Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be speaking against the motion. I will not be supporting it.
Mr. Chair, there's no need for our committee to study whether we should have replacement workers during a strike. The reality is that either you believe it or you don't. I have very strongly said that there is no need to bring in replacement workers. In fact, during a strike or a lockout it can be quite disruptive. It prolongs strikes. There's no benefit to the working relationships within those particular sites as well.
I realize there are some issues of concern that people have raised. I know the issue of essential services has also been raised a number of times by members of the committee and the witnesses.
The only way one can contemplate there being a study is if the minister were to say he is going to have a study for three or four months, bring all the players together, and then bring in legislation. But the government is not planning to do part B. How can you support having a committee go through the studies and trying to finesse the language that might be needed for this legislation without there also being a plan B that the minister will bring in legislation? A study for the sake of studying, without any proposal by the government to bring in legislation, tells me this is just a delay tactic. I can't support it.