You're entirely right, Mr. Chair. A number of lawyers can give differing views on the same situation, and based on the same information.
I only wanted to go back to the information that Ms. MacPherson gave us, that including the expression “essential services” in paragraph 94(2.3)(b) would in a way reduce the scope of “certain activities” as described in section 87.4. I don't understand you at all. Common sense is first what John Vines, a representative of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, offered here in response to a very clear question from me as to whether maintaining certain activities meant maintaining essential services.
Reread the “blues”. He answered that that was indeed the same thing and that, moreover, they often interpreted maintaining certain services as meaning essential services. Ms. Davies also gave a number of examples of this earlier.
There's a second point. Paragraphs 94(2.3)(a) and (b) proposed in the amendment are very interesting. I'm pleased that the Liberals have introduced them. This explains three cases in which the employer can hire staff: first, to prevent the destruction of his property; second, to maintain certain activities that are described in section 87.4; and, third, for essential services.
A summary and normal description is made in a bill because we know that the Canadian Industrial Relations Board can interpret. Let's leave it its mandate to interpret certain matters. To date, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board has never failed in its duty of interpretation, and no one has ever challenged its interpretations for serious and significant reasons.
Furthermore, I would point out to you that this cannot restrict section 87.4 because paragraph (b) refers to “maintaining certain activities and essential services”. It isn't just essential services, because the word “and” is used. In my view, even though I'm not a lawyer — fortunately, moreover — common sense dictates that the word “and” means an addition.