Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, gentlemen.
I find that the parliamentary secretary's question is nothing short of absurd. When you have people here representing hundreds of thousands of workers across this country, you would think you'd actually understand the fact that these bargained benefits were done through the open market. Ironically, it's a conservative, right-wing think tank that's basically pushing a new settlement from the private sector to negotiate openly.
You don't need to apologize for the fact that you have actually provided benefits for your workers. You have provided a number of different health care services. You have provided legal services for those who are in need. You have made donations. Look at 1973 in my riding. General Motors workers are losing their jobs in 2010 and they actually had the record for donating to the United Way. This is the reality on the ground floor and not some of these things here.
I'd point out as well that back in 2003 it was the CAW that pushed for getting back in gear. The first discussion paper that was actually presented, and the precursor to CAPC, noted that we had to do more than just large corporate tax cuts. A paper was commissioned from the parliamentary research division that showed the corporate tax cuts from 2000 and 2005 were supposed to be $4 billion, but at the end of the day they turned out to be $10 billion, so $6 billion--more than was expected--went out the door.
You just finished a negotiated settlement. Some are criticizing some of that settlement, but you actually reached it in record time. Can you highlight some of the things you've come to the table with, and also in the past? There was other work done in the last collective agreement to close the gap to make sure productivity was very high.