Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Thank you to the minister for appearing today on this very important bill.
You made a comment about the length of time that the witnesses have. I would say that I'm not aware that it's different from panels or lengths of time that witnesses have on other subjects or bills. I think we're using the normal procedures to deal with this bill and to hear from witnesses.
However, based on your comments and hearing what you had to say today, your central point seems to me to be that you want to maintain the current balance. You talked a lot about “maintaining the balance”. I think this is a very central question to this bill, because the way I see it is that as it stands now, the lack of anti-strike-breaker legislation means that there isn't an adequate balance. When workers legally take strike action and then they see that replacement workers can be brought in, it seems to me that's what creates a lack of balance. It's something that then provides a major tool in favour of an employer to break the strike that has been legally constructed and legally taken. I think many of us see the anti-strike-breaker legislation as something that actually does maintain the balance. It does create a level playing field.
I'm quite surprised that the federal government, your department as the minister, would play into this climate of fear that I think is being created by some employers that this legislation is going to create chaos. That's what's underlying the messages that we see in the advertisements and that I'm sure we're going to hear about from some people today. It seems that you are adding to the message that it will be a climate of confusion and chaos. People will obviously be fearful of that.
What you haven't said is that where we have anti-strike-breaker legislation there is a process. For example, in B.C., where I'm from, there is a process for looking at what is regarded as essential services. On your example of looking at airport services, for example, in a federal jurisdiction, if this bill came into effect--we obviously have to look at amendments and so on--from what we know from other legislation, there obviously would be a mechanism to deal with essential components. I mean, we have that now in other jurisdictions. Again, that is something that's part of a level playing field and a balanced approach. I'm really surprised at the line you are taking here in terms of saying that you are maintaining a balance but actually being against a bill that would actually create a level playing field.
Secondly, I take it from your comments that you do support the principle of replacement workers. You do believe that they should be able to come in and in effect disrupt a legal strike. In hearing your words today, that's really what you're saying by speaking against this legislation. Are we to assume that you do support replacement workers, and that the employer should have the right to do that?