Peter MacKay

[Blood Samples Act, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much attach myself to the remarks of my learned colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands. He has in a very eloquent way put into perspective for Canadians and for the House the importance of this bill.

He stated in a very poignant and emotional way that while others were fleeing those World Trade Center buildings that were under attack, while others were running for their lives to escape that atrocity, emergency workers, police officers and firefighters were running in. They were going into the buildings and many of them did so at a horrific cost, the cost of their own lives.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the bill brought forward by the member for Fraser Valley, my colleague in the coalition, is aimed specifically at allowing those firefighters, emergency care workers or anyone else who acts in a magnanimous way to at least be afforded the right to know what terrible consequences might flow from those actions. It helps those persons who put their own health and safety secondary to their attempts to assist people in dire straits, whether it be someone who has fallen ill on the sidewalk or victims of catastrophe. It helps those persons who put their lives at risk.

Let me be clear on what we are talking about. What I am talking about is the contracting of a deadly illness or life altering virus that the person who has acted so selflessly may have contracted in the process of rendering assistance. That also applies to citizens. If we are to encourage the values we all hold so dear in Canadian society, such as encouraging people to help their neighbours, encouraging people to help those in dire straits or those in need, I think it certainly bears enshrining in law the ability to later assist those individuals in finding out if in fact they have contracted a life altering illness.

There are so many practical and pragmatic elements to the bill. To reiterate the comments of my colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands, the bill would allow those individuals some certainty and peace of mind as to the ensuing consequences of their actions. It would allow them to find out, for example, whether they have to undergo agonizing treatments in many instances, whether they have to embark on a process of prevention by taking chemical cocktails that are intended to fight off or in some ways stave off the effects of the illnesses that may have been contracted, whether it be hepatitis C, AIDS or any other illness that might be contracted through exchange of bodily fluids.

It could be the act of a civilian coming upon an accident scene where blood has been spilled. We have to speak in these graphic terms. If that person, in his or her efforts to save an individual in need or to somehow try to revive an individual, contracts an illness the bill would simply provide a legal avenue that can be pursued to determine whether an illness has been contracted.

I very much commend my learned colleague for bringing forward this issue. I think he has done so with the assistance of many Canadians across the country, many who work in emergency services and those who would be directly affected by this. If nothing else, what happened on September 11 put into a profound perspective for everyone the incredibly valuable and important service that is provided by emergency service workers.

As previously stated, I hope all members of the House will neither flinch nor hesitate in supporting this legislation so that it might be put forward immediately.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of reading Mr. Macdonald's book. It is something I should do. He makes the point that there is a pressing need in the country to have sufficient judges and courtrooms as well as physical space to hear cases.

The issue of backlogs, whether they be in the justice system for adults or juveniles, is a huge problem. When I worked as a crown attorney we encountered that difficulty many times, particularly as it pertained to charges that proceeded by indictment and resulted in jury trials. The backlog often resulted in a waiting period of two years. In the life of a young person two years severely undermines the ability to bring about the requisite deterrence and rehabilitative efforts.

I have concerns about the system as it currently operates. There is an effort in the bill to streamline and to ensure that judges are appointed in a timely fashion, to paraphrase the Minister of Justice and her favourite characterization.

I also believe that there is a huge problem looming with respect to the youth criminal justice act. We could be building new courtroom facilities and appointing judges. Yet there is a bill currently in the other place that is more complicated than the Income Tax Act. It is so convoluted, cumbersome, unmanageable and unenforceable that it will be an administrative nightmare. The local bar associations around the country are licking their lips in anticipation of that legislation passing.

On the one hand the government through the bill is attempting to streamline justice. On the other hand the justice department has produced Bill C-7 in an attempt to replace the Young Offenders Act, which will gum up the system.

The hon. member is exactly right. We will have young people who will be ready to collect their pensions before they will have made it through the youth justice system. It is rather incongruous that the justice department can work at such cross purposes at times and in essence leave the justice system cross threaded to the detriment of Canadians.

[Courts Administration Service Act, October 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-30 is a fairly large and cumbersome bill. It is one that deals with a number of technical changes that touch on the establishment of a body to provide administrative services to the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The bill essentially deals with amendments to the Federal Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Judges Act and consequential amendments that flow from them.

The bill, although procedural and voluminous, is one that is important. It is one that has to occur to attempt to streamline a very complex system that is already in place. It is an attempt to consolidate the current administrative services of the Federal Court of Canada, the Court Martial Appeal Court and the Tax Court of Canada into a single administrative service.

The legislation comes about as a result of a number of triggering mechanisms, including, as mentioned previously, the auditor general's steady, guiding hand in influencing this action from occurring as well as the court case of Valente v The Queen.

The attempt here is obviously to strike the age old balance of judicial independence and achieving a certain level of service. The Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition supports the legislation. It is one that requires a great deal of attention to detail and perhaps, most appropriately, that will occur at the justice committee.

The previous two speakers have alluded to the fact that there will be an opportunity at committee to delve into the details because time and time again we are reminded that the devil is often in the details. The justice department has, on many occasions, been renowned for bringing in legislation that has this large pith and substance to it. When one takes the time to examine it, there are often nuggets of change that are quite substantial and that sometimes get lost in the forest and do not appear so readily when one looks at a bill of this size at first glance.

Some of the other amendments that will come about as a consequence deal with federal statutes, such as the Judges Act, the Access to Information Act, Canada Elections Act, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Employment Insurance Act, Extradition Act, Immigration Act, Income Tax Act, defence and privacy, to name but a few. One can quickly glean that the bill has incredible reach. It touches on a number of existing statutes. The changes themselves, although administrative in nature, are quite substantial.

The court shall consist of at least two divisions: the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court trial division. These changes that deal with the way in which the courts currently conduct themselves will have a significant impact.

My friend from Provencher and my friend from Winnipeg--Transcona talked about judicial independence and the salaries that are tied to it. The debate about judges having the capacity to set their own rates of pay is a debate that has been very interesting and often emotionally driven. To add controversy to that, legislation passed last spring will now tie in any future changes to the salary structure of members of parliament. Our salaries will be impacted by the rate of pay that judges receive. That can lead to an entire debate in and of itself.

Suffice it to say that the true intent behind giving judges a salary and setting their salary separate from the political process is to avoid any real or perceived interference from outside sources, be they political or, in a more nefarious way, I would argue, although some might suggest that the political influence can be just as nefarious, organized crime.

There has been ample evidence that organized crime is on the rise. It has reared its ugly head in many cities and towns throughout the country.

It is presenting itself time and again in a very aggressive way as we saw recently in the city of Halifax where the Hell's Angels opened a storefront operation, advertising in bright fluorescent lights their presence in the city.

There was legislation before the House in recent months that attempted to aid police in the difficult task of combating organized crime. There is a lot more to do in that regard. The resources, the training and the sophistication used by organized crime elements have to be motivation enough for us to step up every effort to give our law enforcement agents every bit of help in terms of resource support and legislative support.

Bill C-30 is very much in its purpose the pith and substance to keep the judiciary separate from that type of influence. Organized crime is not beyond attempting to influence the decisions of judges. It is not beyond any sort of act that is intended to destabilize or to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

We have seen bold new efforts and aggressive acts on the part of organized crime. One could even make the leap to say that terrorism is in and of itself a more sophisticated and often a more philosophically driven form of organized crime. The results are staggering.

We are still reeling from the effects of September 11. The seriousness is there to underline the necessity of giving judges complete impartiality. That is a very difficult task indeed. Their financial compensation and salaries are often a way in which interference and influence can be exerted.

The coalition supports the legislation. We feel that it is necessary to bring about the changes, particularly in the area of the Judges Act where in recent years growing concerns were brought to bear about the increased elements of interference and influence.

Salaries for judges in the Federal Court are now tied to a schedule. No one would suggest for a minute that they are undercompensated when one compares those salaries to others working in the private sector. If we are to attract the best and the brightest and those individuals most capable of administrating and administering law in the country, those salaries must be commensurate with the ability. That has to be the number one priority in terms of the selection of judges and ensuring that we get the best people on the bench.

The other sections of the act to which I have referred that impact the Elections Act and Corrections and Conditional Release Act deal with changes that are meant to streamline and bring about greater efficiency in the administration of those acts.

The Extradition Act deals with a clause wherein the Federal Court and the court of appeal in the province in which the committal of a person was ordered have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review under the act made in respect of a decision of the minister pursuant to section 40.

There is a change where the court of appeal may grant relief under a section of the act on the grounds that a trial division or a Federal Court of Canada also grants relief.

All these interconnected and related sections of the numerous acts are covered under Bill C-30. It is one that took a great deal of time and effort to prepare. We are looking forward to having an equal opportunity at the justice committee to review the work of the justice department. I am sure we can present and advance the very best legislation possible.

[Terrorism, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no one is asking the Prime Minister to divulge official secrets. We simply want him to follow the lead of President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Premier Harris and others to assure Canadians that their government will plan to combat terrorism.

Canadians will not benefit from a rehashed reannouncement of cabinet committees or bills coming out of a Liberal fundraiser. They want information on specific steps the government has taken since September 11.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House when we will see concrete plans for Canada's anti-terrorism measures and what will be the costs associated with those changes?

[Terrorism, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In order to plan effectively, a responsible government must make a basic assumption about whether the September 11 terrorists will strike again. Does the government believe that these terrorists are planning other major attacks somewhere in the world, or is Canada operating on the assumption that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a one-off assault and not the beginning of a pattern?

[Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Month, sponsored by the Child Welfare League of Canada, was launched by the unveiling of the casting model for a national monument entitled Reaching Out, created by the survivors of child abuse.

Clearly there is a need to further raise awareness of child abuse and to change public attitudes which far too often isolate survivors, preventing them from getting the support and healing victims need. It is often a lengthy, even lifelong, journey to overcome the horrific psychological and physical effects.

I commend all participants in today's unveiling, in particular Ken Dryden, president of the Toronto Maple Leafs, whose high profile support will raise awareness of the tragic child abuse incidents at Maple Leaf Gardens and elsewhere and will also raise awareness of prevention .

Throughout October the monument will be on display at the Galleria at the Air Canada Centre and upon completion in proximity to the ACC.

I encourage everyone to visit the display and to wear the purple ribbon to remind us that we must be vigilant, not only in protecting our children but in ensuring that victims of child abuse receive the ongoing support they deserve and need.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to add to this debate, I hope in all humility, on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for St. Albert. I commend him for bringing the motion forward. I have the utmost support for what he is attempting to do. He has been a long advocate for greater fiscal responsibility in the House and in the country. The fiscal thistle that he is, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, reflects his natural proclivity in this area.

I have an initial problem with debating the motion to concur in a report that was first presented to the House of Commons in the 35th parliament. We are now in the 37th parliament. The original motion that was brought forward was transported back to the agenda of the 36th parliament which refused to deal with it. That is hardly what the new Minister of Justice so often refers to as “in timely fashion”.

Few members now in the House were members of that original committee that wrote the report. Fewer still had an opportunity to hear evidence and, dare I say, even fewer have taken the trouble to seek out the report and read the evidence.

These objections could have been overcome if this motion would cause the government and the House to exert greater control over the scrutiny of spending. Sadly, this is not the case.

The search for better ways to examine the estimates and the scrutiny of public spending, as well as the performance of the bureaucracy, is hardly new. Regrettably, over the past four decades the House has not properly discharged its fundamental constitutional duty to properly examine government spending plans.

What is worse, we have willingly surrendered the procedural and constitutional tools needed by the House to examine the rightful influence over ministers and departments and government. In return for the supine attitude of members of parliament gaining predictable summer adjournments and the government getting unfettered access to the dollars and borrowed dollars of Canadians, the blunt reality is that members of the House of Commons are not willing to do the hard and complex work of leading estimates, becoming familiar with the overall activities of departments and then taking the time to demand answers to their questions or solutions to their grievances. The government caucus as well is only too willing to shut down any examination that makes it uncomfortable.

Look at the sad record of the government and the House, for we are all responsible for this shame. Departmental estimates of the multi-billion dollar annual expenditures routinely get less than 90 minutes of soft speeches in committees before the Liberals close the proceedings. Some departments do not even get that. Members of the House all know that the rules and the calendar will automatically approve the estimates.

The government thinks it is being accountable by making the minister available for a single meeting for an hour. We all accept this, tugging at our forelocks, pleased as punch to be in such august company for an hour. Yet we have the power to demand their attendance and to demand that they answer questions in full. We have the power to do the tough work that needs to be done. However, we act like mendicants, waiting for a crumb to fall from the cabinet table.

What is even more tragic is the Liberal backbenchers have been so pummelled and cowed into submission by the cabinet and the whip, they fail to realize that the estimates process is the only time when they can get ministers on the public record to sort out the problems of their constituents and to demonstrate to the Prime Minister that they know as much or more in the department as does the minister.

There are some members who are the exception to that and I commend them. They are few and their efforts are far between. I will be the first to admit that there are some members on the backbench that know a heck of a lot more about how the public should have its money spent responsibly than some of the ministers.

This means that year in and year out the annual expenditures of the Government of Canada, this year in excess of $165 billion, receive less attention than that afforded to the smallest town council in any of our constituencies.

We were reminded earlier this year by the Speaker's ruling that this government passed this year's main estimates in a way that is inconsistent with the standing orders of the House. The government trampled on the rights of all members of the House, and the majority of the members on the government side think that this is just fine. They wanted their vacations, they voted themselves a pay increase and moved on. That is not good enough.

We are not acting as prudent stewards of the public purse. This has been the case throughout the explosive inflationary spending history that has been created and the obscene debt load that is now borne by the country.

The current Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance during the Trudeau era liked to denigrate the Mulroney administration's financial record, but let us be intellectually honest.

When the Conservatives came to power in 1984, they inherited a $38 billion deficit and skyrocketing debt. Moreover, the Conservatives then went about putting in place a fiscal plan during extremely difficult economic times that resulted, in the very least, in efforts to control and bring down the deficit and that happened. The much hated GST tax was to be cancelled when this government came into office but the government has continued to pour money into the public purse which has allowed us to create these surpluses.

Arguably, we do not hear the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister crowing about the surplus with great aplomb now that they realize there is a deficit in things like our military, in our internal security and in many of our social programs. The surplus does not seem quite as rosy as it did a short six months ago. Yet, this all came at a huge cost to the Conservatives of the day who were willing to spend political capital as a way to accomplish greater fiscal responsibility in government.

The finance minister of the day, whose political biological clock is ticking quite loudly, has again been very silent when it comes to how that surplus should be handled today.

There is a deeper and even more dangerous consequence to surrendering the purse strings. The House of Commons has castrated its ability to demand answers from the government of the day. We cannot hold up spending, so we cannot demand and get answers to tough questions. Since we no longer hold ministers to public account, it is easier for the Prime Minister and those in his immediate circle, the PMO and the PCO dictatorship, to seize the reins of government.

Benevolent dictators are still dictators. We need a new Magna Carta. Until the House takes back the power of the purse, there will be no checks and balances on the new King Johns of the 21st century or peut-être roi Jean. All of us should be alarmed by the accretion of power in the office of the presidential prime minister. Congress counterbalances American presidents. There is no counterweight to the presidential prime minister when the House has predetermined that he shall have unlimited access to the treasury. Our principal instrument of parliamentary power, the right to deny supply and thereby to set into train the dismissal of the administration, is now in ruins so long as the House neglects the business of supply. It is for this reason that I am unable to support this motion.

Around 1994 the committee looked at the business of supply. In typical Liberal fashion, it concluded that something needed to be done and it wrapped itself in the language of fiscal responsibility and then did what this government has done so many times. It did a U-turn. It did an Olympian-style back flip.

Instead of looking for ways to save dollars or restrain spending, the government invented a new way to spend money. In recommendation 14 it states that committees of the House should be able to reallocate approximately 5% of monies within an estimate. That sounds innocuous does it not? In principle, it violates the doctrine of the ministerial responsibility and the spending initiative of the crown. Parliament does not govern. We have the right to probe and discomfort those who do, but when we attempt to run the government, we undermine the foundations of our authority and force the removal of a minister or a government.

We cannot hold a government responsible for decisions when we attempt to join them in making basic governmental decisions. Ministers and governments are responsible to the House. If they are not acting in accord with the wishes of the majority of the House, the House can force their removal. They ought not to be able to take the 5% buy-off route proposed by this report.

Ministers should not be kept in office under a system of putting in the fix in the House of Commons. Under this system, a recalcitrant minister could remain in office and the House would re-jig an estimate to meet the wishes of the House. The dynamic tension at the root of the power of the purse is compromised by this proposal.

What would be the real effect? Members of parliament are by nature spenders. This recommendation would claim for private members a new privilege, what the American politician, John Randolf called “That most delicious of all privileges; spending other people's money”.

Calvin Coolidge is reported as having observed “Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone and the temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody”.

In conclusion, I urge the House to put parliament first and to get serious about real scrutiny of estimates. That means taking away artificial deadlines and making ministers appear in committees of the House. It means unpleasant confrontations and it means we will need to be parliamentarians rather than social workers.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Bloc member does not understand French from Nova Scotia. I am sorry, but I tried.

As I was saying, Bill S-14 does not just set aside time for a national holiday. This is not about expanding time off for schools or businesses. This is very much about recognizing in a formal way the birthdays of two great Canadians, Sir John. A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the birthdate being January 11 in the case of Sir John A. Macdonald.

As an interesting footnote, the birth records of Sir John A. Macdonald, who was born in Scotland, indicate that he was born on January 10. When he and his family emigrated to Canada his father, Hugh, recorded his birthdate as January 11, so there was some dispute. On the other hand, I suppose the record keepers are more precise in the province of Quebec and they indicate quite clearly that November 20 was the day on which Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into the world naked and screaming and, from that point on, went on to become one the country's leading francophone politicians.

This bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier arguably sets aside time to reflect on two of Canada's most important politicians and certainly prime ministers. Sir John A. Macdonald was obviously the prime minister during Confederation. In 1867 he led the country into a new federal state. Though he was defeated in 1873, he was re-elected four times subsequent to that: in 1878, 1882, 1887 and again in 1891. He was elected five times as prime minister of the country. He died in office in June 1891. More than any single individual in our entire country's history, we have to give him credit for bringing this great nation together. His efforts and leadership created the country, gave birth to a nation. One cannot emphasize enough the magnitude and the majesty of that accomplishment.

What accomplishment can compare in any way to what Sir John A. really did? It was a tremendous act of will to bring together this vast, diverse and enormous land. He united the country not only through his political efforts but arguably he united the country physically, through the construction of the railway, and philosophically, by having like-minded people pull in the same direction. Through his long range vision, foresight, perseverance and certainly unquestionable inner fortitude, Sir John A. is very worthy of the bill that is before us.

His professional life included his time as a lawyer and a businessman. He worked in a bank and entered politics as an alderman for Kingston, Ontario. He died, as I mentioned, on June 6, 1891, while still in office and is buried in the Cataraqui cemetery near Kingston, Ontario.

His party, quite apropos and relevant in today's political environment, was one of the liberal Conservatives. One can imagine how incongruous. In the current context, it was a coalition that he led. He was the party leader from 1867 to 1891 and was able to bring together like-minded Conservatives with a social conscience.

He represented the constituencies of Kingston and Victoria, British Columbia. Many Canadians are probably not aware that Sir John A. represented the constituency of Victoria from 1878 to 1882 and then returned to Ontario between 1882 and 1887 to represent Carleton, Ontario. His ministries included receiver general, militia affairs, justice, attorney general for Canada, minister of the interior, superintendent general of Indian affairs, railways and canals. He obviously had a diverse interest that he brought to public life.

I want to touch for a moment on Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his accomplishments. He was the seventh prime minister of the country serving from 1896 to 1911. He was the first elected French Canadian prime minister. He drafted John Abbott, who became the first prime minister from Quebec, into the job. When he left after one year, Mr. Laurier, who was seen by many as a young radical, and by some standards today may have been called a separatist, came into an age of wisdom and became the first elected prime minister from Quebec.

He was key to promoting national unity from that moment onward, and like Sir John A., came from a professional life of the practice of law. He was called to the bar in eastern Canada in 1864. He was the editor of a paper and an ensign in the Arthabaskaville Infantry. He served as an MLA in the provincial legislature of Quebec. He died in February of 1919 in Ottawa and was buried at the Notre Dame Cemetery.

His political record, like Sir John A.'s, is stellar and is one that displays an incredible ability and degree of leadership. Although Macdonald was a Conservative and Laurier a Liberal and they were opponents in and out of the House, they had a common belief in a strong and united country where everyone, regardless of religion, race or language lived and worked for the benefit of one nation.

Throughout our remarks we have avoided the degree of partisanship that sometimes slips in. It is an effort for us to ban together to present a bill that would benefit Canadians in the sense that they could recognize, in an official way, the history and the cohesiveness that these two men represent to us. I encourage all members to support this important initiative.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the coalition, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to rise in support of this initiative, private member's bill, Bill S-14, which I think is significant as well as timely and is one that I almost feel very humbled by when speaking of these two individuals in the political context.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this bill came from the other place. I want to congratulate and commend the hon. senators, particularly John Lynch-Staunton of the other place for bringing this matter forward, as well as the hon. member for Don Valley West for his sponsorship here in the House of Commons.

It is a worthwhile initiative. In the spirit that it encompasses these two great men it has a bipartisan element to it and it honours two men who played a huge, fundamental role in founding our country. How fitting, how national, how correct and how positively politically correct that we should bring forward a bill in the names of Laurier and Macdonald, and how necessary at a time when our nation is casting its eyes inward and looking for symbols of identity and the symbols with which we define ourselves in troubled times.

My colleagues and I are extremely supportive and we are extremely pleased to see that the bill has made it to this point.

We already know that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier have very much galvanized their place in history, their figures cast in bronze around these historic buildings. Yet I feel that this initiative would very much allow us to set aside two days of recognition, two days on which all Canadians could pause and reflect upon the contributions of these men in a truly Canadian way. This is an important recognition of men who displayed great vision, political passion and perseverance at a time when our nation was in its infancy.

At a time when some people suspect that Canadians have become isolated and have turned away from their history, I believe this bill may help Canadians to rediscover the origins of this great country, as well as the two men who helped to shape Canada into the country we know today.

Through Bill S-14 we are not honouring a Tory or a Liberal. This is not about partisanship, which so often takes precedence in this place. We are simply honouring two great Canadians who represent the two dominant languages, cultures and religions of their day. One was a founding father and the other was an equal contributor as the first francophone to lead the country.

Bill S-14 does not call for a national holiday, only to recognize their two birthdays.

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of my Bluenose colleague about the benefits that can flow from free trade. Free trade is not meant in any way to benefit one region over another. It is, as he would be the first to admit, something that has national benefits.

This is comprehensive legislation. Although it may be described as flowery in language, there is a great deal of pith and substance to it. Bill C-32 touches on parallel accords, environmental co-operation and labour co-operation. It is the type of legislation we should be getting our teeth into. We should be holding it up as progress in the area of trade for Canada.