Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I noticed that the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville in his remarks did not seem to have ones that were immediately relevant to the bill, but I assumed that he was going to draw a parallel between the board he was discussing and the bill before us and indeed the clauses that we are currently debating in Group No. 2. I know the hon. member will do that soon so that it will be clear to all hon. members that he is on topic.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, anybody who was in this House for the last two days would know the relevance of what I am saying. We are discussing the Group No. 2 amendments which apply to only three provinces. They are very undemocratic. They control only farmers. I am drawing an analogy and I am going to continue.

The lawyer board I am advocating, analogous to the wheat board, would not allow lawyers to market their services outside this area. It could only market its services to certain customers, not to everyone. The lawyer board would control profits. It would prevent lawyers from making certain contracts because the lawyer may make too much money. The board should not, however, be allowed to be audited by the auditor general. If the funds are not being properly managed that should not become public.

How many lawyers would protest would not matter. They would be forced to pool all their returns and distribute them equitably, except for those who could maybe manipulate the system and get outside it.

Any lawyer who was caught marketing his services outside the designated area would have his property confiscated, be put in jail, in leg irons and handcuffs. He would be strip searched every three days because he marketed his services in a way that the government did not want him to. He would be kept there for five months even if it meant changing the law within an hour.

Lawyers would be limited on where they could deliver their services. Lawyers would have quotas, limits on how many clients they could have. If after 50 years of this lawyer board they thought it was an undemocratic lawyer board and the government felt some pressure to change it, the government could come up with a question that would have a predetermined outcome to keep control over lawyers by the board and the government.

The question would probably read something like this, if we could ever get lawyers or anybody to agree on that kind of question. Do you want lawyers to be paid adequately for their services? What do we think lawyers would say? Lawyers would probably say yes. Then the government would come around and say that means they want to have a lawyer board. That is how fair the question was that the government asked.

I am trying to make a point that relates directly to the amendments. Why does the government single out one particular area of the country, discriminate against one narrow sector, the agricultural sector? Why does it not pick lawyers. Why does it not start having a lawyer board and put control on them?

There is something very seriously wrong here. I am very concerned about this issue. I have worked on it.

This morning I asked a Liberal member to table a piece of paper. I do not have it yet. I happen to know what is on it in any event, or I would not have asked for it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, that item was tabled this morning. Maybe the hon. member was not in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the parliamentary secretary is indicating that the document was tabled. The hon. member can continue his speech.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is just trying to interrupt me. I hope I get some extra time.

I saw that document. It was illegible. The Table apologized and was going to try to get me one that I could read. I was here when it was tabled.

In any event the point I am trying to make in relation to all this is that it is not fair. There is a blank on these applications to export wheat or barley. The export licence asks the number of tonnes to be exported, who wants to export it and so on. Then it says exported under the export licence application dated and that it was grown in the province of. If three words appear in that line an export certificate will not be granted. Those three words are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is as simple as that.

Do you get the point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker? It is undemocratic. It is not fair. That is the point we are trying to make.

I listened to my Bloc colleague this morning. He began by saying he supported Bill C-4. I thought everything they are saying contradicts the fact that they are supporting Bill C-4, very flawed legislation. I began to ask myself why they were supporting Bill C-4.

Could it be that it continues to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board can determine that grain from the prairies will be shipped through the sea ports of Baie Comeau or Montreal rather than through the port of preference for the people in my constituency, that being Churchill?

Would he agree with a board controlled by the federal government that shipped products from Quebec through the prairies? I do not think he would agree with that any more than lawyers would agree to a lawyer's board. Nor would the Bloc want to have all of their products shipped through the prairies if that were not cost effective.

Farmers in my area want more grain shipped from Churchill. Because it costs less, they would be able to put more money in their own pockets. However, the Canadian Wheat Board controls their wheat and barley and the route by which it will be shipped.

I have something else to reply to from this morning. I was shut down by the Speaker but I think it needs to be mentioned. The member said that we were insulting the House by raising some of the points we have in relation to government controlling this and all that.

Do members know the biggest insult? The people in my riding are saying it. It is not that we rise on points of order and that the minister does not have courtesy. One of the greatest insults to the House is that the government is not listening. We have not had the minister responsible for the wheat board here one minute yet.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member is interested in the attendance of all members of the House, but he also knows that it is quite improper in debate to refer to the presence or absence of members in the House. I know he would not want to breach the rules.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Anyway, what is the bottom line on Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill we have before us? The bottom line is that it does not solve the problems with the Canadian Wheat Board. None of the proposals that have been brought in address the division, the problems or the big issues that concern farmers.

Should the Canadian Wheat Board have the exclusive jurisdiction over grains like wheat and barley? Farmers want control over their property. How does the bill diffuse the division that exists? Not one speaker on the Liberal side has addressed that serious problem. It does not in fact.

Then we have the other underlying issue of property rights which my colleagues have adequately addressed and I will not take the time to do so. I appeal on behalf of all farmers to the government to listen. Our city cousins should take note of the debate that is happening here. Without their help we cannot get rid of this discriminatory legislation.

If I lived in Quebec and hollered “separation” if you did not pay attention to what I want, I would probably get some attention. However, if I am a farmer from Saskatchewan I am not getting that attention. I am not about to holler “separation”. Surely to goodness we can have some fairness in the country.

If I was an aboriginal and I wanted to suddenly export all my grain, would the government suddenly listen? The bottom line is that it is not fair. I showed the certificate earlier.

Because of the inaction of the government the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed. I have in my hands a statement that reads “the constitutionality of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to the courts in February 1998”. Why? It is because the government has not addressed the serious problems that exist.

“Property rights will be the focal point of the challenge. However discrimination may prove to be the trump card”, this person says. This will be a very important case with regard to property rights in Canada. The bill of rights, United Nations conventions, common law and international investment agreements concerning this issue all address property rights. If we do not look at the amendments that the Reform Party is putting forward we will lose our wheat board for those who truly want it as a marketing agency. There should be some concern about that.

I one to talk about process. There was an argument about the legislation being sent to the committee before second reading. Now we are reporting it back from committee. We were assured there would be many witnesses and those witnesses would be listened to. I want to ask a question of the government. How many substantial changes were made to the bill because of the witnesses and their testimony? I sat there and I listened. I looked at the bill and those concerns were not addressed. It is a slam in the face to democracy.

It is important to listen to the witnesses and not simply to go through the formality. Listening means that we hear what is being said. The parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister sits here casting cat calls with a smirk on his face but not hearing what we are saying. That concerns me greatly.

If the board were to become more accountable it might change the way it operates. We are asking for that. Producers want to be assured that will happen.

I have many other remarks but I will have to wait to finish.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform member said that the government party is not listening, and he is right. This government is truly not good at listening.

However, the member who just spoke does not seem to be terribly good at listening himself, because the Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me all said we were opposed to the bill. For at least two minutes, he got some mileage out of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois by saying we were in favour of the bill, but that is not the case.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill. On initial examination, certain provisions are interesting, but they do not go far enough. There is mention of greater participation by representatives of agricultural producers, of wheat or grain producers sitting on the board of directors.

Here I agree with the Reform Party member that the federal government is retaining too much authority over the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the end, the only opportunity for industry representatives, for producers, to manage the board is symbolic and somewhat meaningless.

I repeat, that is the position of the Reform Party, and on this point we are in agreement. But the members from Quebec represent first and foremost the interests of Quebec and it must be remembered that we do not produce enough grain in Quebec for export purposes, or at least very little. That is why, when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, we would not necessarily want to stand in the way of others, but this is not yet an issue that concerns us greatly. We do not produce enough grain crops to be able to export.

What the Reform Party and other parties are saying is that the current situation, even if it remains unchanged in the bill, means we are not creating a large enough contingency fund for the Canadian Wheat Board. When a problem arises, who pays up? The government and thus all Canadian taxpayers.

As we are still in a federal system and as Quebec represents 24% of the population, it means that each time the Canadian Wheat Board has to pay out subsidies, the shortfall will have to be made up. The situation is the same as in the case of the famous harmonized GST in the maritimes, where Quebec has received no compensation and has to pay its share to help the maritimes harmonize their tax. It is the same situation.

I know that the Minister of Human Resources Development, who wants to make known his presence in the House, is trying to question me, but he is also distracting me.

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois oppose the bill and I have a hard time understanding—and this is my closing point—all the arguments of the Reform members, or at least those of the last one to speak. He gave the House the impression that we support this bill, when we oppose to it. Is it a problem of language? Perhaps, but regardless, I want to dispel the misunderstanding immediately. We oppose the bill.

I would just like to comment on something he said. I found it—I was going to say in poor taste—let us say unpleasant. It is as if he were saying that the Liberal government opposite did not listen to the people in his province or to those in the two other western provinces. He said “Yes, but if I were in Quebec, this government would certainly listen to me”. He is wrong there, because one of the problems Quebeckers face with the federal government and the federal system is they are not paid enough attention.

If he thinks he is not paid as much attention as we are, there is a serious problem, because we have a very hard time getting Quebec's point across in the House. In several the standing committees, we have a hard time getting documents in French. This morning, we spent an hour explaining that the French version of a clause did not say the same thing as the English.

And yet, he, who speaks the same language as most Canadians, is saying that, despite that, he does not feel he is listened to or understood. It is not enough just to be listened to, people have to be understood. Understanding requires two or three mental states: openness, receptiveness and a willingness to be convinced. Without these, a debate becomes a monologue and not a dialogue.

I will have the opportunity to talk about other groups of motions on the subject of this bill, because it covers a variety of aspects. I will draw on my experience as assistant to Jean Garon, who was the Quebec minister of agriculture at one point in time.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one important thing for my colleague who who has just spoken.

The Canadian Wheat Board and the movement and selling of grain has never been subsidized, never since the beginning of the Canadian Wheat Board. The contingency fund is not a subsidy fund. It is a fund that the western Canadian farmer eventually pays if he does not pay it up front. I want to make that clear.

When I began my study of this, I went back and read two very important books on the history and origin of the Canadian Wheat Board. Depending on the history book, the origin of the board and the purpose for its beginning are dubious. But this is 1997 and we are soon going into a new year, soon going into a new century and we are still trying to move grain under a board which is completely out of date.

Today there is a whole new generation of farmers. These young people do not have just $20,000 invested. Many of them have $3 million and $4 million invested. They know what is going on in the country and what is taking place with sales around the world. They know when the Canadian Wheat Board is selling grain. They know that they are being taken.

I want to say that all but two letters that have crossed my desk have stated that people are very afraid of this new bill. Why are they afraid? It is because of the inclusion clause. Western Canadians are afraid of the inclusion clause.

Some may argue that if they want in or out, they have to have the same regulations. They got out of the business of growing wheat for the simple reason that they did not want to be mastered by a wheat board which was made in Ottawa, not made in western Canada.

It is a real fear that they have. We have a new era of farmers. They are going out. They are growing different crops. The real fear of the young person who is coming on is what they are doing in the way of specialty crops such as the canola crop flats and so on. Some dingbat of an organization is going to give them the idea, let us include it and put it to some phoney vote, and I want to say phoney. Every person in western Canada would tell you that the latest vote was a phoney. It was phoney because it was an all or nothing at all vote.

While those people will tell you that it was a major victory for the wheat board, it was a major disgrace for the wheat board. It was 37%. I would like to tell you if that same vote was held today it would be 47%. In a year's time it will be 57% if the government continues with Bill C-4 the way it is.

They are going to kill themselves. Do not blame the Reform Party for that. Blame nobody but yourself. We are the new era of transportation. We have huge boats that come in the harbour of Prince Rupert. Most important, western Canada should now have the right to dictate where its grain is going and to what transport facility. Whatever brings the most dollars back to the farmers of the west, that is the route the grain should go. If we can fill the terminals in Halifax and in Montreal by going through a cheaper route, then it is the God-given right of western producers to have their grain sent that way.

[Some hon. members]

Right on, right on.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

We are not going to tolerate this. If the government does not want to listen, then it had better start listening to a $6 billion industry which is being controlled from Ottawa. They dictate the transportation route.

We have a new era also in communications. Most of these young farmers are on the Internet. They know what is going on. You cannot fool them anymore by Bill C-4.

I want to say this. This bill, if not amended, is doomed to die. Maybe it will get passed in this House. But as we go into the new year and into the new century, this type of ancient marketing, a monopolistic marketing on the international trade that we have today and unless a farmer is given some freedom, will self-destruct and nobody will be to blame. That phoney document says that the Canadian Wheat Board, the document the government is so proud of, does not always sell grain in the best interests of the farmer. That is exactly why were are here.

It is too bad the country cannot see and hear what we are trying to do. We are trying to preserve an industry that is a billion dollar industry, although we do not have as many people involved in the industry. We want to save it. This government is going to destroy it by this bill.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Motion No. 2.

I am having a great problem with everything in this bill. Let us take a look at the clause. This clause makes the Canadian Wheat Board Act binding on the provinces. This would block a province from making changes demanded by a majority of its farmers. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker.

It was not quite two weeks ago, November 11, when I happened to speak at a function on a day called Remembrance Day in this country of Canada. While I was there I talked to many of the old vets. Many of them were farmers. Many of them still have children on the farm in the prairies.

I have to wonder just exactly what they fought for. They fought to be independent, to be allowed to make their own decisions and to freely sell their products in this country. Everybody seems to be able to do that except western farmers.

In Ontario the board members are freely elected. With this bill the board in the west will have ten elected members and five who will be appointed by the government. They will be patronage appointments, including the president and the CEO.

There is only one message that a person can take from this. The government does not think that our farmers are capable of managing their own affairs. The government needs positions in which to put its friends, relatives and defeated candidates.

Farmers are not silly. It will not take them long to realize that all the rats are not in the granary when they look at what the government is trying to impose upon them.

These are the people who have spent literally hours, more than many members of this House are willing to put in, trying to scrape together a living, only to have the government intrude in every facet of their lives.

We know that under socialism the object is that the farmer grows the product, keeps part of it and the government takes the rest. Under communism the government just takes it. Under liberalism farmers will not only buy product in order to seed the field, they will not only care for the product, they will not only cut it, harvest it and get it to the shipyards, but they will be told who they can sell it to, where they can sell it, at what price they can sell it and what route it will take.

When farmers go broke, our caring, sharing Liberal government says “That is too bad”. The farmers are not given any handout. They do not get a bit of help. I have to wonder how long the farmers will put up with this. I would suggest not too long.

This bill would block a province from making changes demanded by a majority of its farmers. Who the heck does the government think has spent the time to get the product ready? It sure as heck was not the government or any of its members.

The government refuses to allow not only farmers but the majority of citizens in this country to work for profit. The government fully recognizes that the biggest threat to that side of the House is a farmer or any other businessperson who can stand up and say they are independent.

The government will do everything in the world to block any fashion of businessperson in this country from being able to say that because it knows full well that when a person can stand and say they are independent they no longer have to depend on the government.

Yet that is one of the functions that we were taught very young in school. When I went it was that the harder someone would work, the better they produce, the earlier they could retire.

It is bills like this that make that impossible. Today the harder the farmer works, the more he is penalized. Does that make any sense? It does not. Does it make any sense to the government opposite? Yes, I see some nods over there that it does. I have to wonder is the government in place to govern for the people or to the people. I see over there it is to the people, not for the people.

Again I have to wonder why our farmers, along with other parts of society, took up arms in order to protect a so-called democratic society.

We see today that it is a total farce. There is no such thing in this country any more. We have to look at some of the functions that farmers play. These are the people who will feed the people and their families, but not as long as they are being driven out of business, not as long as they cannot get the best price they can for the product, not as long as they are told who they can sell to, when they can sell and how much they can charge.

This is not what farming was all about, yet farming was one of the basic institutions that built this country.

They can sit there opposite and smile because they know it will not directly affect them. They will allow other parts of Canada to become independent and allow them to freely elect the members of their board who will make the decision on how they will make their livelihood. They will do that but not out west. God help us if we ever get that decision. The farmer may be able to put a few dollars in his pocket when he goes to town so that he can afford to buy new clothes for his family for a change.

I have to wonder just how far this government is willing to go to make sure every facet of society is kept broke.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate this afternoon to put on the record what I think are the feelings of the people of the prairies, particularly Saskatchewan, in terms of some of these amendments.

I know some people watch the parliamentary debate on CPAC. MPs follow it closely. We have a member now from Saskatchewan, from Souris—Moose Mountain, who has said that people on the prairies clearly oppose the inclusion clause. He said they fear for the inclusion clause. There is overwhelming opposition for the inclusion clause.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

I am glad that they rose to that bait and again showed that they clearly oppose the inclusion clause.

That is why the election results are very important. We have some balance back in this Parliament, so this kind of misleading information will be challenged in the House of Commons.

I want to put on record, and let them yelp if they want, that here are some of the players that support the inclusion clause. The Government of Saskatchewan—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

They may laugh. Here is a government that has the support of about 60% of the Saskatchewan people. It is one of the most popular governments anywhere in this country that represents—

[An hon. member]

38%.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Run against us. If you want to get into provincial politics, run against us. Here is the Reform Party that does not have the guts to run in provincial politics in Saskatchewan, a government that has MLAs from all parts of the province, urban and rural. It supports the inclusion clause and they said nobody does. Misleading of the House.

Second, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports the inclusion clause. Is that an irrelevant organization? Does it not speak for a few farmers across the prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan? I am sure it does. The people should be aware that the Reform Party is misleading the House and the Canadian people.

[An hon. member]

There's some cheap barley in Ontario.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

That is true. Now let them squirm and let them listen because they are being taken to task.

Who else supports the inclusion clause? The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the prairie pools. Reformers laugh. The biggest company in Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The wheat pools speak for thousands and thousands of farmers. It is the majority farm organization, it markets grain and it supports the inclusion clause. And the Reform Party says that nobody does. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does.

The Reform Party should not be misleading the House, and that is why we in our party are very proud to support the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. My family has been involved as members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool since its foundation. It supports the inclusion clause.

Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc. of Manitoba also supports the inclusion clause as well as the Concerned Farmers for Saving the Wheat Board. Finally, the wheat board advisory committee, whose members are elected by prairie farmers, supports the inclusion clause. The overwhelming majority of people across the prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan are in support of the Canadian Wheat Board and they want an inclusion clause so that if farmers want more grains in the wheat board, they will have that right.

It is about time the Reform Party was taken to task. The Reform Party is not telling the truth in the House of Commons and not reflecting its constituents' views. That is the party that said it would reflect the voices of its constituents when it was in the House of Commons. It is not doing that. The Saskatchewan government is supportive. The wheat pools are supportive. The wheat pool is a big, credible organization. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supportive. The wheat board advisory committee which is elected by farmers supports the inclusion clause, but here is the Reform Party, which is not used to being challenged in the House, trying to mislead the Canadian people that prairie farmers oppose the inclusion clause.

There is the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who used to be a member of the provincial Conservative Party in Saskatchewan as an MLA. We know what happened to that party. It has now been put to sleep for 10 years.

The Reform Party believes in referenda and in consulting people. A while back a very clear question was put to the prairie producers. It concerned whether or not they wanted barley marketed by the wheat board or outside the wheat board. The prairie producers responded with 63% who voted that yes, they wanted to keep barley in the Canadian Wheat Board, while 37% voted no. They responded to a very clear question.

The Reform Party is supposed to be reflecting those views in the House of Commons. Reformers are supposed to reflect the views of their constituents in the House of Commons or resign or be recalled. Why do they not reflect that point of view in the House of Commons? It was a clear question.

The National Farmers Union is also in support of the inclusion clause. The farmers union itself, which has been very involved in these issues, thought the question was clear. I wonder where the Reform Party comes from. When it comes to really representing the point of view of its constituents in the House of Commons it just does not do it.

I assure the House that the people of Saskatchewan support the Canadian Wheat Board. They have always supported the Canadian Wheat Board. They want some collective clout in the marketplace and we will reflect that point of view here in the House of Commons.

I have another concern that was raised by the Reform Party, that there is no reference to provinces. It has been said in the House with some of these rather right wing points of view that they would like the provinces to opt out.

Now, of course, Reform Party members applaud these extreme right wing points of view, these friends of Conrad Black, friends of the Canadian grain exchange and of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They listen to them instead of listening to the wheat pool of Saskatchewan, the farmers union or the federation of agriculture or the people's organizations. They just listen to the people who have the money. They want to destroy the wheat board. They want a province to have the option of opting out of the Canadian Wheat Board like the province of Alberta. Of course, if that power is put into the act it will be the destruction of the wheat board. So I certainly oppose that as well. I am sure that Canadian farmers will also oppose that point of view.

Here are some so-called farmers from British Columbia and Alberta who are campaigning against the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I can assure members of the House that there is very strong support for orderly marketing and for the Canadian Wheat Board. All the major credible farm organizations that support the board want the inclusion clause. They want farmers to have the right to vote if they so wish to include other grains under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also support the exclusion clause so that farmers if they so wish can vote to have a grain taken out of the authority of the wheat board. Why is the Reform Party against that democratic right? It is a right that the farmers want.

I know the truth hurts. If we listen to the Reform Party we would think there was never a vote on barley or that the question was fudged on barley. The question was very clear and there was a very clear answer. I am very surprised that the Saskatchewan Reform members, in particular, are talking this way. In Saskatchewan the yes vote for the inclusion of barley was higher than in Alberta and Manitoba. Why are Reform members not reflecting the wishes of their constituents in the House? Why are they not listening to their constituents? Why should they not be recalled?

Why will this very shy member from Souris—Moose Mountain not get up and say “the farmers in my riding voted to have barley in the wheat board”? Instead he stands in the House and says people in the province do not want the inclusion clause. They are against it and they are fearful of the inclusion clause. That is a bunch of bloody rubbish and he would know it if he used his two ears to listen to his people. People are very supportive of that clause. It is important that be put on the record.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to sit hear and listen to some of these things.

I would like the member who just spoke to come out and stand on the street corners of Hussar, Standard, Olds, Sundry or Didsbury and talk to the farmers I talk to day in and day out. He would find out that what he is saying is not true.

What really amazes me is that they are not talking about freedom of choice. It does not seem to me that they want it. But then I have to stop and remember these people are of the old line governments and parties that figure they always know best and they want control. It is as obvious as it can be. If the government is not involved, it is no good. That is the old rule, the old way of doing things. That is in the past. Count on it. It will be gone.

A very wise man said to me when I was elected in 1993 “There is one thing about it, you have now obtained power.” I felt like sticking my chest out a little bit. I had not had much power before in my life and now he said I have power. He said he wanted me to remember one thing, “Please remember this on behalf of us. When you go to Ottawa, the power you have received is the power to serve”, not the power to dictate like they do behind closed doors.

There is legislation coming out from behind closed doors day in and day out. It is brought in and presented to the House like Bill C-4, and all the little puppets will have their strings pulled and they will jump up and vote the way the party told them to vote. That is the way they do it. The Liberals will do what they are told. They will vote the way they are told to vote.

If members were truly serving Canadians and were truly using their power, they would take the time before casting their votes to go out to the ridings of prairie farmers where the legislation has the most effect and talk to them. They should not be like the phoney Liberal panel that was set up. It backfired because the panel brought back all kinds of recommendations from farmers. The Liberals got rid of that panel and did not follow those recommendations because they did not suit their little cup of tea.

It is the same old story over and over again. The Liberals, the NDP, and right down the line. Every old line party that has ever been here says “We know best. We will have it our way”. That is something Canadian people are sick and tired of. That is something I am sick and tired of.

In 1993 when the Conservatives were in power they had the wisdom to open up the intercontinental barley market. They did that for a while. Guess what? During that time farmers did better than they had ever done in the history of growing crops.

Guess what else? The wheat board did better than it had ever done. For the first time it had some competition. It decided it had to get off its backside, get out there, get to work and find some of these markets as well. That is good healthy competition. That is why farmers are saying keep the wheat board but give us a choice.

I do not believe that is asking for too much. I can hardly wait to go back home. A Wild Rose constituent asked me when I expected the minister to rise in the House and announce that canola growers want to market through the board. My constituent hit the nail on the head. After all, canola growers have nurtured, researched and developed a former niche industry into an agricultural powerhouse. The farmers did it. Canola producers did all this without any dictated government involvement. Now that it is to be such a success, mark my words, one day the government will want control of it.

The government's power is to dictate. It has not learned the power to serve. I challenge government members to do that. I challenge every one of them when they vote on this piece of legislation to vote in the interest of the people it is affecting, prairie farmers.

God help me if I ever vote against any legislation that hurts the fishing industry. I do my best to try to represent them with my vote, and I do not have anything but little brook trout in my riding. I try to understand their problems and try to vote in their interest. I talk to fishermen whenever I get a chance.

Come on out to Wild Rose. Stand on the street corners and talk to the farmers who grow grain. Ask them what they think about Bill C-4. Talk to them one on one.

Perhaps those members want to continue to listen to phoney panels and the phoney things they do across the country. They fly around, as they say, consulting with the elite and making sure all the right ones are in the ivory towers of Calgary instead of visiting Hussar, Standard, Olds, Didsbury or other small communities where farmers live and thrive. Then it might change some things.

The government ought to start thinking about the power to serve and stop the power of dictation.