Mr. Speaker, before question period I was speaking from a farmer's perspective to Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23.
I was trying to speak from a farmer's perspective, having farmed for close to 20 years in the British Columbia Peace River region, growing grain, grass seed and oilseed. I was remarking on how angry farmers become when they see the shipments of grain which are supposed to be freely flowing through the ports on to ships for shipment to our foreign markets, our overseas customers, delayed and held up in some cases for extended periods of time and the resultant cost that ultimately the farmers and the country pay.
I have heard from quite a number of farmers who grow these crops, the six standard grains, wheat, barley, oats, rye, flax and canola which I am assuming are included under this definition of exclusion from any possible strike action at the ports. They are quite concerned because they want to see this bill proceed so that they do receive that protection.
The end result is that we are going to be enshrining inequity and unfairness with the passage of Bill C-19 as it is presently written. That is why the official opposition has put forward Motions Nos. 22 and 23. It is to drop the inclusion pertaining simply to the standard grain crops. We feel that it discriminates.
I have not heard the answer from the government benches on whether specialty crops would be included under this protection. A lot of farmers are growing so-called specialty crops. Lentils, peas, fava beans, sunflower, safflower, these types of crops are being grown on increasing acreage across the land. In particular I am speaking about western Canada. I wonder if they are protected under this same clause. I do not think so. I think this clause simply pertains to the standard grains.
As we expand these markets for these specialty crops the bill is going to discriminate against some producers and thereby pit farmer against farmer when there are strikes or lockouts at the ports.
Motions Nos. 18 and 20 put forward by Reform have been open to attack, in particular from members of the fourth party, the NDP, saying they are unfair because they pertain to expansion of this restriction of strikes to protect the national economy.
In other words, if it can be shown that a strike or lockout has a profound impact on the national economy, it would not be allowed. Because of that, members of the NDP have suggested that we are being unfair to the unions and that no strikes would be allowed.
In fairness to their arguments, we cannot consider Motions Nos. 18, 20, 22 and 23 in isolation. We must consider them in tandem with the Group No. 8 motions, which have not yet been debated. These deal with Reform's proposal for final offer selection arbitration.
To make my point I refer to Hansard and quote the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on February 10, 1998:
In the province of Manitoba where I am from we actually had final offer selection legislation for a number of years.
The actual fact is in Manitoba FOS was used very sparingly. In fact, the Manitoba labour relations board received only 97 applications in all the time that it was legislation in that province. Of those 97 applications only 7 were ever ruled on by an FOS selector or arbitrator. Four went to the union package and three were in favour of the company in those rulings. In the vast majority of cases, 72 in all, the application was withdrawn because the parties returned to the bargaining table and found a satisfactory resolution by more convention means.
The point I am making is that by his very admission, the hon. member from the New Democratic Party is saying that final offer selection works. In 72 of those cases the parties returned to the bargaining table and ultimately reached a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. The process worked. I add that as further confirmation that the Reform amendments to this legislation deserve serious consideration by all parties. When it comes time to vote on these motions, I urge all members to consider that and vote accordingly.