Mr. Speaker, I was reviewing the speech made by the hon. member when this bill was last debated in the House and I would like to comment on a couple of the things she stated.
First of all, and I am quoting from Hansard , she said: “I reject the view that collective bargaining is no longer relevant. The freedom of workers to organize and bargain collectively is a cornerstone of our democratic, market based society”.
She went on to suggest that Canadian employers have also benefited from the collective bargaining system. She said: “It helps to ensure stability, predictability and efficiency”. She goes on to state that 95% of collective agreements in Canada are negotiated without a work stoppage.
The problem is not with the 95% of the collective agreements which are settled without a work stoppage. The problem is the overwhelming impact of large national employers that represent the 5%. That is the stoppage we are worried about.
One side says do we penalize the 95% because of the problems created by the 5%? We say no, do not penalize anybody. Who says that something that started 150 years ago should carry on without change? Who says it should not be brought in at least to the 20th century as we approach the 21st?
Strikes and lockouts are not a part of collective bargaining. They are a result of the breakdown of collective bargaining. Strikes and lockouts are a form of coercion used by one side or the other to try to return to real collective bargaining.
What we need is a dispute settlement mechanism which works without causing catastrophic harm to Canadians, to Canadian workers, to Canadian business, to the Canadian economy and to our international reputation of having reliable suppliers.
She uses the words reliability, certainty and efficiency in her speech, but what we need is something which absolutely ensures Canadians that—