Your response is very interesting because I think it gives us some illumination as to why this amendment to the Canada Labour Code is actually necessary, to make it very clear what the ground rules are, because in your mind, you didn't use replacement workers. But I think the information is pretty clear that they were not actually employees of your organization, so they were replacement workers and it did create an imbalance.
I think that kind of nuance becomes very important, and that's why it's important to have something spelled out in the labour code.
Similarly, in your brief, you questioned the strike vote. You said it wasn't an independent strike vote, and yet it seems to me the question is, is a strike vote legal or not? Maybe you can answer that.
If Ekati didn't think it was legal, presumably they could have challenged it under the Canada Labour Code by filing a complaint under section 87.3. I don't think the company did that. So it sort of leaves us with the impression that somehow this strike vote was not legitimate, and yet it was something that was entirely legal and even the company itself didn't challenge it. Is that correct?