Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you all for being here today.
Ms. Davies touched on talking about unions, saying that a strike is the last resort for unions. She was reiterating what Ms. Ducharme said. It was the same thing. I would say that the same goes for employers. A strike or a lockout is the last resort for employers right now. I would say the situation that speaks to the balance we have right now is that, for both parties, a strike or a lockout is a last resort. When we start talking about removing the balance, which is what I think this legislation would do, it puts that in danger. It doesn't become a last resort from the union standpoint, but it makes it all the harder on employers.
I take a little bit of contention with the overall terminology that I hear regarding labour in general, like the term “workers”. We're all workers. We all work very hard. Whether you're talking about tradespeople who work very hard, whether you're talking about waiters or managers or small-business owners, CEOs, or even union leaders or stay-at-home parents for that matter, Canadians are hard-working people. We as parliamentarians need to approach this in the interest of all Canadians, not just one group. It's important for us to find a balance for all Canadians. Some of those Canadians are people who consume the telecommunications industry's offerings or transport services. They fly. They do all sorts of things. We don't live in isolation from each other.
A labour disagreement, by definition, is just that. It's a disagreement between two groups operating in their own self-interest, right? You have employees, a union, basically operating in the interests of the employees, and understandably, of course. And you have the employers operating in their business's interests.
It seems as though the other three parties and the labour leaders only take the side of one group of people on this issue, those they call “workers”, and all labour issues are the fault of employers.
Mr. Georgetti, you made a comment, something to the effect of there being no concern for workers who can't support their families if they get locked out or if they're on strike. I think it's fair to say that your organization sometimes doesn't show a lot of concern for business people who have worked very hard to build their businesses. Their businesses may be significantly damaged or even put under by a strike or by an unreasonable action. I'm not saying that all union actions are unreasonable, by any stretch, but some may be, just like some employer actions may be unreasonable. But it's not always the employers. Oftentimes, it's not an employer action, but a union action that may be unreasonable, and I think what we're dealing with here is a fundamental issue of fairness in terms of this imbalance.
I'd like to just go to FETCO for a second, and have you comment a little bit on what I've said in terms of the balance and how this legislation would topple that balance.