Madam Speaker, in 2011, the Conservatives introduced legislation. In 2016, a superior court found that it was unconstitutional.
My friend asked how this legislation would satisfy the Oakes test. It is very simple. In 2011, that legislation met a pressing and substantial objective, so it needs to be rationally connected, which it was. It needs to be minimally impairing, which it was not. It did not get to a proportionality analysis.
However, if we look at the factors, the court said that this was not minimally impairing, It said that it imposed terms that compromised the effectiveness and fairness of the process. This process does not impose specific terms. It allows for negotiation, mediation and fair arbitration. The union had no say in the selection of the arbitrator. In this case, it does.
The 2011 legislation imposed final offer. This allows the mediator-arbitrator to incorporate all concerns, including the concerns of the union. It actually goes further and sets out guiding principles to ensure that the mediator-arbitrator will ensure that they are guided by the need to ensure the health and safety of the employees is protected and to ensure the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value.
That would be the answer to the member's question.