Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] because I grew a close affinity for Newfoundland, Labrador, and Newfoundlanders in particular, so it was good to hear your lilt, Mr. Hill.
It's good to see you as well, Mark. Thank you for your advocacy and particularly that legislative passion you have, which was helpful in the veterans' context.
From the big picture, I think we have to remember that the Supreme Court decision said two key things.
They said the old labour relations, staff relations, were insufficient. They also said there needs to be employee choice, and we're fighting for that. There needs to be independence, and I think we've heard that. What they also said is the old Wagner model does not need to apply to every context. There's not a one-size-fits-all collective bargaining construct, and the unique nature of the RCMP is a great example of that.
Mark, if I could, in the veterans' groups submission you focused on clauses 40 and 42, which is our area of focus. You didn't mention some of the areas excluded. Are you okay with the exclusions, or are clauses 40 and 42 more of your priority? What are your thoughts on the fact that not all elements of the unique nature of RCMP services will be subject to collective bargaining?