Certainly, I think the first perspective around egregious use of section 107 would be using it pre-emptively. We heard a lot about that from consultations with unions and the tripartite council.
What we also heard about, though, was the lack of transparency in particular and the feeling that one party was doing everything right, staying at the table and trying to be productive, but the other party was not. Then, when the momentum towards a strike or a lockout has accelerated, the aggrieved party, or the perceived aggrieved party, has felt even worse that section 107 has been used, in particular for a union, especially if they felt that they were really putting their best foot forward at the table and giving their best effort.
That's why I think the package of reforms is so important and that it's not just about the guardrails. The guardrails come at a very late stage of a very conflicted relationship in a very rare circumstance. These are parties that will have had previous lockouts and disputes and will have been unable to negotiate their collective agreements without government intervention for multiple rounds in some cases.
What I love about the proposal is that it sets people up to start changing those relationships. Ultimately, I hear a lot of conversations in which someone says, “Well, why not force them to do this, and force the guy to come, etc.?” This is human nature. You can force a whole bunch of people to come sit in a room, and they can stare at the wall and refuse to talk to each other. In theory, you've done your job forcing people to the table, but they're not actually doing it. You can't force people to be collaborative. You can't force people to be creative or innovative. That's why we have the federal mediation service. They help people look around corners for new ways of looking at old problems. They help make relationship repairs.