Madame Lavallée, the reason for the proposal is initially that the code requires that the parties, before they start to bargain collectively, have to address the issue of the maintenance of activities agreement. As I stated before, we attempted to do that with the employer prior to negotiations starting. The employer—in this case, CN—said they didn't think there were any services that were essential for us to maintain, so that was the end of that. Both sides agreed, and neither side applied to the board to argue for an order otherwise.
However, as we move closer and closer to the strike deadline of February 9, it has become apparent, as we've seen in The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star, that the passenger community is extremely worried about getting to and from work. It's the same in some stories in The Gazette. But our issue is not with the travelling public, the riding public, the riders and users of GO Transit, or of AMT in Quebec, in Montreal. It's with the employer, CN Rail.
It's not our intention to hold the travelling public hostage in a dispute that we have but which they have nothing to do with. We went back to the employer, CN, because they run the crews for GO Transit, for example, and AMT. They're our members under contract. We proposed to CN that we find the solution to the problem of these riders being caught up in a labour dispute so that they won't get stuck.
In other words, we went back to CN again and proposed that we look at a maintenance of activities agreement for the commuter services. We're still waiting for an answer. The commuter population that uses the service is hanging in the balance at the moment as we await an answer. I understand that CN is going to be here tomorrow in front of the committee, so perhaps you can ask CN tomorrow if they have an answer. We'd like to know as well.