Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this would have been a fine opportunity to settle a dispute without causing further dissension. I do not think that those involved would go along with the proposed solution, namely the appointment of an adjudicator to choose between the final offers submitted by each side. Neither side, be it the employers or the workers, has chosen to be governed by this forced arbitration process. The hon. minister will correct me if I am wrong, but thus far I do not think that either side has agreed to such a system to reach a final settlement.
To impose this kind of dispute resolution system is to add an irritant. It will cause further frustration while a final settlement has to be reached in the matter of hours.
Since the minister has no other choice but to impose an unwanted system to settle the dispute, at least could the arbitrator be granted more leeway somehow in selecting the contract proposals from either side? Considering that the adjudicator himself as well as the unions and the employers have no say in selecting the resolution system which is imposed upon them, the arbitrator should at the very least be allowed to settle the dispute by deciding what the best course of action is with regard to those unresolved issues.
I think that the hon. minister should minimize friction points and irritants if we want this dispute to be settled. I have been involved in labour relations for 20 years and that is how to find the best solution.
This is my recommendation to the minister in support of my colleague's proposed amendment.