I'm glad you made that point, because it seems to me that there's something really weird going on here. All of a sudden we're now debating section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code, as though somehow no one has ever raised before that this section isn't able to do its job in terms of determining essential services appropriate to each case. There may be some rulings that people are not happy with, but that is actually not before us.
There's a real misnomer here that somehow you can only provide essential services if you have replacement workers. That's not completely the case, because we know that in most strikes replacement workers are not used. They use this provision under the Canada Labour Code in a legitimate way to determine what those essential services are without replacement workers.
So I feel this has entered into the debate and we need to really clear it up. We're not amending that section of the Canada Labour Code itself. It works quite well as far as I know. No one has raised any problems about it, and it does the job in terms of determining what essential services are. It's not dependent on whether or not replacement workers are used.
I think this needs to be very clear, because we're veering off on a very strange course here.