Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There has been some discussion among committee members today about whether or not section 87.4 protects telecommunications as an essential service. I just think it's important for all members to know that the board itself has ruled that telecommunications is not an essential service. The concerns we've been hearing from the telecom industry today about the impact it would have on the safety of Canadians is very real. It's not hypothetical.
It's also important to focus on what the impact on ordinary Canadians would be if this legislation were to pass. As an aside, it's ironic that this committee is now looking at this legislation for the tenth time. It has been rejected nine times before. It's hard to imagine how things have changed enough that we should now adopt this legislation.
I want to focus again on how ordinary Canadians would be affected. At the end of the day, we have to think in terms of the global impact on Canadians in general, as well as on labour peace.
What I've been hearing from people like you, Mr. Jennery, is that if there's a strike and it's not even in your industry—it's not even a grocery strike or it's not even your unionized workers who are striking, it's some other section, some other industry that has a hiccup—then in terms of labour relations, the consequences for your industry are tremendous. They're indirect, but they have a direct effect nonetheless.
WIth a business background, I understand the whipsaw effect that can occur when those kinds of hiccups are introduced into a just-in-time supply chain, and how the cost to consumers and to business and to employees is tremendous. I would like the members of the associations here to comment on and elaborate on my general question: what are the ordinary consequences to Canadians in terms of higher costs, loss of jobs, loss of emergency services, and those sorts of things?