Exactly. What democracy. How is a person supposed to represent their constituents accurately?
I did not want to dilute the results of the survey by sending out a larger mailing which would include people who would not have the same interest in Bill C-72 because it would not affect their livelihood.
I mailed it out to a larger mailing list that I was able to obtain. I had 124 responses, which is fairly comprehensive for an area as small as the Peace River agricultural area. I do not know exactly how many permit book holders there are in my area because the wheat board will not tell me. I have heard that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 450 to 500 permit book holders. So a return of 124 is substantial.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into all the survey questions asked, but I would like to explain the first question. The question I asked the producers was the following: "There has been a lot of discussion on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Overall, how would you describe your attitude toward the Canadian Wheat Board?" Then I gave them the choices: "Eliminate. Major overhaul is needed. Minor overhaul. Unsure. Should the wheat board include other crops? Keep it as it is".
While 9 per cent of the respondents wanted to completely eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board, 70 per cent indicated they wanted a major or minor overhaul. I believe this indicates that farmers want to retain the Canadian Wheat Board but they want to see some substantive changes. They want choice.
Unfortunately, as with so many pieces of legislation, the government simply does not get the message that the farm community is trying to send it.
The minister did a mail ballot on the other legislation. I do not know how much it cost the taxpayers. Basically it was an all or nothing question: "Do you believe that barley should be included as it is now under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or do you think that the Canadian Wheat Board should get out of it altogether?" There were no other options for farmers to choose.
What we saw, what we told the minister and what farm groups and individual farmers were telling him-I am sure they were because they were telling us this-was that it was a status quo question. It did not solve anything.
The fact is that farmers are still being sent to jail for trying to market their own product. This does not solve anything. Farmers recognize that. Likewise, Bill C-38 is not the answer. That is why we proposed four amendments to Bill C-38.
We proposed that the bill be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to review the appointment of the administrators. What would be wrong with that? Would not the farm community support that? Obviously the committee would be the place. It has the expertise and knowledge and witnesses could be called, if necessary, to look at who was being appointed as administrators.
We proposed an amendment to insert a new clause in the bill to make the government develop regulations or guidelines on performance evaluations for administrators and mediators. What could possibly be wrong with an amendment like that? It strikes to the heart of accountability.
If there is one thing that members have heard Reformers repeat day after day, speech after speech, whether on justice, spending, defence, agriculture, health or aboriginal affairs, name the department, over the past three years it is that we have constantly used the word "accountability". The people at the top must be held accountable. Members heard it about the Somali inquiry. That was why we are so concerned about what appears to be a cover-up at the highest levels. Members have heard it about so many other departments that unfortunately for Canadians have been tainted by scandal and by suspicion of patronage and those types of things. We have insisted on accountability.
We proposed a minor amendment that the government develop regulations on performance evaluations to hold the administrators and mediators accountable, and it is voted down. It is ruled that it is not appropriate by the Liberal majority.
The third amendment we proposed was to clause 15. It reads:
That clause 15 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to review the minister's appointments to the appeal boards.
What could possibly be wrong with that? What does the minister want to hide, that his appointments should not be reviewed?
The fourth and final amendment that we proposed was:
That clause 28 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to conduct a three year review of this act.
That was also voted down also.
When I start getting on to some of these issues I do not know where time goes. It just flies by. At any rate, I will sum up what I have in the little time remaining.
As a former farmer, whose family is still involved in the farming business back home and as a person who used to be active in farm groups, I am fortunate to have a lot of friends and supporters in the agricultural community in the riding that I am honoured to represent in this House. I can tell the House that the majority of
farmers in my area are thinking about trying to get last year's crop salvaged from under the snow. They are looking forward to trying to get that crop off or do something with it even if they have to burn it, accepting the huge loss that they are going to suffer and then try as hard as they can, weather permitting, to get this year's crop seeded.
One thing that galls me to no end is that there does not seem to be a lot of recognition from the people on that side of the House of the struggles and travails facing the farming communities. I get pretty upset when people say we do this for the farmers and that for the farmers and why do we treat them so special?
A lot of Canadians forget where the food comes from and how many people owe their livelihood to the farmer who is struggling to get his crop off. They forget the person who sells the herbicides for spraying, or the people who owe their living to transporting grain, whether it is the man running the locomotive or others involved in the transportation of grain. They forget the people who sell the farm equipment, the person at the store who sells building supplies to build a new granary. They forget the hundreds of thousands of people who owe their livelihood directly and indirectly to the sustainability of agriculture.
It is high time we had a government in the country, a Reform government, that puts some emphasis on agriculture.