Debates of Oct. 31st, 2006

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In a way, he is quite right. I have always wondered how the Quebec Conservatives, who are usually a little more to the left, could be part of a party like the one we see today. I sit on the committee with my dear colleague and I find that he is a very reasonable person. I am surprised that he can fall in with a right-leaning party as we see him doing today.

We are not talking about a progressive conservative party, we are talking about something totally different. We are talking about a party that sets aside democracy at every opportunity. If we are truly convinced that an open market is the solution, why not ask the producers? That is what surprises me. If the people on that side of the House are so convinced that the market will work, then quite simply let us ask farmers the question—we will be prepared to live with the answer.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem to have a propensity these days of manufacturing a crisis in order to bring in their own policies to fix that manufactured crisis. I speak of my experience in Ontario from 1995 to 2003 when Mike Harris was the premier and a number of his ministers, one in particular, Mr. Snobelen, was heard to say that if one wanted change, one manufactured a crisis and then brought in the change to respond to that manufactured crisis.

I just want to ask the hon. member for Saint Boniface whether there is a crisis in the west where grain and wheat are concerned. Will doing away with the Wheat Board somehow fix the problem or is this just another manufactured crisis?

I was here the other night speaking to this issue and members around me from Saskatchewan and western Canada suggested that I really had no place speaking about something that I lived so far away from. I told them that my concern was, as you said in your speech, first the Wheat Board, then supply management and what would be next. As you are closer to the situation, is there a crisis that this is responding to?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie to address his questions and comments through the Chair.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for people from eastern Canada to discuss this issue as well. This is not just a western Canada issue. Obviously, people in western Canada are affected the most by it, but I have had some people from Quebec calling me because they are concerned about supply management.

The Wheat Board has been doing extremely well. The latest reports indicate that farmers have really benefited from the Wheat Board. It is absolutely impossible for the government to manufacture a crisis on this. Every report seems to tell us that farmers are doing better with the Wheat Board than without it. Obviously, the government will not be able to manufacture a crisis in this case.

I appreciate the question because it is important. I do not think members on this side of the House should be muzzling other members who are interested in knowing what is going on in western Canada with the Wheat Board.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the government's vision for the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because the future of the Canadian Wheat Board will be bright.

To speak to the motion before, we fully realize that farmers want input on this issue before any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board are made. We are committed to moving forward in an orderly and transparent manner.

There should be no surprises and no hidden agenda. We will be clear and up front with Canadians about our commitment to marketing choice for western Canadian wheat and barley growers.

We were clear and up front with the sector about our commitment to consult and to listen. On July 27 we held a round table discussion in Saskatchewan with a cross section of western Canadian farmers and stakeholder organizations that support marketing choice. Some good ideas came out of that exercise, including the recommendation to launch a task force to explore transitional and structural issues.

We went ahead on that and yesterday the minister was pleased to release the findings of that task force report. The report recommends a four stage transition from a Canadian Wheat Board with monopoly powers to a marketing choice environment, preparing for change, forming a new Canadian Wheat Board and launching the new Canadian Wheat Board with transition measures and post-transition.

We are very appreciative of the work of the task force. It did a lot of hard work on a short time line. We will be examining the report in detail and we would like to consult on the ideas the task force has put forward.

As part of that consultation, an hour ago the minister announced that a plebiscite on barley will be held in the new year. The government considers that this plebiscite will form part of the ongoing consultation with producers on the issue. The plebiscite will be on barley only.

We think farmers are ready to make a decision on the barley side. It will have a wide voter base and be founded on a clear question. This is in line with provisions in the Canadian Wheat Board Act which requires that the voting process be determined by the minister.

The minister will wait until the beginning of the plebiscite period before he will announce the voter's list and the exact question or questions which will be put on the ballot. Until then, he welcomes and we all welcome the input of farmers and farm groups on what these questions should be. The minister also wants to engage in a more general consultation about the ideas from the task force or others on how a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board can be a viable player in a marketing choice environment.

When we cut through the rhetoric and the noise that we hear constantly around the wheat board issue, what we are really talking about is opportunity. Opportunity is what brought people to Canada and it is what continues to draw them today. Opportunity is what settled the west and made it the agricultural powerhouse it is today. Opportunity is what will carry the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector into the future.

On January 23 of this year, Canadians voted for change and Canadian farmers voted for change. We campaigned on the promise to create new opportunities for Canadian farmers. What is our rationale for that change?

First, the government intends to do the things we promised to do. People voted for change and that is what will be delivered.

Second, producers tells us that the current system is suffocating innovation and stifling entrepreneurship. Farmers are independent-minded, which is why they have chosen the path they are on. They are entrepreneurial business people. They want to call their own shots on when to plant, when to harvest and how to market.

Canadian agricultural producers want and need opportunity. Like their forebears who first broke the prairie ground, they want the opportunity to succeed and the freedom to make their own choices on how they produce and market their crops. They do not think they should be criminalized for that, as they have been in the past.

In the face of a long term decline in bulk commodity prices, farmers want the opportunity to add value to their crops and capture more profits beyond the farm gate. They take all the risk and they make all the investment. They deserve to have the opportunity to seek out the best possible return for their product, just as they would with canola, pulse crops, apples or hogs or a number of any other farm products raised in Canada. For most of the past seven decades, western Canadian wheat and barley growers have not had that choice.

The Canadian Wheat Board monopoly on wheat and barely was imposed by the Parliament due to a variety of different dynamics. The system was essentially designed to collect the grain produced by thousands of small farmers at small country elevators, market it around the world as a uniform commodity on the basis of grade standards and divide the returns from this process among all the producers who contributed the grain.

Today, those dynamics have changed and our approaches and structures need to change with them.

The idea of selling a uniform commodity made much more sense in the days when a few countries dominated the grain export market and large quasi-government buyers negotiated long term supply contracts on a national level.

Today, there are numerous new or growing exporters in South America, the former Soviet Union and Australia.

The buy side of the market, too, has moved away from the commodity procurement model of the past toward a situation in which a large number of mainly private buyers select a range of quality attributes for particular market segments. Due to low cost competition, the commodity end of the market is under relentless pricing pressure.

We must make no mistake. Farmers do see a future in grain. However, they are looking for new, value added revenue streams and greater marketing flexibility. No longer are Canadian producers the proverbial hewers of wood and drawers of water. Over the last 15 years, there has been a paradigm shift. We are seeing the advent of the value added side of agriculture, the agrifood side, and it is doing very well. It has seen huge increases. It is controlling the vast majority of the exports and domestic use in this country now.

Currently, by law, western Canadian wheat and barley growers are fenced off from that business. They are prevented from having the same rights as every other producer in the country about where to sell their product, starting a pasta plant, for instance, or a value-added organic grain business, or supplying high yield low protein wheat to ethanol plants in the U.S.

Those are only examples. Every producer and every situation is unique. The best person to decide the best production and marketing options for their farms is the person who makes the decisions, takes the risk and lives with the consequences. We want to level the playing field and give western Canadian grain producers the same rights and opportunities that other farmers in Canada have.

To those who want to continue to restrict western grain producers from having the same rights as others, I ask them to show me solid proof that such a ban is actually paying benefits for them. I have yet to see any.

Our vision for the Canadian Wheat Board is a strong, voluntary and profitable wheat board, one that can offer farmers a viable but not an exclusive marketing choice.

There are some out there who would say that we should get rid of the Wheat Board but I am not one of them and neither is our government. We want to have a wheat board but we want it to be in a marketing choice world.

We see a bright future for a strong, viable and voluntary wheat board for those who choose to pool together and use its services. Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers have a world-class product. They will now be given the opportunity to use their savvy, market intelligence and initiative to maximize their returns. If they choose, they will still be able to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Even farmers who strongly criticize the current federal government imposed monopoly have said that the Canadian Wheat Board needs the opportunity to succeed in a commercial environment and to be a viable, ongoing marketing option for producers. I see no reason why the board cannot continue to function and be a strong force in the international grain market.

To conclude, change is never easy, especially change of this magnitude. There will be adjustment and transition but I am convinced that at the end of the day the sector will be stronger and more viable with marketing choice than without.

I started out talking about opportunity. Despite the negativity that is out there, we see a bright future for the Canadian Wheat Board if things are structured properly and in a way to meet producers' needs.

What must drive everything we do is meeting producers' needs. This is why we, as government, are moving forward on better business risk management programming, on biofuels, on restoring beef trade, on science and innovation and on a number of other critical issues where action has been long overdue. It is why we allocated $1.5 billion to this sector in this year's budget, three times our original commitment. It is also why we are moving forward on marketing choice for our producers.

The grain industry is of vital importance to Canada's economy and it is a proud part of our natural history. The government intends to serve it well and it intends to act in a way that provides the best chance to earn a living for these proud men and women who toil in the fields so all Canadians can enjoy the fruits of their labours.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize because earlier on, when I was speaking to this, I was speaking mostly from Manitoba. I know you are from Saskatchewan. If you were not neutral, if you could speak on this, I am sure you would probably support everything I have said, but obviously you cannot do that.

One of the things my hon. colleague has mentioned is that the dual system will provide options and choice to farmers. Every expert, who has spoken on this lately, has indicated very clearly that if the current Wheat Board loses its monopoly and leverage to sell on the world stage, it will disappear. Could my colleague expand on that?

Second, why would the Conservatives not ask farmers the question? Why not put it to them? What is so wrong with the democratic process of asking them the question? Let them decide on their futures.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should be brought up to speed. A few hours ago the Minister of Agriculture announced that there would be a plebiscite on barley. We are going to go to the farmers and asking them what they want to do.

Furthermore, it is interesting that this is called the Canadian Wheat Board, but it applies only to three provinces and the Peace River district of B.C. It is the western Canadian Wheat Board. It restricts western Canadian farmers.

Over the last number of years of dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board issue, one of the things that has stopped innovation and value added industry from starting, is the Wheat Board's buyback. To start a pasta plant that takes durum and turns it into a product, the durum has to be sold to the board and bought back, adding a cost to that product.

We are not saying that the Wheat Board does not have a place in all of this, but we could take away that monopoly. It is a move that we will put to the producers in a plebiscite, as has been asked for day after day in the House. One would think the members opposite would be rejoicing that the government is doing this because they have been asking for it. If we are truly going to move into the next century and if we are going to allow our producers the freedom and the ability to maximize their returns, then we have to move in this direction.

I do not consider myself a farmer. I have some farmland. This year I grew malt barley and it managed to make the grade. If I want to sell that barley for malt, I have to move it through the Canadian Wheat Board. I have no option.

There are options out there for producers. The bottom line is trying to maximize returns on investments. Land prices and input costs are going up. Producers need to have the freedom to maximize what they get back in their pockets. Giving them the tools to do that is what this is all about.

The member opposite says to go to a plebiscite. We are doing that.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

On barley.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

On barley, of course, but we are taking one step at a time. When we take the monopoly off barley, it will become very clear in a very short period of time that this is the right thing to do. We will see a value added industry. We will also see a higher return to the producer.

If we put that in with the other initiatives the government has come up with in the short period we have been in government, the biofuel initiative will absolutely be a critical part as we move forward from this point. All the other things that we have done to help the producers maximize their returns and to keep them on the land is absolutely critical, and this is a big part of the puzzle as we move forward.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the member. He said Canadians voted for change. Yes, they did, because they were unhappy with the Liberals, but they did not give the Conservatives a majority government. They gave them a minority, which means they are supposed to work with all of us around the House. To come in with such a unilateral aggressive move where the Wheat Board is concerned does not portray that at all.

The hon. member referred to a meeting of July 27 in Saskatoon. I was in Saskatoon that day at another meeting across the road with about 250 farmers, leaders of farm organizations from across the country. They were not invited to that meeting. Why?

The hon. member also said that there would be a plebiscite on barley. Then he went on to say that the government would wait until just before the vote to share information on the question in that plebiscite, how the voting process would take place and who would be allowed to vote. Why not be open and free and sharing with the farmers about the question, how that vote will happen and who can vote? What is it about democracy that frightens the Conservatives so?

Why were folks across the road not invited, the 250 farmers and the farm leaders, to the meeting in Saskatoon on July 27? Why will the Conservatives not just have a plebiscite like all plebiscites happen? Let us have the question. Tell us what the process will be and who can vote.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is it will be an open process. The first step was announced today. There will be a plebiscite. The consultations will continue. We are hoping there will be input from all parties on the wording of the question and the process that plebiscite will take.

Right now we are at the start of an election process for the elected members of the board. Does the hon. member want us to become involved in that? I do not think so. Let us wait until that transpires.

The member has mentioned the fact that this is a minority government and not a majority government. The government has moved forward on many issues as a minority government, working with all parties, moving ahead. Our budget went through. We have bills that have gone through the House. The federal accountability act, the most sweeping legislation to come through government in the history of the country, is languishing in the Senate. We have done an awful lot.

On the issue of majority, I invite the member to look at the rural ridings in western Canada on the electoral map to see who is representing them. It is members of this government. We campaigned on the issue of dual marketing and marketing choice. The people in the rural areas responded. They want to see some change. They have seen declining returns for years and they want the tools put into their hands so they can turn that around. Today's announcement on the plebiscite on barley was the first step to get that done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite excited that we are holding a plebiscite on barley and that we are moving ahead in listening to producers. This is what we stand for as a party. Part of our platform was that we would move ahead on choice. We also said that part of our policy was we believed in consultation with producers, and a plebiscite is the best way to do that.

I am not at all interested to hear the rhetoric from the opposition parties on this. The only opinion that counts is that of grain growers. That is the exact feedback we will get through a plebiscite.

I am a farmer in my rural riding. There are producers on both sides of this issue. This is a divisive issue, but they want to know which direction we are taking. We will move ahead on the issue of barley and all things will come about in time. Right now we know that producers for some time have considered whether having barley on the Wheat Board is worthwhile. It is a rather small crop that has been marketed by the Wheat Board, so let us go forward on that side of it.

I want to have a little more input from my hon. colleague, another farmer as well in Lethbridge. I want to hear the thoughts of the producers in his area, which I know are very strong for choice.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I and many members of Parliament have been getting 50 to 100 letters from farmers every night on our fax machines The balance is kind of interesting. I have had three or four from my riding who are strong Wheat Board supporters and support its monopoly.

The rest of the farmers are looking for some help. They appreciate what the government is doing to help them, but they want to help themselves. They want to maximize their own returns and to do that we have to give them the tools they need.

People all across the country were clamouring for a plebiscite and our government is delivering. There will be one. In a very short period of time we are going to see a change to the agricultural community in our country, particularly to our grain and oilseed producers.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue.

There is an axiom that many of us in public life should remember: if we cannot be helpful, at the very least, we should do no harm. I would suggest that in this instance the government would want to be really careful because it is walking a fine line.

I have heard from farmers in my own area. On July 27 I was at a meeting in Saskatoon where some 250 farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta gathered in a room. If what I heard from the farmer leadership that day is any indication of what the government will do over the next number of months as it does away with the Wheat Board, it is going to do great harm to the farmers across this country.

The farmers in my own area understand that when the Wheat Board goes, the next target could very well be supply management. They have gone through some very difficult times over the last number of months and years in the beef and dairy industries. They know that supply management is the only thing that saved a number of farmers.

When they speak to me or when there are public gatherings, there is always a very strong message to government and to those of us who represent the farmers and speak on their behalf to government that we must protect the instruments that have been put in place by the farmers themselves over a number of years to protect themselves. This is especially so in this global economy in which we find ourselves. When product can be moved so easily from one country to the next, competitiveness becomes very important and we have to have some advantages. The farmers look at countries around the world that provide subsidies to their farmers, such as just across the border in the United States. We do not do that for our farmers but they have to compete against that.

The only vehicles that are unique to our country are supply management and the Wheat Board. The farmers are very concerned that if that is taken away and they end up having to compete in this world where huge subsidies are being given to farmers across the continent, they will be even worse off than they are now. Indeed many of them are struggling now.

I say to the Conservatives who are here tonight and to others that if they are going to do this, at the very least they should respect the democratic principles upon which this country is based and which we use so often to solve issues such as this one when there is a difference of opinion. They should respect the democratic processes.

The member who spoke before me said that the Conservatives are going to have a plebiscite on barley. He then went on to say that they are going to consult some more, but they are not sure with whom. We know whom they consulted with to arrive at the report they tabled today. We know whom they consulted with in Saskatoon on July 27 of this year. They consulted with their friends in the corporate sector who want to get rid of the Wheat Board because it gets in the way of their reaping even more profits at the expense of the farmers.

They will consult with those they think will give them the answers they are looking for, and that is a problem. They have done that up until now to arrive at the report that was tabled today. I suggest that as they move forward with this plebiscite on barley the process that the member spoke of should be the same. He said they will not announce until just before the plebiscite what the question will be, what the process for the election itself will be, and who will vote.

That brings me to my next question for the government. It is a warning to everybody and the government again about democracy concerning this issue and the election of the Wheat Board. We know they have summarily decided through an edict, an order in council driven by the Prime Minister that unilaterally 16,000 farmers cannot vote for the Wheat Board. How democratic is that? What is it that the government is afraid of where the democratic process is concerned?

When I was an MPP in Ontario, I heard the Conservatives at that time as they drove their agenda, and I mean drove their agenda, in 1995 until 2003. They said they did not need to consult with anybody because they had consulted in the election. There is consultation in an election in a very superficial way, in a brief and busy way, but there is no in-depth consultation or effort to figure out the pros and cons. As I said, try as much as one can, if one is not going to help, then do no harm while moving forward.

The member who spoke before me said that the people of Canada voted for change. Yes, they did. They voted to change the government that we had; they were not happy with the Liberals because of all of the shenanigans that they were reading about. But Canadians voted for a minority government, a government they thought would be thoughtful, process oriented and willing to sit down and work with others to move things forward, such as the evolution of the Wheat Board.

When I was in Saskatoon on July 27 I heard the farmers and the farm leadership say that they were not against the evolution of the Wheat Board. They knew there were some shortcomings and that they had to get into the day that they were in, make change, listen to farmers and respond to the concerns that the farmers were bringing forward. They were committed to doing that and wanted to do that and would have liked some help from the government, some resources so that they could do the proper consultation.

But no, that is not what the government chose to do. It did not choose to sit down with the farmers and the Wheat Board. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives have told the Wheat Board that it should stop its lobbying, stop acting as it naturally should do on its own behalf in order to protect what it has to protect, that vehicle which has served farmers so well will continue to serve farmers well as it evolves.

That is my first concern regarding this concurrence motion, along with the action of the government where the Wheat Board is concerned. There is the whole issue of freedom and democracy and yes, true choice, not manipulated choice and not as we saw in Ontario, the creation of crises so people might begin to believe they have no other choice in a given matter.

I am here tonight to put my own thoughts on the record along with the thoughts of my farmer constituents whom I spoke to only two weeks ago as I went through our area with my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, who is our agriculture critic. He asked me to put on the record some thoughts on behalf of our caucus, on his behalf and of course, as I said, on behalf of the farmers with whom he met in my constituency and in the constituency next door, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I will put on the record the thoughts that I heard very clearly and confidently from the over 250 farmers and the leadership of agricultural organizations across the country who met in Saskatoon on July 27 this past summer.

The Conservative government is not acting in the best interests of democracy. The whole process of the Canadian Wheat Board task force is a sham and a needless waste of energy.

I will repeat what my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior has said and what our leader has stated, that it is important for farmers to have a say in their future. This should take the form of a vote or a plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk seller and not a plebiscite manipulated by the government in the way we are beginning to see with the plebiscite on barley. Instead, the Minister of Agriculture has chosen another approach in choosing a task force of anti-Wheat Board individuals to recommend how the Canadian Wheat Board, a viable, credible player on the international scene, can be transformed into the Canadian Wheat Board II, another grain company that will somehow be able to successfully compete with the powerful multinational stakeholders.

A thought came to me as I was saying that. There is one comment that I heard and which really struck me when I was at that meeting on July 27 in Saskatoon with those 250 farmers and the leadership of the agriculture community. The comment was about there being people out there who are willing to pay more for the barley than what is being paid now and that those people will come forward once the Wheat Board is gotten rid of. It was said tongue in cheek, but I think they were serious and it is something we all ought to think about. Is there someone out there who will pay more for the barley and the wheat once the Wheat Board is gotten rid of? I do not think so.

It is a further insult to farmers. The minister has changed the format of the Canadian Wheat Board director election in midstream to sow confusion among farmers. He recently fired a Canadian Wheat Board director who spoke out against this nonsense. That is the process that is in place now. That is the kind of thing that is going on as we speak.

Let us look at this so-called report. In essence, it is the wrong approach, ideologically driven and a blueprint for the Americanization of our grain industry. We have seen an approach by the government to bring a group of people together who agree with the destruction of single desk selling of the Canadian Wheat Board. Then a so-called task force was appointed to recommend how this should be done.

Before looking at this totally undemocratic process, perhaps we could suggest what could have happened instead. The minister could have met with the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors to discuss the possibility of change, for example, to leave the current status quo as a possible option. A balanced task force could have been set up to discuss all options and include a truly representable segment of farmers who currently use the Canadian Wheat Board.

The conclusions of these deliberations could have been provided to farmers to make an informed decision on their future by way of a plebiscite. Obviously, to respect the democratic process, there would have been no tampering with the Canadian Wheat Board director election process. This would probably have taken more than a month, but could have resulted in a fair and balanced review of the Canadian Wheat Board. Instead, we have big government interference and steps of how to fulfill this bizarre agenda.

One of the rationales for doing away with single desk selling has been the supposed effect this has had on our milling industry. Yet statistics show that Canadian wheat and durum milling has increased by 31% since 1991 compared to 14% in the United States. Canadian flour mill capacity has grown from 7,700 tonnes per day to about 10,300 tonnes per day. Canada's mills enjoyed the sharpest increase in flour production among the leading milling nations since 1990. I do not know where the problem is here that we are addressing.

If the Conservative government has its way, its Canadian Wheat Board II will just be another grain company with no power to secure and maintain quality world markets.

Here are some very possible scenarios: one, farmers uncertain of the future would not buy shares in the Canadian Wheat Board II; two, rail rates would increase to conform to the U.S. rates; three, Canadian Wheat Board II would be marketing U.S. grain; four, Churchill would suffer and jobs would be lost; five, the Canadian Wheat Board II would not be allowed to administer cash advances. This could hit farmers hard.

Basically, the transformation to the new free for all system would cause confusion and uncertainty not only in Canada, but in the global marketplace. This would wind up to be another bad deal for Canada, just as the softwood lumber agreement is a bad deal for Canada.

This exercise is a sham, a waste of time and a slap in the face to the democratic process. Hopefully, reason and good judgment will prevail in the months to come.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are a few minutes left before the time allotted for this debate is to end.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from the NDP, I am farmer. I am a producer. I have sold wheat. In Ontario I have a choice. I can sell my wheat directly or I can sell it through the Ontario Wheat Board. It is my choice. What a concept. Obviously, the party across the way does not believe in that. Obviously, the party of my colleague to my right does not agree with that.

That is what this is all about. The political rhetoric in trying to make this into something that it is not is wrong. I have relatives in Saskatchewan and in Alberta. I do not in Manitoba, but they all ask me why should they not have the same choice that I have as a farmer in Ontario. I would ask the member to comment on that.

Further, the members bring up supply management and how it will affect supply management. Again, it is nothing short of fearmongering because there is a big difference that has to be recognized. Under the Wheat Board it is split across the country, but in supply management there is 100% unity behind it. How can the member explain that?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I know he is a farmer and a good farmer. In eastern Canada, yes, that is the way that producers market grain. In western Canada farmers have chosen to do it differently. Over the years they have elected themselves a board and that is the way that they have chosen to do it.

All that we are saying is if the government wants to make changes, it should at least talk to the farmers. I was in a room with 250 farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on July 27 of this year. Every one of them, including the leadership of the agricultural organizations from across Canada, spoke and were in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. They knew that it was not perfect but they were willing to work to make it better and have it evolve.

However, at the very least at that meeting they were saying, “Let's have a vote. Let's have a plebiscite, not a controlled manipulated plebiscite but a true plebiscite, a free plebiscite. That is what we're asking for”. The member accuses me of fearmongering. I have to say it is not me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 7:10 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, November 1 at 5:30 p.m.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, I asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and hon. member for Pontiac a question because this minister had refused to meet with the spokespeople from the Outaouais FTQ, led by Donald Roy, who wanted to discuss the anti-scab bill with the minister. According to Mr. Roy, the staff at the minister's office did not even return his telephone calls.

Allow me to take advantage of this adjournment debate to provide the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and hon. member for Pontiac the arguments the Outaouais union leaders could have given him during this meeting that never took place, in the hope that the Minister's office is listening. These arguments are all the more significant since, just last week, the Minister of Labour handed out to all hon. members a short study that distorts statistics in order to destroy arguments in favour of anti-scab legislation.

These dirty tricks at the last minute—this study was handed out to the hon. members just a few hours before last week's historical vote at second reading on the anti-scab bill—had no effect. Twenty Conservative members, members of his own party, voted in favour of the anti-scab bill because these members know the benefits of this legislation and they hope to see it applied in their own ridings. By the way, 166 members of this House voted in favour of this bill at second reading. Members from Quebec and from all the provinces voted in favour of it, except the members from Alberta, unfortunately.

According to the Minister of Labour's study, and according to other public statements he made in this House and in committee, banning replacement workers would have no positive impact on labour relations and would provide no advantage, which is surprising because the Minister of Labour and member for Jonquière—Alma previously voted in favour of this bill when he was a member in 1990.

The department's analysis is built on very shaky foundations. The arguments are not supported by good statistics, and some of the numbers were distorted until they corroborated the minister's thesis, which tends to harmonize with that of the owners and executives. Clearly, this reflects the values of a Conservative government that rushes to defend businesses and oil companies while pulling the plug on community organizations that promote literacy and the status of women.

Here is the reaction to his pathetic arguments. Many of the figures, arguments and facts I am about to mention are from the Canadian Labour Congress's response to the minister's questionable logic. The Canadian Labour Congress and its president, Ken Georgetti, did a remarkable job and conducted a careful analysis of the labour relations situation. Their work enables me to respond accurately to the minister's statements today. These researchers rigorously compiled data that are not always easy to interpret. The analysis was cross-referenced and added to relevant data just as carefully collected and rigorously substantiated by Bloc Québécois researchers.

The statistics in the minister's study are at times false or incomplete. Furthermore, much of the data in the background document does not match up with data published by the Government of Quebec. The authors of the minister's study made several errors in comparing work stoppages in Quebec to those in the rest of Canada. The authors of the study claim that over the past few years, there have been more work stoppages in Quebec than in British Columbia or in federal workplaces, but this statistic is meaningless by itself.

I would have liked to have talked more about the benefits of the anti-scab bill, but I will have two minutes later on to do so.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I truly wish that the hon. member had more time because I know how quickly even two hours in a filibuster goes.

Let me begin by saying that the minister responsible and the majority of members of this House recognize one simple fact. Bill C-257, which calls for changes in the Canada Labour Code in the banning of replacement workers, was accepted in a vote by the majority of members of this House. We accept this and we certainly accept the will of Parliament.

We are pleased to see that this bill will be referred to a standing committee. The committee will be able to examine this bill in far more detail and hopefully make some significant and substantive changes to this bill. I must state that the majority of members on the government's side are opposed to this legislation in principle.

Why? Bill C-257 does not provide in my view any benefits to workers and it does not balance the needs of employers, employees and unions. We all know and we all agree that successful labour relations must have a balance. They cannot be one-sided. The scales cannot be weighted so heavily on one side or the other because that would sort of tip that balance of equity and fairness that both employers and employees feel that they require.

The existing provisions of the Canada Labour Code succeeded in balancing the interests of labour and management, and providing the flexibility needed when dealing with labour negotiations. This bill does nothing to address those issues.

As I said, I am extremely pleased that the bill will be studied in some detail by the standing committee. I am sure that the committee will hear evidence that will convince all members of that committee that this bill is not in the interests of Canadian workers nor the Canadian economy.

Let me reiterate one more time that our government maintains there must be a better approach. There is a better approach to dealing with the issue of replacement workers. I know the minister looks forward to discussing this legislation with the standing committee, so they can both work together to build a workforce and an economy that is both prosperous and cooperative.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary.

For there to be balance in a labour dispute, the means of applying pressure must be balanced, and equally and equitably divided. During a labour dispute, employees are left without their income and their work. Employers must also feel pressure through the loss of what they produce so that the conflict is resolved as quickly as possible.

That said, during the historic vote that was held Wednesday, the bill was passed at second reading. It is now at the committee stage.

From now on, I hope the Minister of Transport and member for Pontiac will respectfully welcome union leaders from his region and his riding. The minister likely prefers to meet with CEOs, but workers remain commendable citizens nonetheless, and they deserve to be respected as individuals who have certain rights.

At the very least, when he arrives at his office tomorrow morning, the Minister of Transport and member for Pontiac could return the calls from Donald Roy and FTQ officials from the Outaouais region.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the minister will be meeting with the standing committee as soon as possible. However, let me address one of the points that the hon. member has made.

While in her esteemed opinion Bill C-257 is a bill that will protect both the workplace and the worker, independent analysis and studies have proven just the opposite. In fact, studies have proven that for those companies that do not have replacement workers, the strikes last a shorter duration and the settlements are actually higher. These are well documented.

For those reasons and many more, I would suggest that all members of the standing committee take a close look at the impact that this bill will have. I will assure members that banning replacement workers will have nothing but a detrimental effect on both the employer and the employees.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I noticed that he was not in the House. Since the election on January 23, the minister, Michael Fortier, has been like a ghost. He has been missing. It is funny that I should be asking my question this evening, because it is Hallowe'en. He must be hiding somewhere.

Hon. members will remember that when the Conservative Party was in opposition, it said it had principles. One of those principles was that the Senate should be elected. Another principle is that no one should represent the government, especially in a department, without being elected.

Right after the January 2006 election, to Canadians' astonishment, the new Conservative government decided to appoint Michael Fortier as Minister of Public Works and, in addition, as a senator. Just like that, two principles were swept away in the Ottawa River. They were lost.

In response to my question for the government, I was told that Mr. Fortier is doing a good job and that he is representing the government and Montrealers well. But how can the government judge whether Mr. Fortier is representing the people of Montreal well? We mentioned the election in Repentigny. This is the perfect opportunity for him to run. But it seems he is afraid of losing. If he is afraid of losing, or if the government is afraid of losing him, perhaps he is not doing such a great job of representing the people of Montreal.

The worst part is seeing a governing party that believed strongly in democracy when it was in opposition. A person must be elected to represent Canadians. Now, in Quebec, there is no need to be elected.

I remember when the Liberal government appointed Pierre Pettigrew to cabinet. A Liberal member resigned and there was an election. The government did not wait for an election: somebody resigned—or died, as is the case in Repentigny—and then an election was held.

That is also what happened to the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. He was appointed to cabinet at the same time, so one of the Liberal members resigned. An election followed.

Today's Conservative Party, which was in opposition at the time, opposed the Liberal appointments. Now it is talking about Bill C-2, the accountability act.

Can the Conservatives explain to Canadians and to parliamentarians why the Minister of Public Works is not answering questions in the House of Commons? He is hiding in the Senate to avoid answering Canadians. It is shameful.

I would like an answer from the government. I am hoping they do not just tell me he is doing a good job, as they did on October 23. It is not up to the government to decide that. It is up to the citizens. I await the parliamentary secretary's answer.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. My hon. colleague and I have had discussions on this matter before and I think we both agree to disagree with the method by which the Prime Minister ensured that Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be represented in our cabinet.

I am quite sure that the hon. member would be critical of our government if we had a cabinet that did not have representation from the second largest city in Canada. That is the genesis and the motivation, from the Prime Minister's standpoint at least, as to why Mr. Fortier is now in cabinet. We wanted to ensure that Canada's second largest city had adequate representation.

How does one go about doing that? Constitutional experts will tell us that to appoint someone to cabinet the person must be someone who has been appointed from another House. Since Mr. Fortier did not run as a candidate for the House of Commons or for Parliament in the last election, it would stand to reason, constitutionally, that if we wanted to appoint him to cabinet then he should be appointed from the Senate, which is exactly what the Prime Minister did. He first appointed Mr. Fortier to the Senate so he could then have him in cabinet for representation in Canada's second largest city.

The member may scoff at that and say that it goes against all campaign promises of democracy and accountability. Let me again point out to the member that this is not an appointment, as the Liberals and others have done, to the Senate for life. This individual will be stepping down from the Senate to run in the next general election. That was the commitment of the Prime Minister when the appointment was made and that is the commitment from Mr. Fortier himself.

Let me also say that this is far from being an unusual or isolated case. Over the course of our parliamentary history, many senators have been appointed to the cabinet. I can think of one that sticks in my mind very vividly because he came from my home province. The senator, an individual by the name of Mr. Hazen Argue, who has now passed on, was appointed by a Liberal government to represent voters as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been several other examples. Again, from a constitutional perspective, this is something that has been accepted and, in fact, from the constitutional side, insisted upon.

It is the right and the obligation, I would suggest, of the Prime Minister to ensure that all Canadians are represented adequately and with full integrity, which is exactly what happened in this case. The Prime Minister appointed someone to represent Canada's second largest city.

Let me just say in conclusion that this is obviously something that took a great deal of internal courage, vision and leadership, because, quite frankly, everyone knew and the Prime Minister certainly knew that he would be criticized for making this move. He did it because the Prime Minister, as I well know, as everyone in the House knows and as Canadians well know, is not guided by political polls. He is guided by principle. He did this, in spite of the criticism, to ensure that all Canadians in the city of Montreal were represented adequately.