Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Very good. I think it's important to ensure that indigenous investment funds are available to indigenous people, Métis people and Inuit who belong to a community. Often, there is a desire to take advantage of first nations.

Do you think Bill C‑5 has enough protections to ensure that the rights and most fundamental values of first nations are upheld?

[Jeffrey Cyr]

I think that's an ongoing question for the country of Canada—whether you have sufficient rights protection, as you call it, inside different pieces of legislation. I'm probably not best placed to judge whether that is the case.

I think I would put it this way. If you want to make Canada work effectively, and you want investors like us to invest in indigenous areas—and you need indigenous partners most of the time on almost all national projects—then you need to engage thoughtfully and early, and to have real dialogue and conversations. There's a phrase that's often used—lots of times consultation is that I'm pushing information at you. It's unidirectional. That's not really engagement. There has to be a back and forth, bidirectional. I would say there's a learning journey.

I'm positive on Bill C-5, mostly because I think there's an economic imperative for Canada to look at how its economy is structured and what needs to happen. We need to reframe economic institutions in Canada, which I think, frankly, are based on the colonial ideas that are 400 or 500 years old; the economic structures that most of the western world is working with. In there, if you really want to get work done, you need a business climate where people feel confident that they're going to move projects forward. In order to do that, they want to know that you've engaged. That doesn't really mean just in Canada with indigenous people—that's anywhere. If you want to do work in a municipality, you better engage the municipality in dialogue and action.

I can't speak to the rights protection, but I can speak about getting business done well and investing well. That requires talking to people frequently and deeply.

By the way, you get better, more resilient investments out of it as a result.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You're absolutely right. Either the bill was poorly drafted or it shows a malicious stance on first nations consultation. A number of indigenous leaders have criticized the bill. I want to highlight the strong condemnation that came from the Ontario chiefs yesterday, not to mention what Grand Chief Woodhouse Nepinak said.

As things stand, do you feel that an investment fund like yours can come out ahead under Bill C‑5 in relation to major projects of national interest? We know that the government is reserving the right to shirk its responsibilities under the Indian Act, but that represents a huge risk. At the end of the day, do you see more risks or more benefits when it comes to allowing first nations to be responsible for their own economies?

I just want to point out something I find deeply offensive in the rhetoric around Bill C‑5. The government is saying that it wants to go from 13 Canadian economies to one Canadian economy. However, the reference to one Canadian economy does not take into account the fact that first nations have separate economies. It can't be said that there is a single first nations economy. The proof is that the economy of Métis people, the economy of each first nation and the economy of Inuit should be taken into account.

If the government can ultimately usurp first nations' rights to major investments, does Bill C‑5 pose more risks?

[Jeffrey Cyr]

I'm not a rights lawyer, so I wouldn't pretend to comment on that part of the bill and how rights are protected. I think the chief can speak to it from his perspective.

I think the bill represents, perhaps, an opportunity to really engage, to hear from indigenous peoples, my peoples, other indigenous peoples, and to engage if you want projects done. There's a follow-on opportunity to the legislation, which is a framework or a frame for doing things, where I think it would be well-thought-through to construct a way that conversations can happen in a meaningful way on projects that are of interest. That's what I believe should be done and can be done.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you not feel, as a member of the Métis community, that you are giving the government carte blanche at this stage, especially since it can shirk its obligations under the Indian Act—though I realize they don't necessarily concern the Métis community? Currently, there is no assurance that you will be taken into account.

[Jeffrey Cyr]

No, I don't think so. I'll take it from an economist's perspective and a business person's perspective as opposed to a rights perspective on this.

All projects, even national projects, happen locally. You build locally; you do things locally. You use local tradespeople; it's a local thing. You need to get a series of approvals in place, both for those who are rights holders to the land and for other businesses in the area. Municipalities and provincial governments need to work together. There is opportunity in that space around national projects to look out for those things. I hear what all my indigenous sisters and brothers are saying, that there are things we don't see in this bill. I think they should come forward and say this is the thing that we want to see to make us comfortable, or say that following the bill, here's the process that we need the government to put in place.

From an economics perspective—and you want some degree of certainty—you won't move projects unless you have people on board at a local level.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony here today.

Mr. Johnson, you talked about the Red Seal and mentioned that it only applies to those who meet the apprenticeship requirements. You also highlighted the fact that each province requires workers to meet different standards. You spoke about Craig and the fact that he had to take extra courses to work in Alberta.

I would like to hear a bit more about the harmonization framework. Has your organization been consulted by the government on what could possibly be a harmonization framework in this bill?

[Finn Johnson]

As far as working towards harmonization of safety standards across the country is concerned, it's not a new issue in our industry. This is an issue that's persisted in our industry for a very long time. It's a unique consideration because, obviously, we have the Red Seal, which is nationally recognized, and I think it's easy to assume that would cover all tradespeople. Unfortunately, when you look at this, carpentry is similar to many of the construction trades in that it's a non-compulsory trade, so we, as carpenters, do not need to be in a registered apprenticeship program to work in the trade. Other trades are different, but that is the case in carpentry.

In an industry where you have to be in an apprenticeship program and you would eventually end up graduating with your Red Seal, some individuals can work in carpentry their entire careers and never be in an apprenticeship program, never get their Red Seal and never become a journeyperson. That's just the way it is.

Safety training needs to have a larger focus than it does now, because it's really unfair to people like Craig. I know you mentioned those comments. I think it's really important that we don't put the burden of the red tape that exists right now in our industry and safety standards that vary between provinces on the workers, because they're the ones who have to pay the price, whether it be lost wages while they wait to have their accreditations recognized or the price of actually paying a third party provider for training.

As this bill moves forward, we would like to see more considerations for how we actually implement this labour mobility piece across the country. The devil's in the details in that area. We can't simply adopt the lowest common denominator across provinces. As an industry, we take pride in the fact that we have really high standards for workers and safety. As a country, we take pride in that, and we need to make sure those standards are maintained.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I have a similar question for you, Mr. Schumann.

The government claims that the bill will fast-track national building projects, but we've seen in the last 10 years how red tape and political interference can stall the process. From your members' perspective, is there anything in Bill C-5 that actually provides certainty to your industry and guarantees or gives some assurance that projects will actually get built quickly without political backtracking or interference?

[Steven Schumann]

This is a framework, and within frameworks, there's never a certainty. We don't even know what the projects are going to be yet. We know certain provinces have talked about certain projects. We've heard B.C. is talking about Site D and Site E and Site H with Alberta. We don't know if that's going to come forward. I've also heard that Toronto wants to bring forward the subway line. We don't know how that process is going to work.

If the projects come online, I will take this government on its word that they will get the process done in two years. That's all our members want to know. They want to know that work's coming and that they are going to be able to work on it. Our members work themselves out of a job. In any given year, they'll work on anywhere between five to 15 projects for five to 10 different companies. They move. They just want to build things. For example, we represent the pipeline trade. My members don't care what's in the pipe. It could be oil, gas or hydrogen, or it could be wires. We don't care. My members just want to build, so they want to know that there are projects down the road that they can actually build and those projects will come online quickly.

We've seen what's happened with Energy East and how it got killed. Kitimat had issues. That's where the frustration is: where someone says a project is going to be built and then it doesn't come forward. There's skepticism, but there's also hope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next we'll go to Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Lauzon, you may go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

What Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schumann had to say was music to my ears.

I was a teacher in the trades, specializing in professional and technical training. I also worked on pipeline and cogeneration plant projects at TransAlta Corporation, in Ontario, and I can tell you that labour mobility was indeed a problem in the skilled trades for decades.

Mr. Schumann, you gave the example of the red seal program. I am very familiar with the red seal endorsement, which was created to address the labour shortage in the trades, allowing the provinces to lend one another workers. Nevertheless, I don't know whether my fellow members around the table are familiar with the red seal program, so could you explain what it is, so they can better understand how it relates to Bill C‑5?

[Steven Schumann]

The Red Seal is an endorsement that facilitates labour mobility by providing a nationally recognized standard that employers can trust. In fact, if you get a Red Seal on tower cranes, you can work anywhere in the world; the Red Seal is recognized worldwide. That's how impressive it is. That's how high the Red Seal standards are.

There is a Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship, who are directors from every province. They sit on the council, and they talk about the Red Seals and review the Red Seals.

I forget how many total Red Seals there are. For our trade, there are three or four. I don't know if you break it down, but every province is responsible to implement a Red Seal program or support Red Seal. Crane operators are recognized in every province by a Red Seal. Heavy equipment is recognized in eastern Canada, not western Canada, and there are a few other trades like that. We also have concrete pump, which is a highly sought-after career that's not recognized in other provinces but is provincially certified. There are some challenges there. To get a Red Seal program, you need four provinces to be part of the Red Seal.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

You have to create your own Red Seal to share with the other provinces.

[Steven Schumann]

There will be four, and then the council will agree, and they try to expand it.

Finn, do you have anything else to add?

[Finn Johnson]

I don't have anything else to add to that.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

It's important for the committee to have a clear understanding of all the steps. For there to be a united Canada, the barriers have to come down.

Mr. Schumann, you know what a complex process it is to obtain red seal endorsement, since you had a hand in developing and implementing the rules.

How do you think Bill C-5 can help, knowing that we've been trying to address the labour shortage for decades now? What comparison can be drawn between red seal endorsement and Bill C‑5, in terms of making it easier for projects to move forward?

[Steven Schumann]

Apparently, the government has said that there's going to be one deal with the provinces. If there is, I would say that's where you have an opportunity to expand and promote the Red Seal and say, “If you want to be part of this, you all have to agree with the Red Seal”, which would then solve labour mobility, because it is the higher standard. If you're a Red Seal crane operator, you can work anywhere in Canada or work anywhere in the world, right? If you're a heavy equipment operator in Alberta, you can't work in Ontario because you don't have a Red Seal; you're not going to meet the standard. That way you force them to create the Red Seal program. It's beneficial. It drives more people into the industry. If you have a Red Seal, you can work anywhere in Canada or the world, because it's recognized. As someone once said, “It's the golden ticket”.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Can the Red Seal be a solution for the implementation of this legislation?

[Steven Schumann]

For the labour and mobility part, I would say yes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Johnson, I have one last question for you.

Creating all those trades and having access to the workers we need requires schools and training. The problem affects all provinces, because some provinces have specialty trades that others don't. That makes it very hard to get your training in one province and then work in another.

Do you think this openness will fill vocational training centres with students? We are talking about centres that provide specialty training and millions of pieces of equipment.

[Finn Johnson]

I think that we certainly will be able to fill our training centres, especially with the specialty trades. We know that, as building technology grows more complex, we do need a more skilled, better trained workforce. Many of our training centres already have waiting lists as we need to grow our capacity for more skilled tradespeople. We still hear that we have this impending labour shortage over the next 10 years. We as a country need to be growing our training capacity. We cannot rest on our laurels, take what we have now and assume that it will work for us at the capacity that exists over the next few years.

I think we need to expand the availability of training. I know that many of our training centres in Ontario, for example, have been granted the ability to offer full apprenticeship programs for carpentry, drywall and floor covering in-house. We would love to see that expanded to all of our 42 training centres across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

I'm sorry to cut you off, but we were going a little bit over.

It is now back to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.