Thank you for having me.
Good evening, members of the committee. You've been at this a while, so congratulations.
Canada's Building Trades Unions represents a half a million members across Canada. Together with our colleagues in the building trades in the United States there are close to three million members in North America. We represent people who go to work every day to build roads, the rails, energy infrastructure, commercial and office buildings, and the homes where people live in Canada.
We are the largest private trainer in Canada. We invest more than a quarter billion dollars every year in training, in apprenticeship programs, in classroom training programs, and most importantly in on-the-job training.
We know jobs. We're paid by our members to find them jobs every week. If the Building Trades doesn't find them a job, we haven't done ours.
Almost all skilled trades workers will at some point in their career travel long distances for work. More than half travel on a regular basis to where the work is.
Jobs are primarily the purview of the private sector, but there is a distinct and valuable role for the federal government. I submit today that the federal government can and should support mobility measures in the Canadian labour market with simple, cost-effective steps that would assist people who could not or would not otherwise go to where the work is by moving skilled trades workers from areas of high unemployment to where employers need them and when they need them, and with relatively minor adjustments to the tax code, or a restructure of the employment insurance benefit system. These would both be inexpensive compared to other government spending on the table today.
A mobility assistance measure would ease unemployment in some hard-hit regions by getting qualified, hard-working Canadians to labour markets where their talents are required by employers.
Even short-term jobs, especially in construction, help the economy and help the country. A mobility measure could encourage people to transition from employment insurance and start working again. A mobility system would help link Canada's numerous regional economies as a bridge from one community to another, even if that community is thousands of kilometres away.
All construction work is temporary. All construction work is transitory. Skilled tradespeople are dispatched wherever the work may be. The lucky ones get travel assistance from either the construction employer or a large asset owner, like Syncrude Canada.
The existing permanent relocation tax credit in the Income Tax Act doesn't make sense for a permanently temporary workforce, or apply to workers our country needs to move the most.
These workers are not interested in, nor should be expected to be, moving their families. We shouldn't want them to uproot and move their homes for a temporary six-week job or even a six-month job.
Canada needs a change incentive policy for in demand occupations when relocating for temporary work. For many years workers have been flocking to Alberta. Now many unemployed Albertans will be seeking work elsewhere in Canada.
Voices across industry are united on this file. The Canadian Construction Association, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, and a host of other employer groups join us in this call.
Getting a job is a non-partisan issue. The Government of Canada introducing a mobility assistance policy for in demand or unemployed workers is not a partisan act.
The government helping people temporarily to relocate for work is not a partisan exercise. The government's expense getting them there today means tax revenues tomorrow from the worker, from the capital asset they're building, and from the company doing the work.
The pilot we suggest in our submission starts small with $4 million in forgone tax revenue if changes are made to the ITA. It returns $12 million in income tax paid by individuals alone. Pick a few occupations most in need and choose a few major projects to determine eligibility for a pilot.
Federal budgets are about wise spending choices, and this modest pilot certainly falls into the frugal category when you look at the breadth and depth of some of the spending being proposed today.
Changes in the EI system would be revenue neutral to the government. Giving someone the benefit they were eligible for up front, rather than over time, for travel purposes is free to the Government of Canada. Contributions to EI were made by employers and employees.
This measure could also help Canadians get the training they need in a different regional economy by using the job grant. The job grant is dependent on an employer willing to hire you.
Markets with hot employment markets will require more people to be trained.
There's a natural link here. The Canada job grant, despite the noise over the last couple of years, is the single most important change to the training system in Canada in the last two decades.
So what next? I'm concluding, it's up to you, the finance committee and the Minister of Finance, to help a critical industry and help in demand workers.
In previous reports, HUMA, FINA, they've all recommended that we take a look at mobility measures for skilled trades workers. It doesn't seem that there's a better time to take action than today.
What matters to us is having an available workforce wherever needed for Canada's economy. What matters to us is being able to build those infrastructure projects we're talking about today. We want to have labour market stability and certainty in the marketplace for the bidders of all large projects.
Incidentally, in the United States, Canada's skilled trades workers are inherently less likely than American workers to travel temporarily for work. Funnily enough, the IRS allows deductions for travel to obtain temporary work.
Here's an opportunity to make Canada's workforce more productive and reduce taxes for Canadians everywhere.
I remain available to take your questions.