Actually, it should be LIB-3, because I've had two other amendments.
Madam Chair, this basically does two things. It removes the arbitration powers requirement to consult with the commission in the event that it's dismissing an offer. There's no reason that the independent arbitrators should be going back to the CRTC to discuss this with them. That's not how arbitration works.
The second thing is that it's not following the normal rules of arbitration. The way the bill is drafted, it is encouraging bad behaviour. The way the bill is currently drafted, if the arbitration panel dismisses an offer, they're going back and giving the same party whose offer they dismissed because it was so bad the chance to make a new offer, when normally, in that situation, the other party's offer would win.
Right now what I'm saying is that if one offer is dismissed because it violates the terms of paragraphs 39(1)(a), (b) or (c), the other party's offer should then automatically win. The arbitration panel will explain why it dismissed the offer, but it's not obligated to give that party a chance to make a new offer, because then it would be encouraging parties to do the furthest possible they can, and if it's dismissed, all they have to do is make a new offer again.
The only time there should be a new offer is if both offers are dismissed. Then, of course, the parties will have a chance to make a new offer, but not if just one is dismissed. If one is dismissed, the other party's offer wins. That's how I understand arbitration to normally work. That is my recommendation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.