Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us today to study this very important bill. Personally, it's very close to my heart. I think I have a slightly different position from you on this issue.
You've all recognized the fundamental right of workers to exercise pressure tactics and strike. You also talked about balance. Mr. Lewis, you talked about fair bargaining. I think these are notions we can all agree on.
Workers' associations and collective bargaining were made legal in Canada in 1872. This made it possible to civilize labour relations and collectively negotiate contracts in the interests of both parties, even if sometimes one party gains a little more than the other. This has reduced arbitrariness and generally improved the lot of workers.
Much of what we now call the middle class is the result of those decades of negotiation between the two sides to ensure that corporate profits don't just go into the pockets of owners and shareholders, but are shared a little more equally between those who do the work and those who own the factory or company.
Much of this better-shared collective wealth is the result of balance at the bargaining table, where both sides are able to exert pressure on the other, economic or financial pressure. When workers decide to strike, they put pressure on their employer by slowing down or stopping the company's production. When the employer wants to demand concessions from its employees, it can lock them out, which puts pressure on them, since they go without pay and have to rely on their strike fund. This balance of power makes it possible to negotiate at the table and reach a compromise that is satisfactory to both parties, or unsatisfactory to both. That's the nature of compromise, sometimes.
In a strike or lockout, when workers who are out on the street are replaced by scabs, replacement workers, the balance of power is upset. The employer has an undeniable advantage, because production or services are maintained, while the worker on the street sees his balance of power considerably reduced. It's all to the advantage of the employers, who no longer have any reason to return to the bargaining table. This imbalance means that, most of the time, disputes last much longer. Why would the employer return to the bargaining table if his production continues, if his revenues are not affected and if he has no reason to negotiate with the workers' association?
Mr. Lewis, if we want fair negotiations, there has to be a fair balance of power between the two parties, right?