The funny thing is that the preamble had no significance back then. Now, as the member for Malpeque sees it, the preamble explains everything, is highly significant, and could mislead the courts if they were called upon to interpret it.
Just recently, a new proposal was made in western Canada, about the unique character of Quebec, something comparable to the Pacific salmon, and it was said that “maybe that could be added to the preamble if a constitutional amendment is made”. Others said “No, it would go at the end”. Regardless of whether it comes before or after, I believe that a preamble has to give a general idea of the legislative text.
Of course, the preamble per se is not a section of the act, but a guide. We know that the members of this new Canadian Wheat Board, or some of them, are MPs who lost their seats in the last election, people who will get their reward from the Prime Minister and the party in power for their contribution to democratic debate on June 2. It might not, however, be a bad thing to remind them in a preamble that their primary authority is the farmers, the producers, not the one responsible for appointing them to the board, particularly when an act like this one is intended to last a good length of time, since it is made to be longlasting, hoping that it is the best possible.
If such is the case, if the government passes this legislation to be in effect for a goodly length of time, hoping to apply it for a long time, it is possible that its buddies who are appointed in this first batch to the Canadian Wheat Board could turn up elsewhere, be promoted to something else. However, its friends or those who could be friends with the others later on have to understand from reading the preamble of the bill governing them that its priority and purpose is to look after the interests of grain producers.
I do not understand why the member for Malpeque always rises here, waving his arms about as if this were a personal issue, as if it were an attack against him personally when we take apart and criticize a bill that he is defending. I do not know why he does not just use a little common sense. There must be common sense in Malpeque too.
The hon. member for Malpeque should drop his habit of leaping up and save his strength for other occasions, of which there are many in political life.
Moreover, I want to say too that the bill does not require the Canadian Wheat Board to be accountable to wheat producers. The bill requires it to be cost effective, but who is going to decide if it is cost effective? It is all very well to say the board will be managed in a way that ensures its cost effectiveness, but who is responsible for ensuring the cost effectiveness of the board? Is it the appointed head of the wheat board, the person who appointed the directors, friends of his political party? Or is it the producers, who may be affected by the sometimes irrational decisions and choices made by the administrators of public funds, decisions that are even less rational because they are not accountable to the people, the producers in this case?
I find the attitude displayed by the member for Malpeque, despite the carryings on of my colleague opposite who is protecting his chum and shares his views on the matter, in so vigorously opposing what we propose to put in the preamble of the bill, is mistaken and leaves that very impression with everyone including the Liberals. A member rose on a point of order saying he had the impression, from the way things were being dealt with, that the members considered him dishonest. That does not come from us. I was seated and had said nothing. If he thinks he is dishonest, it has a lot more to do with his bill.
The time may have come to focus on the bill and suggest that the hon. member for Malpeque stop challenging virtue and peace, order and good governance.
I can understand that the hon. member for Malpeque may want to sell just about anything to anyone; that is his job as parliamentary secretary. He can be made to say anything, that is his job, as he has to protect his minister. But let us try to get across to him what is really being asked by our colleagues in the Reform Party, with whom I seldom agree, but agree with this time. Good common sense ideas can spring from anywhere. I mentioned Malpeque, but they can also spring from western Canada.
I think that they are absolutely right. Without being partisan about this bill, I think it could be a good bill, a bill that does what it is meant to do and a bill that can have a positive effect. There is no need to get carried away and go on opposing the Reform proposal. As a former political figure in Quebec, the late Maurice Bellemare, used to say “What matters is not the size of the sledgehammer but the swing you put in the handle”. He has put quite a bit of swing in demolishing something that stands to reason and is founded in logic and necessity.
I urge all members of this House, especially those who feel as uneasy about this bill as the hon. member who spoke earlier, who feel attacked even though they are innocent—and they all are—, who feel targeted by the bill and threatened by its consideration, to share their feelings with the hon. member for Malpeque, who will inform his minister, who will in turn inform whomsoever he pleases, as long as the end result is that an interesting bill is brought back to us. If justice is not done to grain producers, it should at least appear to be done. That would be better than nothing. We cannot hope for more than that.