THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with video conference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[Translation]
I am Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants including the interpreters.
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between you and the microphone. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces may no longer be used. Please keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times, and when you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Today, we begin our examination of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.
Before we begin, I would like to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves to our witnesses and the audience, starting with the vice chair, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Senator Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia. Welcome today.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Senator Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montréal, Quebec.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, by video conference, Keith Currie, President; and Scott Ross, Executive Director. Joining us from Electricity Human Resources Canada, in person, Mr. Mark Chapeskie, Vice President, Program Development; and from the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, Fernando Melo, Federal Policy Director, Policy and Government Affairs section. Thank you for joining us today.
We will begin with opening remarks from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, followed by the Electricity Human Resources Canada and then the Canadian Renewable Energy Association.
Mr. Currie, it is your five minutes.
Keith Currie, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hello to the committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Keith Currie, and I am the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, and an eighth-generation farmer here in southwestern Ontario.
The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization representing over 190,000 farm families across Canada at the heart of a Canadian agri-food system that generates nearly $144 billion, or 7% of Canada’s annual GDP.
First of all, CFA and its members support the objective of promoting economic growth, the creation of sustainable jobs and support for workers in the shift to a net-zero economy.
I would like to convey that the future of agricultural work should be closely considered as a sector with the opportunity to provide a range of sustainable jobs in communities and regions right across the country.
Not only are these jobs predominantly in rural and remote communities, but agriculture also presents unique employment opportunities for underrepresented groups that may otherwise face obstacles accessing sustainable jobs in other advanced sectors.
For example, many agricultural positions do not require a post-secondary degree. Instead, these prospective agricultural workers need targeted and time-limited training to ensure they have the unique skills required to succeed in the Canadian agricultural workforce.
This could also be of particular value for new Canadians that come from agrarian backgrounds, but are otherwise challenged to secure employment in other green sectors.
Farmers across Canada have always and are continuing to take a leadership role in adopting sustainable agricultural practices with a long history of continuous improvement in environmental performance that has seen the sector’s emissions intensity halved in the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, Canada’s endowment of fresh water and agricultural land hold the potential to drive future climate solutions through advancements in on-farm biodiversity and carbon sequestration, to name a few.
The adoption of data and technology on Canadian farms is fundamental to the future of Canadian farming and its potential not only in driving productivity growth but meeting our sustainability objectives as well.
According to the most recent Census of Agriculture, the majority of farmers across Canada have now integrated at least one form of data-enabled technology on their farms. Through advancements in the use of precision agricultural technologies, conservation tillage and advanced robotics, sectors across agriculture are rapidly increasing adoption of technology. Put simply, data and technology are changing the landscape of farming across Canada.
However, the adoption of these data-enabled technologies brings an increasing need for greater data-literacy and skills development. That is why we welcome access to more resources and tools to support the farmers, crop advisors and agronomists who are on the ground and in the field helping Canada meet its sustainability goals.
To make this a reality in the agriculture sector, I would like to focus on three areas in particular that we feel merit close consideration.
First, we support efforts to promote skills development to meet the future needs of an innovative and sustainable agriculture and agri-food sector. However, we recommend that skills training programs provided through the federal-provincial labour agreements ensure that eligibility criteria provide the flexibility to accommodate skill deficiencies to meet both on-the-job training and more formal business management and technical skills.
Second, we support the need to invest in agricultural extension services, including funding for both post-secondary research and extension support, to ensure that farmers are getting the best possible advice when it comes to implementing sustainability best management practices.
Finally, remembering that agriculture employs one in nine Canadians, Bill C-50 has the potential to support Canadian farmers and farm support workers; however, this potential can only be realized if farmers are given a seat at the table of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council.
Farming occurs across Canada in the context of wildly different climates, ecosystems and rural communities with varying degrees of access to the infrastructure necessary to adopt best environmental practices and innovations further.
To seize these opportunities and respond to the demands of different rural communities and regions across Canada, farmers need a voice at the table to characterize the opportunities, trade‑offs and the ecosystem complexities that need to be factored into the future of skill development across Canada.
We encourage this committee to consider some of the key issues we have raised here today in order to ensure that Bill C-50 supports Canadian agriculture in its continued drive towards sustainable productivity growth.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I welcome any questions senators may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Currie.
Mr. Mark Chapeskie from Electricity Human Resources Canada is next.
Mark Chapeskie, Vice President, Program Development, Electricity Human Resources Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee, for the invitation to speak today on this important topic which forms a core component of the work we do at Electricity Human Resources Canada, or EHRC.
Our vision at EHRC is to build the world’s leading electricity workforce, one that will power our nation’s grid, ensure reliability and support a clean economy for future generations. We deliver critical business intelligence to inform labour market decision making, and lead the industry in creating and sustaining a safe, skilled and inclusive workforce.
Our members and partners include employers, educators, labour and policymakers, among others, all working together to identify and forecast workforce priorities and find practical solutions to our most critical talent needs in the sector.
For context, EHRC recently released new data in our report, Electricity in Demand: Labour Market Insights 2023–2028. From these findings, we know the electricity sector in Canada which is composed of the core generation, transmission and distribution of power — including wind, solar, nuclear, et cetera — is 110,000-plus people nationwide. This vital labour force does everything to ensure our power is delivered, largely uninterrupted, 24/7/365. They ensure our homes are lighted, heated and cooled, our data centres are operating and our hospitals and grocery stores are all open to serve Canadians.
Further, Canada’s nuclear industry is home to an internationally recognized supply of medical isotopes. The world is watching as we develop some of the world’s first small modular reactors.
The electricity sector grew by 12% over the past five years, almost twice the workforce growth rate of the rest of the Canadian economy. Our occupational projections forecast “28 by 28,” or 28,000 job openings by 2028 due to both growth and retirements.
Our supply-demand analysis shows we’ll have shortages in the skilled trades, engineering, technician and technologists and information/communication technology roles. Further, as we look out to 2035 and 2050, the total number of job openings for the sector on a pathway to net zero will be closer to 150,000 openings.
Important to note here is the career runway to get us there. To educate, train and certify nuclear engineers entering the workforce in 2030 requires that today’s Grade 9 youth select STEM-related courses to embark on this career pathway. This helps demonstrate the scope of the challenge ahead of us.
Like other sectors of the economy, the electricity sector workforce doesn’t operate in isolation. It is intensely competitive. For example, boilermakers and electrical engineers, they could work in other places. We know from our research that the primary recruitment tool used by employers is hiring from other employers in the industry or, colloquially, poaching.
Because we are in a position of economic growth for the sector, we must focus beyond getting a bigger piece of the pie on a per-company basis. We need to ensure we have all the ingredients for the filling of a much larger pie. Electricity Human Resources Canada’s report outlines a roadmap to ensure we get there, underscored by five key points.
First, we need to align the Canadian immigration system with labour market demand for in-demand roles in our industry, and align foreign credential and experience recognition with the relevant regulatory authorities.
The Chair: Mr. Chapeskie, would you kindly speak a tad slower so our interpreters can keep up with you.
Mr. Chapeskie: As long as I get five more seconds.
The Chair: Thank you. Yes, will give that to you.
Mr. Chapeskie: Thank you, Madam Chair.
— and align foreign credential and experience recognition with the relevant regulatory authorities to ensure we can expedite workforce integration of foreign-trained professionals.
Second, we need to grow the number of seats available to youth and others looking to enter the sector in college and university that stream into occupations into this industry. This needs to be paired with a campaign to attract workers in the sector.
Additional research suggests that few Canadians are aware of the industry as a sector of choice, which takes me to the third point.
We need to find ways to retain workers longer. This is an interim solution only, and can be encouraged through flexible work arrangements and adjustments to work and pension rules that don’t penalize workers from extending their careers.
Fourth, the proliferation of renewable energy in the grid generates new roles and new definitions. We need standardized training programs nationwide accredited to national occupational standards.
Further, we need to collect labour market data specific to renewable energy roles better, like a solar photovoltaic installer or a wind turbine technician. Currently, these occupations lack national-level occupational codes. Electricity Human Resources Canada is doing a lot of work to help develop these.
My final point for today’s discussion is better and more work on advertising, recruiting, onboarding and retaining people of diverse backgrounds. Women make up only 27% of the industry. Only 1% of the sector declares to their employer they have a disability. Five per cent, while Indigenous and aligned to the labour market writ large, is concentrated in the skilled trades.
I’ll wrap up by saying as we consider the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, we already have an incredibly skilled workforce. Employers in the sector have identified a shortage of skilled workers as their most pressing constraint in the near term.
As we embrace new technologies, investing in the workforce’s knowledge, skills and adaptability will be of the utmost importance.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Melo?
Fernando Melo, Federal Policy Director, Policy and Government Affairs Section, Canadian Renewable Energy Association: Thank you, chair and senators, for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, or CanREA, as part of this committee’s study of Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin People.
CanREA is the voice of the wind energy, solar energy and energy storage solutions that will power Canada’s energy future. Our 300-plus members are uniquely positioned to deliver clean, low-cost, reliable, flexible and scalable solutions for Canada’s energy needs which are set to grow faster than ever.
Meeting this growing need for clean electricity does not just require more wind turbines, solar panels and battery packs, it requires people. From line workers to solar installers and field biologists, CanREA’s members need them all. Biologists and engineers get projects permitted and designed and then work with skilled workers to build these projects and keep them running. When the time comes, these same skilled workers will repower or decommission these projects.
This broad and growing demand for a skilled workforce is why CanREA developed its national workforce strategy last year to help address the labour gap in the renewable energy and energy storage industries.
Specifically, we focused on three key areas: attracting new skilled talent to the industry; retaining the current workforce; and retaining industry knowledge within organizations. What we discovered in our work was that one of the largest barriers to someone entering the renewable energy and energy storage industries was a lack of awareness of the opportunities in the sector. Efforts are being made, though. Many post-secondary and third-party training institutions as well as non-governmental organizations — like my colleagues at Electricity Human Resources Canada, or EHRC — have been actively engaged in creating opportunities for individuals to enter the renewable energy and energy storage industries with programs aimed to attract people at all stages of their career.
Some of these training programs are designed directly to engage with community-based projects and Indigenous community training opportunities via virtual workshops and programs within classrooms to improve access to training resources. These play a pivotal role in creating awareness of careers in the green economy and reducing the barriers to career entry through the provision of resources.
It is important that the federal government collaborate with industry and academia in the development of a future sustainable jobs plan. This will ensure training efforts and certification programs are representative of the skills required to be successful in the renewable energy and energy storage industries. The Canadian Renewable Energy Association, or CanREA, has taken a major step in fostering this collaboration with the launch of its careers website, Clean Energy Jobs Canada. This website aims to connect employers and job seekers to help build the workforce of the future. It also showcases training opportunities for job seekers and has interviews with workers active in the field to provide guidance on how to build a career in the renewable energy and energy storage industries.
It is also important that training programs intended to support non-trade skilled professionals are considered in funding frameworks to support green economy skill development. For example, the federal Apprenticeship Completion Grant only supports Red Seal Trades, leaving students who want to become wind turbine technicians or other skilled professions unable to access the $2,000 available to millwrights or electricians. So why would a high school kid choose to become a wind turbine technician — and receive little to no economic support from government programs — when they could become an electrician and have their schooling and tools paid for through a combination of federal and provincial programs?
Canada must completely rethink the way it funds the training of skilled workers. Without it, there is a risk that prospective students will not enrol in training courses, which puts at risk Canada’s ability to build the electricity system it needs to be competitive in the global economy and meet its climate goals. If the Government of Canada is serious about achieving its climate and economic goals while not leaving workers behind, it must address this funding gap as part of any future sustainable jobs plan. It also needs to work with the provinces and organizations like CanREA and EHRC to promote students entering these fields.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Melo.
Colleagues, we will go to questions. I think we will limit questions and answers to four minutes each. Let me quickly kick off with a question to each of you with short answers. Thank you for the orientation to your industries. I learned a lot.
What is your opinion of the proposed Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council? Aside from Mr. Currie, who said he supported this but requires a seat at the table, I didn’t hear Mr. Melo or Mr. Chapeskie make a comment about the council.
Mr. Melo: CanREA broadly supports the aims of the council and the aims of this legislation. We need a plan to ensure we know where we’re going for our sector.
Mr. Chapeskie: I would largely second what my colleague has indicated. I think we’re at a point of systemic change across the country, and not just across the country but across the global economy. Anything that facilitates the economic participation of Canadians in that transition or that change is important right from the federal to the provincial and local levels.
Our belief is that an act like this can help facilitate that. Further, I would add that the emphasis on inclusion of folks from across the different demographic groups in Canada is an important element of the legislation that shouldn’t be overlooked.
The Chair: Mr. Currie, would you like to add something to that?
Mr. Currie: The only thing I would like to add is that certainly in agriculture — as with a lot of other industries — we’re going to be seeing a dynamic change in our employment because of the Baby Boomers retiring. Over the next decade, we will see a massive reduction, especially in the management area and expertise fields. Having that seat at the table is what we’re looking for to ensure we have the right kind of employment going forward and the right kind of opportunities — whether that is domestic workers or new Canadians coming in — to ensure that we have the right skill, training and management levels going forward.
Senator Cordy: Thank you all very much. You have given us a lot of information. I was trying to jot things down. I have words and half sentences, and I will have to translate it when I go home tonight to figure out what it all means.
Mr. Currie and Mr. Chapeskie, you spoke about the gender gap and the few Indigenous workers you have. How do you go about doing that? What I am hearing is that 82% of the jobs in agriculture and natural resources are held by men. How do you do that early on and get people interested in joining your industries?
Mr. Currie: The one thing I’m excited about in agriculture is that it has become sexy again, especially because it’s become extremely technologically advanced — probably more so than a lot of industries out there. That is driving a lot of youth in particular — and, along with that, a lot of women — into the sector.
Women have always been involved in agriculture, although maybe they were not recognized as such in the past like they are currently. Nearly 30% of our agriculture workforce is now made up of women who are working on the farm. Predominantly, that is on the farm itself. Keep in mind that 90% of our farms are family-owned and operated, and certainly daughters and wives are having a much greater impact on decision making and involvement on the farm. Not that they didn’t do so in the past, but it is probably more recognized now. There are different roles because farms are getting bigger and management has become more specified. They are taking on key roles that they may not have taken in the past as far as decision making.
The more we can continue to lift up women, offer opportunities and encourage them to get further involved in the agricultural sector, not just on the farm but in those critical jobs beyond the farm gate, which are very crucial to agriculture as well. We stand to favour generously from that.
Mr. Chapeskie: My apologies for speaking too quickly earlier for your note taking.
The first thing I would say with regard to women’s participation is that EHRC has been in the labour market game for a long time, and five years ago, we were at 26%. Five years before that, we were at 25%. One thing I often say is that it’s going to be 120 years to gender parity if we continue at this particular rate of change.
However, I think change is happening. We’re seeing it. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet for women’s participation in the sector. The first thing to remember is that there is a skills challenge, and it is not to suggest that women can’t perform these roles. Women can absolutely perform these roles just as well as men. The skills challenge I am referring to is that it is four to five years to full competence from entry into post‑secondary or a skilled trades training program to completion. If a woman doesn’t enter into those particular training programs, they are actually locked out of the technical roles in the industry.
When we talk about engaging women in this particular workforce, there are two pieces.
There is the recruitment piece, and there is the retention piece. On the recruitment side, we need to go deeper into secondary schools and ideally into elementary schools where they are starting to stream into STEM, because in most provincial jurisdictions in Canada you can graduate from High School without Grade 11 science and math. If you do that you have just streamed out of most of the technical occupations in this industry — it does not matter if it’s a skilled trade role or if it is an engineering or a technician/technologist role.
On the recruitment side, we need to go deeper on promotion, and on the retention side we need to do more on policy and culture change within the industry as a whole.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much to all of you for your presentations.
I’d like to make reference to the report put out in 2022 by the Office of the Auditor General, titled, Just Transition to a Low‑Carbon Economy, and you might all be familiar with it. It was specifically an audit that looked at workers in communities affected by the accelerated federal phase out of coal‑fired electricity. The overall message and findings of this report were — and I’ll read it to you:
Overall, we found that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy for workers and communities.
And they said:
Although the government had identified Natural Resources Canada as the lead department to deliver just-transition legislation in 2019, the department took little action until 2021. It didn’t establish a governance structure . . . and it did not have an implementation plan to address a transition that involves a variety of workers, geographies, and federal and other stakeholders.
They had to rely on existing programs and mechanisms that weren’t meant to support a just transition.
This is really important, because now we’re at the stage where we’re moving into the next phase of the so-called just transition, affecting other sectors. I’d like to know how you feel about this transition that’s about to affect, for example, the agricultural sector and whether you feel that there are mechanisms in this legislation that are going to make a difference and, perhaps, not result in the same kind of report as we saw from the Auditor General in 2022.
I might start with you, Mr. Currie, if I could.
Mr. Currie: Thank you for the question.
I’ll say that a part of my comments around having a seat at the table will certainly help to address that going forward.
I would probably turn it over to my colleague, Scott Ross, to give you a deeper answer to this question, as our executive director.
Scott, maybe you can jump in here.
Scott Ross, Executive Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the question, senator.
The primary point I would make is the importance of having the right people involved in the partnership council in informing a jobs plan. I think from farmers’ perspectives, one of the most challenging aspects of the transition we’re seeing take place right now in terms of shifting to a net-zero economy or a low-carbon economy has been the challenge in understanding the complexities of our sector.
Unlike many, farmers live in a natural ecosystem and are working in that regard, so where you are in the country, what you’re producing, and where you are in terms of the life cycle of your business all have really dramatic implications on the sector skills needs you’re going to face and the likely evolution we see in terms of how those skills are shaping up.
As we continue to see the emergence of a lot of innovative practices and technologies, the biggest challenge is keeping pace with that and recognizing the variation that exists across the country. From our experience in making policy and informing and advising on that in the past, the most critical aspect is making sure that we have an early voice in the process to make sure that complexity is adequately factored into —
The Chair: Mr. Ross, I’m going to give Mr. Melo an opportunity to answer that question very briefly.
Senator Seidman: Actually, I would prefer to hear from the electricity sector, if I might.
Mr. Chapeskie: Thank you for the opportunity.
The way I would respond to that is that I think there have been a number of lessons learned from the past. The first thing I would say is that coal — for our sector — is more labour intensive than most other generation technologies. As a result, it’s going to be important that we can map competency between coal workers, what they are doing today and what they could be doing within the industry.
One of the things that I highlighted as part of our report is that we are going to be facing labour shortages in this sector. We already are. Having a skills plan, either by company or within an industry or within a province, is going to be an important element, so I think some of the elements of this legislation will help facilitate that. We’ve done a lot of work in that area.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Perhaps I’ll go in the reverse order and start with Mr. Melo and then Mr. Chapeskie and then Mr. Currie, if there is time.
We’re hearing of the need to build a future diverse workforce with the knowledge and skills that are needed for a green economy. In each of your opinions, how could Bill C-50 support and build that needed human resource pipeline?
Mr. Melo: Frankly, that plan should come with a lot of outreach and education. This is rewinding 20 some years, but when I was in high school, I was told, “Don’t go into the trades.” Now, the best advice I can give anyone who comes to me and says, “I want a job in climate action,” is that I say, “Learn a skilled trade.”
Having that advertising and coordination with the provinces to ensure that young people, as they start mapping out their career paths, as my colleague has said, so they’re able to stream and be aware, or for those choosing their second career, to understand those opportunities or where some great retraining opportunities are for an electrician to learn how to work 100 plus metres in the air.
Mr. Chapeskie: One of the things that legislation like this does is it provides focus. We know that one of our challenges as an industry is that very few people are aware of the opportunities in the sector.
Five years ago, if you had asked me, “Are we going to be facing labour shortages?” I would have said, “Maybe.” The hiring halls were full, and there were plenty of folks to fill the job openings. That’s no longer the case in our sector.
We have human resources folks coming to us and asking, “Where are all the people? Where did they all go?”
This will continue to be a big challenge, but I think legislation like this helps to provide that focus that is strategic in nature. It will help us to develop better labour market systems to forecast where we need to go as a nation, and better labour market forecasting leads to better training programs that align to where we need the people, basically, at the end of the day.
We work a lot with our education partners in post-secondary to ensure that within their programs, the number of seats adds up to what we’re looking for down the road. I think it will help in that way.
Mr. Ross: I can speak on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and we would stress that we are an industry-led workforce action plan comprised of the stakeholders from the agri-food sector.
I would echo the sentiment that this piece of legislation can help drive the focus that is needed to take much of the work that is already under way in advancing how we address the chronic labour shortages for our sector and drive some focus and energy around the most immediate priorities in that respect. It can really build on what is now multiple years of extensive work engaging stakeholders across our sector on a plan to help address the increasing chronic labour shortages that continue to affect our sector and look to be up to a 15% labour gap by 2030.
We’re very seized with this issue and welcome the focus that a bill like this would bring.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I will ask my questions in French, and they are for Mr. Melo, from the renewable energy sector, and Mr. Currie, from the agricultural sector.
In your respective sectors, both of you identified a certain number of different trades and a certain number of different workers, be they new Canadians or workers who fall into other categories. The bill includes action plans for sustainable jobs. What types of incentives should future action plans on sustainable jobs include to attract necessary investments to your sector? In other words, what types of support or additional incentive measures are needed? Does the bill, as drafted, cover all the needs you have in this area? Mr. Melo, perhaps?
Mr. Melo: Thank you very much.
[English]
The bill itself indicates that there will be a plan created. What we really need is, as my colleague said, max codes — to use a term — which will allow more workers who want to enter our field to have access to the same incentives that already exist for Red Seal workers across the country and to be able to have a different way we focus in.
This legislation doesn’t exactly spell out, yes, we shall do X, Y or Z. It does commit to creating that plan, and that plan will have room for my colleague and me to participate and ensure that we do have workers with equitable access to those funds which are already in place.
Mr. Ross: On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, from our perspective, I would echo many of the sentiments of the previous speakers. There is potential for a lot of good to come from a plan like this. The devil is in the details, ultimately.
From an agricultural perspective, we see this bill creating two critical issues. It is raising awareness about the nature of career opportunities that exist in our sector. We continue to face the challenge of very regressive images of our sector relative to the technology we see today. That is a critical opportunity that such a plan could provide. Similarly, for many years, we have been advocating for greater flexibility in the kinds of training that could be supported. In particular, there is heavily reliance on training on the farm in agriculture. Many of the existing programs and suites out there do not currently accommodate that kind of training and those kinds of educational opportunities.
We would hope that a plan that comes through a piece of legislation like this would look more closely and ensure we have the flexibility we need in that space.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Doesn’t the bill, as drafted, need to be strengthened? Do you see aspects of the bill that you think need to be strengthened?
[English]
Mr. Ross: From an agricultural perspective, I would stress the importance of ensuring that there are employers from the agricultural space in the partnerships council, as we discussed in our opening remarks.
From our perspective, it is very challenging to get a unified voice on behalf of Canadian agri-food workers at a table like that. It’s paramount that farmers have an opportunity to weigh in and inform those plans because, ultimately, it’s that nuance I spoke to earlier that is so critical in all of this.
Mr. Melo: [Technical difficulties] — from a renewables perspective, we are at the table. Having the ability to maintain our seat at the table and to work with our colleagues across the sector to inform the bill as the partnerships council, that’s where we’re going to see real efforts come from and real gains in terms of what we need to do.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses today for being with us. My question is focused a little bit around equity-seeking groups. This bill makes specific mention of equity, diversity and inclusion in the sustainable jobs labour force. What are the current barriers faced by members of equity-seeking groups who want to join your particular sector workforce? How will this bill help them?
I’d like Mr. Chapeskie and Mr. Melo to talk a little bit about this. We heard from you both, I think, that the training needs to start at high school level and that we need to make a shift in this. Help me understand what your sector is like in this area.
Mr. Chapeskie: I’ve commented a little bit about women’s participation in the industry and, just given time, I’ll maybe focus on some of the other groups who could be impacted.
Indigenous participation, for example, in the sector is close to labour market parity at 5%, but it’s focused on the skilled trades. We know that is because of barriers to higher education for Indigenous participation in some of the roles when we think about engineers or technicians and technologists. Those barriers need to be removed.
There are some structural barriers in current federal funding formulas or programs where an organization like ours which delivers funding on behalf of the federal government as part of the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy, for example. Some of those funds are tied to a post-secondary graduation. That is challenging for us if we want to engage with Indigenous communities in that particular program.
We’ve had great success engaging with Indigenous communities when there isn’t a post-secondary graduation requirement as an element of the program, for example. That’s one group.
People with disabilities — there are a number of, I would say, societal stigmas associated with participation in the workforce writ large. That is not uniquely an electricity sector problem. This is a problem in Canada generally. It’s something that we as an organization are working on, as are a number of other organizations. The sector has been working on it in the past but not sufficiently.
Right now our representation rate is 1% when it should be much, much higher than that, recognizing that there are currently over 6 million Canadians identifying as having a disability. That comes from policy. It comes from culture change. It comes from understanding that accommodations associated with disability do not have to be excessive or expensive, and we should be introducing better policy and procedures more generally in the organizations.
Senator Moodie: [Technical difficulties] — the second part of it.
Mr. Chapeskie: Similar to what my colleagues have articulated about the devil being in the details, it will come about as a result of the implementation. That’s where you will start to see whether the bill has the effect we would hope it has. The fact that it’s even articulated in the bill, though, sets us on the right course and in the right direction because that then gives the council and the secretariat the focus they need as far as what comes out of the implementation, basically.
Mr. Melo: I can only add is — well, actually, nothing. My colleague covered it entirely for us.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Mr. Currie, any thoughts on this?
Mr. Currie: Agriculture is quite unique in that these are all individual businesses that we represent right across the country. Each business is not only individual but very different from each other. Certainly, we have been engaging a lot recently with the National Circle for Indigenous Agriculture and Food to really share ideas, collaborate and put our heads together on how we move forward and be all-inclusive in not only what we have traditionally looked at as mainstream agriculture but also how we include the Indigenous peoples in moving the industry forward.
Certainly, if you look at agriculture from a diversity aspect, nearly 70,000 workers come into this country every year from predominantly Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Of course, they are all of different ethnic backgrounds and certainly play a very key role in agriculture production in Canada because, without them, I don’t know where we would be, even considering the deficit in jobs on the farm that we have now, with nearly 100,000 —
The Chair: Mr. Currie, we may have to come back to that point later.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here.
Mr. Currie, I am on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, so I really appreciate your comments, and I’m not going to repeat them. We hear the same themes of training, education, a pipeline of students and a lack of awareness. These are constant themes.
Number one, do you think this bill will do anything about it?
I want to focus on another thing, and I’m asking it because we know how important it is to engage diverse stakeholders in order to achieve buy-in, to uncover concerns early in the process and to make adjustments. I’m listening to Mr. Currie talking and pleading for the agricultural sector to somehow be included in the council.
I see that the council was reduced. I went back to the minutes in the other place, and I saw it was 20, then 15 and then now 13. What is your opinion on this reduction? May it have unintended consequences of not including all the sectors that need to be there?
Mr. Currie: First, thank you for your work on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee as well as this committee. We appreciate that very much.
The bill itself speaks to transparency and engagement. If we can accomplish those two things, that would be a giant step forward in trying to solve a lot of the employment problems we’re looking at. On reducing the committee, while I understand it might make sense from a logistics standpoint, not having agriculture sitting around the table is very troublesome. What people don’t understand about —
The Chair: I’m going to try to get an answer to the question from Mr. Chapeskie and Mr. Melo as well.
Mr. Currie: The more that we can make awareness of the opportunities in agriculture, we should because we need financial and research and everybody out there —
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Currie. We now have less than a minute for the other two to respond to this question about the size of the council.
Mr. Chapeskie: I can’t comment specifically on what size is best for the specific council, but more representation of the voices at the table is certainly important.
The other thing I think is probably going to be important is setting the mandate for the council and onboarding regarding the terms that the council members have to abide by. For example, if one sector isn’t specifically represented on the council, it’s important that the council members are representing Canadians more generally. Once again, it falls down to implementation, ensuring that we implement correctly.
Mr. Melo: Briefly, having more representation and representation that reflects Canada and the Canadian industries that are involved in this transition will be critical.
The Chair: Thank you. If I were a minister, I’d have you all around the table, but I’m not.
Senator Yussuff: Let me thank the witnesses for being here.
Senator Seidman raised an interesting point in regard to the Auditor General’s report. I was a co-chair of the task force report, and the work is not finished. Saskatchewan has yet to transition its coal generation to something different, as well as Nova Scotia and part of New Brunswick in terms of their coal generation. The process is not complete, but it is true that there is a failure in the process to accommodate. I think this bill speaks to that reality. As a result of that task force report, that is why this bill is now here.
Coming back to my friend Mr. Chapeskie on the electricity generation, the country is going to be electrified in every possible way. Whether you drive a car or heat a building, that’s where the country is going for 2050.
Recognizing all of the things that we have to do — and I think my colleagues have asked this very specific question — having the workforce to do so is very fundamental, and having a diverse workforce is very fundamental. Given your sector listing all the jobs that are going to need to be filled, I hear some of your argument but I don’t buy some of it. You can’t keep telling me, oh, this problem. Why don’t you just publish the salary that people who work in your sector make and it might change the attitudes of people who want to work in the sector? I know the vast majority of the salaries are over $100,000 per year.
Mr. Chapeskie: They are. I can confirm that. The average salary in the electricity industry in Canada is $105,000 per year. That goes right from the CEO down to the front-line power line technician.
Senator Yussuff: In the context of change, the government provided for modular nuclear reactors and a vast amount of money for research. This is going to create thousands of jobs, but they are not just the Red Seal jobs — there are also going to be engineering jobs.
In this regard, as we know, there has been a challenge in this country about women employed in your sector. How can we improve on that? Many women are engineers. My daughter is thinking of going into engineering if she should ever go to university. How do you promote your sector within universities about what is available for these young people when they come out of university?
Mr. Chapeskie: Those are excellent questions, senator. It goes back to something I said earlier with regard to representation. We can’t actually start promoting in universities because by then it’s too late. We actually have to start maintaining interest in high school and going even deeper.
Whether or not anyone is aware of it, in Grades 6 to 8 is when people start to stream. If they are starting to stream at that time and they lose interest in STEM — science, technology, engineering and math — by the time they hit Grade 10 and then they make the decision not continue in math and science, it doesn’t matter if they want to go into the skilled trades, technician/technologist programs or engineering — which make up over 50% of the occupations in the utility industry — they have just locked themselves out without additional retraining, basically. So if we don’t engage them in those younger years, then we’re going to continue to face this uphill battle over time.
Senator Yussuff: Very quickly, Mr. Currie, your sector is not just about food production, it is also about food processing. In the context of the vast majority of jobs that are also within that sector, can you speak to the changes that are going on and the need to have a good human resources policy to attract people to work in that sector?
Mr. Currie: Absolutely. It doesn’t matter what career path you take, there is an opportunity for you in the agri-food sector to utilize that education, and agriculture is the father of the green economy. How we make awareness for the attraction of workers into not only primary agriculture by our agri-food sector beyond the farm gate is vitally important because we can’t do what we do unless we have a vibrant sector beyond the farm gate. An awareness in education, just like the other speaker spoke to, is vitally important to ensure people understand that those opportunities are there and they can have a long-standing career in agriculture and still be part of the green economy.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. I would like to follow up on your response, Mr. Chapeskie, to a question my colleague Senator Moodie asked. You have talked a few times in your responses today about diversity in the industry. I am certainly pleased to hear you talk about women, persons with disabilities and Indigenous peoples. I didn’t hear you talk about racialized people, and I know in the work that I have done in the Black community, they have been locked out of these trades. Research has shown that the streaming for them, especially for Black boy children, starts around Grade 3.
I wonder if you could speak to what your knowledge is around that specific community and also how this legislation might address that specific inclusion.
Mr. Chapeskie: Thank you, senator. Forgive me, because each time I speak, I get 30 seconds to a minute, so I’m trying to fit as much in as I can and trying to get each group represented each time. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Black and racialized Canadians specifically.
We know that our sector, while it is doing better in that particular domain than in some of the other areas of representation, we still have a long way to go. I view representation in our industry as labour market parity, and we are not there yet — we are about 10% off in our industry.
To the point that I have been making regarding some of the other groups, we need to focus on ensuring that young Black boys — young racialized men and women, actually — see themselves in these roles. We have plenty of success stories of Black and racialized people in roles in the skilled trades, the engineering professions and the technician and technologist occupations. As an industry, though, we’re not doing a good job of promoting that yet, and we’re certainly not, as a nation, doing enough to promote the opportunities that this industry offers to folks from Black and racialized communities specifically. There is a lot to be done there.
Also, there needs to be support for people from diverse backgrounds more generally to enter the system. If at any point along the way a guidance counsellor, a teacher or a parent offers encouragement, that is one more feather in that person’s — I don’t know what I’m trying to say. It helps them, basically, to get into the sector as a sector of choice.
On the flip side, if somebody discourages them from going because of their colour — because they are Black or Indigenous — this too goes against them in the likelihood that they will continue to participate in the sector for the long term.
I think the bill is not going to solve culture change more generally, but I think, again, it does provide that focus that we need to ensure people end up in this sector as a sector of choice.
Senator Bernard: Would either of the other guests like to comment on that?
Mr. Currie: The only thing I would say to that is when you look at the farmer population, we are about 1.5% of the population, and rural communities across Canada are probably less than 5% of the total population, so the opportunities are not as great to encourage.
But certainly, from our perspective, we’re looking for people to work, and we’re not going to discriminate on race, colour, gender or your background. We are simply looking for smart, well-educated people to come and work on our farms. Anything that we can do to provide those opportunities, we will certainly do that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to all of our witnesses today. I am struggling with trying to understand the significance of the bill for your industries. I am thinking of words like “impact” of the bill, “effect” of the bill, the “significance” of the bill, the “importance” of the bill for your industries.
Will this bill have a great deal of impact, some, very little or no impact at all on your industries?
The Chair: Let’s go around the table. Mr. Melo, I’m going to start with you.
Mr. Melo: I would say that this bill will have quite the impact.
The Chair: Quite the impact?
Mr. Melo: May elaborate on that briefly?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Melo: A millwright working in the oil patch can easily be retrained to be a millwright working to help build wind turbine farms across the country. Electricians in the patch or the South Montney region can also be retrained. These folks work on three-phase power and do heavy industrial work. They can build a solar facility or help set up battery and hybrid facilities across the country.
This bill will help create a plan — a secretariat — aimed at helping bring those people as they start to see jobs wind down or more importantly automation, which has killed more jobs in the conventional or non-electricity energy industry, and find places within my members who are, right now, screaming. We are looking at finding programs to bring in refugees that are pre‑trained so that we can have folks on the ground and working to build the facilities we need.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Chapeskie, some impact, no impact, high impact?
Mr. Chapeskie: I don’t know that I am prepared to say the degree of impact. That is because I think — as our colleagues have mentioned — the devil is in the details. It comes down to implementation.
What the bill does, though, is it provides focus. As a country, it allows us to provide focus and focus on where we need to, to ensure that the economic opportunities for Canadians are across the board, and recognize that there will be challenges to get there and hopefully focus on those challenges and turn them into opportunities.
The Chair: Thank you very much. One minute, Mr. Currie.
Mr. Ross: I’ll speak on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. To be brief, I would echo the sentiment of the previous speaker. It is hard to characterize the level of impact that it will have. It could, potentially, have a significant impact on our sector, but it’s all predicated on how agricultural jobs are characterized in this process. If there is a real understanding of the sector in a sense of the opportunities in agriculture as a sustainable sector, the potential is there. But it depends on how implementation and governance are structured.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for Mr. Chapeskie, and I will ask it in French.
You spoke a great deal about focus. I have a question, because we’re talking a lot about this transition in the long-term future towards a net zero-carbon economy. Currently, can we say that sectors, such as your sector, are proactive or reactive? I get the impression that in order to plan for the long term, we have to develop models, predictions and scenarios. Are we doing it now and are we doing it well? That’s three questions. Are we doing it well? Are these scenarios the responsibility of the sector? Should a specific sector be putting them forward? How can this bill contribute to this type of process, if it’s important?
Mr. Chapeskie: Thank you, senator. I apologize, but I will answer in English.
[English]
Our translator faded out towards the end, so hopefully I heard everything. To your point, modelling is important. Regarding the first part of your question — whether the sector is being proactive or reactive — I would say that it is proactive but conservative — small C — because this is a highly regulated environment. We are under multiple pressures as an industry, so we have to maintain rates. We want to keep them lower for Canadians. We have to maintain service. They expect uninterrupted power supply, 24-7-365. And now we’ve layered on an additional challenge of getting us to net zero.
The industry as a whole is already working on that challenge. They have planning. They have scenarios. If you look at Ontario, you have the Independent Electricity System Operator, or IESO, doing modelling and forecasting out to 2035 and 2050. The same is true in Alberta and of the various crown corporations across the country, depending on which province. I won’t speak to all of them today. We have a complex electricity system in Canada.
A lot of modelling is happening at the national level and at the individual provincial levels as well. Now companies and system planners are working on the problem, as to how we get there. A lot has been written already on how, for some provinces it is going to be easier than for other provinces to get to 2035 and 2050. But I think — to your point — data is going to be important. Referenced in this particular bill is the importance of data collection. I can’t personally underscore the importance of that enough. I agree with you.
But not just total number of gigawatts. I think we also need to be thinking about how we deliver from a transmission perspective. Right now, a lot of our lines head north-south rather than east-west. The other thing that we need to think about, more generally, is who we’re going to have working on all of this. We need forecasting that is specific to labour markets that responds to the forecasting regarding the total gigawatts and the total transmission requirements.
Senator Petitclerc: Will the bill help to support that?
Mr. Chapeskie: I think so. Sorry, I missed the final part of the question.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses, both in person and online.
Joining us for our second panel, we welcome from the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, by video conference, Bea Bruske, President. We feel you should have an office in the Senate given the number of times you appear. We have Mr. Alex Callahan, Director, Health, Safety and Environment. Also joining us from Canada’s Building Trades Unions, in person, Nathan Carr, Manager, Public Affairs. From the International Union of Operating Engineers, Steven Schumann, Director, Canadian Government Affairs.
Thank you all for joining us today and we will begin with opening remarks from the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, followed by Canada’s Building Trades Union and then the International Union of Operating Engineers.
Ms. Bruske, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress: Thank you.
Good afternoon, senators. My name is Bea Bruske. I am the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. We speak on behalf of over 3 million workers across Canada. Our affiliates are national and international unions, and the Congress speaks on behalf of workers in every economic sector and every region of Canada.
It is a fundamental principle of the CLC that while our affiliates are unions and unionized workers, we believe every worker in Canada should be able to form or join a union, and that unions build worker power. At the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC, we advocate on behalf of all workers for better, safer and more secure jobs.
The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act serves the interests of all Canadian workers. We urge senators to pass this bill swiftly with no amendments.
The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act passed in 2021 sets our emissions targets and our climate milestones. Now we need a plan for workers and for the economy. The reality is that workers are already dealing with real-life impacts of climate change. We see it when we have air-quality issues, flooding, wildfires or basic industrial changes.
Canadian workers need a plan for what’s coming, and we need it now. Hoping for a good jobs plan in a net-zero future is not good enough. What workers absolutely want and need, and what our goal must be, is the creation and protection of good jobs that can support workers, their families and their communities. That means workers must have a seat at the table. As the old saying goes, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
Governments must take an active role in ensuring that we meet climate targets. Governments must also take an active role in setting job quality standards, training and protections for workers to ensure that when the economy changes, workers see the opportunities. This act does that. The goal of the act is the growth and the creation of sustainable jobs. We’re pleased that sustainable jobs are defined and that they are part of a net-zero future and, further, that it
reflects the concept of decent work, namely work — including a job in which the worker is represented by a trade union that has entered into a collective agreement — that can support the worker and their family over time and that includes elements such as fair income, job security, social protection and social dialogue.
That means the goal is good jobs with good pay, good benefits, good job security and the right to bargain. It also gives workers, together with employers, Indigenous peoples and others, seats on the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to drive the agenda and provide ongoing expert advice to the council.
The five-year Sustainable Jobs Plan will be focused on new, good unionized jobs as well as protecting existing, good union jobs through industrial decarbonization.
Through this bill, investments in new industries, infrastructure, transforming energy and industrial decarbonization are going to be essential to meeting climate targets, and they are also going to include requirements for good jobs. The Sustainable Jobs Act will be how Canada can ensure that investments and jobs come to Canada, stay in Canada and support workers and their families across the country.
The alternative to having a plan is that we watch the global economy change from the sidelines, and Canadian workers, industries and communities are left behind. We see that the U.S., China and Europe are not just hoping for the best; they are making investments in the future, and we cannot be left behind, standing still, as the jobs of the future are created elsewhere.
We know that opponents of the legislation are going to be opposing a future for Canadian workers, and they are telling workers, as we collectively face the biggest series of economic changes since the Industrial Revolution, that they’re on their own. They are shutting workers out from having a say in their future.
We absolutely need a plan that works for workers, with workers at the table to build our future, and we needed it yesterday.
On behalf of all workers in Canada, please pass this bill as it is.
Thank you, and I’ll be happy to take questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Carr?
Nathan Carr, Manager, Public Affairs, Canada’s Building Trades Unions: Thank you, madam chair, for the opportunity to appear before this committee, and thank you, senators. I’ll endeavour to be brief and speak very slowly.
My name is Nathan Carr, and I serve as the public affairs manager for Canada’s Building Trades Unions, the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in more than 60 different trades and occupations.
I’m joined today by my colleague Steven Schumann, representing one of those 14 affiliates, from the International Union of Operating Engineers, and it’s a pleasure to be here today to talk to you about Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, and why Canada’s Building Trades Unions supports the speedy passage of this legislation.
To be blunt, time is of the essence. The effects of climate change are already putting Canadians and our economy at risk. Without decisive action to build a clean economy, the consequences are grave for both our country and our planet.
Transitioning to a clean economy means change, and change management is what Bill C-50 is all about by creating a framework that puts workers, business, Indigenous peoples, government and civil society at the table throughout this transition process to help build a plan, to come up with solutions — real, workable solutions — that ensure no one is left behind as we navigate this change.
Canada’s Building Trades Unions views the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council and the social dialogue framework that underpins it as a critical success factor for the transition to a net‑zero clean economy. Having workers — skilled trades workers, in particular — at the table is essential, because it is our members who are building that new, green, clean economy.
Our members are already building the electric vehicle battery plants and the renewable energy projects, including wind, solar, hydroelectric, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Our members continue to build nuclear reactors and nuclear facilities, both conventional and soon-to-be small and modular. Our members are building that new, clean economy every day.
At the same time, skilled trades workers also just delivered a pipeline to tidewater for Alberta’s oil products, and our members continue to work on pipelines and petrochemical projects all across this great country.
Canada’s Building Trades Unions recognizes the need for a transition to a clean economy, and we’re actively building that net-zero future. However, our members are going to need supports, as demand for construction transitions from carbon-intensive projects to net-zero projects. Ensuring our members have the right skills, are in the right place for the next project and that there is a next project is precisely why we believe this social dialogue framework is so important.
To that end, policy and regulatory coherence and coordination are essential. Intensive labour force planning, hand in hand with government and business, will be necessary to ensure our members and future members are ready and available to build these clean economy projects.
It will also be necessary to re-skill and upskill other Canadians and future members of the building trades. On this point, I would like to take a moment to talk about long-term, lifelong careers in the skilled trades. They exist, and it is important that we avoid short solutions for quick training and invest in lifelong learning, which is provided through our joint union-employer training centres. It is important that those skills that they learn — those Red Seal trades — can be portable across many different sectors and industries, so those workers can continue to transition and have well-paying union jobs throughout their careers.
To be clear, these are not unsurmountable challenges. What’s needed is a plan, and that’s exactly what Bill C-50 does through social dialogue. It puts everyone at the table, and we hope the members here will support this measure and other measures being sent to this place in the coming days and weeks.
Madam chair, members of this committee, I’m happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Schumann?
Steven Schumann, Director, Canadian Government Affairs, International Union of Operating Engineers: Good afternoon. On behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers and our nearly 60,000 highly skilled members in Canada, I am honoured to appear before the committee.
We build and maintain Canada’s infrastructure. We help construct our nation’s hospitals, schools, hydro dams, mines, nuclear plants, solar farms, wind turbines and pipelines, to list a few. In short, we build it all.
Any decisions regarding a transformation of our economy will immediately impact our members, many who work in the oil and gas sector. We are one of the four craft unions which have built over 90% of Canada’s federally regulated pipelines.
To ensure success, a sustainable jobs plan must be done right and have the interests of workers at the forefront. For Canada to succeed and ensure that no workers are left behind, many things must fall into place, including a clear and obtainable blueprint, labour as an equal partner, and skills development training must be undertaken correctly.
In our industry, successful construction projects follow a blueprint or a plan which lays out what must be done, when it must be done and by whom. This plan ensures that the owner, client, contractor, subcontractors, suppliers and labour, et cetera, all understand the timing and the steps necessary to build a successful project.
For Canada to succeed in the transition to a low-carbon economy, the federal government must lead and articulate what society must do to ensure a smooth and successful transition. Bill C-50 is a critical first step — but not the last step — which will be crucial to this blueprint.
The government must continually build on this plan. There is much at stake with this first step, and past experiences — highlighted here by a couple of senators — have shown that when measures are unevenly implemented, workers clearly suffer.
If the government wants to grow the middle class and at the same time ask Canadians to support a transition to a low-carbon economy, workers must have certainty and a clear view where future and comparable job opportunities will be for them and their families.
The Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council will play a key role in ensuring that no one is left behind. The council and this plan will only succeed if it’s worker focused. That means that actual workers’ voices must be heard. The transition will only succeed if there is buy-in from the workers.
From our recent polling, our members look to their union leadership for guidance on these important issues and not elected officials. That is probably no surprise to anyone here. It is crucial that the voices of the building trades be heard on the council. This is necessary so that the uncertainties faced by industry and our members are fully addressed and that their interests in this transformation are heard, acknowledged and respected.
This will only be achieved if organized labour is an equal partner in the partnership council, which means we support that a third of the members are from organized labour. The government has said this shift in our economy will be led by labour, therefore, the government must show that labour has a prominent role in the council.
Next is training. Although it’s not directly addressed in this legislation, other than a veiled reference to skills development under the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat, it is crucial for any plan to succeed. Canada will only succeed if labour is engaged in the funding and actual training of displaced and soon-to-be displaced workers. Retraining workers, especially those in the oil and gas sector, is vital to ensuring their success in other sectors of the economy. Outside universities and colleges, the building trades through our training centres are the largest private trainers in Canada. Let union training centres be the lead in any future training to ensure this training is undertaken correctly.
Our jointly trusted, people-focused and not-for-profit training centres — and I want to stress not for profit, which is key — will ensure all workers, union and non-union, are trained to the highest industry standards, which includes employment placement. Our programs are accredited in every province with the exception of Quebec. Re-skilling the existing workforce and training the next generation will take time and careful planning. Governments cannot expect workers to achieve the training necessary for new job opportunities from programs that offer quick fixes and fast-tracked training. Any meaningful employment opportunity will require training of sufficient duration and quality to ensure workers obtain the skills and expertise of real trades, which can be used almost anywhere in Canada.
To be clear, and this was referenced by some previous witnesses, micro-credentialing is a disaster. It is not a solution to our issues in the future. It will create more problems. Let those who know how to train, train, and I am happy to answer any questions on that.
Lastly, I’ll say that we agree that this legislation should pass quickly with no amendments. I am happy to take any questions, particularly on the training side.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. Colleagues, we have 12 senators around the table and 45 minutes. The math does not lie. I must keep you strictly to four minutes each.
Senator Cordy: It’s nice to see you again, Mr. Schumann.
Mr. Schumann invited Senator Cuzner and I and a few others to the trades training centre in Nova Scotia. I can tell you that if all high school and junior high school students attended that, they would all become tradespeople because it was a lot of fun for grown-ups pretending they were kids on the big machines. Thank you very much for that.
I will ask you all about the council. A couple of you just mentioned it in passing. What is the importance of the council? We know the numbers have been reduced on the other side through an amendment, but what’s the importance of the council?
Mr. Schumann: Having conversations with Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, on this, the number was reduced to make it more workable. Larger does not mean better. It may cause indecision and the council may not work. I believe this size is workable, and I believe there is a good breakdown of a third for labour and employers. I know the farm group mentioned they want a voice. There is an opportunity to be on the players’ side there. There is Indigenous representation.
This is about workers. With a good labour voice on it and with the right people — again, it was said earlier — with the right people on it, it will work. Size does not matter; it is the people on it, and I don’t think bigger is better.
Mr. Carr: Composition matters. To Mr. Schumann’s points, the workers must have a voice at the table. It’s important because, as Mr. Schumann also mentioned, we’re the largest private training employer in the country. In order to have that new clean-economy workforce, you need to have us doing the training in order to have the apprentices ready and available to meet the industry demand. The only way we do that is through social and tripartite dialogue. We need government funding to support those training centres. We need employers to tell us about their work forecasts and what skills will be needed. We need our members at the table to say, yes, we’ll be able to intake all these apprentices, train them up to the standards that will give them those lifelong careers and those well-paid jobs. It requires a tripartite relationship.
That extends across not only building trades but the other unionized sectors as well. That tripartite relationship is incredibly important in part of this legislation.
Ms. Bruske: I agree with my colleagues. The importance is the outcome of what we can expect to achieve by the legislation. The outcome will be whether the Sustainable Jobs Plan will actually be successful in terms of every five years a new plan being tabled and whether there will be buy-in by the very workers whose jobs will be transitioning, as well the workers who are making decisions in terms of what their futures will hold. They need to see themselves reflected as part of a tripartite board, to be at the table, to have that input and to have those decision-making opportunities to really contribute in a meaningful way their experiences and the issues and concerns from a worker’s point of view.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentations. I will give you that opportunity, Mr. Schumann, to talk more about training. Specifically, in your briefing note to us, you say that retraining workers is vital to ensuring their success. You say, although it’s not directly addressed in this act and only briefly mentioned as skills development in the section of the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat, it must be part of this legislation. I’d like to know how it will become part. How do you envision it becoming part of this legislation?
Also, retraining should ensure quality jobs comparable in pay and benefits to jobs in the oil and gas sector. How does that fit into the concepts of retraining?
Mr. Schumann: Do I have half an hour? I’ll take the latter part first. A pipe line builder doesn’t care what’s in the pipe, they just want to build a pipeline. Be it natural gas, hydrogen or water, it doesn’t matter as long as he’s building the pipeline, and as long as he or she is getting paid, they don’t care what is in the pipeline. Right? That’s where you can move from oil and gas to pipeline. That’s what they want on that.
In regard to the council, if you have the skilled tradespeople and labour on there, they will make sure that programs from the jobs secretariat will address those needs and will include retraining.
I will take an example that’s out there right now. Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, has a program called the Union Training and Innovation Program, or UTIP. They’re going to be starting to go on sustainable jobs, new jobs. It is an amazing program. I wish all governments copied it on funding. I think that’s where we hear the voice of labour on the partnership council. They can reference successful programs that work and how other programs don’t work.
That’s the experience and the advice that will help guide it because when it comes to training, that’s always a different part. The budget has federal announcements, and so that will come separately. That’s part of why I said that this is the first step. There will be many more steps, and you need a very strong council with the right voices on it to ensure that those next steps are properly done.
Mr. Carr: We need to make sure when we set up for this transition that we’re setting up our workers for the next transition. This is where it’s really important in the apprenticeship system that they have the breadth of experience across multiple sectors. As my colleague mentioned, it’s really important that they have this breadth. If they’re only training to do one thing or to have one particular skill set in a given trade craft, then they won’t have the experience to be able to transition or rotate to another sector.
We see this for electricians who are able to rotate between industrial, commercial, residential, having that fundamental skill set and being able to move seamlessly between sectors because you have that base level of training and the apprenticeship that gives you flexibility and creates job resiliency and makes that job sustainable regardless of what the carbon inputs are.
When we talk about skills development and training and funding, we really want to look for these apprenticeship opportunities that provide that breadth and depth in terms of the training so that those people can go from working on, perhaps, a nuclear reactor until that project is done and move on. Our members build themselves out of a job every day. That’s the job. Once that job is done, they can move to another job that is skills‑adjacent. Building that breadth and depth is really important in the training so the tradesperson is not just a one-trick pony as a tradesperson.
Ms. Bruske: I would just note that while it’s critically important to look at trade workers, it’s also really critically important to look at manufacturing, food production and all other types of workers who will be impacted and who will also need training, education and retraining opportunities.
Senator Seidman: We have to hear more about that.
Senator Osler: I’m going to start with Ms. Bruske to allow you more time to elaborate on that, then I’d like to go back through the witnesses because we heard from the last panel about the need to build future workers. Does Bill C-50 provide the vision for the council to build that future pipeline of workers?
Ms. Bruske, back to you to finish.
Ms. Bruske: Thank you.
Of course, trades workers are critically important. I also want to ensure we look at all kinds of workers who will need to transition as their sector transitions.
I want to point out that union training centres, including those in the trades, are world-class training centres. Unions know how to train workers, and workers trust their unions to be able to provide the training to make sure they are the safest workers on record and to make sure they know there is a future in the training because jobs are available and they’re being matched with employers. As some of my colleagues previously noted, these are critical things in which unions are top-notch in terms of knowledge and application to make sure all of this actually functions.
It is critically important to get the training right, and to have those worker voices on the training issue.
I’m sorry, I missed the second part of your question.
Senator Osler: For the panel, does Bill C-50 contain the right components on the council as well as with the investments to build that future pipeline of workers needed?
Ms. Bruske: I believe it does. I do believe that the council makeup is appropriate. I believe that workers having a third of the chairs at the table along with industry, Indigenous individuals, environmental groups and other stakeholder groups is going to be extremely important in order to hear a variety of voices and provide a diverse background. Then, we will be able to actually look at the very complex challenge in front of us.
Mr. Schumann: I’d echo that. I think it’s going to be all about who the actors are on the council. If we get the right people, I think they can guide it. As I said, this is just the first step of many. We need to get the council right, and then move forward on the proposed job secretariat and the programs that are going to be moving forward and recommended by the council.
Mr. Carr: I would go back to my opening remarks where we talked about change management. Change management is what we’re talking about, and the first step of change management is having a plan and putting it together with the right people — as my colleague was saying.
I think this bill does what it intends to do. It puts the framework in place for that change management, so we don’t have an uneven and unmanaged transition.
Senator Cardozo: I would just like to make a comment first. I’m not a regular member of this committee. I just came because of the great lineups we have today.
Regarding the discussion you’re having now — and they had it in the previous panel — regarding who should be on the advisory panel. It’s virtually impossible to get everybody on that panel who feel they should be on it. In a previous life, I worked with an organization called The Alliance of Sector Councils. We had 30 sector councils from different sectors. We talked about skills development, and still there were many more left. Therefore, my suggestion is for the committee to think about making an observation about how the government may have some kind of informal reference group, which would include the various other sectors — or find other ways to network.
For my question — and I’ll start with President Bruske — I want to go to the core of the bill, and that is the sustainable jobs plan. The minister has asked to put together a plan with the advice of people. However, as you know, there is opposition to this bill. To some extent, I think it’s people who feel the bill is pushing people to transition out of jobs rather than facilitating them when their jobs end.
What is your sense of how workers across the country — and this bill is, in a sense, most relevant in Alberta and Saskatchewan where there is perhaps the most opposition.
Madam president, I would like to ask your thoughts about whether there is opposition and how you respond to it.
Ms. Bruske: Thank you for that question, senator.
The reality is that when I speak with workers in Ontario and Saskatchewan — and quite frankly all across Canada — what they are most worried about is whether they will have a job next year. Will their particular community have to transition — their particular one-industry town or one main industry within their community? They ask things like, “When that particular energy plant is going to be coming off-line in a couple of years, what kind of job is left for me in Estevan, Saskatchewan?”
We need to be able to have answers for those workers. They know they have to transition. Workers living in Fort McMurray having to race out of town yet again just a few weeks ago because of wildfires know they have to transition. They know this. They tell me this. What they’re worried about is what job they are going to, and whether that job will be able to sustain their family and allow them to stay in their community. This particular opportunity to have a sustainable jobs plan is critically important so we can show workers that there is a pathway forward and they need to come on board. They want to come on board, quite frankly, in order to be able to have a secure future and have faith in that future.
Senator Cardozo: Is there more opposition coming from the political level than from workers?
Ms. Bruske: Workers want a plan. They don’t care so much about what goes into making the plan. They want to see a plan brought to them, so they know they have a future.
They’re not saying they don’t want to have a plan. They’re not saying they won’t vote for the sustainable jobs act. They’re saying, “Give me the plan. Please show me the way, and show me I’m part of that plan.”
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: I will ask my question to you, Mr. Schumann, but I’m happy to get answers from the other witnesses.
I’m trying to get a picture. The bill calls for a five-year action plan. I’m trying to get a picture of training and retraining. I want to understand how it works and who does it.
If you have two completely separate sectors, and you know from the trends that people will need retraining, who does it? How do we transfer that to a completely new sector, and how long does it take? I want it to be from the perspective of the five‑year plan. Is five years enough?
Mr. Schumann: I’ll say right now that union training centres have a joint board made up of the union and their employers. Even without this bill, we are already looking at just transition and green jobs. We have been for a while because we sit with our employers and talk about where the work is going to be and what the future work is. We’ve already been doing it, so we support this because we think everyone needs to be doing it. We’ve already been transitioning that way. That’s why we have a workforce in wind, solar and everything. We’re trying our best already.
That is the first step.
About retraining, training is done — like I said — by our training centres. We have centres in every province, depending on the union. They may have more in one province. Some universities and colleges also do training, depending on the jurisdiction you’re in.
There is also the for-profit training. For-profit is a dangerous world of training because they do not care about training. They care about dollars. They don’t care if the person gets a job. We do. We have a placement rate of about 95% of those who come to our schools. They will have a job. The 5% who do not is because they don’t like it, and they move on. When you come to our union training centre, you will have a job if you want one. We will find a place for you, be it union or non-union. Where do the non-union get their trained folks from? They poach from us, as was mentioned earlier. People poach everywhere.
So, we can train. Do we have the capacity? We need more space to train. If we get more funding to build the training centres and expand, we’ll train more people.
Senator Petitclerc: You’re telling me about what you’re doing now. Clearly, you’re doing something good. What will this bill add to what you’re already doing?
Mr. Schumann: With representation on the council, we’ll be able to advise the government about where they need to put money. It needs to be in not-for-profit training centres. This is what they need to look at. This is what worked in the past. This system won’t work. We will be able to advise the government how to properly spend money because there is going to be a lot of money for training and, unfortunately, I see a lot of it being wasted. If we’re able to give proper advice, at least the money will be going to the proper places and people will actually get retrained or trained.
Mr. Carr: I just wanted to jump in and say that we’re already doing that workforce development work for transitioning people into second careers. I think the average age of an apprentice these days is about 27 or 28 — sometimes 29. These are workers who are already post-secondary educated and are having trouble finding work. They are moving into the skilled trades as that solution to finding that lifelong career.
We’re already part of that retraining solution. It’s just about how we adapt and have that tripartite social dialogue with business to know where these projects are coming down the pipeline, to use an aphorism. What we need is the intensive workforce planning and having that tripartite dialogue with, first of all, the government on civil infrastructure so that we know when the bridges, roads and hospitals are going to be built under capital planning, and then with businesses to know when they’re going to make major investment and when they are going to need those workforces. It allows us to take those intakes and make sure those trainees are available.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for all the witnesses.
Since you agree with the content of the bill, I take it that you agree with the guiding principles in the preamble. They specifically require that workers’ cultural values be taken into account, and state that a sustainable jobs plan should encourage job creation for under-represented groups — who are named in the bill — be they women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, Black individuals or members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community.
If the bill passes, how will your organizations ensure that employers take the necessary steps to account for the specific needs of workers from those under-represented groups? I’m thinking specifically about 2SLGBTQI+ communities. What are your unions doing to make sure employers account for those realities, those values and the way they operate?
[English]
Mr. Carr: I’ll start off by saying that we’re already doing all of that work. Two major components that really drive our success in this regard is the Union Training and Innovation Program, which specifically targets funding towards these groups, and we meet those targets when we get that funding assigned to us. We’ve had some great success in Indigenous and racialized communities, and other equity-seeking groups have found great success in obtaining apprenticeships in the building trades. There has been specific funding from the government that has been very helpful in that regard.
The second component of that is also our recruitment approach. There is a job for everyone, wherever you come from, in the building trades. That’s part of our larger international commitment to making sure that every worker is represented in the building trades.
There’s that component, then there are also community benefit agreements. Community benefit agreements, which are tied directly to government policies and government procurement, guarantees apprenticeship slots for equity-seeking groups, women and Indigenous peoples. Those community benefit agreements are incredibly important in ensuring that those training slots are paid for. The apprentices need to accumulate hours, and the best way to do that is on projects where there are community benefit agreements in place where those equity-seeking groups can see themselves building their own community in their own hometown.
Senator Cormier: How do you monitor the success and the impact?
Mr. Carr: I’ll turn it over to Mr. Schumann to answer that.
Mr. Schumann: There are a couple of things. First, let’s be very clear — there’s a big difference here between the unionized sector in construction and non-unionized. We support community benefit agreements, and we believe that anyone should be able to work.
We also work on project labour agreements, which are very similar to community benefit agreements, where we work with employers to ensure disenfranchised communities are getting employment, get more women and Indigenous people into the trades and work with them on that. You will not see that on the non-unionized side. There is a big difference there. We’re very supportive of this.
How it works with results on some projects, especially if there is a community benefit agreement, the employer must show results, and they can show you the numbers. Some good actors are very proud of the numbers — they’ll show who they’ve hired. Again, that’s with the unionized contractors we work with. For non-unionized, you will not see the same results being shown. They don’t care about the numbers.
We can do a better job of working with our partners to show the numbers. I think there should be more incentive by the government to push people who get money from the government to show those numbers and what is being done. Work still needs to be done, but to be very clear, there are two distinct worlds here — unionized versus non-unionized — and if you want the results, you will need a community benefit agreement.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. Ms. Bruske?
Ms. Bruske: I would argue that this is an area that unions in particular are very strong on, just to augment what you heard from the last two speakers. Many unions specifically bargain collective agreement language to foster equity and inclusion and to foster fair advancement opportunities for all workers, regardless of background, whether they’re racialized women, Indigenous peoples or newcomers, whatever the case may be. Unions have a long legacy of doing that work with employers and bargaining good collective agreement language. You’ve heard —
The Chair: I’m sure you will get a turn to further elaborate on that question.
Senator Moodie: I just wanted to pursue a little further Senator Cormier’s thoughts on equity-seeking groups, but I want to focus in on disabled individuals. Retraining is often an issue in terms of individuals acquiring the needed skills to transition, and it may be even more so for disabled individuals.
Given that the preamble in Bill C-50 specifically notes the commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in your endeavours to retrain and to shift people on this continuum of skills, how do you ensure that commitment to “nothing about us, without us” is implemented in the context of this bill? How do you make sure their voice is heard and you meet their needs?
Mr. Carr: It’s an incredible challenge to deal with the disability community. The unionized construction trades are no stranger to disability, to be clear. It is an incredible challenge we have to deal with every day with our own members who are injured or hurt on the job. Making sure those members can still find a place within the industry and within the sector is incredibly important to us, making sure that they find a place in our industry, whether those disabled workers are injured on the job or simply come to their disability differently.
I think it’s really important, as Ms. Bruske was saying, that we codify programs and write them into collective agreements. Whenever we go for a project benefit agreement, it’s important that we find a place for disabled individuals, no matter what their disability is, and incorporate them. I know in certain trades and occupations we can accommodate a significant number of disabled individuals depending on their work profiles. The fact that more of our injured workers are still remaining within the construction industry after an injury on the job is a testament to the work that we’ve put into doing this.
Senator Moodie: Mr. Schumann?
Mr. Schumann: I cannot really speak on that because, unfortunately, we’re heavy equipment, and the equipment we work with is not the most accessible for those who have some challenges, such as a tower crane, for example, or heavy equipment that’s 20 feet off the ground.
But I will say this — we had a training director for many years who suffered a near-death work accident on an elevator. He was disabled, but he became our training director.
Senator Moodie: Thank you. Ms. Bruske?
Ms. Bruske: I think there are two things that we need to look at — workers getting injured on the job and living with a disability thereafter, and those who already live with a disability who have not been able to participate in the labour market, which is a huge swath of the disabled population that we need to find pathways for. That’s where we need to have outside-of-the-box thinking and targeted initiatives.
I can tell you, coming from a private sector union that has worked with many employers on these kinds of things, union training centres have a huge role to play here. You need, again, a tripartite opportunity with government, employers and unions at the table to identify jobs, training needs and opportunities for individuals and then to find a pathway to employment. Those success stories exist. They need to be quadrupled, continuously added onto and replicated all across the country.
Senator Yussuff: It’s kind of funny I’m in this position talking to three of you here today, so welcome, brothers and sister. Let me start with the most important part, which we haven’t addressed yet.
We know the council is not as large as some would like it to be, but a significant part of this work is consulting across the country. It’s just not one sector — it is a variety of sectors. The steel sector is going to go through transition. The auto, electricity and agricultural sectors are all going through transition. I can go through a list of all of those sectors. Given that everybody is not going to have a seat, how do we have a robust consultation with Canadians across the country to ensure the plan that will be put forward for five years is actually relevant to the diversity of the workforce and the country? Maybe each of you may want to take a stab at that.
Mr. Carr: I think the composition and the appointment process of those representatives is really important. To your point about solidarity, being a brother and sister in this process is really important. I think that representation matters, and I think that if we have proper worker representation on that, we’ll have a very good dialogue among the trade unions about how we can reach out to those unions that don’t have a formal seat at the table.
When it comes to other aspects of consulting with Canadians, I think it’s really incumbent upon selecting the right people for the council. I think it is selecting the right people for the council who have an open mind and have the contacts, networks and the open ear to be able to listen to those diverse voices, especially in the private sector and in civil society. That’s the best way — making the right appointments is the really key point.
Mr. Schumann: Workers listen to workers whether they are union or non-union workers. If you look at many of the benefits that non-union have received, it’s because of what the unions have done. They talk to each other. They hear about jobs, and they talk. If there is a proper voice of labour and workers on the council who are able to advise and reach out through their unions and other work sectors, I think people will listen and they will buy in.
Ms. Bruske: The council would have the mandate to reach out to stakeholders across the country from all different sectors. The appointment process is important to ensure that all council members would understand that and would go beyond their memberships — whether it is industry or unions — to ensure that we are getting the full breadth of the challenge that is ahead of us and the different types of sectors and workforce that we’re going to need to transition.
Senator Yussuff: My second question: 2050 and 2030 are two important targets in meeting our obligation in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Recognizing the broad spectrum of sectors that have to do their part to do so, and workers are going to be impacted by that and communities are going to be impacted by that. How do we continue the dialogue? Like it or not, we’re part of the planet, and we have to do our part to ensure we’re going to live in a hospitable world going forward.
How do we continue this education in the political work to ensure that people understand that climate change is real? How do we connect workers to that effort that is going to be required for us to change what we’re doing so we can actually live in a better world going forward and meeting our targets for 2030 and 2050?
Ms. Bruske: Workers listen and trust workers. Workers need to be able to hear from other workers about their personal experiences. If you are living up in Fort McMurray, you lost your house in 2016 and you have had to leave town again just recently, those workers understand the reality of what is at stake when we are dealing with climate change. Those are oil and gas workers, whom we might think are the most ardent climate deniers. They are not. They understand what is happening. Other workers need to hear those stories and experiences. The council needs to get that information out.
It is our collective responsibility to ensure that information and knowledge get out and that people really understand what is at stake for themselves, their children and their grandchildren, and their communities. Every single year we all collectively see it: more floods, more forest fires and more dire conditions. This can no longer be ignored.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to everybody for being here. You are all representatives of organized labour, and you have argued strongly here for worker representation on the council, and I think that it seems to be part of the plan that you would have a strong voice.
The sustainable jobs of the future may or may not be unionized. That remains to be seen. We have some images or visions of the future, but the jobs of the future will be very mixed. What are your expectations with regard to the unionized jobs of the future? What are you looking for, for example, in the job plan that’s coming out of this? What are your expectations of the federal government in setting up this with respect to the unionized sector? Beyond the voice that you have on the council, what are you looking for in terms of job outcomes? Does that make any sense?
Mr. Schumann: It does. We are working with employers on what the future jobs are. In Alberta, before the premier made some changes to green energy, we had tower crane operators working on wind towers. They were making as much — if not more — than anyone in the oil and gas sector, because that’s where the opportunities were. All we ask is that the government listen to the advice of those who actually work in the sectors and then allow the sectors to come in and where there are opportunities, it will guide itself.
There are many opportunities. Part of the challenge we face is that you have the federal government versus the provinces, and some of the provinces don’t want to buy in. So, that’s where labour is going to try to step up and put pressure on them as well. There are many opportunities out there for both union and non-union.
I want to ensure that the workforce is trained and has those opportunities to work on these jobs. Right now, if you look at some of the green technology, people are bringing in foreign workers. If you look at the U.S.A. on offshore wind, most of that is being done by foreign workers. I want to ensure that most of the jobs are done by Canadians who have the skills to do it. That’s what I want to see to ensure that we give opportunities to Canadians to have those jobs and to have a made-in-Canada solution.
Senator Dasko: Any other responses?
Mr. Carr: My only expectation from the government is that they ensure well-paying jobs. If you look at the prevailing wage legislation that is proceeding through this chamber, that is a good example of the investment of tax credits. Union or non-union, our expectation is that if you are benefiting from taxpayer subsidy or investment, you pay a good wage. All we’re saying for workers is that we want these new jobs to be well-paid jobs. They have to pay well enough so that people can see the future in the clean economy, and our expectation is that high-quality employment and high-quality jobs are there and available.
Ms. Bruske: I would absolutely say well-paying, high-quality, job security. People do not want to have to keep looking for new jobs. A high opportunity for job security. Good social protections and good opportunity for social dialogue within that job, and the opportunity to join a union if there isn’t already one is critical.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I thank the witnesses for being here. I will ask my questions in French, and you may answer them in English.
Is the current training plan being developed according to each province’s specific needs? I will ask a second question, which is related to the first. When candidates are done their training, do they have to sign an agreement with you?
You planned for sustainable jobs. Will people have to sign a three or five-year work contract in the field to get their diploma?
[English]
Mr. Schumann: No. Once you are trained, you can go work union or non-union. Red Seal is recognized countrywide and worldwide. It is the highest training anywhere in the world. It is widely recognized. When it comes to other training, provinces vary on the number of hours that you must do to become a journey person. Depending on the piece of equipment for us, tower crane training, depending on the province, you need “X” number of hours to become a journey person, and each province is slightly different. If you get trained by us and go to another province, you get tested and if you pass the test, you can work in that province. There is an opportunity there. Quebec is very different. To be in the trades there, you have to be one of the five different unions to be a part of it. Quebec is very different than the rest of Canada. On that side of the training.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you very much. I’m going to go back to the issue of training, and I hear about the training of workers who are already here, and we’re trying to get to this just transition, and that’s a big part of it for the buy-in.
I’m going back to something the previous panel spoke about. As a pediatrician, I think about this a lot: the training of the youth and the pipeline. As Senator Cordy talked about, these are your acolytes. Kids live in families — as you know — and families need hope. They are also looking to the future of their work potential for their kids. Is there anything in this bill that is going to have that vision? I know it is in the planning stage, but is there something there that you are going to reach back to get the pipeline of training to give hope to the families for their kids.
Mr. Schumann: In the bill itself — it’s 12 pages long — there is nothing specific.
Again, it is those who will sit on the council who are going to advise the government and the job secretariat to give them that. It is up to those who want those folks in the sector to reach out.
We go to high schools. We hold job fairs. We invite any school to come to our training centres. We give them opportunities. I know some schools are getting much better at talking about the trades. The problem still is high schools. They want to send people to the universities. They don’t want to send them to the trades.
As the previous panel said and I’ll say now, it is a great place to be. You can have a lifelong career in the trades and a job for life if you train properly, if you train fully on a job, not micro-credentialing.
I wish we could talk a bit about that, but that’s a different day. That’s a different world.
If you get properly trained in the trades and have a journeyperson or the Red Seal, you have a job for life, especially if you are willing to travel a bit outside your hometown. You can work wherever you want, as often as you want.
Mr. Carr: Unfortunately, this bill is a federal bill, and K to 12 education, where we really need to make advancements in ensuring that our children are getting the opportunities to be exposed to the skilled trades and the skills that need to be going into their education, to do that is at the provincial regulatory level. That being said, we’re really encouraged by the progress that we’re seeing in provinces with working on greater learning, the de-streaming that’s gone on in Ontario. There is progress at provincial levels. There has been substantial progress in the skilled trades opportunities in the education curriculum that we’re seeing in the provinces, at least as far as I’m aware, since I was in high school.
Ms. Bruske: I do see that there is an opportunity here through the stakeholder consultations to speak with the provinces and territories that provide that education, with educator groups, with education unions, to see how we can actually navigate bringing new students that might not be thinking about these jobs into the fold and get them excited about a different type of career path.
The Chair: One of the criticisms of this bill is it creates a structure which will create a plan, and there is a fear that it will become a chattering club that actually does not do anything. What measures of accountability are in the bill that you will be able to deploy?
Mr. Carr: I think that is the beauty of having organized labour at the table. We’ll be the first ones to put up our hands and say that this isn’t working. That’s the accountability measure of having a tripartite agreement, having somebody at the table who represents real workers who can put up their hand and say that this is not working and draw attention to it.
That’s the most important mechanism for the bill, the tripartite relationship. Having workers at the table will allow us to be able to say that this is not working, and we need change.
The Chair: You have talked a lot about the power of having a union at the table, but unionized workers are not the sum of all workers in Canada who will need to transition to a net-zero economy. Who represents them?
Ms. Bruske: I would like to say that we speak for all workers in the sense that we want all workers to have a pathway to unionization. Certainly, we talk about new workers who have just recently unionized or those who are in the throes of unionizing.
We recognize that we need to speak for every single worker in Canada, union or not. We do extensive outreach and consultations with many workers on an ongoing basis. I’m very confident that we have the voice, perspective, and the concerns that workers are having. They do speak to us, whether or not they are unionized, and we have that knowledge to bring to the table. We are very happy to bring that knowledge and to advocate for all workers in Canada.
Mr. Schumann: Non-unionized workers benefit in many places from what unionized workers get. If you look at construction, the hours, pay and some of the benefits they’ve gotten is because the unions got it first. It is a competitive market out there in construction. I think they have benefited from what we have done in the past.
The Chair: The rising boat shall lift all tides.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of this panel. I wish to thank all our witnesses. You have educated us enormously. I would, again, like to thank you for being with us in person or online.
Senators, our next meeting is tomorrow in this room at nine o’clock, where we will continue to hear witnesses on Bill C-50.
(The committee adjourned.)