Debates of Nov. 27th, 2023

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Labour Code

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I feel like saying, “at long last”. It was about time we got Bill C-58, a federal anti-scab bill. We have been calling for one for ages. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be supporting the bill in principle.

It might bear repeating that the Bloc Québécois has tabled several bills in the House aimed at ending the use of scabs during labour disputes. The first one was tabled by our colleague, the dean of the House, before the Bloc Québécois even existed. There have been 11 bills total. Although Canada is 46 years behind Quebec, because Quebec has had an anti-scab law on the books since 1977, this bill is a great accomplishment, but there was a lot of catching up to do to address the power imbalance in the employer-union relationship.

We were delighted when the bill was introduced. We welcomed it. We decided that it if was good for the workers of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois would support it. We think it was welcomed in all quarters, by the major unions of both Quebec and Canada. They have been calling for such a bill for years, even during consultations with the government in 2021 and 2022. The government announced that it would introduce a bill by late December 2023. It has done it, but we said at the time that that date was too far away and much too late. Some will say better late than never, but in this case, every passing day is a grave injustice for workers. The fact that the Canada Labour Code still allows the use of replacement workers in the event of a dispute creates a serious power imbalance.

Why is this so important? At the very least, it is a question of rights and freedoms. I just want to remind my colleagues that in the 2015 Saskatchewan ruling, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, recognized that the right to strike is not merely derivative of the right to bargain and to organize, it is indispensable in our society. That makes this right as important as the right to bargain. Using replacement workers and allowing them to be used in the event of a strike or a lockout is tantamount to fundamentally denying the right to strike. This problem absolutely had to be fixed.

This bill will also restore the balance of power. Now we will hear employers and big industry rise up against the bill, as we have heard them do before. They will argue that the bill will create an imbalance, that it will be dangerous for supply chains and the economy. The opposite is true. Back in 1977, the strikes in Quebec were tough. There was violence on the picket lines. That is one of the reasons Quebec passed a law to restore balance, as well as to restore a certain degree of industrial peace in labour disputes.

The only leverage available to a union or workers in the event of a dispute with the employer is their final resort: a strike. Employers have a similar right, the right to lockout. If employers are allowed to use replacement workers on top of imposing a lockout, they will be living the high life.

What does an employer stand to gain by settling the dispute as long as other workers cross the picket lines and are able to do the work without anyone getting their nose bent out of shape? What is happening right now in Quebec?

The conflict at the Port of Québec has been going on for almost two years. For more than 18 months, unionized workers with the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been locked out. What is more, the port is using replacement workers—scabs—who are often paid more than the employees, so the dispute continues. No one is getting worried. No one is connecting the dots. In terms of the economy, it is the workers who provide services at our ports, on our waterways and as part of our major infrastructure. They are part of those supply chains people talk about.

When workers do not have good working conditions, which is what they are demanding by going on strike, and when the dispute drags on, workplaces get weaker. Occupational health and safety can also be compromised, because replacement workers do not always have all the skills and attributes it takes to do the job. We have to pay attention to that.

We often see people act like the sky is falling when port workers go on strike. Just look at what happened at the Port of Vancouver. With the strike not even 24 hours old, people were already panicking and demanding special legislation. In many situations, disputes involving workers under federal jurisdiction were ended by either passing special legislation or allowing scab labour. That makes no sense anymore. This situation must be addressed.

We are pleased to see a bill on this matter. What worries us now, and with good reason, is whether the bill will succeed this time. How fast will the government move this bill forward to make sure it is not simply an intention that ends up dying on the Order Paper because it did not have enough time to make it through the process?

We are saying this for a reason. The bill already states that the legislation will not come into force until 18 months after royal assent. That is a year and a half. How can we count on that? There is no justification for that. I think things are clear. The provisions to be amended in the Canada Labour Code are quite clear.

There is no need to wait 18 months. The time frame must be shortened so that the bill comes into force as soon as it receives royal assent, as most other acts do. We can make it happen. We need to be able to respond to workers and give them what they need. It cannot just be wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I am out of time. Sign language is very difficult for me to understand.

I will conclude by saying that we absolutely must speed up the process. We need to ensure that this bill does not give full legitimacy to the right to strike and lockout by prohibiting replacement workers while at the same time limiting that same right to strike.

This is essential. The bill requires two major corrections.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not here earlier when the Speaker made his ruling. I would like to offer my apologies and withdraw the unparliamentary language I used last week.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for his retraction and apology.

Moving on to questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate that there have been concerns raised regarding the date this would take effect after receiving royal assent. I do believe at the committee stage, if not even before committee stage, members could always approach the minister, I am sure directly, to find out some of the rationale that was used.

On the member's personal experience and knowledge of what has happened in the province of Quebec, we all know that Quebec has led the country in anti-scab legislation, which was first enacted many, many years ago. I have always advocated for anti-scab legislation and supporting the collective bargaining system. To me, this legislation does just that. I wonder if the member could provide her insight, being from the province of Quebec, on how the community has benefited labour, in particular, and even non-unionized people.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it a benefit? I dare say it is a right.

It has become important in terms of regulating labour relations during disputes. We know it is a fundamental right, as I just said. Allowing this right to be fully exercised without interference forces the parties to come to a satisfactory agreement. When there is a greater balance of power, both sides are encouraged to resolve disputes faster. It also prevents serious health and safety issues. It makes a return to work possible. I am not saying that returning to work is always an easy task. There has to be some level of industrial peace to keep fighting.

When the sword of Damocles hangs above one's head, and nobody on the employer's side has any interest in settling, it can only poison the labour environment. A law that protects basic rights effectively ensures some level of industrial peace during negotiations.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member shares with me my enthusiasm for this new legislation in that it has something that Quebec and British Columbia both lack, which is attention to the fact that, with the rise of remote work, there is often no longer a physical picket line to cross, so this new legislation that we are bringing forward would be an improvement over both Quebec and British Columbia in that it anticipates strikebreaking could be done through remote work.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some Quebec unions welcome this bill. I will talk only about Quebec, not British Columbia.

People have already had to turn to the courts in Quebec. Quebec's legislation was passed in 1977. Of course, in 2023, the whole workplace issue has changed; I am thinking among other things of telework. The bill will settle questions raised by Quebec workers concerning place of work and new definitions. That is a plus.

However, an even bigger plus would be for the bill to come to fruition quickly.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that Conservatives have with this legislation is that it would not impact the federal government itself. Does the member share that concern as well?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we say it is important to pass this bill and send it to committee, it is because we see that it would not affect federal employees. That is rather worrisome.

During the last strike, federal employees who were working from home or working as subcontractors were perhaps being pushed by their employer, the government, to be scabs. We must not fall on our own sword. The things we want to protect in the private sector are the same things that should also be protected in the public sector.

I sincerely hope that the Conservative Party will support this bill so that we can treat it as a matter that is just as urgent and pressing as other legislative measures.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill.

As my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville said, we feel like saying “finally”. The Bloc Québécois has been working for an extremely long time to have such a bill introduced and studied.

As my colleague mentioned, the first time a Bloc Québécois member introduced an anti-scab bill was in 1990. I was not even born in 1990. That was a long time ago. It was our dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel who introduced a similar bill. After that, we did the same thing 11 more times. The Bloc Québécois introduced similar bills 11 times. In other words, if the Bloc Québécois had been in power, we certainly would have passed such a bill by now. However, the Bloc Québécois has no aspirations to be in power.

That being said, I am glad to finally see, in 2023, that the other parties in the House—the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least—have made this a priority. I am eager to start working on this bill. I also want to highlight the work done by my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who just spoke. She has been the Bloc Québécois critic for labour for the past four years, and she does an amazing job. She is there for workers and unions. She is a former union leader herself. I think we can all thank her. I will do it on behalf of my colleagues, because she definitely played a part in the tabling of this bill. I think that many workers in Quebec will thank her for her work once this bill is passed.

She also said that, in Quebec, we may have been pioneers. We passed this type of legislation in 1977, and that created two classes of workers in Quebec with respect to scabs, federally regulated workers and all the others. This bill will finally eliminate these two classes of workers, at least that is our hope. As I heard in previous discussions, this bill even takes some steps forward, so we are extremely pleased about that. This bill is being applauded by several unions in Quebec, including Unifor and the United Steelworkers. In fact, I would say that this bill is being applauded by most unions. Everyone is very happy about it.

In that regard, my thoughts are with the Front commun workers in Québec who are on strike for better working conditions. Obviously, that is not exactly the same situation, but I am still thinking of them. I think that these exercises are extremely important. Even though the workers in that case are employed by the Government of Quebec, we can still stand in solidarity with them.

I have heard about this type of bill because of all the bills the Bloc Québécois has introduced over the years. I have also been approached by people who told me how important anti-scab legislation is, including a friend in telecommunications. He wrote to me several times in the past few months to find out if this was in the pipeline. He heard that the federal government wanted to introduce this kind of bill. He wanted to know whether it had been introduced or when it would be. I was always very disappointed that I had no news to give him and that I could not tell him it was coming or that we had started debating it. We had no news, and it took a very long time for the government to introduce the bill. My thoughts are with him and all his colleagues in the telecommunications sector, who will be significantly affected by this bill.

The bill proposes a ban on the use of replacement workers, including subcontracted workers, unless one of the following three situations arises. The first is a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person”. These terms may need to be better defined when the bill is being studied. That is why the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill will be referred to committee so that we can examine these questions in greater depth and have a little more clarity. The bill also refers to a “threat of destruction of, or serious damage to, the employer's property or premises”. There is also mention of a “threat of serious environmental damage affecting the employer's property or premises”.

The bill also proposes a complete ban on crossing the picket line, including by employees in the same work unit. It also proposes issuing fines of up to $100,000 per day when the employer fails to comply with the law.

Bill C‑58 would also require employers and unions to sign an agreement at the start of negotiations to specify which operations must be continued in the event of a strike or lockout, and they would have 15 days to do it. If they do not come to an agreement, the Canada Industrial Relations Board would decide within 90 days which operations would be continued. The minister would still have the power to refer the issue to the board to protect the health and safety of the Canadian population.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the points will need to be looked at in committee. There is the issue of the 90-day period for the Canada Industrial Relations Board that we, at the Bloc Québécois, have looked into. It seems needlessly long. A 60-day period might be more appropriate. We will have to see with the experts that will appear before the committee. There is also the definition of the exception for threats to the life, health or safety of any person. Exceptions like this one cannot be allowed to become catch-all measures that can be pulled out from a hat to bring everything to a halt. That will have to be looked at in committee. There is also the 18-month timeframe before the bill comes into force. My colleague alluded to that. It is obviously too long. Anyone who has ever gone on strike or been locked out knows how important this bill is. I have a friend who asked me every month if this bill was coming, because it is definitely important for these workers. Is it really necessary to wait 18 months after royal assent? That begs the question. Our leader spoke publicly on that subject.

We need to pass this bill as soon as possible. Obviously, it has to go through the legislative process step by step. There are a few issues we will want to raise in parliamentary committee, but all parties need to agree so we can move forward quickly, before Christmas if possible. Many workers would really appreciate this. According to the government's figures, roughly 1.03 million employees are covered by the Canada Labour Code. This affects a lot of people. We are talking about federally regulated industries and businesses, such as those in the air, rail, road, marine, interprovincial and international transportation sectors, as well as banks, the communications sector and postal services.

Apparently, there was an attempt to amend this part of the Canada Labour Code in 1999. However, the change was hijacked by employers who simply had to claim that they were negotiating in good faith. I think that what we have before us today is a true step forward compared to that feeble attempt in 1999, which clearly did not carry much weight.

I am running out of time, but I just want to quickly talk about the positive effects of anti-scab legislation. These measures are essential for civilized bargaining during a dispute. They promote industrial peace. They are the cornerstone for establishing a level playing field between the employer and labour. They also put an end to the situation where there are two classes of workers in Quebec, those who are regulated by Quebec or in the private sector and those who are federally regulated. We are sure that all of this will go quickly, but we know that the parliamentary process can be long sometimes. We just hope everything will go well.

In closing, I want to note something said by Nina Laflamme, union representative at the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who represents the longshore workers at the Port de Québec. She said that when this bill is adopted, we will be able to bargain on an equal footing.

I think that is a rather strong statement that makes sense because without this legislation and these anti-scab measures, unions and workers cannot effectively bargain on an equal footing. This has been a real problem for many years at the federal level. We applaud the introduction of this bill and we will obviously vote in favour of it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's speech. She raised a number of points that will have to be discussed in greater detail at committee. I do have a question about the 18-month delay that everyone has been talking about.

I, too, asked why the 18-month wait before coming into force. It seems that it is a matter of expertise and that the Canada Industrial Relations Board needs the time. We do not have as much experience as Quebec or British Columbia.

Does my colleague agree that it will take a certain amount of negotiating expertise before the legislation is implemented?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will obviously be able to ask officials questions about that expertise and the 18-month delay. Is it necessary to wait that long?

We have talked about the law in Quebec and the law in British Columbia. I think the federal government has quite a few tools in its toolbox to follow their lead and know a little about how to operate once the legislation takes effect. It took so long to introduce this bill that I cannot believe they did not look at how things are done. I am confident that we might be able to shorten this time frame so that the legislation comes into force more quickly.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, like British Columbia, where I live, Quebec has had similar legislation for a long time.

Can the member tell us a little bit more about the impact this law would have on people?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking her question in French. That is always appreciated.

I think that we have seen many examples of lockouts and strikes in Quebec where the workers were not federally regulated. When there are no replacement workers being brought in during a labour dispute, the workers and the unions have a little more room to negotiate. As Nina Laflamme said, it puts workers on an equal playing field with the employer. I think that is extremely important.

Obviously, this bill does not resolve all of the issues. Negotiations can take a long time. We are seeing that right now with the Front commun in Quebec. Sometimes it takes a long time to come to an agreement, but having scabs involved only complicates things.

I think that, since 1977, Quebec has been able to prove just how important it is to have this type of legislation.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague is from Quebec, could she expand on the legislation that Quebec already has? Does she feel this would improve it, or would she still like to see other improvements in the legislation that has been put forward?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand of this legislation, it is quite good. There might even be some progress. That makes sense. As my colleague said earlier, Quebec forged ahead in 1977 when it passed similar legislation. Of course, if there are improvements that could be made here, we can always learn from that piece of legislation, even in 2023, and come up with something worthwhile.

It is always important to have this process of questioning experts in committee. It gives us the opportunity to see if those who are knowledgeable and have the expertise want to add anything to the bill or take anything out. I think that is important. I may not be an expert on the subject, but the experts will certainly be able to guide us at this stage of the study. The little bits we have seen so far are mostly about time frames.

As I was saying, I think we may have acquired all the tools we need to be able to move forward in a shorter time frame than the proposed 18 months prior to royal assent.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville have already said, this legislation has been in force in Quebec for quite some time. It has become part of Quebec's social mores. The Bloc Québécois is closely attuned to Quebec's social mores, which is why we applaud this bill.

Does my colleague have any idea why the House of Commons has refused for so long, 11 times, to pass this legislation? Do Canada's social mores oppose this kind of worker and labour relations protection?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this great Canada, which is so different from Quebec, may be resistant to this, either for unknown reasons or for the reasons my colleague before me mentioned.

However, I think it is important to move forward and pass this kind of bill immediately. Parliament could have done so as far back as 1990, when our colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel first introduced such legislation.

We certainly had to negotiate in order to convince the government of the importance of such a bill. I am pleased that we have reached this point we are at today. It took time, however.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Canada Post Corporation.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and speak in this House.

The purpose of Bill C‑58 is to support free and fair collective bargaining. If passed, it will help restore and maintain the balance of power between unions and employers during strikes or lockouts. According to the unions, employers are in a position of strength in labour disputes. We therefore need to ensure that each side can have equal strength when they go to the bargaining table.

Workers have rights. I think that everyone agrees on that. They have the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to go on strike. Striking is the tool they use to put pressure on the employer, but when they go on strike, they have to make sacrifices. They sacrifice their pay, their benefits, their day-to-day security.

I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is a long-time friend and colleague, with whom I sit on the natural resources committee.

With regard to employers, the sacrifices they make during a lockout are not always comparable to those of striking workers. Before introducing Bill C‑58, we did our job. Among other things, we held consultations with all stakeholders, including employers and unions. The unions told us about the shift in the balance of power during a strike or lockout. Restoring balance is a key element for them.

According to what the unions we met with told us, employers always have the upper hand in the negotiations because they have a lot more financial power than the workers. They explained to us that when employers use replacement workers, it creates an even greater imbalance. It weakens the workers' main pressure tactic, which is to deprive the company of its workforce.

Some have even argued that employers could use the replacement workers to avoid making compromises. For unions, this shift in the balance of power makes the bargaining process more difficult and makes strikes and lockouts last even longer

Workers who are not being paid do not feel as though they are on a level playing field with their employer, who has the means to pay workers to keep the business running. Unions feel as though both sides are not equally motivated to negotiate and come to an agreement. Employees do not think it is fair or equitable when an employer replaces a worker who is on strike. That can also impact what is happening at the bargaining table and have a very negative impact on labour relations. What is more, it increases the risk of violence on the picket lines. We have often seen that in the past. Workers get frustrated and tensions rise. It puts everyone's safety at risk, including that of replacement workers.

What the unions are telling us is the truth. These things have happened. Take, for example, the lockout of unionized employees at the Co-op Refinery in Regina in 2019. The company spent millions of dollars building a camp that it filled with scabs from outside the province. It had so much financial power that it was able to bring replacement workers in by helicopter so that they could get across the picket lines.

The company hoped that the unionized workers who were locked out would give up their pensions. The conflict lasted 200 days and was marked by blockades, arrests and even a bomb threat. Is there a better example to illustrate how imbalanced the power relationship between unions and employers can sometimes be and how much damage that can cause?

The point is clear: Resorting to replacement workers diverts attention away from the bargaining table. It prolongs disputes, and it can poison workplaces for years, if not decades.

We are banning the use of replacement workers because we believe in balanced collective bargaining, free and fair collective bargaining. How would Bill C-58 restore that balance?

This bill would encourage unions and employers to resolve their differences as they should—together, on an equal footing at the bargaining table. In other words, it brings the focus back to the bargaining table. That is where this has to happen, because that is where the best deals are made. We are going to do this by ensuring that employers can no longer get others to do the work of striking or locked out workers. I am talking about employees and managers hired after notice to bargain has been served. Contractors, regardless of when they were hired, would also be prohibited from doing the work of striking or locked out employees.

Now, as in all things, there are exceptions. Employers could use replacement workers to prevent threats to life, health or safety; to prevent destruction of or serious damage to the employer's property or premises; or to prevent serious environmental damage affecting the property or premises. Any violation of the rules would be considered an unfair labour practice under the Canada Labour Code.

I will spare the House the details of the complaint process, but it should be noted that it would be handled by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB.

Bill C‑58 also provides for improvements to the process for the maintenance of activities. To prevent serious danger to the public, employers and unions should agree at the beginning of the bargaining process on what activities are to be maintained during a strike or lockout. The parties will have to come to an agreement within 15 days of the start of the negotiations, before they can issue 72-hour notices of their intention to strike or impose a lockout. If there is no agreement, it will be up to the CIRB to make a decision within 90 days. If no agreement or decision can be reached, there will be no strike or lockout.

I talked about what the unions told us during our consultations. As I mentioned, however, we consulted all the parties involved. We reached this point today because we worked in a spirit of tripartite collaboration. Together, the government, the unions and employers all sat down at the same table. We had open, honest and direct discussions. We worked freely and fairly, which is exactly what we want for the future of labour relations in Canada.

Bill C‑58 will unquestionably improve labour relations, protect the right of workers to strike, limit collective bargaining interruptions and ensure greater stability for Canadians during disputes in federally regulated industries.

Bill C-58 will lead to free and fair collective bargaining at all times.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to start by pointing out that this member and all his Liberal colleagues voted, twice, against legislation to prevent replacement workers, in 2016 and against in 2019.

I would like to know why the bill does not apply to heavily subsidized projects, like Stellantis, which is going to bring in 1,500 or 1,600 scab labourers from Asia. That is one question.

I heard the member mention that critical services would get exempted, such as pharmaceutical products, air ambulances and things like that. I have had people in the aviation industry point out to me, and I know they have studied it a lot, that things like firefighting, delivery by air of pharmaceuticals and air ambulances are threatened by this legislation.

Could the member provide the House with the clauses in that bill that would exempt those aspects of the aviation industry from this legislation?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the best deals are done at the negotiating table between the parties, the employer and the union.

Second, I am fully for foreign direct investment in this country. I am fully for Volkswagen, Stellantis, Toyota and Honda, and any other entity in the automobile sector, in this example, to come and invest here. If those entities need to bring in workers with specialized technology so that Canadians can have jobs, that is a win for our country, our communities and Canadian families.

Foreign direct investment in every part of our economy, whether it is Ferrero Rocher from Italy, Toyota or any company that is here in Canada, operating from abroad, General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, all these companies employ literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We want them to come here and invest in Canada. We will partner with industry and labour, unlike the party on the opposite side.