Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me first say that as I listened to some of the stories about some of the things that happen in strikes, I'm reminded a little bit of what Winston Churchill said about democracy. He said that democracy is the worst system devised by the mind of man, except for all the others. Of course, were he saying it today, he would probably say “the mind of people”, right, and be more gender neutral.
It strikes me that strikes are like that. They are a very imperfect process as a way to resolve a dispute. I think everyone here supports the right to strike, and we recognize that collective bargaining is important, but you sometimes have to wish there were a different process for resolving disputes among employers and employees about issues related to their collective agreements.
You may want to comment on that in a moment, but let me speak for a moment about one of the provisions of this bill. In proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the bill it states:
The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).
My understanding of what this provision would do is that it essentially means an employer could use managers or other workers who are not on strike to do work to make sure, for instance, that the trains did not fall apart, that they were painted or whatever, but not to keep them running, or not to ensure that the electricity was provided or that telecommunications services were provided on an ongoing basis.
It seems to me that's a concern. It seems to me that should not be what we should be trying to achieve here. What is your view on that? Do you really agree with that provision?
I guess I will ask Mr. Dénommé and Mr. Forder particularly. Mr. Whyte is anxious to answer, so we'll let him.