I absolutely disagree that it's moot, because you already admitted that a replacement worker cannot necessarily, in a lot of jobs, replace the skill set that was there with the people who are on strike. It's not a moot job. What you said earlier in your presentation was that the only recourse for the company under this new legislation would be to get back to the table and negotiate, because they have no other recourse. But the employee has recourse by going on strike and getting another job. I don't think that is fair, so I think there should be a change.
The only other thing I want to let you know is that the public service came to see me in my office. I asked them directly when the last time was that they were on strike. They gave me a number of dates when they've been on strike, and I asked them when the Government of Canada has ever replaced the workers. It has never happened that they know of. The people I was speaking to could be wrong, but they were the heads of the union, so I'm assuming they're right.
My point is, why would we want to change the legislation when, in your own numbers, you say there are strikes only about 3% of the time? In the vast majority of cases, it's almost impossible for replacement workers to do the job that is there, so are we not wasting a lot of time on an issue that is not of public importance at this particular time, based on the review that was done in 1990?
Am I all done?