I'm going to have to correct the assumption embedded in your question before I attempt to answer your question. In no literature that we put forward to the government did we show any concern that 911 services would not be provided. I didn't write it, and I wrote every submission that FETCO provided in this space. I agree with you that this is a level of service that would be provided and would be captured by a maintenance of services agreement.
To speak more broadly about the maintenance of services, we believe this doesn't solve the problem that the replacement worker bill causes. Maintenance of services agreements are extraordinarily difficult to achieve, in our experience. Unions generally don't like them. Agreeing on the terms of what will be embedded within those agreements is extraordinarily difficult. The bill envisions that this will be done in 14 days, which we think is fantastical, and that the CIRB will then do it in 90 days, which we also agree is equally unlikely.
I guess my response to the overall issue around maintenance of services is that to us it's perplexing that we would introduce a bill that would ban replacement workers, knowing that it will cause the challenges that it will cause around the number and duration of strikes, and somehow imagine that a maintenance of services agreement in the bill will solve these problems. We don't actually think it will.