Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my fellow brothers in the trade union movement.
I am someone who has come out of the trade union movement in this country. Prior to the post I hold now in this Parliament, I was a member of the leadership of the Canadian Auto Workers in this country, which is the largest private sector union.
I understand when you talk about private sector unions. I also understand when you talk about public sector unions. But I don't understand when you suggest, as you just did, that somehow free trade agreements or trade agreements are meaningless to public sector workers. I beg to differ with you, because a flourishing economy has a flourishing public sector. The public sector depends upon the private sector in nearly all countries--certainly in this country, and perhaps you can explain to me if it's different in Colombia--and can only exist if it is flourishing, because it needs that tax base; it needs those folks to actually pay the public sector.
The government here--and I'm sure the Colombian government--pays public sector workers. Since they provide service to the general public, they don't produce particular goods to sell to folks. They intrinsically provide services to the general public.
So I take a different tack when it comes to the public sector, because I would suggest to you, my fellow brothers, that they are our sisters and brothers in solidarity. I hope you would want to see them in that way.
But I listened to you and heard the statement I have heard before--my honourable colleague Monsieur Godin talked about it earlier--about the number of deaths, and you made a subgroup of trade union leaders. You said that only six per 100,000 of the general population die, yet in the general population it's 33.
An economist taught me a long time ago how to do figures, and you can do your sums all kinds of different ways. When you generate only one subgroup, you actually misrepresent what that means in totality, because you have to take it as a whole. Mr. Cardin was asking that very question, which, I hate to say--I say it with all due respect to my fellow brothers--you ignored. The number six out of 100,000 is based on a factor of 800,000 trade unionists, not on a population of 45 million. The number 33 is based on a population of 45 million. The percentage is therefore higher for trade unionists versus the general population.
Consequently, through your own words, you provide--as you said your government has--protection to trade union workers. If you're providing trade union workers protection, that says to me--albeit from afar, and it is me looking from afar--that somehow you believe the trade union workers are imperiled. I don't think you would go to the expense of providing the protection if they weren't in peril. I'd find that difficult to comprehend as a trade unionist.
So I say with great respect to my brothers that one needs to bring solidarity among the unions in your country so you have a united position rather than a divided position, similar to what we try to do here.
Now, we're not suggesting that everyone is going to be in lockstep. You hold a different position, and that's okay. I was interested to hear you say, though, that you speak for all workers. If CAW council president Ken Lewenza of Toronto told this government today in Canada that he speaks for all workers across this country, the government would say, “No, you don't. You speak for the 240,000 you represent and not for all workers.” You say you represent 10% of the organized workers in Colombia, yet you say you speak for the other 90%. I find that hard to fathom.
Can you perhaps explain to me why you believe you speak for the 90% of workers you don't represent, especially in light of the fact that the CUT doesn't agree with you, and they represent six times more workers than you do?