Le Senateur Le Senateur

Share this website!

  • Digg
  • TwitThis
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • Sphinn
  • Technorati
  • Wikio
Send to a friend Send to a friend

Send to a friend:



S'enregistrer au Flux RSS Le Sénat du Canada

‘Economy’ category

Mexico 2010: interparliamentary discussions within the framework of the WTO

15 July 2010 at 15h39

 untitled

 

The Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas (FIPA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) held a joint workshop for parliamentarians on May 20-22 in Mexico City, in which I participated. The event, entitled “The Doha Development Round: Challenges and Opportunities for the Region”, was attended by parliamentarians of 16 countries of the Americas.  It sought to promote greater knowledge of the multilateral trade system, of WTO functioning and of the status of negotiations of the Doha Development Round in areas such as agriculture, trade in services and non-agricultural market access. The workshop also provided an opportunity to discuss the role of Parliaments in trade policy.

French connection in AECL sale sparks conflict concerns

28 June 2010 at 10h21
June 25, 2010

Joan Bryden

 

OTTAWA—French nuclear giant Areva may have been given the inside track to snap up Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s reactor business, critics say.

Some industry watchers and politicians are raising concerns about potential conflict of interest after learning that N.M. Rothschild and Sons — the investment bank hired by Ottawa to develop the restructuring plan for AECL — has also acted as financial adviser to Areva on numerous acquisitions and takeovers in the past.

The bidding process for AECL’s commercial reactor business is a closely guarded secret. But there are only a handful of major nuclear players in a position to bid and industry insiders say the Paris-based, state-owned Areva is likely one of them.

Finalists could be announced as early as this month.

“I’m calling that an incestuous relationship,” said Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, who uncovered the link during examination of the Harper government’s massive budget bill.

“The investment banker that is analysing (the bids) on behalf of our government has a very close relationship with a company that I suspect has made a proposal.”

The omnibus budget bill has been approved by the House of Commons and is currently being studied by a Senate committee. It contains a host of non-budgetary provisions, including provisions for the potential privatization of AECL.

Hervieux-Payette’s suspicions were further fuelled when she discovered that Areva, which for years employed a small army of outside consultants to lobby the federal government, abruptly stopped all lobbying activity three months after the government hired Rothschild in May 2009.

According to the federal lobbyist registry, no one has lobbied on Areva’s behalf since last August.

“By some coincidence, they have been using (lobbyists) for many years … and all of a sudden, no more, they don’t need anybody,” Hervieux-Payette said in an interview.

“Well, if they have somebody inside, they really don’t need a lobbyist.”

Rothschild did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Roger Alexander, president and CEO of Areva Canada Inc., confirmed his company “has been engaged with the Rothschild process with the federal government” related to restructuring proposals for AECL.

He would not confirm or deny that Areva has made an offer for AECL, citing confidentiality of the bidding process.

Other than that, he said: “I’m not aware of any prior relationships that Areva and Rothschild may have had in the past.”

However, records show Rothschild was listed as financial adviser to Areva on numerous deals around the globe, including the $2.5-billion takeover of UraMin, an international uranium mining company with operations in Canada, in 2007.

Also that year, Rothschild advised Areva on a strategic alliance with Summit Resources Ltd. and the acquisition of Northern Uranium Ltd.

Alexander acknowledged Areva’s parent company may have worked closely with Rothschild — hardly surprising given that both are based in Paris. He likened it to a Canadian company seeking financial advice from the Royal Bank.

But he doubted any of the deals involved operations in Canada.

In any event, Alexander said, Rothschild is running an “independent, verifiable” process for evaluating AECL proposals and doubted any concerns about apparent conflict of interest with regards to Areva would arise.

“I can’t imagine that there’s any issue with any of that.”

Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis’ office referred questions about Rothschild’s relationship with Areva to a departmental spokesman who, in turn, referred the matter to the Public Works Department, which awards government contracts.

Public Works spokeswoman Marjolaine Rocheleau said in an email that Rothschild was chosen through a competitive process from a list of 25 candidates to advise the government on AECL’s restructuring.

As part of the terms of its contract, she said Rothschild “must not have a conflict of interest in connection with the performance of its obligations and is required to declare any such conflict should it arise at any time.”

As for the sudden absence of lobbyists employed by Areva, Alexander said that’s “not related to the AECL activity or Rothschild’s activity.”

“Just for internal Areva strategic and financial reasons, we decided to not continue with those lobbying relationships,” he said.

Still, some industry players are concerned that Areva’s past relationships with Rothschild may give the company a leg up when it comes to AECL.

If Rothschild ends up recommending the sale of AECL to Areva, David Shier, president of the Canadian Nuclear Workers Council, said: “I definitely think it would be more than us saying, hey, there’s a conflict there.”

Indeed, sale of AECL’s reactor business to Areva is among the worst-case scenarios envisaged by some of those involved in the Canadian nuclear industry. They fear Areva, which manufactures a reactor that is incompatible with AECL’s unique Candu technology, would move the cream of Canadian nuclear engineers to France while shutting down the entire Candu operation in Canada.

“Of all the competitors out there, Areva is the one I’d be most concerned about grabbing the talent pool and basically shutting down the business,” said Chris Hughes, president and owner of Laker Energy Products Ltd., which manufactures Candu components.

“If Rothschild is working tightly with them, the more I think about it, the more concerned I get.”

Shier echoed the concern: “We’re quite clear on the fact that if it was bought by Areva, then that would be the end of our industry. … There’d be lots of jobs in France but there wouldn’t be that many left in Canada.”

However, David Novog, associate professor of nuclear engineering at McMaster University, said Areva shouldn’t be viewed as “the bogeyman.”

Whether AECL ends up in Canadian or foreign hands or in some sort of public-private partnership doesn’t matter, he said, provided the restructuring ensures the continued survival of the domestic nuclear industry with its many ties to the high tech, nuclear medicine and university sectors — the combination of which has made Canada a world leader in nuclear science.

Done properly, Novog said: “I think (AECL) can come out of this much stronger than they were before.”

Nevertheless, Novog said he’s concerned the entire process has been carried out secretly thus far so there’s no way of knowing if such matters are being taken into consideration.

“So far, there’s been no information available on how that process will work or how we ensure that we’re getting the appropriate debate or public input with respect to those indirect but very important parts of the industry.”

Delayed: exclusive interview on CBC The National regarding the incestuous business relationships of the Harper government

21 June 2010 at 14h36

DETAILS TO COME…

G20: How many millions for mosquitos?

10 June 2010 at 14h55

moustique

QUESTION PERIOD

International Trade

G8 and G20 summits

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question has to do with the spending on security for Canadians during the G8 and G20 summits.

Every day brings a new list of items: $1.9 million for an artificial lake; $400,000 to restore a boat none of the delegates will board; a gazebo big enough for only half a dozen delegates; not to mention a $23 million arena that could probably hold all the journalists in the world, but where none of the activities are due to take place.

I question all these expenses for the security and well-being of the Conservatives and their international guests. To protect the dignitaries against the nasty Northern Ontario mosquitoes that could transmit all sorts of diseases like West Nile virus, how many thousands of dollars has the government included in its budget, in the name of security, to buy screens or mosquito nets, spray repellent and ointment to treat bites while these guests are in Huntsville?

(1410)

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is a typical question from the Liberals. Never let the facts get in the way of a pithy question. The fact is that the gazebo and the arena have little to do with the G8 and the G20. They are part of the Economic Action Plan infrastructure programs and were built with the stimulus, which, by the way, has worked.

In fact, the cases that the honourable senator mentioned are all projects approved under the Economic Action Plan and were built with funds contributed equally by the Province of Ontario and the municipality in which the facilities are located. Senator Hervieux-Payette can run around the country, and the next thing we know, there will be a hockey rink built in Quebec that she will blame on the G8 and the G20.

With regard to the marketing pavilion, the honourable senator knows full well there is no such thing as a $2 million lake. The marketing pavilion is where world media will be gathered, and it is no different than any other pavilion that has been built, whether it was at the Olympics or at the World’s Fair in China. The pavilion itself cost $2 million, and many of the features in it promote Canada. The actual cost of the so-called “lake” was $57,000. Those are all expenditures to promote Canada.

We are interested in showcasing Canada and pointing out to the world what a wonderful country we are.

Senator Mercer: You could have showed them a real lake.

Senator LeBreton: Before the Olympics, there were complaints about the torch run, the security, our pavilion, and then we got a complaint that the pavilion was too cheap because it was pre-fabricated and temporary. Then, to the great disappointment of those on the other side, I am sure, the Olympics turned out to be a tremendous success, a great success story for Canada, in which we won a whole bunch of gold medals. The G8 and the G20 summits will be a great success as well.

Senator Tkachuk: How many arenas were built in Quebec?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have not seen any in my riding.

An Hon. Senator: How would you know?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I go there every week.

The leader’s government is claiming that its fake lake will cost only $57,000. If we can at least clarify where the funding is being allocated, we will be making some progress. However, we must remember that the average Canadian income is only $44,000, and this Conservative government day after day is clearly living on another planet, preaching fiscal restraint but spending more than the average Canadian earns per year, according to Statistics Canada.

Moreover, turning to Canada’s Economic Action Plan that claims to invest in infrastructure and help Canadians find employment and stimulate the economy, I would like to know how many jobs the government has created in the fake lighthouse, the fake Canadian scenery and the fake lake.

Let me quote an editorial in The Globe and Mail:

Industry Minister Tony Clement may wish to view the lake as a “reflective pool” . . . but to many Canadians, it will be viewed as the perfect metaphor for the Harper government: shallow, artificial and costly.

When can Canadians expect the Prime Minister to show fiscal restraint and good governance when dealing with conferences as important as the G8 and G20, to stop thinking like Hollywood and acting from a script for movies or television, and to act in the interest of Canadians?

Senator LeBreton: Since the honourable senator is referring to newspaper articles, perhaps she could tell me whether the Liberal Party of Canada will take the advice of the lead editorial in the National Post this morning with regard to Pablo Rodriguez?

We all know that our job is to promote Canada, our tourism, industry and the country as a place to invest. This pavilion, which will have many visitors, will promote Canada, just as Expo 67 did, although we will not get into the costs of that event.

The honourable senator asked about jobs. According to Statistics Canada, 24,700 new jobs were created in May, the fifth straight month of job gains. Since last July, Canada has created almost 310,000 new jobs, and Statistics Canada has announced that Canada’s economy grew 6.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2010, representing the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in a decade. With numbers like that, as economists have said, Canada shines.

The fact is that this marketing pavilion will attract people to Canada. The whole pavilion cost $2 million and the so-called lake cost $57,000, which is still $38 million less than the Liberals stole and gave to their friends in Quebec.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Would the leader tell honourable senators if she is happy with the unemployment rate at 8.1 per cent? We have not seen that for many years.

Senator LeBreton: The honourable senator had better check her facts. During the 1990s, the unemployment rate never fell below 9 per cent, except for one year, 1999. Unemployment at 8.1 per cent is a high rate. Much of it is because of the worldwide economic downturn, but when Canada’s debt to GDP ratio is compared to other countries’ debt to GDP ratio, we are shown to be in the best position of any country in the world. That is why the main thrust and purpose of the summit is the continuing growth of the economy and jobs.

At the same time, since these world leaders will be in Canada, we want to showcase our country to get people to invest in our country, which will create more jobs. We are proud of our country.

Liberals for the development of the Port of Montreal

28 May 2010 at 14h02

The conservative government has shown once more its disregard for the province of Québec and Eastern Canada by failing to invest and promote the Port of Montreal as an import gateway for long term economic development and prosperity. Liberal Senators and MPs visited the Port of Montreal and were shown the importance of the St-Lawrence Great Lakes trade gateway in strenghening the Canadian economy.

” The Prime Minister just doesn’t get it, he claims to have an “action plan” to stimulate and grow our economy but fails to show any sign of leadership when it comes to modernising our trading infrastructure”, said Senator Hervieux-Payette.

I invite you to take a look at the attached presentation demonstrating the economic benefits for Eastern Canada in the urgent need to invest in the Port of Montréal.

 The St-Lawrence Great Lakes Trade Gateway PDF

Harper’s ideology reform: neither desired nor desirable!

18 May 2010 at 13h11

Question period

Finance: National Securities regulation 

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As she surely knows, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and some large Quebec companies, including Cascades, Quebecor, Jean Coutu, Industriel Alliance and many more, oppose centralizing the securities commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that centralization would be either relevant or effective when it comes to preventing the moral and financial crisis we are experiencing.

I want to emphasize that the OECD has ranked Canada second in the world with respect to securities regulation.

And, as I am sure honourable senators know, neither the single American securities commission nor the single British securities commission managed to protect investors; both failed to see the crisis coming.

Despite these facts, the Prime Minister is stubbornly going ahead with his plan to create a single commission even though it is neither sensible nor in the interests of the provinces, including Quebec, which want nothing to do with it. In light of growing opposition on the part of Quebec business leaders, can the minister tell us when her government, specifically her Prime Minister, will reconsider this proposal, which is neither desired nor desirable, thereby saving the $250 million already set aside for that purpose in the budget?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Canada is the only industrialized country without a national securities regulator. Canada will be participating in G8 and G20 meetings. There has been and will continue to be a call for more financial regulations and international coordination. With these international pressures on us, we continue to be questioned about our fragmented system at home when we are dealing with our international partners.

As the honourable senator is aware, and as has been stated many times, this is a voluntary initiative. A clear majority of the provinces and territories are committed to or are open to working towards a single securities regulator. This is a voluntary initiative, and I am aware of some of the objections to it in the Province of Quebec. However, some industries and some people in Quebec are able to see the virtue of a single securities regulator.

This is a voluntary effort. If the Province of Quebec decides that it does not want to participate, that should not impede the desires of other provinces that wish to have a single securities regulator.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, the leader is arguing that we are the only country without a national organization. I must remind her that the Prime Minister is travelling around the world now telling people we have a different law, that is why we are different and they are all having problems. Either we go along with the rest and go down the drain, or we have our own rules. Our system has prevailed.

When will the leader’s government table a study that will demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we need that regulator and it is not for political purposes?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, while travelling around the world representing us so very well, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have discussed the notion of the global bank tax. Both have said that they do not believe Canada should be punished with this tax. The Prime Minister pointed out that Canada has handled it finances very well and did not have any bank failures, nor did the Canadian government become involved in any bailouts. The Prime Minister stated that Canada should not be punished for all of its good work. Honourable senators, with regard to when our government will table its intentions, the honourable senator knows that the government is seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada to provide legal certainty on Parliament’s authority to establish such a common securities regulator. Once that process is complete, we will table the plan.

Canadian Mortgage Crisis?

21 April 2010 at 09h59

Yesterday, I questioned the Leader of the Government in the Senate about the looming mortgage crisis in Canada. Please find attached the transcript of my questions and her answers.

 

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Canadians’ ratio of debt to net income now sits at approximately 146 per cent. This figure clearly indicates that we are headed towards a financial crisis that could equal the 2008 crisis in the U.S.

New mortgage rules announced by the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, went into effect yesterday in order to reduce the number of Canadians tempted by low interest rates and rising housing prices and who commit to a mortgage that they may no longer have the means to pay should interest rates increase.

The Conservative government has attempted on a number of occasions to persuade the Canadian public, wrongly, that the housing bubble was not about to burst and has made no tangible efforts to prevent Canadians from going into debt in such a volatile area. What additional measures has this government taken to force financial institutions to exercise more caution when providing mortgages guaranteed by the government?

(1430)

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): The honourable senator underscored in her question the problem that the government acknowledged. Changes were made to avoid a situation like that which occurred in the United States with regard to the mortgage market and problems created by people taking on mortgages they could not afford, thereby starting the whole financial meltdown.

The government has taken a number of measures to help consumers, as the honourable senator knows. These include protecting consumers in regard to debit and credit cards.

There are many suggestions as to how government can encourage banks and consumers to be more fiscally responsible. However, we live in a free economy, honourable senators. The government has taken measures in the banking and mortgage industries over the last two years, culminating in the changes that came into effect yesterday.

Based on reports I have seen, experts do not believe Canada is yet in a position — and hopefully never will be, as was the case in the United States — where people are so overextended that they cannot afford to pay their bills to keep themselves in the homes they have purchased.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I wish to salute our colleague, Senator Pierrette Ringuette, for the work she has done on credit cards. I am happy the minister recognized this work and made some changes. It is a good step in the right direction.

However, in his 51-page report, Alexandre Pestov, of the Schulich School of Business, said:

According to the CMHC financial statements, the corporation has only $8 billion equity backing $200 billion in assets. Once defaults rise, the Canadian government will have no choice, but to bail out CMHC. The scale of bailout will likely dwarf all other financial emergency responses done by the Canadian government in the history of Canada. Higher national debt, increased taxes and reduced social services will be the direct result of the Harper government’s intervention to maintain an illusion of the Canadian housing market health.

What steps will this government take to prevent CMHC from the need to be bailed out with the hard-earned money of Canadian taxpayers once mortgage rates start to increase and Canadians default on their mortgage payments?

Senator LeBreton: The honourable senator is reading the opinion of one person that is not shared by others. She is running around like Henny Penny crying that the sky is falling. Other experts believe that, although there is concern, Canada is in no way in the same position as was the United States. The Department of Finance Canada and the minister will closely monitor the situation.

To go as far as to say it will be necessary to bail out CMHC is the opinion of one particular individual quoted by the honourable senator. I will refer the statement to the Ministry of Finance and ask if they wish to comment on it. I will be happy to table their reply as a delayed answer.

[Translation]

Coalition for gender parity on Canadian boards of directors

19 April 2010 at 14h23

gender-parity-boards

Women and men must be equally represented on our boards of directors. While the Constitution recognizes gender equality, corporate Canada has clearly not made enough progress in this area.

Given that women are actively involved in the corporate community as business owners, shareholders, executives, managers and employees, and they play an equally important role in the marketplace as consumers, they should have equal representation on boards of directors.

Financial institutions experienced a crisis that plunged the world economy into a deep recession and showed there is no longer a place in today’s society for boards that lack diversity in their membership and perspectives. We need women board members who will introduce new approaches to management problems and reject the groupthink that may have contributed to our current global financial crisis.

According to the research organization Catalyst, women make up 47% of the Canadian labour force but only 14% of board seats among the 500 largest Canadian companies surveyed by the Financial Post. Women’s representation on the boards of publicly traded companies still stands at only 10.3% (29.1% for Crown corporations). Close to one-third of the companies ranked in the Financial Post 500 had two or more women on their boards, but 41.9% still do not have any women board members. At this rate, only one out of five board seats will be held by women by 2020.

As many industrialized countries have discovered, legislation is needed to achieve gender parity in the corporate world. Switzerland, Norway and Spain have passed laws requiring women’s representation on boards to reach 40% within six years. France is working on legislation as well. According to Corporate Knights, only 9% of board seats in Norway were held by women in 2003. That percentage has risen to 44% since the country brought in legislation in 2008.

The Government of Quebec passed a law requiring Crown corporations to have 50% female representation on their boards of directors by 2011.

Given corporate inaction and the slow progress seen so far, the Parliament of Canada must also pass legislation to show that gender parity on Canadian boards of directors is an essential part of our society.

I SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF BILL S-206 TO ESTABLISH GENDER PARITY ON THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF CROWN CORPORATIONS AND PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES.

To give your support, download the petition here and send it back to the address on the form either by email (by scanning the document) or by mail. Letters mailed to MPs and senators do not require a stamp. Thank you!

Read my speech here

Animal rights groups are the real slaughterers

5 March 2010 at 15h44

 sealoil_l

Response to the article by Bob Hepburn in “The Star”

Understanding why the market for seal related products has imploded is very simple. Groups such as PETA, HSUS, IFAW or Sea Shepherd claim to be defending animal rights and use seals to generate insane amounts of donations. This money serves to destabilize the sealing industry. By obtaining the closure of the European market, they themselves are causing the problem.

Mr. Hepburn believes that rural Canadians live the Toronto lifestyle; they wake up, get some coffee at Starbucks, work in a skyscraper, come home and put a frozen meal in the microwave for dinner. But they can’t just put on a suit and a tie and become a banker, they do a job that has been perfected over hundreds of years and no one can deny them the right to earn a living through the sustainable harvesting of animal resources like seals.

The role of the senate is to protect the interests of minorities and regions. Mr. Hepburn’s argument that seal hunting represents only 0.05% of Newfoundland’s economy is irrelevant. 15 000 people earn a living from seal hunting and this activity represents up to 35% of their family income.

Animal rights groups are the real slaughterers, they single handedly sabotaged an entire industry.

In 2009, I presided a group of scientists to draft a Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals. Supported by the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec it balances animal welfare while protecting the wellbeing of communities.

 Why would we be embarrassed by hard working Canadians who follow the law and take extraordinary measures to follow stringent standards set by veterinarians who actively promote animal welfare?

Next week when my colleagues and I will eat seal meat in the parliamentary restaurant we will not be doing this as a “gimmick” like Mr. Hepburn says; but as a testament to the solidarity of parliamentarians who support Canadians who fully contribute to the prosperity and diversity of this country.

******************************

OTHER RESPONSE

Dear Editor,

Following the arguments of Bob Hepburn against the seal hunt (Opinion, 03/04), one would figure that he should be supporting efforts to promote seal products.  If seal hunting “makes little economic sense”, then why should we shun Senator Payette’s attempt to remedy the matter?

Many activists against sealing have an odd way of creating the problems they in turn complain about.  It is absolutely despicable the way these anti-animal-use groups are telling sealers and their families that their livelihoods just aren’t worth “enough” to allow them to continue - this after a forty year history of unfounded public degradation at the hands of the same groups.

I wonder how many other industries make up “only” 0.05 percent of their provincial economies, or amount to less than $15 million dollars in yearly revenue.  Canada’s bison meat exports last year were about $11 million - should we scrap that industry?  

Sure, their meat is tasty, but it doesn’t stand up to some of the seal I’ve eaten.

Sincerely,

David Barry
Seals and Sealing Network

Here the supermarket is the land!

10 February 2010 at 11h44

Iqaluit - Day 2

Yesterday afternoon, I had the pleasure to meet the Minister of Environment of Nunavut, the Honorable Daniel Shewchuk.
 
“Here the supermarket is the land” said the Minister who nevertheless rejects the Europeans unfair exemption for traditional Inuit hunting provided it is limited to personal consumption. Nunavut claims the right to give Inuit the opportunity to improve their standard of living through trade in seal products.
 
His message is clear: the lifestyle of the Inuit is linked to the seal hunt and the Inuit fate depends on the success of the commercial seal hunt in Canada. For a market needs a critical mass to be viable.
Therefore, there are not two hunts in Canada, but actually one. Nunavut is totally supportive of the Atlantic region.
 
The Minister is very open about the work we can do to ensure the sustainability of the seal hunt in Canada. Like me, the Minister wants to better inform the public, educate about the realities of the hunt in Nunavut and its interdependence with Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
 
The Minister supported what we must unite our forces and it is in this spirit that I submitted the Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals. I welcome the positive reception this Declaration has received. The Declaration will be submitted to the Nunavut Cabinet in the coming days.
 
There is no doubt that all the seal hunters in Canada and all those who defend this cause like myself have a great ally in the name of  Minister Daniel Shewchuk.

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up