, but I read an interesting speech recently. A few years ago there were only 20 federal countries in the world. Federalism is the most difficult form of government to hold together. People do not realize how rare and difficult it is. At that time, 3 of those 20 federalist states were blowing themselves to pieces through corruption, maladministration and internal strife. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Canada were the three countries at risk, as mentioned in the international journal I read.

We know what happened to the Soviet Union. We know what happened to Yugoslavia. To hold this precious effort, this initiative we call Canada together, we need to operate at the highest possible ethical standards in order to earn and keep the confidence of all the disparate parts of this federation. The string that holds all these pearls together into one wonderful entity called Canada is always very vulnerable. It is very fragile and needs to be nurtured.

The enemies of transparency and accountability are the enemies of the Canadian union, in my view. It raises this whole issue to a much higher plane. We are doing something noble as we pass Bill C-2 and I am proud to be associated with it.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a final opportunity to address Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, on behalf of the NDP caucus.

First, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

[Phthalate Control Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Skeena to expand on the comment on which he began his speech and ended his speech. It had to do with the precautionary principle that must guide us especially when we are dealing with the well-being of children. It has always driven me crazy that the onus is on us to prove that a chemical is dangerous. The onus is not on the chemical company to prove that it is safe. I cannot for the life of me understand how chemicals are innocent until proven guilty, especially when we are faced with the near impossible task of making the direct link to a specific cause when we are exposed to such a chemical soup. That task is nearly impossible.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask my hon. colleague if I could bring her a cup of tea or coffee or if there was any cleaning or light housekeeping that I might be able to do for her? Seeing as she thinks I am a busboy, perhaps I could be of some service to her in the context as a member of the House, but I do not see her taking me up on that offer.

I will however speak about some of the comments she made. Most of what she said is in fact accurate about her recollection of how the committee developed amendments. We are particularly proud that the public appointments commission has not only been reinserted into the bill and survived the government's intentions, but in fact was expanded, broadened, and strengthened to where it is a true comprehensive regime that should result in an end to patronage as we know it today.

One of the biggest irritants to Canadians, other than out and out corruption I suppose, was this feeling that political patronage appointments were used to reward cronies in Ottawa. Let us face it, that has been the past practice for the better part of a hundred years. But just because it is a tradition does not mean it should be maintained. Perhaps we can announce an end to an era with the passage of this clause in this bill.

I would say that even if it were the only clause in Bill C-2, it would be worthy of our support because it is a fundamental sea change. It is a cultural shift because not only did previous governments, and I will not say only the past Liberal government, used to reward their cronies and their political friends through patronage appointments but they also used the appointments process to impregnate agencies and institutions in the public service with like-minded people, with people of their political stripe. It gave them eternal life because even after they were unelected as a government, they would live on and their ideology would live on in those agencies and institutions.

If nothing else, I think my colleague would agree. I enjoyed working with her on this committee. I will be the first to say I admire her and have a great deal of respect for the contributions she made to the committee, but she will have to admit that this is worthy of celebration. This should not be just a sort of backhanded recognition that we did something at the committee of worth. We did something great at that committee with the public appointments commission and I was proud to be the one who moved the amendment.