First of all, I don't believe the data show anything. I think this is a classic example of being able to use data to show whatever you want.
I started to look at the data published by the Quebec labour department--which does break down federal and provincial--and came to the conclusion that you couldn't come to any conclusion, which is the same conclusion Mr. Blouin came to. I don't think having replacement workers one way or another is relevant to the number of strikes, the frequency of strikes, or the man-days lost.
I think many other factors determine whether you're going to have a stable labour relations climate. It could be the issues the employer and the union have to deal with. It could be the number of unions in the bargaining place. It could be the relationship over the years. There are many factors that go into determining whether a labour relationship is going to be a stable or an unstable one. I'm not going to suggest out of hand that the existence or lack of existence of replacement workers is not a factor; it can be a factor, but it's certainly not the sole factor, and I doubt very much, based on the data, that it's an overriding factor.
When you look, the industries in Quebec are more comparable with the industries in Ontario and B.C. than they are with the federal jurisdiction, so that makes the more sensible comparison.
Also, I would say the data need a lot of interpretation. The raw data, in my opinion, can be a bit misleading. There were 163 strikes in Quebec last year; that sounds like Lord knows what the devil was going on in Quebec. Part of that is because HRSDC counted a whole pile of what I will call rotating or selective strikes in the public service as separate strikes. If you look at 163 strikes in Quebec and five strikes under federal jurisdiction--the comparable figure--you'd say, “My God, look at that. There's nobody working in Quebec.”
That's the problem with these data. They require some interpretation. As a matter of fact—