Thank you for the opportunity. I didn't realize I only had one minute left.
In terms of making our best argument on this subject matter, the preamble of the code lays it out very clearly: you can't read the anti-replacement-worker legislation or the replacement worker section of the code independent of anything else. You have to read it together. When Mr. Sims put it together, he said that section 87.4 says you have to do this. Even though we've heard other language that says we don't have to, we believe we have to. On the maintenance of activities, we're mandated. We take that responsibility seriously.
On the other hand, we now have an employer who can bring in replacement workers, and the only way to challenge that in the code is to prove that they're doing it to undermine us. I don't believe they need replacement workers. I believe that gives the employer the opportunity they didn't have before, and it's coming to fruition—that's exactly what's happened.
So it's a question of balance. When you look at those two competing clauses in the labour code, it clearly favours the employer. That's why our position is that the replacement worker legislation should be passed.