That's a very critical question to be talking about, especially in this context.
I'll make a counter-argument to the comment that there is a push of the thumb on the scale towards one side or another. I would say this is doing the exact same thing, and pushing it towards the one side.
We've seen successive governments work to maintain a carefully constructed balance between the employers and employees. Really, the federal government's own discussion paper on prohibiting replacement workers concluded that when provinces prohibit replacement workers it leads to more frequent strikes and lockouts.
I will also say the replacement worker conversation is awfully misunderstood, I think. We're not talking about somebody like myself going and running a crane at a port, we're talking about people who are often managers at organizations, working to keep the lights on. For example, if there's a rail strike in the country, that could actually impact commuter services in Canada's largest cities. It means that propane might not be able to get to hospitals or homes to heat. It means that grain feed might not get to cattle, so it's a massive piece that I think is bad policy, and I think it's playing politics as opposed to good governance or policies.