I think that a good part of your deliberations will deal with the issue of definitions, which is what we are talking about. The problem we have with the bill according to our interpretation after we reviewed it, is precisely that there is a lack of clarification and definitions. As you very well know, broadcasting undertakings are enterprises which are becoming increasingly portable. As you know, people don't only listen to the radio or watch television in their homes anymore; they now have access to the media almost everywhere, because of the portability of devices which make broadcasts available. As a result, there are now more and more opportunities for receiving broadcasts. People count on these services and increasingly depend on them.
That being said, I would like to come back to the gist of your question, which is how to address this situation in an intelligent way so that the services continue to be provided without interruption. As you know, the Quebec legislation goes further than the one on British Columbia. It includes several provisions dealing with the Conseil des services essentiels, with the way parties must agree, with procedure, but also with the substance of the matter. Unfortunately, this level of detail is not present in the bill which is before us. What we find unfortunate is that the bill tries to find common ground, or tries to establish some degree of commonality between the Canada Labour Code and the Quebec Labour Code. But the bill is not complete because it does not really allow you, in our opinion, to study it the way it should.
To conclude, I feel we are being sincere with you since we see that you are trying to find definitions or additional clarification. But for now, as far as the bill as currently worded is concerned, we unfortunately cannot say much about texts or definitions which are not there. Unfortunately, drawing on hypotheses is not necessarily the best way to conclude this discussion.