Leon Benoit

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, September 25th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

The agreement on internal trade, which was signed nearly three years ago, was a start. However, it has not been completed. The main obstacle to completion has been the term consensus which was used by the negotiating committee comprising of cabinet, representatives from the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

This committee has interpreted consensus to mean unanimity. Therefore, any one government, regardless of the population it represents, can impede the progress of the agreement and of the Canadian economic union. This is what has happened many times.

My bill will allow the federal government to use its constitutional responsibility under sections 91 and 121 of the Canadian Constitution to complete sections of the agreement on internal trade.

It is important to note that this action will only be taken in situations where a co-operative agreement between the provinces has been sought and has not been reached. This proposed approval formula will require the agreement of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have at least 50 percent of the Canadian population. This provision will facilitate the removal of internal trade barriers and present growth opportunities to Canadian businesses which previously have been restricted by these interprovincial trade barriers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make clear that this is consistent with what Reform members have said all along, that we believe in decentralization in many areas. We have talked about those over the years.

One of the Bloc members intimated in his speech that we were changing our direction. That is not true.

From the time this political party started in 1987, the leader of the party and others have said that there are certain areas where we have to strengthen the role of the federal government. The member for Fraser Valley East mentioned some of those areas. One of them is certainly the area of freeing up trade between the provinces.

Government members who have spoken recognize the need for freeing up trade and yet, curiously, they said that we do not really have to do anything to make that happen. They feel that it is just going to happen. I suggest that it will not happen. I also suggest that the Canadian Constitution allows the federal government to take a stronger role.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of minutes left in the hour. If I could get unanimous consent, I would like to make a couple of wrap-up remarks.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, April 24th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-375, which would allow the completion of the agreement on internal trade.

The agreement on internal trade was signed in 1994. At that time several deadlines were set by the legislation. Almost all the deadlines have passed and agreement has not been reached. Clearly there is a problem which must be dealt with. It is important that we complete this agreement.

I would like to explain what this bill would do. First I will give a little background on the events which led to the agreement on internal trade and the implementation bill, which is the legislation that Bill C-375 would amend to allow the completion of the agreement on internal trade.

If we take a look at the sequence of events we will see that the committee on internal trade is comprised of trade ministers from federal, provincial and territorial governments. The agreement on internal trade, as I mentioned, was signed in 1994 by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The agreement states that all governments will commit to work together to break down barriers to internal trade. That is the basic principle of the agreement on internal trade. The barriers which prevent free trade between the provinces will be brought down.

We live in a country which has free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico. Goods move relatively freely between the countries, yet we have barriers between provinces which do not allow the free movement of goods. Clearly that is unacceptable.

The present formula that the committee uses to reach an agreement, whether it is an agreement on completing the deal or an agreement on the dispute settlement mechanism, is a formula of unanimity. In other words, the agreement on internal trade stipulates that a consensus is required. However, consensus is not defined. The way this committee has chosen to interpret consensus is unanimous consent. Most areas are left incomplete after almost three years. To complete any area it requires unanimous consent from the federal government, the representatives from the provinces and the representatives from the territories.

When was the last time we had unanimous consent on any type of an agreement like that in this country, a consent which in some cases may cause some difficulties with certain groups in the provinces? Although, all provinces and territories have agreed that completing the agreement on internal trade will make things better for those living in every province.

Unanimously all governments involved have agreed that completion of the agreement on internal trade will make things better and yet the completion has not happened.

Clearly this unanimous consent formula is not going to work. My private member's bill, Bill C-73, simply changes the formula and puts in place the Reform policy on this issue. Instead of requiring unanimous consent it will require consent of at least two-thirds of the provinces and territories which includes at least 50 per cent of the population.

Then when the provinces are negotiating settlement in any one of these areas that are left incomplete the impossible task of getting unanimous consent will be removed and instead the requirement will be there for agreement from a majority of provinces and territories including a majority of Canadians, which is a much more reasonable formula and a formula which I believe if implemented would lead to the completion of the agreement on internal trade in all areas. There are many experts who agree with that, as I will demonstrate later.

I would like to read through the actual Reform policy on this issue. The policy is that in order to break the deadlock which has prevented the completion of the agreement on internal trade and the removal of internal trade barriers, the Reform Party proposes to amend the approval formula of the committee on internal trade, used to approve sections of the agreement on internal trade and the dispute settlement mechanism, by replacing the requirement for unanimous consent with the following. First, allow the current unanimity base voting formula, eight months, to resolve the deadlock experienced in completing the agreement on internal trade. Let us give the unanimous consent formula another try but limit it to eight months.

Second, if sections of the internal trade agreement remain unresolved after eight months, then the unanimous ratification formula will be replaced by a formula which allows ratification on the basis of at least two-thirds of the provinces and territories representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population.

Third, if sections of the agreement are not completed within one year of implementing the two-thirds/fifty formula, the federal government shall move unilaterally to use its constitutional powers to complete the agreement on internal trade.

Clearly the change proposed in my private member's bill will lead to the completion of the agreement on internal trade in all sectors. The impact of that will be dramatic indeed.

I will speak a little on the possible impact. I will refer to several experts in this area and different groups which have found this to be such an important issue that they have written substantial documents outlining what they feel the impact of removing the barriers would be on Canadians.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in a substantial document released approximately a year ago said that just by increasing trade

between provinces by 10 per cent would lead to 200,000 new jobs in Canada.

We know the Liberal government has failed on its promise to deliver jobs. The unemployment rate has been above 9 per cent for so many months that people have lost count, the highest level since the Great Depression.

We have had this situation where the unemployment rate has stayed above 9 per cent and the government has not done what it should to complete the agreement. I know that the Minister of Industry would like to see the agreement completed. I believe he is sincere in wanting that. It is so hard to figure why it has not happened when the agreement was signed almost three years ago.

I think 200,000 jobs would be some incentive for the government to get serious about completing the deal. However, it has not happened. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is disappointed.

The Fraser Institute put out a substantial paper on the issue. It said that trade barriers between provinces costs Canadian families $3,500 a year. Again, it is so difficult to understand why the government would not work hard to remove the barriers. As we know, since it came to power in 1993, the average Canadian household income has dropped by $3,000. If this agreement had been implemented in 1994 after it was signed by the provinces the $3,000 that was lost to these Canadian families would have been replaced with increased income resulting from the removal of these barriers.

It is difficult to understand why the government has not taken this more seriously.

Other think tanks and groups that have studied the issue have determined that these interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadian companies and Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a year. That is a lot of income because of a problem that should not be there and which really makes no sense.

We have the agreement that was signed in 1994, a formula that clearly does not work. However, after three years nothing has been done about it.

On speaking to representatives from the different provinces I know many provinces are absolutely committed to the completion of the agreement. Granted, most provinces have certain areas they are really concerned about because the province may be a net loser in a particular segment of its economy. But each province has recognized that overall the people would benefit from the removal of the barriers. There may be some losers in each province, but the numbers and the amounts lost would be very small compared to the net gain in each province.

What have the Liberals said on this issue? We can look at their red book where this was mentioned. In both throne speeches it was said that it was important to remove barriers to interprovincial trade. The 1996 prebudget report from the finance committee had a section on the removal of interprovincial trade barriers which acknowledged the impact on the economy and on jobs by removing these barriers to trade. Yet what has been done? Clearly not enough. The barriers are still there.

The industry minister introduced Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on interprovincial trade. The act passed third reading in the House in June 1996.

I do not know why the lag in time between the agreement being completed in 1994 and the implementation legislation being passed in 1996. It does not really show a commitment on the part of the government that match the words it used in the red book and in its throne speeches. Clearly the two do not gibe. I cannot answer why. However, it does show a huge failure on the part of the industry minister.

If I were running against the industry minister in his Ottawa riding I would be out talking about the barriers to the free movement of labour into Quebec. Quebec labour has a lot more freedom to move people to work in Ontario but it is pretty much a one way street. I would be telling all the potential voters in the minister's Ottawa riding about this and about the failures of the industry minister in this area.

He spoke the words, signed the agreement in 1994 and finally in 1996 got around to passing the implementation agreement. However, that is where it stalled. Deadline after deadline has passed, deadlines that were supposed to lead to the completion of the agreement, but it has not happened. I do not know why but I would be out there bringing that up in the minister's riding.

Why are barriers to interprovincial trade so harmful? Why does it cost who knows how many jobs? It is enough that 200,000 jobs would be created if trade increased by 10 per cent. There are several reasons. Just imagine being a company in Canada. I have talked with the CEOs of several companies in Canada that want to do business with people and businesses in other provinces. However, they find the barriers to trade between the provinces and the territories do not allow that to happen freely.

In fact, they say that they have far more access to companies and people in the United States than they do with people and businesses in other provinces. Some top notch companies in this country, high tech in some cases, have told me that they should be moving to the United States because if they operated there they would have free access to all provinces, something they do not have operating from one province of Canada. Is that not absurd? However, that is what we have.

I have also spoken to the owners of companies that have moved to the United States. They just gave up. They wanted to do business with all of Canada but there are too many barriers under the current system. By moving their companies to the United States they were able to do business much easier and in a less expensive manner with all provinces freely. That is the kind of absurdity that these barriers produce. We are losing jobs as a result of these barriers being in place.

A second way that these barriers really have an incredible negative impact on companies is on the small companies that want to do business internationally so they can grow. I have companies like that in my constituency. A prime example is a company that manufactures tanks in Lloydminster, Universal Industries. It has complained it is so difficult to do business in Saskatchewan. Lloydminster is a border city. The business is in a city that straddles the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. To do business in Saskatchewan it has to jump through so many hoops that it is hurting its business. It would be able to operate a lot more effectively if it went to the United States where it would have open access to all Canadian provinces.

We have to get rid of these barriers. Canadians can no longer afford the jobs that are lost. They can no longer afford the $6 billion to $10 billion that is lost each year as a result of these barriers being in place. They can no longer afford the loss in family income of $3,500 a year. That income would replace the $3,000 per family a year that has been lost as a result of Liberal policies. This one change would go an awful long way to removing these barriers and to allowing the benefits of jobs, the benefits of added income, the benefits of added take home pay and the benefits of businesses growing in the country so that they can compete better in other countries.

These benefits are being denied due to a lack of action on the part of the government. I have taken the action necessary here. This private member's bill, should it ever be enacted, would go a long way toward the elimination of these barriers.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-65.

In my opinion, the amendments in this second group will not do very much to fix this legislation, which is clearly flawed. I would like to present some of the questions that I have received from farmers and ranchers in my part of the country and from outside of Alberta as well. I have grouped the questions which I think should be asked before the bill goes any further.

I will refer to some letters, including a letter from the Alberta minister of environmental protection, Ty Lund, as well.

What is Bill C-65? It is the government's new endangered species legislation. It is an attempt, and I think a very sincere attempt, to protect endangered species. As I go through my presentation, I am going to comment on what is likely to happen if this legislation, even as amended, is put in place.

How was the bill born? Where did it come from and why? The groundwork for Bill C-65 was laid by the Mulroney government at the Rio conference. In 1992 Canada signed a global agreement that in part agreed to protect endangered species. Canada agreed to put some type of legislation in place that would protect endangered species. I believe this is a response to the commitment made by the Government of Canada.

However, several things in the process that brought this legislation to the point it is now really are not acceptable to many Canadians. Some of them have been expressed by the Bloc members who feel that the government has really ignored the wishes of the province of Quebec. That has been backed up by the Alberta minister of environmental protection, Ty Lund.

I want to read part of the letter he wrote to me regarding this bill. "I am writing to express my growing concern about the proposed Bill C-65, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. All provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife in Canada have identified several major concerns in the bill".

The Hon. Alan Graham recently wrote to the Minister of the Environment on behalf of my colleagues and myself outlining these concerns. I have a copy of that letter. It was referred to earlier by my colleague from Calgary.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has completed its deliberations. Unfortunately, the majority of the concerns raised were not resolved.

The amendments tabled on March 21, 1997 by the federal government do not address the issues and leave us with a bill which destroys the national approach outlined in the national accord for the protection of species at risk.

The Alberta minister makes clear what is happening. The group of amendments which we are debating do not answer the questions and the concerns of the environment minister.

The environment minister went on to say that Alberta is committed to fulfilling its role, as outlined in the national framework for the conservation of species at risk. The minister fully expects to honour the commitments that he made on behalf of the people of Alberta in that agreement.

He states: "I believe that the approach of co-operative programs and the complementary legislation proposed in the framework is the only way to ensure endangered species conservation". He goes on to say that the co-operative framework has not been followed in the development of this legislation. That has to be a concern. Bloc members have indicated that it is a concern to them. The New Brunswick minister who wrote on behalf of all the ministers to the federal Minister of the Environment made it clear that they are not happy with the process or the bill. The Alberta minister has supported that view.

The government has taken a heavy-handed approach. It is the federal government and it will say how things are run in the country and to heck with what the people in the provinces feel. This is one more demonstration of that approach. I understand why Bloc members are upset. We in Alberta are every bit as upset.

Western Canadians have revolted against the approach taken by past Liberal and Conservative governments. That is the reason the Reform Party is here today. We expect the provinces to have more say in more areas. We expect the federal government to not take this heavy-handed, interventionist approach which it has taken in so much legislation, including Bill C-65.

Why are my constituents and others complaining about Bill C-65? There are many reasons, some of which I outlined this morning.

Canadians want to protect endangered species with a co-operative approach. That co-operative approach has worked very well in the past in dealing with protecting certain species. For example, it has worked in the burrowing owl project. The Ducks Unlimited program has done much to build up the duck population.

It has been a co-operative effort. It has not taken heavy-handed legislation. It has not taken the threat of fines. In this legislation the fines run up to $1 million. They can be levied against a land owner or a land user. The co-operative approach has not involved legislation which would require a land owner to spend money to fence property which happens to be the habitat of an endangered species. It has not taken that for Ducks Unlimited to work well or for the burrowing owl operation to work and other projects like them. Those people have taken a co-operative approach. This heavy-handed, interventionist approach is wrong. That is one of the major reasons people are complaining about this bill.

Another reason is that there is very little allowance for compensation.

It is totally inadequate. That again could force land owners or land users to spend money out of their own pocket to fence off an area to protect an endangered species. Land owners or land users could lose the productive capability of property with no compensation. In other words, they can be required to set this property aside.

They could be kept from using the property yet there is no compensation.

What kind of country is this where people can be denied the use of property, lose economically and receive no compensation? That is unacceptable. That is another thing that the people who I have talked to are revolting against.

As well, because of the way this legislation is set up, people can launch anonymous complaints. They can have their identity kept anonymous, the complaint lodged and action taken against that landowner or the land user.

Even someone committing a crime as violent as murder has the right to face the accuser in court and to know who the accuser is. Yet under this legislation Canadians are being denied that same right. It is completely inappropriate. That is another thing Canadians are revolting against when it comes to this bill.

Further, there are the search and seizure measures which are very similar to those in Bill C-68, the so-called gun bill, which are unacceptable and which really put aside some of the basic, judicial procedures we accept in our justice system but that really are not in this legislation.

This package of amendments in Group No. 2 will do nothing to deal with any of these concerns in a meaningful way.

The best thing the Liberals could do with this legislation is to let it die. However, they should learn from it. Should they be government after the election, they can come forward with new legislation. If the Reform Party is government, then we will bring in legislation that will take a much different approach from this heavy-handed one.

[Agriculture, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is likely my last statement in the 35th Parliament. I will use it to speak to farmers about the government's record regarding key issues affecting them. Reality speaks clearer than words.

To grain farmers: The Crow benefit subsidy was taken away. The reward? Grain moves even slower than before while farmers pay twice as much.

To cattlemen, who ask for nothing from government, and indeed to farmers in the west, in Ontario, in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada: You get Bill C-65, the endangered species legislation. The government legislation could impose huge costs and fines up to $1 million.

To dairymen, many of whom have supported this government: You may be forced to produce below the cost of production for six months due to a bungling of implementation dates on subsidy cuts.

On voting day I urge farmers to look beyond the nice words and to vote based on the policy and the record of each political party. If farmers do this I doubt that much of the farm vote will go to the Liberal government.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-65 to the Group No. 1 amendments.

The amendments in Group No. 1 deal with three of the major areas of concern. It does not allow for the co-operative approach but instead chooses the punitive approach in dealing with a threat to an endangered species.

The second is the area of compensation. There is not any acceptable form of compensation provided for in this legislation.

Third is the area of search and seizure. It allows an anonymous accuser to start a process against someone who has threatened, in their minds, an endangered species.

These amendments deal with all those areas. Many of them were proposed by myself, others by the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, our critic in the environment area, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, the member for Skeena and other Reform MPs.

Several of the amendments in this grouping are from the government. That shows clearly that the bill was not very well thought out. That was something we found on examining the bill and the amendments moved by others. This grouping affects the three major areas of concern with this legislation.

I would first like to talk a little bit about Bill C-65, the endangered species legislation. I do not think anyone would argue against the intent of the bill. The government brought in the bill to deal with concern over endangered species. I believe everyone in the House shares those concerns.

However, when looking at the bill realistically and thinking it through, if it passes, even with the amendments that we are debating today, it would probably make things worse for endangered species than not having the bill at all. Let me explain what I mean.

Let us think of a farmer, rancher, someone in the forestry industry or someone who has commercial property on the outskirts of a town that finds an endangered species on their property or in a habitat that could possibly support one of the endangered species on the list.

For example, an endangered species or habitat that would support an endangered species is discovered on the property. The person knows the legislation in place is heavy-handed and would not allow for the species to be protected in a co-operative way. The penalties include fines of up to $1 million and even more important, that person could be forced to cover the legal costs of the case.

That individual could be forced to spend money to fence off a portion of property that would support the endangered species with no compensation. Perhaps the accuser is anonymous, a neighbour who maybe has a quarrel with that individual, who could go to the authorities and that neighbour's name may well never be disclosed. What do members think they would do facing this type of cost, penalty and breach of normal judicial procedure?

In many cases these people may think, much as they would like to protect the species, that with the threat that was brought about because of this legislation they just cannot take a chance. Supporting their families is more important than providing a habitat for an endangered species. In many cases, I believe, they would destroy the habitat and possibly even destroy the species.

That is not what I want and I am certain that is not what the government wants. However, that is exactly what this legislation, if it were to pass, would most likely do. It is wrong and we must protect against that.

Some of the amendments that Reform has brought in would go a long way to doing that if they were to pass. The amendments that I propose deal with the issue of a co-operative approach. More than one of my amendments propose that if the property owners or users who have the endangered specie or habitat on the property can demonstrate that they voluntarily will protect those species, along with others who are interested, then the punitive part of the bill, which is most of the bill, would not come into effect. That gives some protection against the heavy-handed approach of the government in this legislation.

I have put forward amendments in the area of compensation, as did the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby. Those amendments would ensure that the land owner or land user would not have to bear the entire burden of the expense.

The bill includes unusual and unacceptable search and seizure measures. It also allows an anonymous accuser to turn in a neighbour. The members for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assi-

niboia, Skeena and others have put amendments which would help in those areas.

This legislation has not been well thought out. The intent is good, but it has not been well thought out. The best thing would be to scrap it. Whichever party forms the next government should deal with this issue in a much more effective manner. That is exactly what will happen if the Reform Party forms the next government. I hope the Liberals will do that if they form the next government.

There are over 100 amendments which will not deal properly with all of the issues that have to be dealt with.

On behalf of the people who depend on the land to earn their livelihood, whether they are farmers, ranchers, people in the forestry and mining industries, or people who have commercial property on the edge of a town which could lose its value as a result of this legislation, I say that we should throw it out of the House. If that does not happen, then let us pass the amendments which have been moved. At least they will help in dealing with these problems.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-65, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the following:

"actions taken under this Act must take into account the social and economic consequences of those actions on the parties affected,"

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-65, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the following:

"the responsible minister must suspend the application of the provisions of this Act respecting recovery and management plans if it is established to the satisfaction of the responsible minister that measures are being taken or will be taken within a reasonable time by landowners or by any other interested parties for the protection of certain wildlife species, the purpose of a suspension of the application of certain provisions of this Act is to strengthen co-operation among the various parties concerned, "

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 4 the following:

""landowner" includes a person who leases federal land."

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-65 be amended by adding after line 7, on page 7, the following:

"3.3 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, no provision of this Act or any regulation or emergency order made under this Act, with the exception of sections 31 to 33, applies to a landowner that would result in the expenditure of money by the landowner or in a financial loss for the landowner."

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 32 on page 21 with the following:

"(3) Where the responsible minister receives, within twelve months after a wildlife species is listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated, a request signed by a majority of the landowners referred to in paragraph 39( b ) requesting that one or more public hearings be held concerning the preparation of the recovery plan, the responsible minister must a ) hold at least one public hearing in the place and within the month indicated in the request; and b ) advise the persons who signed the request of the time and place of the public hearing.

(3.1) The recovery plan must be completed a ) within three months after the last public hearing held under subsection (3) has been completed; and b ) where no public hearing is held under subsection (3), within one year after the wildlife species was listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated.''

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-65, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 23 with the following:

"39. The recovery plan must be prepared in consultation with a ) any persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by, or interested in, the plan; and b ) any directly affected landowners who have notified the responsible minister of their wish to be consulted regarding the recovery plan.''

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-65 be amended by adding after line 32, on page 33, the following:

"59.1 The responsible minister must, by order, suspend, for a specified term, the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act respecting recovery and management plans if it is established to the satisfaction of the responsible minister that measures are being taken or will be taken within a reasonable time by landowners or by any other interested parties for the protection of a wildlife species that is listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated."

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

It is a wonderful thing to think about.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I do not know what it is with names today. I have been here three and a half years and I have never been stopped from using a name before. Here I am on probably the last day of the sitting of this House and I start using names. Perhaps I am getting into the campaign mode.

If we are going to have apologies, the apologies clearly should come from the Liberal government for ever pretending that this legislation does what farmers want. Members can look at the amendments that we are debating today and they are not going to fix this bill and make it something that is acceptable.

Most farmers want a wheat board which is accountable to farmers. Whether farmers support the wheat board monopoly as a large portion of farmers do, or whether they support a dual marketing system where we have the wheat board operating and farmers who want to market through the board can choose to do that or those who choose not to can also do that. In either case what

farmers want is a wheat board that answers to the farmers. This legislation will not make that happen.

The board is partially elected. In committee the Bloc proposed that 12 out of the 15 directors be elected. The Liberals came back with 10 and that was put in the bill. The board has 10 members elected, which is at least a majority. What difference does it make if they do not have the power to make the changes that should be made to the board? They are given very limited power. The government keeps its hands very tight on the board under this legislation. The directors have virtually no power to make further changes to what the wheat board does and to give a choice to farmers on how they market their grain.

The government has prevented this in different ways, partly through its appointments on the board of the chair and CEO. Partly through those appointments it keeps control, but also through a screening mechanism which makes it that any change the Canada Grain Commission decides is not quite right for some reason would be prevented.

Even if the majority of the board supports these changes, if the grain commission, under the control of the minister, decides changes should not happen, they will not happen. Clearly these changes are not what farmers want and we will find that out during the election campaign.

This is going to come out I believe very clearly during the campaign. This is not what farmers want. I believe the Liberal government will get that message much clearer than it has to date, obviously, during the campaign.

Other concerns that we worked on at committee are with regard to the absolution from responsibility that this legislation gives to the management of the board and even to employees of the board.

If I were an employee for the Canadian Wheat Board, not one of the commissioners, not one of the appointed board members and not the appointed CEO or the appointed director of the board, and we have a lot of competent people who work for the board, I would be very concerned when I look at this legislation. Legal opinions on this legislation have not been clear. It seems that this legislation could easily make it so that the employees could be held responsible for mistakes made where the directors or the management of the board normally would be held responsible.

This legislation should have never been here in the House. I am at least pleased that it will never come to a vote because it does not deserve a vote, quite frankly.