Rick Casson

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that these things are mentioned in that tone. I do not think it was the Leader of the Opposition who had the radio program. I think it was his father. He is very proud of that, as his father was and as I am sure his children are.

After I was elected and before I came to Ottawa to be sworn in a constituent asked me in my office what I felt the most important part of my job was as a member of parliament. I told him I felt the most important thing I could do was represent the wishes of my constituents. I still believe that. He said that I was wrong. He said that the most important thing I would do as a member of parliament is create responsible legislation, legislation that all our constituents will have to live under. He told me I must do it with a great deal of thought and a great deal of preparation.

I really took that to heart and it did somewhat alter my priorities. It made me more aware of how important this part of our lives is, being in the House, working on and preparing legislation for the citizens of Canada to live by.

The fact remains that I am elected and I represent the people of my constituency and the people of Canada. When I help to make a law or when I support a law I am adding their voice to that law. We must never lose the ability as legislators to prepare laws for the people of Canada. If we feel or see it happening that the judges of this land instead of interpreting and enforcing laws are reading in items and changing the intent, we have to protect against that.

If something in a law is not doing what it is supposed to do then we should bring it back to this House for debate. That is all we are trying to get to today. All this other ranting and raving about whatever is not getting to the point.

The lesson well learned from a constituent was that law making is very important and it is a big part of this job.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge to speak to this motion.

The motion before is to stop federal legislation from being altered by judicial rulings.

It is not limited to the specific issue of spouse. Rather, this motion has ramifications beyond that decision taken by the courts in the Rosenberg case.

It is imperative that this House examine in depth the implications of allowing the courts free rein over the rewriting of laws, which is over and above the mandate subscribed to them through democratic procedure.

By not appealing the Rosenberg decision, we are allowing the courts to create public policy. I remind this House that the judiciary is not an elected body

When we as members of Parliament are elected by our constituents, we are elected on the basis of our platform, our individual accomplishments in our communities and our dedication to our constituents to uphold the democratic rule of this country.

The fundamental role of writing law lies with the legislature. As duly elected representatives, we are accountable to the people of this country and to the will of the people. The motion before us today is to appeal the Rosenberg decision because it violates the democratic rule of parliamentary supremacy and supports the controversial notion of judicial activism.

This Liberal government has remained conveniently silent on the role of parliament and judicial activism. When judges start acting like law makers, they have exceeded their legal authority and their intended mandate.

When will the government appeal a decision saturated with judicial activism and uphold the laws of this country? It is imperative that the legislature create and write laws as dictated by the will of the public. The will of the public has yet to be heard.

The silence of the Liberal government speaks volumes. This government has until June 22 to appeal this blatant example of judicial activism.

Not appealing this recent decision can only be interpreted as approving this action. If the Liberal government supports the direction of the Rosenberg decision, it should still appeal the decision and follow the correct channels if it wants to change the definition of spouse.

Regardless of personal beliefs, one way or another, the essence of this argument is founded in democracy. Either someone respects the tradition of parliamentary supremacy or they do not. If the Liberal government wants to rewrite laws in order to include same sex spouses, that is for the legislature and not for the judiciary to decide. This could not be more clear.

I urge my colleagues to rethink the strategy of leaving legislative decisions in the hands of unelected officials. If the will of the people dictates a change to the current definition of spouse, the proper channel must be followed in order to change the laws of this country. The ramifications of not appealing a judge made law are enormous.

Is this an example of the gradual erosion of the very democratic principles that have been upheld in this great country since Confederation? Is this Liberal government prepared to take a back seat to law makers while unelected judges rewrite laws without any adherence to democratic tradition?

Will this Liberal government ever have the fortitude to stand up to the judiciary and lay down the law once and for all? I am sure every member of parliament realizes just how politically difficult such a decision can be.

After examining the issue, we could choose to bury our heads in the sand and refuse to address these difficult questions or we can appeal the decision and return the issue into the hands of the legislatures of this country.

When our constituents voted us in, they did so on the premise that we would uphold the democratic principles of Canada. If the government does not act to appeal the Rosenberg decision, we will not be upholding democracy. We will be encouraging a judicial activism free for all.

A government that refuses to tackle this difficult task while in office is just not doing its job. We made a solemn promise to our constituents when we were sworn into parliament. Accountability is crucial.

When Canadians voted us in, they entrusted us to deal with improving on Canada's existing laws and to rewrite laws when and where necessary. Yes, there will be very difficult decisions to make along the way but these decisions must be made. They must be made in accordance with the rules and principles of democracy.

What this Liberal government will be doing if it chooses to silently support this action is ignoring proper democratic procedure and opting for the easy way out.

Yes, we will have vastly different opinions in this House on this issue of the definition of spouse. Yes, the debate will be full of conflicting opinions and beliefs, and it has been. Yes, it is politically awkward and yes, the debate will filter down to the constituency level. It is a debate that must occur in parliament, even if it is politically inconvenient.

We were elected to deal with the simple and the tough issues all the same. It is a debate that must be held in the central legislature of this country. We owe it to our constituents to uphold our roles as law makers. It is imperative that this Liberal government take a leadership role and stop shipping awkward political questions to the judiciary for decisions.

We must heed similar warnings coming from judges themselves. Justice John McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal is on record as saying:

We judges are now permitted, sparingly, to correct legislative excess, but we should remain co-servants with the law makers in the business of representative government and we should never allow ourselves to evolve into their second guessing surrogates. Yet judges seem to be moving, incrementally but steadily, from the role of parliamentary defenders to that of its nemesis.

Straight from the mouth of the judiciary we have been warned by the courts themselves. Consider this judicial notice for the legislature to gets its priorities in order and get back to legislating the affairs of this country.

If we do not appeal decisions that are blatant examples of judicial activism we are sending a clear message to judges that they can go ahead and act like law makers instead of concentrating on their roles as the interpreters of laws.

The citizens of this country do not elect their judges to make laws. That is what they elect us to do. That is precisely why this Liberal government must respect the democratic principles of this country and limit the far reaching effects of judges making laws.

I urge the government and all political parties in this House to say no to judge made law and to put the issue to debate in the House where law making is supposed to originate. I call on the government to openly state its position and return issues of public concern to the forum for which debate is intended.

Difficult or not, we must maintain and uphold the democratic principles of this country and put a cap on law making from unelected judges. It is within this Liberal government's power to do so and I urge it to adhere to the legal principles of this country. The government has until June 22 to act responsibly.

[National Head Start Program, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members present for allowing us to carry on. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 261 advising the government to develop a national head start program.

My colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. I know many members in the House have respect for him as well. He has dedicated his life to helping the injured and the sick. He has had a firsthand opportunity to witness breakdowns in our health care and education systems as the two are so closely linked.

I am confident all members of the House will support the motion because almost all of us are parents and many of us are grandparents or soon to be. We know that in an ever increasing competitive global market technological advances make leaps and bounds but should never come at the expense of our children. The generations to come will require every head start they can get, every advantage their health and happiness will allow, giving them the support and positive reinforcement required to excel in a competitive world.

As my colleague recently wrote in a note:

—research has clearly demonstrated that events in early childhood can have a dramatic effect on an individual. Ensuring that children's basic needs are met (i.e. proper nutrition, strengthening parent child relationships, good parenting skills, preventing child abuse, etc.) has proven to have a profound effect in producing stable, happy children and thereafter, well functioning adults. Programs that address these needs are not only effective in their outcome, but also, extremely cost effective.

I doubt any member of the House would refute that youth crime is becoming increasingly common and increasingly violent. While legislative changes can bring about statistical changes in youth crime, my colleague urges us to consider the motion, to support it, and to get to the root of youth problems before they start.

The operative word here is prevention. The time has come for the House to start taking a proactive stance on youth problems and to stop relying solely on reactionary solutions.

The problem of youth crime may not be the only problem in society but it is one issue we can try to resolve before it materializes. If we can implement a national head start program, children who may have began an early life in crime can be helped in the right direction through such a program.

The cost of implementing a national head start program will be returned many times over, as has been previously mentioned, with every child that is helped. Youth criminals can easily become serious adult offenders and we all know how expensive our judicial and penal systems have become.

If we invest the money now we could save the costs associated with youth criminals and their subsequent adult crime life. Children do not begin lives in crime out of choice. My colleague has done a great deal of research on the issue and I urge all members here today to seriously listen to the facts and act in the best interest of Canadian children.

The motion before us today will help children, plain and simple. Regardless of our political affiliation let us put our partisan politics aside and act in the best interest of our youth.

It is imperative we remember to whom we owe these seats in parliament: our constituents, the men, women and children who rely on us to represent their best interest. Today we can prove to all our constituents that we recognize a good thing when we see it. Today's motion will only improve the conditions of our children by addressing basic parenting skills, proper nutrition, conflict resolution and abuse issues.

The statistics are in and early intervention programs can be very successful. Members of the House cannot ignore the 50% decrease in juvenile and adult crime as a result of early intervention programs. Nor can my colleagues ignore the 40% reduction in teen pregnancies and the resulting higher rates of employment and income. The long term savings to Canadians are enormous.

I do not need to do the math to remind my colleagues about the huge price tag associated with crime. Costs go up and insurance premiums rise. Policing expenses, court costs, in addition to incarceration and counselling are all extremely expensive.

To simplify the decision of whether or not to support the motion—and my common sense tells me that all in the House will support a decent and worthwhile initiative such as this one—I liken the situation to a favourite poem of mine “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost.

In our great country we have and will often come to a crossroads, two diverging roads that branch off in two different directions. I see today's motion on the implementation of a national head start program as exactly that. It is a fork in the road. Either we take the road that has been travelled many times, the reactionary road of detention and incarceration, or we take a new path, a proactive path of crime prevention through social development.

Every child in Canada deserves the opportunity to develop as a normal human being. I urge all members here today to support my colleague's motion.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendment before us. It may be the most important one.

The legislation needs to come to the House to be scrutinized by the people who were elected to represent the people of Canada. We have already seen this done in Bill C-68, the gun registration bill, and it needs to be done here. We were elected to come here to represent the people of Canada. We are not here to take what the House wants back to them. That has been the problem with governments since time began.

We want to review the legislation. As representatives of the people of Canada we want to have a look at it. That is what this opportunity is for.

We support the Bloc amendment for its openness and transparency. That is what we need more of in the country and the amendment will start the process of going down that road.

The DNA act, Bill C-3, is very important to the people of Canada, the population in general. We are here to represent those people. We should be the ones who review the legislation, not a governor in council order.

I wonder why we have to stand to debate this type of legislation. Why is it that members elected by the people of Canada to represent them do not get a chance to look at it and that it comes through the governor in council?

When the DNA bill is in place it will be a tool that will change the way crime fighting is done in the country. It will help to put some sense back into our system. It will not allow criminals to hide behind any legality. Once the profile is in place it can be used whenever a crime is committed.

Allowing us to debate the bill in the House and in committee and to bring it to our constituents to get their feelings on it is the only way we should proceed.

I congratulate the Bloc for bringing the amendment forward. It is a strange day when all opposition parties support the same amendment, but this is one of those days.

The importance of public scrutiny or scrutiny by the House cannot be overemphasized. We cannot have bills or rules coming forth to govern bills that have not had the blessing of the people of Canada. That is what we are here to do and that is why we are supporting the motion.

It is not precedent setting. It has already been done with Bill C-68, which helps to move us along that way. I wanted to add my voice to the support of Group No. 4. Hopefully members opposite can find it in their hearts to do so as well.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-3, the DNA act. The motion in Group No. 3 that we are debating would increase the penalty for anybody who abuses this information. If the information is used for anything other than what was intended, a very severe penalty should be applied. This is needed because the information is very useful in fighting crime. It is also very personal and should be used only for what it was intended.

DNA profiles contain uniquely private and personal information. This information should be used only for the purposes of identification.

The essence of this bill is to create a databank to identify every person who has committed a crime in this country. If the profile is on file, then anytime it comes up again we know exactly who the person is.

This would give a strong tool to our police, to our crime fighters. It is a strong tool for the protection of society. It is a strong tool for deterring criminals from acting because they will know there is a positive means of identification on file and that there will be no mistakes.

This motion goes on to state other reasons it is important to protect these profiles. The improper use or disclosure of DNA profiles can lead to significant harm to the individual, including discrimination in areas such as employment, education, health care, reproduction and insurance.

There seems to be a great deal of concern about the rights of people. If we have rights for the average citizen in Canada, then we need to secure those rights and make them stronger.

If we have this DNA information on file, it should be used for crime prevention and that is all it should be used for.

We support this amendment from the member for Sydney—Victoria.

If this very personal information gets out for any reason other than that for which it was intended, then the crime should be very, very strong. This should, in itself, go a long way in putting to rest some of the fears of the people who are worried about the rights of criminals. However, I think we should worry more about the rights of the individual.

Forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an individual, but also about the individual's parents and children, thus implicating family privacy. Again, this is the type of information we do not want to be made public. The information is meant to be used as a tool to fight crime. It is not meant to be used as a tool to invade anybody's privacy.

Again, there is a need for a strong deterrent for anybody who would abuse this databank. Once this databank is in place, we need a very strong deterrent for anybody thinking of taking up criminal activity.

DNA profiles are also tied to reproductive decisions which are among the most private and intimate decisions an individual can make.

The reasons that have been put forward to protect DNA information indicate why we need this amendment. We need a strong penalty for anybody abusing this information because it delves into absolutely every aspect of a person's life. There are no secrets when a DNA profile is created.

Also, the bill states that the commissioner shall ensure that the national DNA databank authority maintains a record of every person who accesses the national DNA databank established under subsection (1). There has to be a record of any person who uses this databank to absolutely make certain that the use of this information is for what it was intended and that it cannot be manipulated for use in any other manner.

It was mentioned earlier the research that could be done with the DNA databank information on criminals. Persons could take all of that information and use it for various reasons. But it has to be kept for the use that was intended. That is why this motion was put forward.

It also states that every three years after this legislation comes into force a complete investigation must be carried out with respect to the national DNA databank and all aspects surrounding it. This is another aspect that was put in place to ensure the privacy of the individuals in the databank.

Anybody who thinks this bill is going to invade a person's rights must realize that all manner of legislation is being put into place to protect against that. The legislation is being put in place to make this bill acceptable to the people who feel that the information could be used in a improper manner.

With all of these aspects to the bill and the fact that this amendment has been brought forward to increase the penalty for the improper use of the databank, I think we have come to the point where it will be usable, the information will be protected and we will not have to be concerned with that.

Let us allow this DNA databank to exist. Let us use it as a strong tool to fight crime. Let us use it as a strong tool to protect people's rights in this country. Let us use it as a tool for deterrence and police action.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-26. I thank the member for Prince George—Peace River and the members of the agriculture committee from the Conservative Party for working on the amendments and coming up with a very good list of improvements to the bill. It is a pleasure to rise to support the amendments that the Conservative Party has put forward today.

The idea that farmers and producers need government involvement in regulations to implement an insurance plan is wrong. These producers are running huge operations and are very capable of making proper management decisions to maximize the return on their investment.

Right now across the prairies it is springtime and choices are being made as to what crop to seed, how to prepare the seed bed, when to do that, and everything that goes along with those decisions: fertilizer, spray or whatever. They are made by the farmer because the farmer makes those decisions in his own best interest.

The idea that government has come forward with this licensing program to have a negative option billing system is wrong. We saw it last year or the year before when cable companies were trying to use that method. It is just not right, the fact we have to tell somebody we do not want that and unless we say no we will get it.

What is that? That is not the way the country should be run. If farmers want to be involved in an insurance plan they will indicate that they want to be involved. They will let the minister know up front and they are involved. This way they have to let the minister know they do not want to be part of the plan. The levy is still taken from them and then they have to apply to get it back. That just creates another set of books to be kept by farmers.

All we are hearing is that producers want government out of their lives. They want to be able to make their own decisions, run their own operations and do what they know is best for them. They do not need to keep another set of books. They do not need to pay their accountants another $50 or $100 to figure this one out. If they could let it be known up front that they do not want to be involved, it could be a voluntary process. It would go a long way toward improving what the bill is trying to do.

We are speaking in support of the amendments in Group No. 2 put forward by the Conservative Party. They were also raised and discussed in committee. They are good amendments. They are good quality suggestions on how to improve a bill and make it more friendly for western producers.

However they were defeated by Liberal committee members. They have come back in this form and there is a chance to debate them in the House. They were debated at committee. Witnesses came before committee to suggest some things and now we have the ability to discuss them here, to have another airing of them. I hope government members will see the light and find their way clear to support some of them.

There is this idea of government being involved in everything we do in our lives. What is government's role in the lives of farmers and Canadians in general? How much should it be involved? We are being overregulated, overgoverned and overtaxed. We need the government to establish an atmosphere in which we can thrive. That is all we ask. We ask to be left alone in whatever endeavours we choose. That is certainly true for the agricultural community. Some people in the agricultural community are far better qualified to have more input into how things can be developed in Canada than any government member.

We debated the Canadian Wheat Board Act about a month ago. Government members all voted for that bill with its amendments. Yet only 14 of them had a direct relationship to the western grain producer. That shows how these things can be taken away from the people who have most to do with them.

We should create an atmosphere within the agricultural community for entrepreneurs to come forward, to develop their own skills, and to have voluntary means for becoming involved in different programs. They are asking for the option to run their own lives. They want the government out of their lives. They fill out enough forms. The government knows enough about their operations already. It does not need to be involved any more.

I offer my support to these amendments. I hope the entire House will see the merit of them.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I can follow that rousing debate. I might be a little shorter on history than some of the members opposite.

We want to address the amendments to Bill C-26 today. Bill C-26 is an act to establish a licensing system and an insurance plan for the special crops industry in western Canada.

It provides for the licensing of all buyers of special crops and for the voluntary participation of producers in the insurance plan. Voluntary participation protects them against default payment for special crops by licencees.

There is the problem. Our western producers are sometimes a little hesitant to trust this government to protect them. That is why we brought forward these amendments to the act. I understand from the secretary that some are going to be accepted.

The one thing that is important is that we want people involved in the industry of raising specialty crops to be involved in the decision making.

We should have the minister create a nine member board but create that board from a list of people put up by the specialty crops groups themselves. That makes perfect sense. That is what western Canadian farmers would understand. They could trust a system like that. It would be people they know, people who understand the industry be in there making decisions in the best interest of the farmers.

I think that is all western producers are asking. They want to make a living off the land and they want to be the architects of their own destiny. They want things like this and they need them. If we give this to them, they will be pleased and they will work hard.

My riding of Lethbridge in southern Alberta has a wide range of agricultural components. It starts in the Rocky Mountains and goes out on to the plains. It has some of the area of the highest heat units for any area in Canada. Specialty crops are an order of the day. Most specialty crops are grown in the area I come from.

The reason people have gone to these crops is that they manage the crops themselves. Even the sunflower producers on Bow Island grow them. They have become quite a great marketing enterprise with Spitz sunflowers. This started out as a small business and now it is huge. Sunflower seeds are part of this list.

If we give farmers the opportunity to be creative and to decide their own destiny, they can and will be successful. We have to stop government interference. Therefore our amendment asks to have the board appointed by the minister but selected from a group of people selected by the producers.

This makes a lot of sense. I am sure the government, when it reconsiders this, will support it. This is what we are asking for.

The recommendations from witnesses at the committee, from the producer groups, are things the government should be very carefully considering and putting into this bill.

Lentils, peas and mustard are special crops that need special conditions. They need special treatment. They need people who know all the special conditions making decisions on how this insurance plan is going to work. The weather is critical. Some are more fragile than others. It is important that people on the board know all the conditions.

The motions in Group 1 that we have put forth are good motions. Some require words to be changed from “may” to “shall” for the minister to appoint to this advisory board.

However, the critical thing is to recognize the expertise that exists in the industry and with these producers and let us have these producers on the advisory board to ensure this system will work properly and will truly be in the best interests of farmers.

[Labour, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in his opinion it is much needed. This bill is very undemocratic. One of the most undemocratic aspects is that it would allow the labour board to certify a trade union even if most of the workers voted against it. That is unfair to business and it does not represent workers' democratic rights.

Why does the labour minister think it is okay to certify a trade union without the support of the majority of its workers?

[Labour, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the governments of Alberta and Ontario have written to the federal Minister of Labour pointing out serious flaws in Bill C-19, the labour bill.

Typical of this government, the minister has ignored the provinces. Now we have learned that all the federal ministers from B.C. have written to the labour minister demanding that the bill be changed.

We know how the Liberals treat the provinces and we know how they treat their backbenchers, but are they really going to ignore their own ministers?

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19 and the second group of amendments.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wetaskiwin for all the work that he has put into this matter before and during the committee debates that have been carrying on.

Today we are looking at different groups of amendments and we are now debating Group No. 2. The one I would like to dwell on is the democratic aspects of our amendment.

We need to make sure that democracy in this country can go through all aspects of our society. This bill states that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may order a representational vote on union certification. That is just not good enough. We would like to have our amendment brought forward which says that 35% of the employees need to sign a card indicating they want union certification.

There was a recent case in Ontario. A similar provision in the Ontario labour relations act imposes stricter requirements on automatic certification. Even under a stricter provision the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the recent Wal-Mart decision certified the steelworkers union as the bargaining agent for a group in a Wal-Mart store in Windsor despite the fact that 70% of the employees voted against the union. The board based its decision on membership evidence submitted by the steelworkers union which showed it had support of 44% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

It just goes to point out that if this bill is not treated properly, it can open up all kinds of strange parameters and undemocratic proceedings. The fact we would like to see 35% of employees cards signed would go a long way to stopping some of the problems that exist.

This bill and its predecessor, Bill C-66, are basically flawed for some of the reasons we are stating today. Stable labour relations are absolutely essential for this country to grow and to thrive, for people to invest in Canada and to reinvest. Companies that are looking to expand and to offer new services across Canada want stable labour relations so that they can count on their businesses being open and being able to supply Canadians with the services that they want.

With this whole entrepreneurial aspect of our country where a person can come up with a good idea, promote it, develop it and put it in place to service Canadians, it is necessary to have in place the labour to fulfil these aspirations. We would like to see amendments to the bill to allow that to happen.

The democratic aspect of what we are promoting in the Group No. 2 amendments is part of what we believe in. We know that the rest of the members of the House will develop their opinions and support us as well.

The Bloc has a motion that allows one or more employees in a group to appoint a new representative. That does not follow with what we would like to see done so we will be opposing that motion.

There are other items my colleague from Wetaskiwin has brought forward to show the weakness of this bill. One of them is access to offsite workers. We will be handling that at a later date.

We saw a couple of years ago during the winter that we could not for various reasons get our products to port, and once they got to port we could not get them out. This bill is to help relieve that situation. It guarantees that once a product or grain gets to port, it will be shipped. We have a whole lot of things to address in the labour act to enable those products to get from the farm gate or from the manufacturer's gate to the port.

As we go through the scenario of looking into the problems that existed two years ago that helped to almost bankrupt our agricultural community on the prairies, we have to make sure that we go back through every aspect of the labour act and put forth changes that will make it more acceptable and make it more friendly to the people who are shipping goods. That is why we have brought forward our amendments. We have to make sure that what happened in Windsor, Ontario cannot happen elsewhere.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board has also made some changes to how it is going to structure its chairs and the length of service. Many aspects here need to be looked at considerably. If we can start with our amendment that will keep this bill democratic and allow members of a union to have a representational vote of 35%, this will help alleviate one of the major obstacles and will fall into place with some of the other amendments we are proposing in the other groups.

This bill is going to have far reaching effects for years to come in Canada. It is important that it be democratic. It is important that it address the issues that are of concern in the labour industry. It is important to supply an atmosphere in Canada in which people will be confident in investing. It is important to the producers and manufacturers that when they have made a commitment to somebody offshore to deliver a product in a timely fashion that they are able to do it. If that cannot be done, our reputation is harmed. It is seriously affected and we lose that trust we have throughout the world.

I hope the rest of the House will support our amendments.