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.