Dedicated as you are, you have undertaken a comprehensive review of Part I, but to my mind it is an unfinished job. You have already held lengthy discussions and implemented your consultation process on replacement workers. Indeed, minority recommendations were issued, but as I said the other day, you cannot reinvent the wheel.
In other words, we have already heard both sides of the argument and have been through it with a fine tooth comb. There is no need to strike another task force on replacement workers as the matter has already been addressed by Andrew Sims and Rodrigue Blouin.
The unions will always be in the yes camp and the employers in the no camp—they have specific interests to protect.
That being said, Ms. Hughes Anthony, you raised a very relevant question on proposed subsection (2.4). We are prepared to amend it to ensure that it is consistent with subsection 87.4. The wording of the clause, which I will read to you, is very clear, and I think it answers your question. I think I will be of assistance to you today.
87.4(1) During a strike or a lock-out not prohibited by this part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary...
And this is the important bit for you.
...to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.
The meaning is as it says. If during a strike or a lock-out a threat to public health and safety arises, the requisite goods and services must be provided. I think that answers your question. The problem is that it is a telecommunications issue. While we are on the subject, 911 calls are a matter of provincial, not federal jurisdiction. The provincial legislation on the matter is already very clear.
However, if you do perceive problems relating to telecommunications, we should redefine essential services—after all, society is evolving and there are new ways of doing things. That is why we should focus on expertise.
I have a couple of quick questions. I would ask Mr. Vaudreuil and Ms. Bourque to give us the union's viewpoint, and then Ms. Hughes Anthony could give us the employer's view.
What do you understand by balance? When you consider that an employer can enforce a lock-out and, thanks to strikebreakers, can make it last a long time, I wonder if we do have balance.
As for the unions, what assurances can you offer on the matter of balance regarding replacement workers and strike breakers? Could it not be argued that strike breakers give greater power to the unions?
I am playing the devil's advocate because, to my mind, hiring replacement workers makes no sense for all sorts of reasons. It is probably because of my cultural background—I come from Quebec where this debate has already been held. Our understanding of the matter is different, perhaps because, with the exception of British Columbia and Ontario, the rest of the country has not really debated the issue.
I would ask Mr. Vaudreuil, and perhaps also Ms. Bourque and Ms. Hughes Anthony, to briefly explain to us what they understand by balance. What actually does it mean?