Mr. Chair, I disagree.
I get the impression I'm listening to the CIRB arguments. I'm not saying that they aren't cogent, but that's all about means rather than the importance of fairness for workers in the short term.
It's true that it has to be done properly, but nothing can justify such a lengthy wait if the intent is really to help them. Workers didn't come here to ask for the 18 months to be reduced to 12 months or nine months. If you check back on the testimony from most of the unions, you may find one that proposed a 12-month period. However, most of the unions in the field that are directly experiencing the harmful impact of the current situation asked us to shorten it to allow the bill to come into force immediately upon royal assent. I still don't understand how reducing the period from 18 months to 12 months is an improvement.
I will therefore vote against this amendment, and I believe I'm speaking on behalf of most of the workers we've heard from. They came to tell us that nothing could justify a waiting period before allowing workers to fully exercise their rights in their labour disputes, which they also don't want. Indeed, negotiating a labour contract is always the best way to settle a strike or a lockout.
Nevertheless, this bill does indeed represent a major step forward. I am in agreement with my colleague to some extent; a bill like this should have come into force in 1977. We in the Bloc Québécois have been calling for it since 1990. I don't know how many bills have been introduced on this by the NDP, but in our case, it's 11. We now have a bill that has been favourably received by everyone, but it still needs some teeth, by which I mean having it come into force as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.