Thank you.
If you look at the various methods that have been attempted to resolve bargaining disputes over the years and you follow the history of strikes in Canada and some of its alternatives, including interest arbitration, final-offer selection, and other attempts to come up with an alternative, you'll find that nothing has ever replaced the strike and lockout option as a perfectly balanced way of testing what's important to either side of the bargaining table. The beauty of the strike option--and it's maybe a strange word, but it fits--is that it is equally distasteful and disruptive to both sides.
The entire history of Canadian labour relations and labour legislation, with the exception of B.C. and Quebec and Ontario briefly, has been with the strike and lockout option existing in the context of replacement workers temporarily being available. And it has worked. There's no doubt that labour organizations have made significant gains. They seem to have prospered and expanded without the need for a ban on replacement workers.
If you change that balance, you are bound to have a consequence. Nothing happens without consequences in today's modern economy. In our view, it is bound to be ill-advised where one side is vehemently against it.