Maybe I can pick up where Monsieur Lessard left off, because my earlier question to Mr. Vaydik was concerning the north.
You mentioned the diamond mine and the history there. But in the case of the recent labour dispute at the Ekati diamond mine, we're talking about a multinational corporation that has raked in huge profits, and there were issues there about replacement workers.
I just want to put this to you again. Monsieur Lessard has raised the issue of essential services, and there is a provision in this bill linked to the labour code about how they are defined. But I believe there are some very strong arguments that, in places that are very remote, where it's very hard to set up a picket line and it's easy for the employer to fly people in as replacement workers, this kind of legislation becomes very important as a preventative measure.
We've heard a lot of testimony here from witnesses who point out that most employers won't need this legislation. Hopefully, you won't have that many applications before your board. But there are instances where disputes take place and replacement workers are brought in and where that becomes the focus of the dispute, rather than settling the strike. That's one of the strong arguments for this bill.
I'd like to ask Mr. Vaydik to respond as to why this isn't actually a preventative tool, particularly given remote locations.