You say it's imbalanced. Nearly half a decade of work went into the current legislation. Since 1999 there's been no back-to-work legislation imposed. You even said we only have a 3% strike and lockout rate right now.
Witnesses on all sides have said that this piece of legislation we have in front of us is flawed. Even people who are in favour of the legislation have said that it's flawed. There's no essential services provision. There's none. There is confusion between the French and English versions, total discontinuity in fact. There are different interpretations as to what clause 2.4 actually means. I think we've developed a clear understanding now that it means managers can't even work, beyond turning on the lights.
So the question I have is what's the point of this? I think it's been asked by some of the other witnesses today. What's the point of the legislation? Paul Forder from CAW, who you might know, came before us prior to Christmas, and I think he shed some light on this. Something he said, talking about clause 2.4, was,
If the operation can't function with replacement workers, that's fine with us. We'll be able to get a settlement earlier. That's something that all members should be interested in pursuing. That's the whole purpose of the legislation.
The whole purpose of the legislation is basically one-sided. It's to create a one-sided situation.
Mr. Bell, I want to speak to you for a second about the balance, and I'm particularly interested in your situation. Can you speak to the balance that exists now versus the balance that would exist under this legislation? For example, if the union were to go on strike, what options would you have as a company under this new legislation, this proposed legislation?