We believe this would enshrine the use of section 107 to break strikes, and we know that this section of the labour act has been in effect since 1984. Only in the last two years has it been used eight different times to break eight different strikes. In this particular case, we still have outstanding court actions, as you've heard some of my colleagues talk about. There are four court actions on this particular issue.
I want to point out that the ability to break a strike, as is contemplated under the new language in Bill C-39, section 107, in the second part, actually enshrines the ability to force workers back to work. That is a greater ability than any other G7 government has: the ability to enforce workers' return to work. Even the President of the United States does not have the ability to send workers back to work. They may have an opportunity to pause an ongoing labour dispute, but they don't actually have the ability to force those workers back without a vote in Congress. Therefore, this is going well beyond the point to which every other democracy we align ourselves with goes. This is hugely problematic because it removes the ability to have leverage at the bargaining table, to give both parties a need to get to the bargaining table and resolve complex issues.