Debates of June 16th, 2011

Air Service Operations Legislation

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of air service operations, shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown; (b) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; (c) after being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and (d) during consideration of the said bill, no division shall be deferred.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our goal has always been to make the best possible use of our time here, and after discussion with the deputy government House leader, we would like to suggest that we suspend our sitting this morning for a few minutes, if there is unanimous consent, so that we can verify one last point that could substantially affect the arrangement of the business of the House. It would be in the interests of the institution and would ensure the best use of our time today. The government is in agreement on this, because we are waiting for news that could have a significant impact.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just to add to and underscore what my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, said, I do not think the delay should be more than five minutes. It just allows us to consult with a few people. It may be in the best interest of Parliament to do so. We would certainly agree for a very brief suspension if this meets the approval and the consent of all parties involved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would make the assumption that we are talking about conferring with all political parties inside the chamber.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

This seems to be a request for unanimous consent to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I have no intention to block the unanimous consent. I would just like to ensure that I am included in the consultations.

Suspension of Sitting

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:06 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 10:12 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, just weeks ago our government indicated in the Speech from the Throne that our priorities remain focused on jobs and growth. We also noted that the global economy remains fragile and risks to our recovery persist.

This week, a long simmering labour dispute at Air Canada has resulted in a work stoppage, an event that, if left unresolved, could jeopardize Canada's economic prosperity. Approximately 3,800 of the air carrier's customer, sales and service agents, represented by the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, otherwise known as CAW Local 2002, have walked off the job.

This involves more than the viability of Air Canada's daily operations as an air carrier and as the country's number one transporter of air cargo. It also raises the stakes on the ongoing health of our economy, the future of job growth, and the prosperity of all Canadians. I am very concerned about the effect this strike will have on Canada's economic recovery and on Canadians in general. The strike could have a serious economic impact, not in a matter of weeks or months but in a matter of days.

Canadians gave this government a strong mandate to complete our economic recovery. As Canada's labour minister, it is my view that the Government of Canada must take decisive action now before real damage is done to our economy. That is why our government has put legislation on notice to ensure continuing air service for passengers.

Unlike some members in this House, I will respect the rules of the House and refrain from speaking to the content of the legislation that has been put on notice, until such time as parliamentary procedure permits.

I see this labour dispute at Air Canada as one requiring a very clear and decisive response from Parliament. There are three reasons for this: first, this process has gone on without resolution for far too long; second, time is of the essence to respond with appropriate measures; and third, there is an economic imperative to take action before real harm is done to prosperity, to growth, and to job creation in this country.

Let me take the next few minutes to expand on each of these three points.

With regard to the duration of this process, the facts tell us that every avenue has been exhausted in a way to resolve the dispute between the parties. These parties have been at odds over pensions and wages for quite some time now, actually dating back to 2003 when Air Canada first entered bankruptcy protection.

Since early March of this year, the parties have engaged in negotiations to renew the CAW-Air Canada collective agreement. Through my portfolio's Labour Canada program, mediators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service were appointed to help the parties at the table. As a result, the mediators presided over efforts to continue to bring the parties closer to an agreement, from May 24 to June 13. Meanwhile, workers voted in favour of taking strike action.

According to CAW, that vote involved 80% of its members of Local 2002. Despite some measures of progress that were made through mediation, an acceptable resolution to the parties was not found in time to avoid a work stoppage. So, on June 14, these workers opted to walk off the job. Doing so, this has triggered a new chapter in the labour dispute, one in which others, third parties and the Canadian public, are put at risk of real economic harm.

Therefore, the time has come for Parliament to do the right thing. We must intervene and we must do so now. There are some members in this House who might think we have been hasty in our response, but we have not. The health of Canada's economy, the livelihood of families, the competitiveness of businesses, and the reputation of Canada as a reliable trading partner are all on the line.

I take all of these things very seriously and I have acted accordingly.

Some argue that there is a process to follow and that we ought to give the parties more time to resolve their dispute. However, the order of events that I have outlined demonstrates that a process has been followed. Every resource and support was offered to the parties to mutually resolve their dispute through collective bargaining. Unfortunately, those efforts were unfruitful and now time is of the essence to respond.

What we are now facing is a labour dispute that threatens to put the economic well-being of our country at risk. Canadians will not stand for this, nor will international marketplaces.

At this point in time, there is no benefit to waiting before taking action. Work has stopped at Air Canada in a key area of its operations, and that comes with a cost. What remains to be seen is just how much a price will be paid and who will be carrying that burden. Should it be business travellers who count on Air Canada for their livelihood? What about Canadians in remote areas who rely on the carrier for a range of goods? Should families and leisure travellers be the ones to pay the price as Canada heads into the busy tourism season? What about the possible repercussions on industries that rely on air cargo as an important part of how they earn a living? Is it reasonable to call on these Canadians who are not party to the dispute to put their affairs on hold? No, it is not.

Should we wait until uncertainty makes it impossible for citizens to count on Air Canada? Should we wait until all the hard-earned gains in our economy are undermined, sending all of us back to harder times? Again, the answer is no. That would be a terrible price to pay for indecision.

That is why we must act and why we have acted. This is not about taking sides in a dispute. Rather, it is about what Canadians have every right to expect what its Parliament is to do: step in when the economy of our nation is put at risk.

As noted in the Speech from the Throne, our government will remain focused on what matters to Canadians most, which is good jobs, security for our families and a prosperous future. It is for those key reasons that I have outlined in my remarks today that I maintain that the government must respond to this labour dispute in a manner consistent with what it has done before when faced with a situation that can imperil our economy.

Canadians are counting on their government to do the right thing. We owe it to each and every one of them to not let them down.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments on this particular topic. However, with the collective voice of organized labour, the consensus is that this has been the single biggest sucker punch that organized labour has received in years. This legislation was moved, not days or weeks but hours after the deadline passed.

We see no great delays in air travel in this country. We have heard no public outcry as a result of this. What we have seen is a government taking action. Air Canada is a private company and it does not hold a monopoly in this country. There are various options for air travellers within this country that could be pursued. We see the action that is being taken here but, during the impasse with Canada Post, which is a crown corporation, the government sat back.

This has been a blow to the head of collective bargaining in this country. The government has taken away a right from employees, the front line workers, who really went above and beyond to help in the resurrection of Air Canada. Is this what we can expect from the government going forward?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking why we are acting now. As I said in my opening remarks, it is because we knew the disturbance that would happen in a number of days would be extremely significant to the national economy and on the travelling public.

Throughout this process there have been negotiations at the table. I have had conversations with both CAW and Air Canada on the topic. One of the key questions that I asked at the beginning concerned what the effect would be if they got into the situation of a work stoppage.

Both parties separately, of their own volition, gave me the same information. They said that at the beginning of a work disturbance or stoppage they would be able to cope, that they would have managers available who were trained quickly to substitute for the unionized employees, but that there would be a finite amount of time that could possibly happen successfully.

In both cases, they estimated that it would be between seven and nine days before there would be an almost complete shutdown of the system. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, we acted accordingly in anticipation of the economic disturbance that would happen in that case. We did so and we put notice on the order paper in order to proceed as quickly as we could.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many of the people in my riding work for Air Canada and their families depend on the benefits and salaries provided by that company.

I agree with the hon. member that this event has the potential to hurt the economic well-being of our nation. However, it also hurts the long-term economic well-being of families in my riding when things like pensions are not supported and aid to the workers is not supported by the government.

What can the government do to help the workers in the long term to benefit their prosperity?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I share the same concerns with our constituents.

With respect to the situation right now, one critical aspect of this is that it would give certainly to Air Canada employees, the general public and businesses that there is a finite amount of time that there will be a work stoppage so they can make their plans and will not be adversely affected.

I can also say that it is important for the House to remember that, even as we debate the motion here in terms of procedure, there is the opportunity and ability for both parties to be at the bargaining table. I understand they are there now. I would ask that the parties do their best diligence so that we can avoid having the debate to follow with respect to back to work legislation and that the two parties can reach a deal that is beneficial for their employees, brothers, sisters and Canadians in general.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for achieving the position of Speaker. I am sure that you will do great things.

We have a government that is putting forward legislation at the beginning of a dispute where negotiations may not be going the right way and people are threatening to walk out. The government steps in right away and says that it will establish back-to-work legislation. A strike has not taken place as of yet and the parties are still at the table. The public has not been affected. Air Canada has been sending out the message that should something happen, it will be able to continue its service.

Air Canada is a private company looking after its own affairs. Without a large outcry by the public, why is the government stepping in right away and saying that the employees need to get back to work or it will use a heavy-handed approach? Is this the way the government will continue business from here on, at the back of the unions? Is the government not recognizing the unions, what they have done and their struggle? Does it not have any respect for the people who are unionized, the people who are running the unions and the people who are paying union dues?

I would like to get a clear answer from the minister. Is this the way the government will act from now on, with total disrespect for the union and the union movement in this country?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should let the House know that my mother is a dues-paying, card-carrying union member of CAW as well. I, therefore, have great respect for the movement and I take the matter very seriously.

The question of why we are acting now goes to the heart of why we are acting quickly. It always comes back to the economy.

We have been intensely discussing the matter with the parties over the past number of months. Should a strike or a lockout occur there would be a serious effect on the travelling public and on the economy. They anticipated that would be seven days. If we look through the history of legislation, we can see that oftentimes it takes between seven and nine days to deal with matters of such importance. We thought it would be more appropriate to put the notice on the order paper in anticipation of what would happen. It is no different from other back to work legislation in the past.

Since 1950, the House has passed back to work legislation 32 times. A number of those times have been with respect to private companies. However, the remaining factor that binds them all is the national significance of the work stoppage and the effect on the Canadian population. Those two factors guided us in our deliberations on this matter. We take it very seriously.

I will make one last point. Our role in Labour Canada is to facilitate and prevent these things from happening and over 90% of the time we are successful.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the minister said:

“Hard-earned gains in our economy would be compromised, sending us back to harder times”.

If that is the minister's priority, why does she have nothing against removing the hard-earned gains of workers and sending them back to harder times?

How is it possible for the government not to realize that it is thanks to the sacrifices of workers, who, notably, have foregone wages that were taken in the form of a pension that was guaranteed to them for the future? Now, the employer is taking out everything it can from the company. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid to executives in bonuses. The bosses receive huge protected pensions and now we are attacking the workers' rights. How is that fair? How can that be a priority of any Canadian government?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under our charter, we do have the right to free collective bargaining. The courts are well settled on that matter, and we respect that. We are saying that we are interested in seeing what the effect will be on the economy. We are concerned about that and we are concerned about the effect on the average Canadian. That also matters.

This is not just about the parties at the table attempting to attain a deal through the collective bargaining process. It is about when that process breaks down and results in a work stoppage that has that effect. That is where it is appropriate for the government to step in. We have done it, as I said, 32 times in the past number of years since 1950. It is the appropriate action in this case as well.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I think the government's position on this issue is regrettable. The minister stated that the two parties told her that in nine days, if there was no agreement, there would be a strike and everything would shut down.

Is the minister saying that Air Canada has been lying to its customers? Take a look at the Air Canada site. Air Canada is even sending emails to its customers to say that there are no problems, that delays are no longer than 15 minutes, that everything is going well and that there is no cause for concern.

I do not understand why some people are claiming that in nine days, everything will shut down, while Air Canada is telling its customers that everything is fine, that there are no problems and that customers can continue flying. Air Canada is bragging about this.

Air Canada told the minister this. I have reason to believe what the minister says, that Air Canada said that. Why would Air Canada have said that? Because Air Canada wanted the government to bring in legislation to force workers back to work.

In reality, Air Canada does not have this problem because it emailed all of its customers—unless I am its only customer—to say that all is well. I have been receiving these emails and I am sure that other members here in the House have been as well. I see members who are saying that they have received them, too. I wonder if any government members have received them. I wonder if the minister received the email from Air Canada saying that everything is fine. Air Canada is telling its customers that all is well. And if that is the case, I will believe the emails I am receiving.

The minister herself just said that Air Canada told her that if the strike had not ended in nine days, Canada's air transportation system would shut down. However, Air Canada is not the only airline in the world. Air Canada is not the only airline in Canada. It is a private company.

Speaking of economic recovery, last night I took part in a CBC broadcast with a member who said that the government received a clear mandate from Canadians to make economic recovery its priority. So I asked this: if economic recovery is a priority, will the government give preference to companies that are going to reduce wages and make huge cuts to employee pensions? I asked if that would be good for the economic recovery and for our future generations. Our children, the future generations, would not enjoy the same salaries we have enjoyed. Why? Because former Air Canada president Robert Milton doubled his salary to a total of $14.7 million when things were not going well at Air Canada. The former president of Air Canada, Mr. Milton, left the country with $82.7 million. He left with all that money. He had no problems with Air Canada at the time. Yet, it was a time when there were plenty of problems at Air Canada.

I very clearly heard the Minister of Labour say that this has been going on for some time. Things are not going well at Air Canada. Meanwhile, Air Canada appointed a new president and is paying him $7 million a year, not to mention the fact that it is also going to give him a pension. The new president has nothing to worry about. He is going to come away with a guaranteed, set pension of $350 million a year.

[An hon. member]

You mean $350,000.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Pardon me, yes, $350,000. He would have liked my numbers. No worries; the president of Air Canada is not going to get $350 million, but rather $350,000 a year.

What does the government think of that? It says that such people are hard to find. I cannot say for sure, but I think there are people who would take the job for less than that, especially since the company is always whining about how much trouble it is in.

Let us come back to the government's motion. I was talking about Air Canada, but let us look at Canada Post. Canada Post is in the process of negotiating a collective agreement with its employees. They are at the bargaining table. There is no problem; they are negotiating.

Basically, in the negotiation process, employees have the right to vote in favour of strike action or to go on a rotating strike, which is what they did. But Canada Post was not happy, because it wanted the employees to go on a full strike. Is it normal for a crown corporation to want its employees to go on strike? The reason is because it wanted the government to legislate the employees back to work. Is it normal for a crown corporation to want the government to legislate its employees back to work? There is only one possible reason for this: the government has something to gain. The minister said earlier that this was not about taking sides. Why do corporations like Air Canada and Canada Post have the benefit of back-to-work legislation? Because it is to their advantage.

The game the government is starting to play is very dangerous. If it sends a clear message to Canadians that it has no choice because its mandate is to promote economic recovery and that is all it cares about, in that case, workers better fasten their seat belts. That means that the government will not stop at Air Canada and Canada Post. It means this is just the beginning and it will always do this in the future.

Let us not forget why there is a union and why the right to free bargaining and the right to strike exist. These things exist to avoid a repeat of what happened in the 1930s, when everyone had to take to the streets to defend their rights. Workers had to organize. Together, they established a mechanism that won legal recognition. There is legislation in place that gives the right to free bargaining and the right to strike. However, Air Canada workers do not have that right. It is being taken away from them before the bargaining period even ends.

It is the same thing for Canada Post. The law says that citizens have to receive their mail every day. What is Canada Post doing to provoke the workers? It has started having mail delivered three days a week only, suggesting there was not enough volume in the Canada Post depots to justify daily mail delivery.

The letter carrier does not come to our house every day. The legislation does not say that letter carriers come only when there is enough mail and their mailbag is full. It says that citizens will receive their mail. Canada Post reacts by reining in its workers and having them work three days a week in order to make the public suffer, in the hope that the public becomes outraged and cries wolf. The government then claims it is bowing to public pressure and has no choice but to introduce special legislation in the House. We have yet to hear anything from the public. I am not hearing the public crying wolf. It is the same thing for Air Canada. I have not heard the public complaining, but the government is already introducing back-to-work legislation.

How can the government claim it is doing this in the best interests of Canadians? Is it saying that workers are not Canadian, that the whole workforce is not Canadian? The men and women who get up in the morning, build this country and work hard, are they not Canadian?

The government is saying that in the best interests of Canadians it is going to interfere in the negotiations, that it will help businesses to ensure that pension plans are not kept and employers to reduce the wages of workers. And the government is saying that it is doing this in the best of Canadians? Well, I hope workers are considered Canadians.

This is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is the wrong thing to do. For the government to get involved and legislate people back to work is the wrong message to send to industry and crown corporations, because now they do not have to do anything in negotiations and just let the government come in and do it for them.

Where is free bargaining? Where is the right to strike? Is it a sin to go on strike? It is not a sin. It is a fundamental right that workers have under the law.

I am talking directly to the people of our country. How would Canadians like it if tomorrow the government brought their wages down? How would they like it if their pensions were taken away? How would they like it if, after working all their lives and are 60 or 65 years-old, the company that had used them all along in production was enriched by it, like Mr. Robert Milton who walked away with $87 million and all those other CEOs getting paid millions of dollars in wages, but who say to workers when they retire they do not care if they go on welfare, that they do not care if the workers have a poor life, that they do not care if the workers get nothing for a good retirement? So many people have called my office and said they cannot even afford to pay their bills or engage in even a little recreation or travel.

Is that the direction we are going in? Is that what the Conservative government is promoting now? It is not even waiting for the negotiations to finish and giving them some time.

There is no crisis. Air Canada itself said there was no crisis. Air Canada said that the longest delays were about 15 minutes long at airports. Well, they are beating their record, because as members know, sometimes we have to wait half an hour or an hour for a plane. Air Canada is saying now that delays are no longer than 15 minutes. They are getting better.

[An hon. member]

Relax.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

My friend said, “relax”. I do not relax when I talk in defence of workers.

It is not enough that we have a law for free bargaining and a law on the right to strike, because the government is putting time limits on debates in the House of Commons, the house of the citizens, to stop members from talking in defence of the rights of these workers. That is what this motion is all about: the government will not let the House of Commons speak but is using time limits.

This is wrong. There are 308 members in the House and they all have the right to get up and speak on this. That is what this House is all about. Putting time limits on this debate is wrong. It is wrong to stop debate in the House, which is why we were elected. We were elected to come to the House of Commons and debate these important issues.

These issues are very important. It is important when the government gets involved in private sector negotiations to dictate how they will go. The law already dictates how these should go: free negotiations and the right to strike in order to come to a collective agreement.

If the government gets involved in the collective agreement and gets the people back to work, from past experience, I know this is not good practice. The two parties need to sit at the table and agree to a contract. The two parties need to shake hands, go back to work and have good labour relations. That is what we need.

They do not need somebody forcing this. Let us just think about this individually. How would members like to be forced to do something? Nobody likes to have things forced on them. The two parties have to come to an agreement, a voluntary agreement where the parties sit and negotiate.

Personally I have negotiated 35 collective agreements. I would never have wanted someone to come into the negotiations and tell the parties how things should go. It would take away the rights of the negotiator and the rights of the workers.

The government has a majority. We have not seen the bill yet. Maybe the bill will say that Air Canada cannot reduce the pensions of its employees or cut their wages and that it should have its employees return to work. That would be a change from what we have always seen, but I do not think it will happen. I have never seen that happen.

I remember in 1997 when we voted on the back to work legislation for the postal workers, which I voted against. In 1997 the Liberals had a majority government. They voted for the workers to return to work before they had even voted on their contract. There was no vote on the contract, but there already was a bill before the House to have them return work, and it was not even a strike vote.

What is wrong with those two parties? What do they have against workers?

It is all well and good to pat yourself on the back and say that the government is wrong, but I remember that in 1997, a member removed his jacket in the House of Commons and wanted to fight a postal worker who was in the gallery because the worker was unhappy that a bill was forcing him to return to work. And they had not yet even voted. It is in Hansard.

I am asking the government to rethink its actions. It must first get involved in the negotiations since this is not a crisis situation. It is not true that this affects the economic recovery. The economic recovery will be affected when companies start to cut employee pensions. With regard to the long-term economic recovery, and I am not talking about something that is going to happen tomorrow morning, if workers are unable to negotiate decent collective agreements and to live comfortably, we have not done the right thing. It is not the government's job to get involved in the private sector's business as it is doing right now. If the government wants to do so, it must go and speak to Canada Post. In fact, the postal workers' union told the government that if Canada Post recognized its former collective agreement, it would be prepared to stop the rotating strike and return to the bargaining table. Canada Post refused. What Canada Post is doing is wrong.

Last night, I received a call from one of my colleagues. He told me that a northern Ontario newspaper had been sent to Canada Post for distribution. Canada Post then announced the lockout. The newspaper office contacted Canada Post to find out whether it could retrieve its papers and distribute them itself. Canada Post refused, arguing that the union did not want such action to be taken. The newspaper office spoke to the union about retrieving the papers and distributing them. The union said that it was not a problem and that the newspaper office could have them back. The newspaper office went back to Canada Post to say that the union did not have a problem with returning the papers. Canada Post responded that the papers had become its property and refused to return them. I hope that the minister is listening to what I am saying. I intend to go and see her after my speech. Why is Canada Post keeping people's mail? It is to upset people.

Canada Post wants people to get angry so the government will impose collective agreements, which goes against our democratic principles and our laws. That is completely unacceptable. What does Canada Post have against these workers? It is not a private company, but a crown corporation. It posted a profit of $281 million last year. Canada Post is not there to make a profit, but to provide a service to Canadians. All the better if it made $281 million, but how can it justify withdrawing a benefit such as the drug plan from its workers? I asked a question in the House of Commons when it cut the drug plan for workers on sick leave. There was a CBC report about a woman with cancer who had to stop her treatments because of that. Where is the human side of Canada Post?

I asked Canada Post if I could tour its Laval facility to see what is involved in the work of its employees. It was not a problem on Monday or Tuesday. However, on Wednesday, I received a call telling me that I would not be not allowed to visit the facility where employees work. I asked why not and if Canada Post had something to hide.

If I were in Canada Post's position and had nothing to hide, I would have suggested that I go see the workers. Canada Post said that the workers were happy and content. We could have gone to see them together. But no, Canada Post refused.

That is why I am saying that the government has a role to play. It should tell Canada Post and Air Canada that they should not expect it to come to their assistance and that they should settle the dispute in accordance with their collective agreements and the laws of this land.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his comments. He clearly shares our opinion that the government has used an unduly rigorous approach with these two companies, Air Canada and Canada Post.

In 1997, the Liberal government intervened after an 11-day strike. In the two cases here today, there is no strike. It is a completely different situation.

If, after a certain period of time, there comes a point where the two parties are unable to reach a settlement, does my colleague think that the government would have just cause to intervene as it did prematurely today?