You mentioned chaos and devastation. I'm from Quebec, and if I were to go by what I've just heard, I'd better go get my kids before it all comes crumbling down. I would suggest Mr. Kelly-Gagnon take a deep breath; it might calm him down a bit.
The role of a lawmaker and parliamentarian is to ensure that Canadians have a better quality of life. The goal is not to be a scaremonger or alarmist. As a matter of fact, the more you do that, the less credible you are. We should instead be asking what the true definition of the word “balance” is. Statistics show whatever you want them to show. The issue here is social harmony, a decent environment not just economically but also in terms of labour management relations. We have to ask ourselves whether we've done everything that needed to be done.
Mr. McDermott mentioned the Sims report. There was the issue of Mr. Blouin. He said that everything had been settled, except for the issue of strikebreakers. This kind of decent debate is to be expected, without descending into panic or sensationalism. I've been in politics for 25 years and I'm from Quebec. I don't know what you've got against florists; they contribute to the economy too. I don't see any signs of trouble when I go to Quebec. There's no war, no chaos, no total destruction. In my opinion, we have to calm down a bit and deal with the real issues.
In the proposed bill, two things interest me. Are we capable of maintaining a decent relationship among worker, union and employer? Above all, we must not forget Canadians, who, by the way, are also workers and employers. In my view, the issue of essential services, which is central to all kinds of debates, is crucial.
Ms. Carbonneau, Mr. Roy and the rest of you, you have experienced the situation in Quebec, but not in a vacuum. You know what's going on in the rest of Canada and elsewhere. You belong to international organizations that sign agreements, deal with freedom of association, etc.
Mr. Facette, section 87.4 is important. It provides that anything that has to do with public health and safety must be covered by essential services. In the event of strike or lockout, the employer and employees are required to agree within 15 days on the issue of essential services, in a collective agreement or bargaining. We are of course going to look into whether we went far enough and whether that is consistent with what exists currently.
Mr. Facette and Mr. Kelly-Gagnon, you've got something against unions. You seem very aggressive to me. If you worked for a company and there was a strike or lockout—which is a tool the employer can use—and you were replaced by someone else, would you find that acceptable?
Ultimately, the goal here is to determine whether or not we agree on having strikebreakers. Do we find it acceptable, while the employer and union are trying to negotiate a solution, for workers, except for essential services, to be replaced by other personnel?
I'd like to hear what Mr. Kelly-Gagnon and Mr. Facette have to say.