That is a real challenge.
Again, two-thirds of jobs within Safe Solar, for instance, are low-skilled. People are trained in a course of weeks. That does not command high wages. These are not working environments where people can get together, form a union and negotiate. They're moving from project to project. These aren't tied into communities the way nuclear plants are.
I would say that nuclear offers jobs that are as good or better. We saw that in Ontario with coal. I'm good friends with a former operator at the Nanticoke coal plant who transitioned over to Bruce Power. He loves where he works. I think he's more open to the climate argument now that he's a champion of it.
I want to follow up on the question for Mr. Christidis a bit, in terms of nuclear playing a role in climate.
First, uranium is our number one clean energy export. This hydrogen is a fantasy. It is incredibly inefficient. By the time it gets to Germany, we're talking single-digit efficiency, and we're talking about giving a 40% tax credit. That's billions of dollars for a process that's ridiculous. Frankly, if Germany hadn't shut down its nuclear plants, it would get more than enough electricity compared to that hydrogen alliance. Uranium is our number one clean energy export. It offsets fully one-third of Canada's total all-sector national emissions. Think about that for a second. That is massive.
The second thing is the coal phase-out here in Ontario. We were 25% coal-powered. That was the single greatest greenhouse gas reduction in North American history. Nuclear is absolutely a proven climate tool, if that is your concern.
If your concern is for dignified jobs and a democratic approach.... Fossil fuel workers don't want to work for 36% less pay. They won't accept that. If we want to have a democratic basis for an energy transition, we have to offer jobs that are even better than what they currently have.