The challenges we currently face are that there's uncertainty around when folks will actually be needed on the ground to build things. If there's a 12-year or 15-year regulatory dance for a major project, we can't look at our training scope and say we need to have 4,600 electricians or 4,600 boilermakers or 10,000 carpenters at a certain time.
At the end of the day, and because we're further down the food chain from some of the planning that goes on with Mr. Collyer's companies—we're trying to change that a bit—we are expected to have a workforce ready yesterday, as soon as we get the call from our construction employers.
What this would do, from our understanding, is it would give certainty around timing. It's either a yes or a no. When we're workforce planning, we can take a look at Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or Newfoundland and say we're going to have unemployed workers because we know the Lower Churchill is going to be done in 6.6 years. We're able then to go and grab the workforce that's necessary, be it in B.C. or in Saskatchewan.
When we're looking at our labour force planning for the future, either a yes or a no is a good thing. The uncertainty around knowing whether the project will be approved.... I think the Mackenzie gas line approval started before I was born. That gives you a sense of it. I mean, how do you plan for workforce development on a project like that when it takes 32 years or 33 years?
We see this as a way to partner with industry to know what's going to happen and when, and then we can work on our training system to make sure we're pumping out enough people to meet demand.