Thank you very much.
I say this to Ms. Mathyssen. When I heard about this motion, I was super-supportive, as all of us were on this side. We were supportive because we believe the best deals are made at the table.
However, asking a minister to interfere with collective bargaining sets a precedent. What happens if there's a change of government, and you have a government that doesn't believe in collective bargaining? Do you want that minister sitting down and instructing one way or the other?
I think this could potentially be dangerous, and it will set a precedent. I went from being super-supportive of your motion and appreciating the importance of what you were trying to accomplish to having great concern with the amended and subamended motion, to the point that I'm not even certain I can vote for the entire motion now. That would be really sad, because I support exactly what you are trying to do; I just don't support the interference.
Having a minister encourage returning to the table and having a minister encourage both sides to come together for collective bargaining and a fair bargaining agreement is exactly what I think you want to accomplish, but I honestly feel that having a minister interfere in this is not a good precedent for us to set.