Thank you very much.
First of all, to Monsieur Nadeau, thank you very much for coming today. It's a pleasure to have you here.
This is a very important bill. Thank you for putting it forward in the House of Commons. It received a very significant vote, so I feel there's a responsibility and a weight to the work we are taking on here, because a significant number of members of Parliament have supported this bill in principle, and we're now here to look at the details.
You have characterized your bill as creating a level playing field and a fair situation. I would certainly agree with you on that. When workers go on strike legally, it's not an easy decision, and the worst thing that can happen is when strikebreakers or replacement workers are brought in. The conflict, the violence, the upset that can create for individual workers and the union members as a whole is something we have seen over the years when we haven't had this legislation. So I very much see this legislation, if it were approved, as a preventative measure, as something that produces stability.
Being from British Columbia, where we've had similar legislation in place for a number of years, I would say we have seen greater stability. Where we've seen ongoing problems has been in the federal jurisdiction, whether it's the Telus workers or the CBC lockout, where, because they were federally regulated, they didn't have any protection.
The purpose of this bill is to provide very important measures to protect the rights of workers and ensure a level playing field.
I wonder if you have any information about what has happened in other industrialized countries. I assume Canada is not alone in this idea of dealing with replacement workers. Most other industrialized countries would have similar provisions to this. I wonder if you could speak to that.
Secondly, in the background notes there was a reference to one particular section that apparently is causing some confusion, that's section 94(2.4), where it's not clear what that section is referring to. So I was just wondering if you are able to clarify what the purpose of that particular section is and whether or not--it's the section that refers to the use of managerial employees, and it's not clear what other section you're referring to. So could you clarify that?