Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see there are some farmers on the other side of the House. Not too long ago there was a debate on agriculture in this Chamber and there were on our side something like 15 farmers. On the other side there were something like 15 or 18 lawyers.
That is part of the problem we have. The lawyers, the bureaucrats and the politicians always tell farmers what is good for them, rather than it being the other way around. That is the root of the problem.
I want to touch on a comment which the parliamentary secretary made. He said members of the Reform Party probably would not vote for this bill regardless of what was in it. When I first heard about some of the changes with the elected directors I considered very seriously supporting the bill. I did a survey in my riding which showed very clearly that the majority of farmers would like to continue with the wheat board monopoly.
I am happy to be a member of a party in which I can vote for the wishes of my constituents without repercussions. I considered voting for Bill C-72 until I started to look at what was in the bill. At that point my thoughts changed.
I am pleased to know that this bill will not pass during the 35th Parliament. That is good. I have spoken to a lot of people and neither side is happy. The people who are on the side of a dual marketing system think the bill has not gone nearly far enough. The people on the other side, the Sask Wheat Pool, the NFU and some of those groups, think it has gone too far.
Obviously the issue is far from settled. It needs to be talked about and reworked in the 36th Parliament.
The problem in agriculture is bigger than the Canadian Wheat Board. There are a lot of other issues which need to be tied together and come to grips with in order to make agriculture a viable business going into the next century. An example that comes to mind is transportation.
We could consider what happened this past winter with the grain tie-ups in western Canada. The minister did very little to solve those problems. It is another example of where the minister has been completely lacking.
The Liberal member for Souris-Moose Mountain brought forward a private member's bill which would give more responsibility to the railways. That is good. I like that kind of thinking.
Another problem is that the government has not put in a system whereby the railways will be penalized for lack of movement and rewarded for good performance. That is something we must come to grips with.
I support the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain. Of course when those things happen the government accuses us of bickering and being critical of all legislation brought forward.
I would like to speak about consultation for a minute. I find it interesting that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food set up a panel to travel the country to consult with farmers and to listen to farm groups. When the report came back it was not a good report in the minister's eyes. He did not act on the recommendations of his committee.
It reminds me of so many other committees that have taken place in this Parliament and in previous parliaments where some good thinking members go out on the road, listen to people, bring back recommendations, and the government of the day fails to act on them. Millions of dollars are spent on all kinds of reports that are put on shelves to collect dust. That is a serious problem.
As the farmers in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and I see it, the number one concern we would like to see changed about the wheat board is that it have a fully elected board of directors. People agree that is far enough for now. We might want to get into something else later but at least we would have control over the directors. They will be accountable to us. If they do not do what we say as a majority we will get somebody else. It is very much like the House. That is good part of our system.
If on June 2 the people of Canada decide they do not agree with what the government is doing they will kick it out.