Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member for this particular piece of legislation.
Two years ago, I was asked to be the Conservative shadow minister for labour, and it has been one of the best experiences I have had in my life. I have had the opportunity to travel to almost every province in this country and meet with union locals and union representatives. I have done it especially in the construction and building trade unions, in which there is an entire system that most Canadians do not know about, which are union training centres. Most people do not know the extent to which the people who build this country are trained in union training centres. The unions themselves have put money aside to build these facilities. Yes, in certain provinces, they are now getting provincial money to help with that, and at the federal level there have been programs to do that. In fact, in the last election, the Conservative platform included a massive increase in funding for UTIP, including elements like a bricks and mortar thing to help expand union training centres.
I know how hard our unionized construction workers work in this country, and they deserve the best representation. I agree with that unequivocally.
When I look at this member's piece of legislation, I break it down into three categories. The first category is the definition in the Canada Labour Code, which currently says “so dominated”. I have always thought that was a bit of an odd term. Someone is either dominated or not. What does “so dominated” mean? Is it okay if someone is a little dominated?
I think the member is right: The Canada Labour Code should be changed. We should remove “so dominated”. That modifier, I think, adds a level of domination when no domination should be acceptable. The test should be whether a union is dominated by the employer. I give the member kudos for identifying that and seeking to make that change.
I agree with what everyone has said here so far tonight, both from the NDP and from the Liberals. No union should be dominated by the employer. The whole purpose of a union is to represent the rights of workers, and they do a fantastic job of that, especially in the construction and building trade unions. I agree 100% with that.
Where I have a little less agreement and a little more uncertainty, and I am open to having conversations about this, is with the other two key aspects of the legislation. One part is, and the member has said it tonight, that her definition of dominated is the fact that a local union representative is not elected. That is how CLAC functions. CLAC elects its national representatives, the members get to elect them, and the national representatives choose the local union rep. Its argument is that it does that because national representatives can select people with expertise in labour relations, construction projects, etc. I do not know which of these two things is where the problem lies. I think there is an interesting question that we should be looking further into with respect to that.
The Canada Industrial Relations Board has looked into CLAC, and it determined that it was not employer-dominated in previous iterations. Is that because the test was “so dominated”? Maybe the CIRB said that CLAC is a little dominated, but not “so dominated”; therefore, it is okay. I do not know. I have looked at some of the decisions, and it is very unclear. When the CIRB looked into CLAC, it would have, of course, looked at governance structure. I do not know if the governance structure is part of the problem, but that is something we absolutely could look a little more deeply into.
Where I do have a challenge, and I have told the member this as we have discussed this piece of legislation many times, is in this: The change to the legislation is that if 25% of any bargaining unit decides that it thinks it is employer-dominated, then an investigation into the entire union could happen.
This country is covered in a lattice of union locals, and some unions in this country are gigantic. Unifor has over 200,000 members. A small local could have someone go around and convince them that the employer was not representing them properly and that the union must be employer-dominated. If the bargaining unit is 10 people, and there are bargaining units that are that small, and three people sign that, then the entire union would be indicted. That, to me, would lead to a bit of a challenge, because it seems to me that the threshold is too low.
The other thing that someone would know, if they have spent any time working with the construction and building trade unions, is that they do not always get along with each other as well as we might like to think. There are often jurisdictional disputes. There is what is called a raiding period, where different unions seek to take over individual locals, which is exactly what happened with the operating engineers in Alberta. The operating engineers in Alberta were able to take an entire CLAC local of some 800 people, and move it out of CLAC and into the operating engineers, so the unions do have a bit of a tussle with each other every so often. I can see that at times there could be an inclination to perhaps weaponize this section.
I also know that the Canada Industrial Relations Board does incredible work in this country. Its members have to deal with very difficult situations all the time, but when the head of the Canada Industrial Relations Board was at committee recently, the testimony was very clear. The Canada Industrial Relations Board has far too much work, and it does not have enough funding to deal with the work that it has. If we were to add to that a whole bunch of investigations into a whole bunch of unions, because in any bargaining unit, no matter how small it is, 25% can meet that litmus test to have that union investigated by the CARB, I could see this becoming incredibly challenging for the CARB.
In fact, there are many circumstances where the CARB does not meet deadlines, and its members have to ask for extensions. Those extensions, in the context of all kinds of serious disputes that they deal with, can have real consequences. I have very great concerns about the impact and effect of that particular section.
When I have had conversations with construction and building trades unions about this particular section, many have said to me that they had not thought about this, and that I might be right and there could be a challenge with that particular section. Initially, they are very supportive of the bill. Virtually every person in the construction and building trades unions whom I talked to thinks this is a great bill to deal with a union that they think is not a real union or is an employer-dominated union. However, when I pointed out some of the things inside the bill that I think are concerning, many of those very same people shared those concerns.
I do not know if the member is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation. We have talked a little. I hope she is open to making amendments to this piece of legislation, because I believe that there is a way to get this legislation to a point where it could be supported by the Conservatives. I do not know where the Liberal Party members are on this. The member's speech did not touch too much on the substance of the legislation. It talked about a whole bunch of other things, so I do not know 100% where they are, but from my perspective, I think that the legislation needs a bit of tweaking.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying, because I do not get the opportunity too often to speak about unions and the great things that they do, that my son went from the private sector into a unionized environment in the construction industry, and his life got 10 times better, so no one is more convinced than me of the good work that unions do to represent people.