Thank you. I will be very brief. I echo David's comments that we appreciate that you have allowed us to come before you today.
My perspective is somewhat narrower, and it is that of an employer who has bargaining unit members who may well be implicated in this whole process. So I would start by saying I support David's comments about the need for rigorous consultation and analysis of the whole framework of labour relations in this country before moving forward. In Bill C-257, it seems to me, one has to ask the question about things like essential services—I know you have heard about these from other people—the requirement to bargain in good faith, and the potential for upward pressure on public sector wage rates. To me, it comes down to a very simple question: how does this bill make the framework better? When I read it, I can't find a good answer to that question.
I would point out that I see a number of references to the provincial models, and I would echo some of the comments you heard earlier today that the provincial models may not be appropriate. Some of the comments say those bills were passed in provincial jurisdictions and days lost to strike went down, but I haven't seen anything that talks about cause and effect. Would an employer capitulate and sign an agreement they might not otherwise sign in the absence of this kind of legislation? I would argue that may well be the case.
In the interests of time I'm going to cut to the only image I would ask you to consider. In our 2005-06 annual report we reported that there were about 140 million transits across our bridges in the greater Montreal area. As I read section 87.4, the definition of essential services, it is arguably the case that we could not define those bridges as an essential service. While it may sound somewhat circular, we might then close the bridges in the best interests of public safety. I would just ask you to keep in mind an image of 140 million transits per year and the bridges in the greater Montreal area closed. If this is a result of Bill C-257, I fail to see that it's a good result.
Thank you.