Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member's speech. As a professor, he knows all of these issues very well with regard to solutions. In fact, I am sure he knows what I am going to refer to. It is a book I had to read when I was going to do negotiations. It is a Harvard tome called Getting to Yes, which talks about a win-win situation.
I am glad the hon. member talked about solutions, because what I wanted to say is we know that the postal workers want to go back to work if we stop the lockout. Let them go back to work, let them negotiate for a limited period of time with a timeline and then go to mediation or arbitration. What the bill will do is not allow that to happen, because it is going to set complete limits on any arbitrator trying to come up with some way to facilitate an agreement. That is what should stop.
We should make sure that they take away the piece that talks about future collective bargaining agreements for this particular group. If we did that, and if we could go to these Liberal amendments on the table, the government would then have to show that it means what it says and that it really wants a solution and is prepared to bend a bit and to come to a win-win situation.
What does the member think of that?