Government Operations Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you for being with us this afternoon. I especially appreciate it because my husband is a journeyman electrician. I've known the industry since—

[Christopher Smillie]

Is he home at all?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

He's no longer working as a journeyman electrician, not that there aren't opportunities there.

I agree with you that in my province, Newfoundland and Labrador, there has been a focus on getting young people into the trades. For the longest time, we didn't encourage young people to look at the trades as a future career. There is an opportunity there, and I think we need to encourage young people to take advantage of it.

I was interested in your remarks about the importance of the stimulus spending. We all know that this deadline of March 31, 2011, is coming up on us. In effect, we've gone through one construction season now, so we're looking at the spring of 2010 as the next opportunity. You talk about the need to continue with stimulus spending, and I know that when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities appeared before us, they too talked about the importance of the stimulus spending and their concerns with respect to that deadline of March 31, 2011.

I don't know if you have seen Minister Flaherty's comments, but apparently his plan is to use a Friday speech to dampen expectations for the 2010 budget. He will try to impress upon Canadians that they shouldn't anticipate another extravaganza of stimulus spending. People shouldn't expect huge amounts on top of the money that's out there, one government official said. I'm quoting from an article that appeared in one of the newspapers. With that information and with the news the Federation of Canadian Municipalities received when they went looking to have the deadline extended, that this is a firm deadline, explain to us the impact this is going to have on the construction industry.

[Christopher Smillie]

I think as long as the commitment to spend and the commitments that have been made in the stimulus package are actually followed through with, we will have a softer landing in the construction industry than if someone were to flip a switch tomorrow and say we're not going to spend in the future.

I haven't seen Mr. Flaherty's proposed comments, but I guess we're in a situation now where we have $56 billion in deficit and maybe it sounds like he's going to try to rein things in. I can't really comment, as I haven't seen them yet. But in terms of what it would do to our industry if someone flipped the switch tomorrow, it would be devastating to our members, who are counting on the public spend. I can't really speculate going forward what we would look like. We sort of have to play within the field that we have.

Guys, did I miss anything? No?

At the end of the day, if we didn't have the stimulus package we have today, the employment numbers that I provided to you probably would be much worse, because private industry would not plan to move ahead with their projects if the people of Canada or the Government of Canada said, “Well, we're not going to spend either.” There is definite value in the intent to spend, because private industry sees that and they say everything is going to be okay--or better than it could be without it.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

So if in fact what Mr. Flaherty is reported to have said is real, then falling off the cliff in 2012 is something you're obviously not looking forward to.

[Christopher Smillie]

Well, the falling off a cliff in 2012 is if the stimulus money doesn't move forward. I guess it's hard to explain, but in construction, the work that has been planned in 2010 and 2011 won't roll out until the end of 2012. So we're about a year and a half behind everything else. So 2012 could be scary if private industry doesn't move forward during 2010 and 2011 with a number of the projects that government is looking for them to do.

Is that fair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We'll go to Mr. Nadeau, pour cinq minutes, s'il vous plait.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon gentlemen.

The government's recovery plan was launched in the context of an economic crisis for obvious reasons. I would like to hear what you have to say on employment insurance and programs for workers who have been let go and who have other trades and live in areas where jobs are necessary as a part of the recovery.

Are you working with employment insurance officials on providing courses to various trade sectors or non- specialized workers that you may need? Are you also looking at programs for older workers who are at the end of their career and who may still have three, four or five years of work before retiring?

[Christopher Smillie]

Sir, I'll deal with the last question first.

On the older worker program, I'd like to say that a number of our trades have been getting involved with displaced auto workers--for example, members of CAW, etc., who have been displaced in southern Ontario. They're working with those organizations to help them retrain.

In Canada it takes three or four years to cook a construction worker. Some of the trades are licensed, so it takes time to get that licence. However, we are working with other parts of the economy to find people who are willing to join our industry and also to get them up to speed.

Is there a particular older worker program? None that I'm aware of, although we are looking at assisting displaced people to come to our industry.

Your first question was around programs, specifically with EI. A lot of our training centres do deliver provincial curriculum. They're sanctioned to deliver the curriculum of Ontario, the curriculum of Quebec, or the curriculum of British Columbia. Those are EI-eligible curriculums.

Is there retraining going on within our ranks? Yes. The Employment Insurance Act is very complicated, but the part II money is generally the money that is used for delivering curriculum, providing assistance to displaced workers, and so on.

Really, our workers benefit in two ways from EI under both parts of the act. Under part I of the act, we benefit when members are out of work and they actually claim EI and get an EI cheque. Under part II, the operating engineers, for example, in Oakville--I don't want to speak for Mr. Schumann--deliver Ontario curriculum for crane operators, so there is also a connection that way.

That would be the best I could provide in terms of an answer.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

What about labour mobility? I come from the area, from Gatineau. We know that there are agreements between Ontario and Quebec on the mobility of workers given the various qualifications required by unions. Are there any obstacles? Is the situation improving?

[Christopher Smillie]

Yes, sir, the communication piece around adjudicating different licences, etc., is improving between jurisdictions. We still have an issue with mobility--i.e., can we actually get the member from work site A to work site B? A lot of the time, it's money out of their own pocket. Members have to pay the $3,000 to fly from Saint John to Fort McMurray, or they have to drive six hours from Hamilton to, say, Goderich, to where the work is.

So there are financial barriers that construction workers come up against in terms of mobility, but the red seal--I would say, guys?--is still the best way for interchangeability between provinces and jurisdictions.

[Steven Schumann]

I know from our locals in Quebec that there are several who've now gone to Manitoba to work on some of the hydro facility projects out there. So there is mobility.

There is a bigger question in there that we won't discuss here, and that's the question of standards. Every province also has different work standards and skill standards. If you're red-sealed, you can work anywhere in Canada. However, if you're not from the red seal program, depending on what province you're from, the standards of training that you've received may not qualify you to work in another province.

I know that Ontario and Quebec have very high standards, whereas British Colombia actually would have fairly low standards. A worker from B.C. to come to Ontario would likely not meet the qualifications to work in many of our trades.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Members, I think there's been interest in questioning. The analyst has told me that she can do her presentation in half an hour. I'll give you another 15 minutes so that we can proceed with questions from everyone.

Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to express that I too have an interest with regard to these issues of foreign workers. I think Mr. Martin raises a very practical and wise point in the idea that Americans probably have training that is more compatible with regard to Canadian standards than people brought in from Lebanon have. I think that's an interesting point.

That being said, I have a colleague who'd like to raise some questions. I'm going to cede my time to him; if any is left, I'll follow up on that point.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First I'd like to thank our guests. I think it's important that you're here. I think the dialogue we're having with you is very helpful to the whole committee. I have great respect for the building and construction trades. I want to acknowledge what you do, because without you, infrastructure funding doesn't matter, frankly. We need you to make it work. Again, thank you.

I do want to assure you of one thing, just to clarify something. Minister Flaherty has clearly committed that all of the moneys that have been directed to infrastructure funding, subject to the rules that have been put in place, are commitments, and commitments are commitments. There's no sense of reneging on that. I just want to assure you and ask you to assure your colleagues that there's no sense that there's an intention to renege on our commitments.

I really need to say this. I'd like to offer some empathy, and I mean that from my heart. In my family, people have lost their jobs, in particular my father did one time. People in the trades have lost their jobs, and that's difficult. I think all of us around this table feel a huge empathy for those to whom that has occurred.

I'm somewhat buoyed, however, by your comments, Mr. Smillie, that you estimate some 34,000 jobs have been created.

One thing I do want to address--and I think it's something we've talked about--is this timeframe issue, that we have a certain amount of time. I'm always mindful of politicians. I say this having been in the job only fourteen months and three days.

When I look at this whole thing about timeframes, the thing is if you give us time, we'll take all the time in the world. I guess if there were no priorities established.... Again, this was intended to be stimulus. In other words, it should create an environment in which jobs would be created. If we offered no timelines and if we had said to the municipalities, “Here, take it. Away you go. Do what you do, and let us know how it's going. Come back to us when you can”, do you think there would have been the same sense of stimulus in terms of getting jobs going and projects started if it had been much more casual? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

[Christopher Smillie]

I know that when my wife gives me a deadline and I don't meet it, there is definite pressure. I know she's watching, so I have to be careful what I say.

I get your point. My response, with all due respect, would be that if we are going to respect timelines, that's fine, but it's not worth pulling the carpet out from underneath someone standing at the door. I'm not saying that's the intention with the stimulus money or your intention.

At the same time, with the commitment by the three business partners--the municipality, the province, and the government--it's really important that if something happens along the way, if we're building one of these projects and there's a problem or a redesign by the municipality, or an engineer tells us that a bridge is not going to stand properly, and some of that falls under the time restrictions, we're going to have to take a look at that.

I think we need to be realistic when we're looking at these major upgrades to sewers or water mains or at things like renovations to universities or to large institutions, and realize that there are going to be delays. As long as we're all respectful of the time commitment and we don't sort of pull the carpet out from under the job, I think that makes some good sense.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

This will be brief, Madam Chair.

I want to compliment you for saying that the jobs created are skilled first-class jobs. I compliment you on that.

There was a comment made earlier that perhaps the whole infrastructure funding program was done hastily. Could we afford to wait?

[Christopher Smillie]

In my view, without being partisan, action needed to be taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Madam Hall Findlay for five minutes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just say to my colleague that this is the reason that we in opposition did support the budget. Although we had many other reservations, we all—or at least most of us in terms of the opposition—understood the need to move quickly. I appreciate the candour.

Earlier, one of our colleagues had asked you if you had seen the “Creating Jobs” website, and asked if you could provide your feedback once you've had a chance to take a look. We would love to have your feedback as an entire committee, if that's possible. I will just give you advance warning that the “Creating Jobs” website in fact lists Building Canada fund projects, which are historical and don't relate to the stimulus projects in particular. Those stimulus projects that are listed are once again those that have been announced, not necessarily the ones that have been started. Already we've heard that barely a third of those announced have actually been started, and we don't know how much of that progress has actually been made.

I would also point out to my colleague who said you had suggested 34,000 jobs were created that this was in fact coming from the Construction Sector Council, not you, and it was, as I made the point earlier, based on numbers that I think are really quite erroneous. We continue to ask the government for actual jobs created. We have not been able to get that information. I would ask you again for your thoughts on that particular website. That would be very helpful.

My question is this. My colleague says that the minister has promised to make the payments according to the rules. There is no disagreement with that; the problem is with the rules. The problem we continue to point out is with the 2011 timeframe. Under those very rules, of the two-thirds of the projects that have not been started yet, many of them may not actually get started because of the concern of the municipalities ultimately being on the hook. If that were the case, just hypothetically, if one-half of the jobs that have not been started end up not being started, that would be a full third of the projects that have been announced. What would that do to your industries?

[Christopher Smillie]

As I mentioned earlier, if the stimulus money doesn't move forward, if I come back in a year, say, to this committee, and I report on work hours again, my forecast would be that work hours would be down significantly, sharp and relentless.

Perhaps I may make a suggestion. If we feel like the rules are too stringent, maybe Parliament should be working to have the rules amended or worked on. I can't really comment on that. You need to work on it as the government opposition as well as other opposition parties to ensure that it's not at the expense of Canadian workers. At the end of the day, if I come back in nine months and report work hours again without some of these jobs, without the stability that the plan will provide to private industry, the numbers will be down.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Cann, I appreciated your earlier intervention about the effect on some of these issues on the long-term workforce and bringing in younger tradespeople and apprentices. Just pulling a number out of the air for the moment, if a half of those, so one-third of the announced projects, actually don't get started, what would that do, from your perspective, to the long-term issue of your concern for bringing in younger people and apprentices for the longer-term future of your industry?

[Larry Cann]

Again, because I was a training coordinator during the nineties, what happened was we lost a generation, if I can put it that way. We don't have the supervision today. Most of the trades are looking for their leadership again, going back, trying to get more younger people involved. That left a real gap in our demographics.

What the gentleman here said about the environment.... Our contractors and our clients do a lot of building and moving forward on good faith and on how they perceive things are going to be because it's so long term. That's why it's extremely important that the attitude or feeling that's out there that's put forth by you as the committee and the government is so important to their mindset and how they're going to go about bidding work and creating work and creating jobs, because it takes a long time.

We will lose apprentices. We'll lose another year or two years where we don't bring young people in. That just creates a whole other cycle. We're trying to plan five to ten years ahead of where we're going to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Monsieur Gourde, five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As you know, under Canada's economic action plan several billions of dollars are being invested. We often hear about the labour shortage. Are certain trade sectors more at risk than others? Could that hinder the implementation of Canada's economic action plan?

Too often building trades come and go, but if a part of the work cannot be carried out, let's say, for example, that there is a lack of heavy machinery operators or any other specific trade for road infrastructure—will there be major problems in three years? Are you considering taking measures to attract a new generation? Would it be possible to work with industry in order to find a solution? I think that the problem is quite pressing.