Moved second reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to kick off this second reading debate on Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012, in order to bring about a regime of balance with respect to banning replacement workers during federally regulated industry strikes or lockouts, and to put in place a provision that governs the timing and the steps with respect to determining maintenance-of-activities agreements or decisions of the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, which would affect what work continues to be done during a strike, as well as the situations that I’ve referred to.

Colleagues, in the late 1970s, I joined the Ontario Public Service as a worker in the Ministry of Corrections. It didn’t take me long to become involved in my union local at that place, or to become a member of the executive of that union local, or to become a delegate to the province-wide Corrections Division of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which I will refer to as the OPSEU as I go forward with my remarks.

A few years later, in the midst of a rancorous round of bargaining — which was actually not contract bargaining; it was bargaining to establish a new collective bargaining unit for correctional officers separate from other divisions within the Ontario Public Service — I found myself at a microphone at an emergency Corrections Division meeting, moving a motion for a province-wide illegal strike. Yes, I said it: illegal. In those days, Ontario Public Service workers did not have the right to strike, and disputes in contract bargaining were sent to binding arbitration.

Little did I know that a decade later, I would be an elected MPP and a cabinet minister, and I would introduce, carry and see passed legislation creating the right to strike for unionized workers in the Ontario Public Service.

In the early 1980s, I left the Ontario Public Service and I went to work for the union which I’ve referred to — the OPSEU — eventually becoming a negotiator, with a number of province-wide bargaining unit contracts that I had carriage of. Negotiations, disputes, arbitrations, strikes, settlements, and restoration of workplace relationships between employers and employees post-disputes — it’s in my DNA, you could say.

Today, 40-plus years later, I’m honoured to be the Senate sponsor of this long-awaited legislation — Bill C-58 — banning the use of replacement workers during a strike in the federally regulated private sector, and requiring the parties to determine a maintenance-of-activities agreement prior to a strike or lockout commencing.

Let me start with a description of the legislation. I’m going to, first of all, set out whom it applies to and whom it does not apply to.

Bill C-58 pertains to federally regulated private sector organizations contained within Parts I, II, III and IV of the Canada Labour Code.

Let me just give you some examples: There is a long list, but you’ll quickly get the sense of whom we’re talking about. It includes air transportation, banks, port services, railways, radio and television broadcasting, road transportation services, telecommunication systems, and some First Nations governance bodies. There are a number of industrial sectors that are covered, but remember we’re talking about federally regulated sectors.

There are about 22,000 employers involved in this sector. I was actually surprised by that number. There are over 300,000 unionized employees. There are more employees than that, but I’m talking about the unionized employees who would be involved in the application of this legislation.

This is whom it does not apply to: It does not apply to the federally regulated public service — for example, the federal public service that we see in the various departments of government. It doesn’t apply to Parliament; it doesn’t apply to either the House of Commons — the other place, as it’s referred to here — or the Senate.

To explain why — because I think it’s a question that a lot of people ask — these are amendments to the Canada Labour Code and to the regulations that govern the CIRB. The legislative framework for federal public servants and Parliament is an entirely different piece of legislation. We’re focused on the Canada Labour Code amendments at this point in time. Whether those matters are addressed in the future by any kind of government bill or private bill coming forward, we will see; at this point in time, we’re dealing with the Canada Labour Code.

In short, there are two major aspects of what this bill does. It prohibits employers from using replacement workers during strikes, which are actions taken by workers, or lockouts, which are actions taken by employers.

The rationale for this is to establish a more balanced relationship between employees and employers — employers and their workers — in a strike or lockout situation. I want to return to that point, but keep in mind that what we’re talking about and seeking here is a question of balance. With changes, this legislation rebalances the relationship. Of course, there will be people who have differing opinions on what the right balance is, and that’s ever thus as we deal with legislation and as we listen to proponents and opponents of legislation.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that freedom of association provisions in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect the right to strike. Within the text of the Supreme Court decision, Justice Abella — one of my favourite people in the world — writes:

The conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence, and by Canada’s international obligations.

She then pursues this issue by quoting Otto Kahn-Freund and Bob Hepple, and this is a quote from them:

The power to withdraw their labour is for . . . workers what for management is [the] power to shut down production, to switch it to different purposes, to transfer it to [a] different [place]. A legal system which suppresses the freedom to strike puts the workers at the mercy of their employers. This — in all its simplicity — is the essence of the matter.

That’s the end of the quote from those two individuals.

It is argued the use of replacement workers can undermine the right to strike.

Colleagues, in all the years of my engagement in the trade union movement, and as a negotiator and having been on picket lines, as well as having negotiated settlements to disputes and having contracts in arbitration — a whole range of those experiences — I have to tell you that the very last option for workers is to consider going on strike.

Sometimes I think if people have not experienced or been in that situation, there is a failure to understand, and there is the belief that this is just — all of a sudden, it becomes impersonal — the unions flexing their muscles and pulling away the ability for ongoing production from an employer.

Let’s come down to the personal: Those workers lose pay. They lose their benefits. It has a direct impact on the lives of their families and their communities. It is a last option, and it is not an easy one.

As we consider what the correct balance is, as well as what’s being proposed by this legislation, I hope we keep that in mind. Let’s not paint employers or unions at some global level. Let’s remember that these are people. These are people who are working for a purpose, and these are people who are supporting themselves, their families and their communities.

The second matter that is addressed in Bill C-58 sets out — and this is a new regime that’s being established; it’s a process — its provisions and timelines to arrive at an agreement of the parties or an adjudicated decision by the CIRB to determine the work activities that must be maintained during the strike or lockout. These are activities that are often just referred to as activities necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.

Section 84 has a number of provisions, but the Canada Labour Code already mandates that maintenance of activity arrangements or agreements must be developed by the parties. But what experience has shown is that when the parties are involved in the process of negotiations and are focused on the back and forth and trying to get to a point of settlement, these issues of maintenance of work activities often don’t get addressed until it is very clear that this is ending in a dispute and that no settlement is going to be obviously apparent. So it can then take a long time for these agreements to come into place, or where there is a dispute about maintenance of activities, so that perspectives of the employer and the workers for the application or referral to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, to make a determination and a declaration about what activities must be maintained.

That CIRB process, if you look back over the years, takes an extraordinarily long time. Why is a good question. In essence, I think it boils down to the amount of resources. Sometimes it is the complexity and the nature of the investigation that has to be done, but often it is just the person power to be able to accomplish that. Those delays ranged in some years, a couple years back, an average of 250 days from the application to the issuance of a directive by the CIRB. In another year, it was much less than that, but it was 150 days. This is still an extraordinary length of time at the end of what can be a very protracted set of rancorous negotiations.

One of the things that happens in strikes, lockouts and unsuccessful attempts at bargaining a collective agreement are the difficult and hard feelings that get baked in. The longer the process goes on, the more time there is for that kind of acrimony to grow and to poison a workplace.

We have to remember that at the end of the day, these parties have to come back together and continue on the enterprise that they’re both committed to — they’re obviously different, but common reasons.

Employers, workers and their unions have made the case over the years that there needs to be a process that sets out the appropriate time limits, and there has been lots of discussion about what those time limits should look like. This bill answers that call and puts in place for the first time a series of steps and the number of days that are available to the steps. The parties must begin to negotiate an agreement within 15 days of notice to bargain and getting started.

If there is a dispute and it’s referred to the CIRB, either by a complaint or if the minister is pressed to come in and to make a referral, which he or she has the power to do under the legislation, there is then a time frame for how long the CIRB can take. There are details in there, and I’m happy to answer questions if people want more detail on that.

The bill also, in an attempt to set out a balance, provides for exceptions that would allow employers to use replacement workers. This will now be spelled out better than it has been in the past. There was a one statement line. It was very difficult for that to be adjudicated because it was very subjective. Now this legislation puts forward some very clear provisions about when exemptions to the ban on the use of replacement workers would be allowed, and it’s to prevent threats to life, safety or health of any person, serious damage to the employer’s properties or premises and serious environmental damage affecting the employer property or premises.

Employees in the bargaining unit with a replacement worker ban are not allowed to cross the picket line. You have to remember the bargaining unit. But in some circumstances, again, there is an exception for this in this new legislation, and employees in the bargaining unit would be allowed to cross during the full strike or lockout if necessary to ensure that the work stoppage does not pose an immediate and serious danger to the health and safety of the public.

So in striking a balance, this legislation attempts to put health and safety of the public as a foremost consideration, and with the detail that I already spelled out for you in terms of the actual provisions where there would be exceptions to the use of replacement workers.

Over the years, the CIRB has received applications or referrals from a minister and a range of a number of industries to resolve disagreements concerning a maintenance of activity agreement. I gave you some examples earlier.

I want to give you an example just so you know what we’re talking about here. On July 22, 2014, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which is a union representing technical professional workers in federally regulated industries, applied to the Canada Industrial Relations Board under section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code. They were asking for an order to determine outstanding issues between the union and Atomic Energy Canada Limited, or AECL — we refer to it by acronym — who are the employer in this situation.

The maintenance of activities agreement’s acronym is MOAA. I don’t need to learn any more acronyms at this point in my life, but to do this job we have to sometimes.

Historically, there was a shutdown for routine maintenance. This was not a labour dispute. It was routine maintenance in November 2007 at the Chalk River nuclear facility. That’s under the governance of the AECL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission above that. You may remember this. As a former minister of health, I was following this as it went on. It resulted in a worldwide shortage of radioisotopes. The stakes were really high. It wasn’t just Canada, but Canada was experiencing this. It was a worldwide shortage, which speaks to the importance of this industry, not just to our own country but beyond.

In this 2014 case, the board determined that the public interest aspect of section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code — and this is an important interpretation and precedent — mandates that the party asserting that there is no danger to public health or safety should bear the burden of proof. Now we’re talking about the process of how issues are determined, what the due process is and where the burden of proof lies.

I, as an aside, find that a very interesting ruling that there is actually a burden of proof. If you’re saying that there is no danger or threat to public safety, your party — whichever party, and it has been argued by both sides in different circumstances — has the burden of proof to bring forward the evidence and to make the case.

That for me is another part of the overall regime that puts public safety and public interest first before either the employer, the union or unionized workforce’s particular points of view with respect to the dispute that they are incurring at that point in time.

There are a lot of other examples. Thankfully, my office went through the CIRB website trying to dig out examples. It’s not easy, but you can find them there if you’re interested. They involve decisions with respect to NAV CANADA, Canadian National Railway and Greater Moncton International Airport Authority. There are a number you can look to.

I’d like to turn now to the process which saw the development of the legislation and its passage in the other place.

Under the government’s Supply and Confidence Agreement with the New Democratic Party, the government committed to introduce:

 . . . legislation by the end of 2023 to prohibit the use of replacement workers, ”scabs,” when a union employer in a federally regulated industry has locked out employees or is in a strike.

Budget 2023 reiterated this commitment to improving the maintenance of activities process.

Consultation on the bill overall occurred between October 2022 and January 2023. During that period, there was a series of round tables. There was involvement of employers, unions and other interested parties that came forward. As a result of those consultations, a “What We Heard” report summarizing the results was published in September of 2023.

Sometimes when you’re a party to these kinds of consultations or policy and legislative development, you step back, look at the consultation report and feel that your voice wasn’t strong enough or wasn’t heard. I heard those complaints from both parties with respect to that, but the consultations were conducted and a report was issued.

I spent time talking with one of the leading advocates in the business association and employer community — a very thoughtful person. We both approached these discussions knowing that we come from different backgrounds and hold different perspectives on how to approach things. For me, these are always the richest conversations because you have an opportunity to learn, listen and understand where they are coming from.

I wanted to understand this. You will remember that I said both employers and unions seem to be generally supportive of the new provisions with respect to the process of maintenance of activities agreements and/or adjudication of disputes. There is no such agreement with respect to the bold issue of banning replacement workers, even with the provision of exceptions and those sorts of things.

This doesn’t surprise me, and I don’t think it should surprise anyone. We’re talking about a bill attempting to establish a balance in terms of creating free and fair collective bargaining. The employer representative with whom I spoke was clear that many employers think it is a carefully constructed balance as the law is today, prior to any changes that may come as a result of this bill, if and when it is passed.

It won’t surprise you to know that if you speak to representatives of unionized workers, unions and advocates, they will tell you that the balance isn’t there today — that the balance is weighted toward employers and leaves workers out in the cold, sometimes for long periods of time when replacements workers are brought in.

For example, workers at the Port of Québec have been on strike for 18 or 19 months. Full replacement workers are being used and the strike goes on.

In other cases where there are provincial regulations — I’m not talking about the Canada Labour Code provisions — there are strikes. A small telecommunications firm in B.C. unionized, and that process was challenged by the employer. The workers went on strike for three years to get an initial collective agreement, while the business continued to operate. In the end, the workers won the case because of a Labour Relations Board ruling — I would have to check before citing which one — which determined that the steps that had been taken were illegal in terms of the employer’s obligations.

That was a provincial case, but it gives you an example. There are many examples of strikes that have been protracted indeterminately as a result of the employer using replacement workers.

On balance, when I hear both sides come forward, it reminds me of the anti-poverty and workers’ rights work that I’ve done over the years in terms of the argument around increasing the minimum wage. When anyone talks about increasing the minimum wage at a government level, you immediately hear from one side that this will kill jobs and put small businesses out of business; on the other side, you hear that this is needed to protect workers with respect to inflation and cost of living so they can sustain themselves and their families and contribute to the economy in terms of their purchasing power.

Every time this comes up, whether in a province or wherever else, the arguments never change. It would be nice if at some point we could stop the polarization of rhetorical positioning and come to an understanding of what the impacts and challenges are.

All of these things are occurring in the context of our current economy. When there is a dispute around this, you must look at the economic conditions that are driving it. You can’t take the same canned arguments from either side and apply them to every situation because they’re not all the same, although sometimes the debate makes it seem as if they are.

I use that as an example. I’m not using the phrase “canned rhetorical positions” with respect to the positions of employers and unionized workers in the context of this bill. I’m very respectful of the position put forward by the employer community. However, from my first-hand experience in looking at the evidence brought forward by unionized workers, the argument that the current system isn’t balanced — and needs to be rebalanced — has great merit. That is why I’m happy to be sponsoring this bill.

To understand how people bolster their arguments, you have to look at what the empirical data says. Well, folks, like with many things we study, there isn’t much empirical data on this. Both sides will bring forward reports. I’ve read the reports that unions brought forward — what they cite and what they’ve looked at — and I’ve looked at the reports that employers rely on, such as the one from the Fraser Institute. They focus on the questions of whether there will be more strikes and whether the strikes will last longer, with more days lost to work stoppage. Both have different interpretations supported by evidence, but we’re talking about a very small number of studies.

The other thing that is important to keep in mind is that these studies are looking at provincial jurisdictions in this country where similar legislation has been brought to bear. There are only two: B.C. and Quebec. Quebec has had this legislation since about 1977, and British Columbia brought it forward in the early 1990s.

In trying to make sense of data that I believe is not persuasive on either side of this, I caution you to remember that the frequency of strikes is affected much more by economic conditions that the parties are facing at that point in time and the length of work stoppage. As I’ve said, if you look at situations where replacement workers were used, work stoppage goes on much longer; however, it’s not of concern to employers because they have workers and their business is chugging along pretty much as normal. That is perhaps an overgeneralization, because each case is unique.

The cases that have been studied are all provincial jurisdiction; they are not what we see here. Therefore, none of this data can apply to federally regulated sectors because there has not been a replacement worker ban in the federal jurisdiction. These employers are very different from those that are provincially regulated, if you think back to the examples of Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, decisions that I provided.

Before I leave the issue of balance, I want us all to remember that in the federal sectors we’re talking about, the government always has the ability to bring in back-to-work legislation. In the eight-plus years that I’ve been here, I’ve seen it happen twice.

There are measures that dictate when that is allowed. It is important to remember that the Charter protects freedom of association, the right to strike and when one can strike. During those debates, we held a few Committees of the Whole. If I remember correctly, Canada Post and the Port of Montreal appeared. Senator Gold and I really differed in terms of our constitutional interpretation. I’m not a mighty player. I’m not a lawyer or constitutional expert; he is. The court challenges are ongoing and we’ll see what comes out of that. However, I believe that in those two cases, the government was premature and didn’t meet the conditions that would allow them to bring in back-to-work legislation. It was an infringement of Charter rights, in my opinion.

It’s important for us to realize that, with time, we see court rulings, jurisprudence and a greater certainty brought from those to the parties’ understanding of what is and what is not permissible.

Going back to the process, Bill C-58 was introduced in the House of Commons in November 2023. Second reading took place during six sittings of the House of Commons between November 2023 and February 2024.

The House heard from over 20 MPs contributing their thoughts and views about the legislation. There were 53 question-and-answer exchanges after MPs stood when multiple other MPs asked questions of them. This came to an end on February 27, 2024.

The bill passed second reading — I want you to listen to this vote — with 318 MPs in favour and 0 opposed. At second reading, let me repeat, zero opposed. The bill was then sent for study.

I see the smirk across the aisle, senator. I understand from whence it comes.

The bill was studied at HUMA, which is the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the other place, from March 21, 2024, to May 2, 2024. There were six committee sessions. They heard from 37 witnesses and received 20 briefs from other interested parties.

During clause-by-clause consideration, the committee passed a small handful of amendments — a couple of important ones, but not large in number. In other words, I would argue that the bill is not very complex. You’re going to either support it or not support it. There are reasons for some of the amendments. Again, in answers to questions, I can explain those.

Third reading of Bill C-58 saw debate from five speakers with 22 question-and-answer interventions. On May 27, 2024 — Monday this week — the bill was passed in the other place by a vote of 316 for and, once again, 0 opposed.

I highlight the process for a reason. Often when we hear of something in this chamber that passed unanimously by all parties in a minority government — all of those things stack up to be a little monumental — some here wonder what happened there. Was it a political accommodation? Was it rushed through? Did it receive adequate study? Those are the questions that we, rightly, should be asking.

I set out that process so you can see there was extensive discourse — I’m not commenting on quality or anything like that. I am saying there was extensive debate, extensive study and conclusive third-reading discussion.

Now, we’re at this point. It’s our turn. It’s our turn to consider this, send this to committee and, hopefully, have a good review of the legislation. At second reading, where we are now, we consider the bill in principle. I have to tell you I wholeheartedly support this bill in principle. I look forward to the committee’s consideration of the bill.

When I began my remarks today, I did a walk down memory lane. As I wind up my remarks, please indulge me for a moment more.

In 1992, I was a member of the cabinet in the Government of Ontario. It was not my portfolio, but I was very happy as a cabinet member to support the introduction and passage of anti‑scab legislation for the provincially regulated workforce in the province of Ontario. In 1992 that happened.

Unfortunately, in 1995, as one of the first acts of the newly elected Conservative government led by premier Mike Harris with an agenda that he called the “Common Sense Revolution” — every time I hear the regurgitated campaign slogan of common sense in the other place or here, it’s almost a traumatic response going back to that point in time — he repealed that legislation. With respect to sloganeering, sometimes I think — what is that saying? — plus ça change. You can carry it on from there.

In undertaking the sponsorship of this bill, I am honoured and happy to do it. I was pleased to be asked. I have to tell you, personally, I feel like it’s a bit of closure and a bit of coming full circle for me on this. It also underscores for me something I have known all of my life in public service and which I get frustrated by, but it is what it is: I recognize how long things can take in the world of public policy, politics and legislative development.

We’re at a historic moment with this bill and the potential for a bill that has been long awaited and long lobbied for to re establish balance towards fair and free collective bargaining in accordance with the ability to exercise the right to strike, which is Charter-protected. We’re at a historic moment.

I don’t know who the critic of this bill is yet, but I look forward to hearing from them. I look forward to this being sent to committee for its consideration and discussion, something our committees do so well. I don’t know, but I suspect it might go to the Social Affairs Committee. I know they do a good job of being thorough. I am heartened the bill will get appropriate treatment.

This is important legislation. I look forward to others’ contributions to the debate and then to moving this to committee.

Your Honour, thank you. Meegwetch.

Yes.

Thank you. Yes, there was pressure within the committee stage to consider such an amendment, primarily brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, I think, because of the experience in Quebec since 1977 with back-to-work legislation and the fact that there is broad public support for that labour relations regime in Quebec. They felt that 18 months was too long to reach this point of rebalancing the fairness.

On the other side, the Canada Industrial Relations Board was saying, “We need time to build the capacities and train more staff. We need increased resources to be able to deliver on a time frame for implementing our work on this that is shorter than 18 months.”

In the back-and-forth discussions that went on, the CIRB was told 12 months would be what they had, but the government made a commitment to provide the resources so they could hire, train and get the systems up and going. That wasn’t completely acceptable to those members of the committee who wanted to see it be, essentially, upon Royal Assent. That’s what the other side was.

As in negotiations around these things, as often happens, a cut‑off date was determined somewhere in the middle of 12 months, but 12 months with a commitment from the government to fund the resources to make sure the CIRB could build its capacity to implement this at that point in time.

I think the answer to that is “no,” from my perspective. It’s a good point because you will note that one of the amendments in the legislation addresses the time limit. The legislation had set out 90 days for the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, to act after receiving a complaint application or a referral from the minister. They had 90 days to issue a response.

As I said earlier in my remarks, we’ve had years where responses averaged 250 days or 150 days — much more in any event than the 90 days that had been set out. That was worked out in development with the CIRB and department officials, and then the cabinet accepted it and put it into the legislation.

Some members of Parliament felt that period of time was way too long, and that the potential for delaying strikes or lockouts was detrimental to the process, as it should happen in a more efficient and more timely way. They proposed 45 days.

The 90-day provision was amended to 82 days. You look at that, and you say, “What? It’s an eight-day difference? What is it?”

Here is the thing that I learned during this process, which I think is important to understand, and you alluded to it when you talked about the collective bargaining process.

The first thing that happens is the party issues a notice to bargain. From that, bargaining could go on as long as the parties allow it, until they come to a point where they either have a settlement or they’ve decided it’s a dispute that can’t be resolved at the bargaining table. Then, they have to issue a notice of dispute.

At that point in time, the minister has up to 15 days — but they would rarely take that long — to decide to appoint conciliation/mediation services from the federal public service. This point has been made over and over again during remarks in the other place: We have very successful federal mediation and conciliation services. Essentially, 96% of all disputes are solved through that process. Only 4% of disputes — which is a subset of all the agreements that are settled — end up going to the next step, which is considering a strike vote and/or an employer making the lockout provision a reality.

The conciliation process takes 60 days unless the parties mutually extend it. Then, mediation can be the next step, depending on how far apart the parties are. When mediation comes in, that can go on for as long as the parties are willing to continue, if they’re making progress. It’s always best to have a negotiated collective agreement; I think we would all agree with that. That avoids work stoppages, whether by strike or by lockout, and the acrimony of that. The best settlements are the ones the parties can reach themselves.

While that can go on, there is a 21-day period where it must go on before either party can issue a notice of strike or lockout. I’m sure you are well aware that, once they do that, a 72-hour period must pass after the notice before a strike or a lockout can take place. Sometimes the parties will take longer. Sometimes it drives them back to the table. There’s all of that, but there must be at least 72 hours.

If you add all of that up, Senator Carignan, it comes to a minimum requirement of 97 days for the parties to proceed through all of that and reach a point where there may be a strike or a lockout.

Now let’s flip to your possible concern about a separate bargaining process. That is the process of determining an agreement for the maintenance of activities. Once the notice to bargain is issued under this new legislation, there’s now a 15-day time limit, whether the parties reach an agreement or not. It’s not that the parties don’t know what the issues will be, or that they haven’t gone through this before. Sometimes there are just standard agreements, if nothing has changed, which they will adopt; many times, that is agreed to between the parties. But if it’s not, then there is an application or, again, the possibility of a ministerial referral.

That process, from beginning to end — I see the Speaker is standing — will take less than the 82 days that is now set out in the legislation. It’s often done at a separate side table. I don’t think there’s any duplication —

The time for debate has expired.