Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I see by the hour on the clock that my debate time is unfortunately going to be cut short. I will have to continue on Tuesday or whenever the government screws up the courage to bring the legislation back again.
This is the government's second kick at the can for this legislation. That has become clear thus far. Certainly we in the opposition ranks have become well accustomed to seeing reruns in this 36th Parliament, leftover, retread legislation from the last Parliament that did not meet the bill, so to speak. The government has insisted on dredging it up, repackaging it, giving it a different number and bringing it back in the hopes that the Canadian public is going to be somehow fooled by this and give it a fresh look.
It is unfortunate on the government's part that it did not invoke closure on the old C-66 from the last Parliament to ram it through the House like it did with so much other legislation. But I suppose it must have had a little bit of a twinge of conscience at one point about doing that with every piece of legislation in the closing days of the last Parliament.
Even after this government is told by Canadians that its bills are flawed, it just keeps reintroducing and recycling them. Often, as in the case of C-19, some minor cosmetic changes are made but we are really right back where we began.
The problems that existed in Bill C-66 are still found in the present Bill C-19 that we are debating today. When I look at this bill I have to look at it through the eyes of my constituents, through the eyes of farmers and through the eyes of those Canadians who will be most affected when the government undoubtedly uses its majority in the House, as it did recently with Bill C-4, and just rams it through despite the pleas of Canadians from coast to coast that it simply does not do the job.
Some groups have told me that they are content with C-19 and they have encouraged me to support it. Even when those same people have expressed supreme disappointment at the considerable flaws in the legislation, they have basically said that it is better than nothing.
It is our job as official opposition and as MPs to strive to ensure that Canadians do not have to be content with something that is better than nothing. We believe that it should be a whole lot better than nothing. So we have to look at each piece of legislation on balance and we have to weigh the pros and cons. While some clauses may have some merit, we have to consider that the flawed clauses of the legislation, or the legislation that is missing altogether, may cause significant problems or consequences later on.
The fact is that when it comes to C-19 those problems and consequences far outweigh any benefits that may arise from the passage of C-19. From my point of view as the chief official opposition agricultural critic, farmers who already contend with unstable weather patterns and many other challenges beyond their control, increasing input costs for one, will not find solace in this legislation. They will continue to have one or more unstable factors threatening their livelihoods.
Grain farmers need guarantees that their grain will get to its destination. Despite government claims to the contrary, Bill C-19 will not guarantee that grain will be transported to its destination.