But essentially, if you limit access somehow through undoing collective agreements that have been signed, if you limit access to the building trades, that is to your advantage, because then you have access where they used to have access.
I guess this is part of the problem with this whole thing. There are two stages to a collective agreement. There's certification first, which comes to a union and not to a contractor. It's the workforce that becomes unionized, not the owners. Then the second stage is that the owners and the union have to sit down and sign a collective agreement. If they don't then it's still open. They're free to choose how to do that—both sides. There are two parties. It's not, as the opposition would have us believe, somehow forced. A collective agreement isn't forced upon anybody, by any government or by any fiat of a province or city. In fact, two sides get together and decide what they want to see in a collective agreement, do they not?