In maintaining the constitutional validity of Ontario`s laws, which provide for more limited union and union rights for agricultural workers, CSC confirmed that Section 2 (d) of the Charter certainly guarantees a reasonable process of collective bargaining, but does not guarantee a certain model of collective bargaining or some outcome. Instead, FRASER CSC noted that Charter bargaining rights give workers the constitutional right to make collective representations and have their collective representations reviewed in good faith by the employer. The Fraser CSC stated, “In all cases, the question arises as to whether the law or the action of the state in question makes it impossible to act collectively to achieve the objectives in the workplace.” Restrictions on the scope of the Charter, which enshrines the right to collective bargaining, were raised in CSC`s recent decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 CSC 20 (“Fraser”), which involved a challenge to Ontario`s labour legislation for farm workers. By asserting that Legislation B.C was contrary to Section 2 (d) of the Charter, the CSSC upheld the constitutional right to collective bargaining, which must essentially include a process of negotiation and consultation in good faith with the employer and the right to exchange bargaining proposals. However, CSC also confirmed that the right to collective bargaining is a “limited” right to a negotiation process and is not a right or guarantee of certain material or economic outcomes or a particular model of labour relations or bargaining method. The case concerns whether the B.C. government`s Health Services Improvement Act (Bill 29), which invalidates the equality provisions of collective agreements in the women-dominated health sector, is contrary to Section 15 of the Charter. Bill 29 applies only to the health and social services sectors, the sectors of the public service most dominated by women; 98% of nurses in British Columbia are women; 27% of health care workers are immigrants; 57% are over 45. It can be said, with fugity and A, that there is some uncertainty and confusion about the ability of governments to mandate and are in line with today`s economic realities. While “zero net” or equally restrictive bargaining mandates may be perfectly aligned with public opinion and represent what should be done in the context of public policy, there may sometimes be a lack of knowledge or an assessment of the importance of compliance with the statutory collective bargaining process.