Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into my questions and comments, I wanted to note of two things. One is that Ms. Lavallée refers to the fact that this bill has been introduced 10 times. I would note that it was unsuccessful 10 times, and that might be an indication of why they keep repeating it. If it clearly cannot be passed the first number of times, perhaps there is something deeply flawed about this legislation.
As well, I hope that during our discussion, for the remainder of this time, we can refer to people as replacement workers and not as scabs, as I think the term “scab” is not included in the legislation and is a rather derogatory remark. It's a dehumanizing comment that I don't think should be appropriately used in this discussion.
I want to approach this from a top-down or a “big perspective” bird's-eye view.
I've been listening to this testimony for some time and I've been hearing the unions say that the genuine benefit of this legislation is that it will increase labour peace and reduce violence. And yet the statistics that we're given repeatedly suggest the very contrary; that there would be no increase in labour peace. In fact, all the evidence suggests there would be more work stoppages and strikes of longer duration if this bill were to proceed.
In terms of violence, one of the previous witnesses suggested that we've moved beyond that in labour relations in Canada, and that violence is really no longer an issue.
So I'm struggling with understanding the real motivation behind the introduction of this bill and why certain groups are so strongly supporting it when the evidence is so strong to the contrary.
On the other side, I see people repeatedly telling us, as witnesses and in evidence submitted to this committee, that the consequences of adopting this legislation are dramatic, that they're enormous on a domestic level and on an international level.
Domestically it would put essential services at risk. We're talking about emergency services; we're talking about access to isolated communities, as was mentioned by a previous witness; we're talking about transportation of food. Airlines and all kinds of things would be put at risk. The consequences sound tremendous.
And of course, on the other side the unions are saying that's over-exaggerated, that those statements are unrealistic.
It would seem to me that if there is even a remote possibility that these consequences could occur, it's a very serious thing to be considered, and I have trouble just setting those statements aside.
Another possible consequence that needs to be considered is the impact on competitiveness. We've had witnesses coming in saying that if they had to operate under this legislation they would not be able to compete with their U.S. and Mexican counterparts.
There are tremendous impacts on investment. We work in a global economy, and investors look at countries around the world to choose to invest in. We want Canada to be a competitive place to do business, and yet people are saying repeatedly that this would reduce our competitiveness.
Finally, and most recently, we have Mr. McDermott and others saying that to adopt this legislation would undermine the delicate balance that has been crafted over many years—this tripartite process of involving government, labour, and business—and the consequence of this would be to invite retaliation, as was said, or it would result in a pendulum swing and change in labour relations.
All that being said, I want to hear from some of these witnesses whether this is correct. Am I understanding the possible benefits and consequences from the right perspective? Before we drill down, I want to make sure we have the big picture in mind.
Ms. Nancy Hughes Anthony or Mr. McDermott, I'd appreciate your comments.