Madam Speaker, I was not here in 2011, and I would have voted against that legislation because it was unconstitutional.
It was unconstitutional for a number of different reasons. It did not allow the union to have any input with respect to the arbitrator. It set specific contractual terms and took things that were key bargaining issues completely off the table to resolve the impasse. There was a winner-takes-all approach for the arbitrator. The government was biased in its decision-making with respect to the arbitrator. The court found for good reason that the legislation was not minimally impairing. This legislation is very different.
We can disagree as to whether it will be five weeks or maybe three months down the road for a significant impact on the Canadian economy. Perhaps the member would agree that would be an appropriate time.
On the constitutional question, could she at least agree that this legislation is significantly different from the legislation in 2011, and it is minimally impairing?