Mr. Pennings, I wanted to quickly get your comments on some testimony we heard with respect to this bill and its impact on the hard-earned balance that currently exists in labour negotiations.
Ms. Braker made a comment today that sounded very familiar. Back in one of the earlier meetings we had Paul Forder as a witness from the CAW. When he was asked about the fact that even managers wouldn't be allowed to work to keep their own businesses afloat under this proposed legislation, his answer was:
If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.
Today Ms. Braker commented in regard to the importance of this to the union. I believe she said that this will allow us to “strike effectively”. It sounds very similar.
Is it fair to suggest that if this bill is passed, it would tip the balance in favour of the union, so as to create an imbalance that would offer little choice to the employer, but to give in or shut down?