I would say a few things in response to what Mr. Bedard has said, and perhaps this is broader than just the comments he has made.
One of the things the committee seems to be concerned about is this issue of essential services. I noticed earlier that there was some discussion about the fact that the language of the Canada Labour Code doesn't actually reference the term “essential services”, but refers to “maintenance of activities”. There was some reference earlier to the language that talks about “immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public”.
Obviously, the United Steelworkers represents employees across Canada, and we obviously work in all of the jurisdictions across Canada. I can tell you that the language that is reflected in section 87.4 is language that is reflected in almost all of the statutes dealing with essential services across Canada. So the B.C. statute itself talks about having intervention where a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of B.C., and the process under the B.C. code is much the same as the process under the Canada Labour Code.
In addition to that, I would note that I know of more than one board decision in which the board itself has referred to this provision as an essential services provision. So I think the board would be surprised to find that this wasn't considered to be an essential services provision. In addition to that, I can tell you that having practised and having actually dealt with these kinds of applications, it has always been the case when I have appeared on these kinds of applications that they have been dealt with as essential services applications. Certainly there is nothing in this to distinguish them from the other kinds of essential services applications that you would find in B.C. or in Quebec or in Ontario. So I did want to comment on that.