Thank you very much.
First of all, thank you to the witnesses for coming today from B.C.
I have a couple of observations. I think it's important to note in looking at this bill that we have two pieces of legislation in existence, in B.C. and Quebec, that we can learn a lot from. I think that's very important. A number of the witnesses today have spoken about how they don't like strikes and what they do. Well, nobody likes strikes. Not even workers like strikes. They're used as a last resort. That's a given.
I think what we need to establish is what is working on the ground, and what's happening in British Columbia and in Quebec is something that is of genuine interest and value, for us to determine what it is we need to do at the federal level in terms of this bill. I think Mr. Sinclair made a very important observation in that quotation saying that a mature collective bargaining relationship does not use replacement workers.
I think there's an irony there. The irony is that somehow, if you can bring in replacement workers, you will be furthering your cause, and that you will be moving your company further ahead or will be dealing with the problems you have. What I find very interesting in both of these provinces is that the evidence is really strong that legislation that bans replacement workers actually produces a stable environment. I really haven't heard anybody dispute that. You may not like it and you may, just as a political thing, go back to the government and say you don't like this stuff, but I haven't actually heard anybody argue that the legislation in B.C. doesn't work.
So I think the observation Mr. Sinclair made is a really important one, that banning replacement workers actually does ensure that a labour dispute is resolved in a much more reasonable and rational way. I would argue that the Telus dispute, for example, because we didn't have a ban on replacement workers, went on much longer and was quite nasty. That's why it's important to learn from what has happened.
I'd like to go back to Mr. Sinclair, because I think you got cut off when you were trying to explain what it is that this legislation in B.C. actually does. I don't know how familiar you are with the Quebec model, but if you feel that you can compare them, please do. I feel that we need to understand how this legislation is working in B.C. and why it has produced the kind of stability that people have spoken about. So I invite you to basically continue with your comments on that.