Let me quickly respond.
I know that in the Ekati dispute the use of replacement workers did prolong the length of the dispute. If that hadn't been allowed, I think you would have seen a much quicker settlement. And yes, there were picket lines set up.
Often we've heard testimony that confuses the issues of a strike with the issue of replacement workers. Yes, there are issues surrounding a strike that people don't like, on both sides. But we're not talking about a strike here; we're talking about banning the use of replacement workers, as a preventative measure to ensure that we can actually focus on the issues of the strike and get it resolved more quickly.
I really feel that this point is being confused; a lot of the employer groups just keep on coming back to the issue of the impact of a strike. Well, yes, we know there impacts from a strike, but there's a legal right to strike, and that's not what we're debating here.