—and we think that very much demonstrates the balance that Sims struck between the various competing issues in terms of labour law reform.
We understand that section 87.4 has been discussed quite a bit at these hearings and has been mistakenly characterized as ensuring essential services. We sought and have a legal opinion on this, and it clearly demonstrates that section 87.4 was never intended to cover essential services, and that it does not do so.
The banning of replacement workers, thereby upsetting the balance achieved by Sims, would cause a return to the time in the federal sector when emergency back-to-work legislation was a fairly regular occurrence. With that, we expect further complaints by the Canadian labour movement to the ILO regarding interference with the process of free collective bargaining.
Finally, we'd like to add that by banning temporary replacement workers, we must be mindful of the fact that it does more than ban outside workers, it bans bargaining unit employees from crossing the picket line. It would effectively force dissenting members of the striking bargaining unit—including employees who are not members of the trade union—to associate with the trade union and those bargaining unit members who support the strike. This is a form of legislative coercion that raises serious freedom of association concerns.
Freedom of association is a cornerstone of the ILO's international labour standards. In fact, it is referenced in the preamble of the Canada Labour Code. Freedom of association is also protected by paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thank you.