Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am trying to understand, because the answers so far have not been clear. If you look at the general wording of the amendment, before paragraphs (a) to ( f), you will see the words:
For the purposes of this Division and without restricting the generality of the term, “service obligations” includes obligations in respect of:
That does not mean we are putting a straitjacket on any potential arbitrator. If you will excuse the bad pun, we are laying the track so that situations can be clear before they ever get to a conflict situation.
I have a hard time seeing how one of these provisions could not apply in any given contract or could pose a problem. In that case, it could just not be used. Does the fact of including it in the bill create a problem in any future arbitration situation?