Thank you, Mr. Lake. I think we can take another fact into consideration. Let us compare salary increases for employees under federal jurisdiction over the last few years to those for employees who are subject to anti-strike breaker legislation. I think that this is an interesting fact.
Wages increased by 2.5% in 2005 at the federal level. In Ontario, they went up by 2.3%, and in Quebec, 2.4%. Can anyone really maintain that employees under federal jurisdiction have the lowest wages, when compared to what is happening in the provinces, and that their wages are not comparable? I believe not. I believe that everyone can agree that there is a kind of balance in this respect, whether the person is a federal or a provincial employee. Whatever jurisdiction the workers are in, it works well. That is another important fact.
One could say that there is a problem if replacement workers did not have good wages compared to the others and did not benefit from the same wage. However, that problem does not exist. I will give those figures again. The percentages were 2.5% at the federal level, 2.3% for Ontario, 2.4% for Quebec and 2.3% in British Columbia, in 2005. In fact, you can see that the federal figure is slightly higher.
Let me tell you, sir, about another aspect. Once the bill had gone through second reading, business people started to realize what was going on. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony, stated the following:
This is a so-called remedy without a problem. And it's a remedy that will come back to cause great problems because it could result in the shutting down of vital transportation, telecommunications and financial services that are the backbone of our economy and which Canadians rely on.
Last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 90% of small- and medium-sized businesses, issued a similar opinion, stating that this had to stop because it did not make any sense. Moreover, Bill C-257 does not address essential services.
This is why you should not even do a clause-by-clause study of this bill, you should reject it. It does not make any sense.