I just want to say that I don't think there's any dispute that a social agreement with the aboriginal community, and the benefits of work and a major employer, are very important. That's not what we're debating here today; we're debating whether or not we need to have a bill that disallows replacement workers.
We've heard a lot about how this will make a balanced situation unbalanced and tip the scale the wrong way. I'm curious, when there's a lockout by the employer and the unionized members are forced out, does the union get to say whether or not the members stay there? I don't think so.
So when it goes the other way and there's a lockout, there's no right of those members to stay on the job, is there?