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.