Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for October 25, 2016

Host: Anna-Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I went to school to get a degree that would get me a job. And it did for the short term and then it didn't, and I'm back to being unemployed and the prospects are temporary and part-time contracts, it’s pretty frustrating.

ANNA-MARIA TREMONTI: One young woman whose career ambitions are being pulled into what the federal finance minister calls a job churn, a cycle of short-term, high turnover, precarious employment. But even as Bill Morneau names it and says government has to prepare for it and new workers have to expect it, we’re hearing the pushback. Today we'll hear from a panel of people with concerns over where the job market is headed and ideas on how to navigate that. Hear them in an hour. And then he always had a big job. Charles Bronfman was born into wealth and privilege and stepped into the family distillery business. But he faced his self-doubt and complicated family relationships, all of which he's sharing in a new memoir, along with his political opinions as a first time US voter.

SOUNDCLIP

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Donald Trump is a clear and present danger and he's a terrible businessman. People who have worked with him in business do business with him once and never again.

AMT: Charles Bronfman distilled in half an hour. But we're starting with the story of small Indigenous communities facing a big development project.

SOUNDCLIP

People of Labrador, we’re sick and tired of being beat down and tired of being abused. We are going to win.

AMT: Inuk protesters take on the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

Protesters on hunger strike oppose plan for Muskrat Falls project

Guests: Ossie Michelin, Peter Cowan

SOUNDCLIP

I haven’t eaten in ten days and it’s people like yourselves, you are my food, you are my nourishment. I know this is for a good reason, and I will stand for as long as I can. If for some reason the right people aren’t listening, if they let me go then the moment that I close my eyes I will do it with pride because I know it will only make us stronger.

ANNA-MARIA TREMONTI: Well that is Billy Gauthier, an Inuk artist and activist from Labrador who says he's willing to die, if that's what it takes to get a hydroelectric project done right. He and other hunger strikers traveled to Ottawa last weekend to call attention to the dam being built at Muskrat Falls, Labrador. At the same time, protesters back home breached the gates at the project site run by Nalcor Energy. Nalcor Energy is the provincial Crown corporation in charge of this mega project. Today, Premier Dwight Ball will sit down with Indigenous leaders in an emergency meeting to discuss the protesters concerns. Ossie Michelin is Inuk, he lives near Lake Melville in Labrador, which would be affected by this project. He traveled to Ottawa with Mr. Gauthier and two other hunger strikers. He joins us from our Ottawa studio. Hi Mr. Michelin.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Good morning.

AMT: You have been traveling with these others on a hunger strike, their names Billy Gauthier, Delilah Saunders and Jerry Kohlmeister.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yeah. Delilah Saunders.

AMT: Saunders, sorry. How long have they been on a hunger strike now?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Billy is going into day 12, I believe, and the others are entering into day nine right now. Billy's mom has told me that he's lost 21 pounds since this began. And Billy was about 5’5, 140 pounds before this all began. So now he's under 120. We're all very concerned for his health but we all support him.

AMT: OK, how are the others feeling?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Their fatigue is starting to show but their spirits are high. I don't know where they find the strength to do this day after day.

AMT: How serious a threat is the Muskrat Falls project to your community?

OSSIE MICHELIN: I just want to make it clear first of all that we're not opposed to the dam. The dam has been built but we want to make sure that the province does this right, that the provincial energy company does this right. That they clear the land behind the dam and the flood basin because this land and the vegetation there is contaminated with heavy metals and methylmercury that's come down from pollution and in the south. And if this is allowed to flood, it will contaminate our water, it will contaminate our fish, our seals, our game, our way of life. And this isn't just our food source because we also have issues around food security, but our whole culture is based upon hunting and fishing and gathering from the land. It's who we are.

AMT: So in other words, it's the organic material, what, you want it cleared out completely before the land is flooded.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Well, there's certain parts, we call them like hot spots of topsoil, that are more toxic than others. We want full research done and assessments by independent peer reviewed scientists that can come in and look at this and figure out what are the spots that are the danger zones that need to go, and what are the areas that are of less danger, that are of a less concern to us.

AMT: So, because once it floods you get levels of methylmercury?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yeah, methylmercury, it enters into the food chain, it bio accumulates, it builds up first in the plankton and then in the smaller fish and then the larger fish, like our brook trout, which we all love to eat and rely on all year round to eat, and then the seals, which are sort of central to Inuit in Labrador. You know, we make clothing out of them, we make crafts out of them, we eat them, we make art from them. Back in the day, we used to burn their oils in our lamps and today that's one of our most sacred ceremonies, is that we burn seal oil lamps to represent the spirit of Inuit. This seal is central to who we are.

AMT: OK, so Lake Melville is near where the reservoir will be or it will be attached to it?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yeah, it’s about 35 kilometres downstream from the dam site. It's 300 kilometres downstream from the Upper Churchill, Churchill Falls, which is another mega dam built in the seventies, and it already has elevated levels methylmercury from that. Now, the Harvard survey said that it could spike over 300 per cent if the dam is done the way that Nalcor wants to do it right now, just a few kilometres upstream. So we really need to make sure that that vegetation and organic material is cleared.

AMT: What is the Harvard survey?

OSSIE MICHELIN: After the province did their survey, they only surveyed just around the mouth of the river, they said it would be fine but Nunatsiavut, what the Inuit of Labrador felt that more research had to be done. So a group of independent Harvard researchers came in, they surveyed it, it was peer reviewed, it was published in journals. And they said that basically the surveys that were done by Nalcor, the provincial energy company, were inadequate. They just did not cover a large enough area and they just did not look into it enough. They studied all of Lake Melville, which is, I'm not sure what it is in kilometres, but it's about 100 miles long.

AMT: OK, so in other words the Harvard research backs up your concerns.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yes. And both the Nalcor and Harvard said that more research needs to be done. So that's what we want.

AMT: And what else you want Nalcor to do?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Well, we want Nalcor to just, we want them to hold off on the project, do more research, have it done by an independent group of outsiders, work with the federal government, work with the provincial government, make sure that everything is monitored, that everything is being done properly to assure the public that everything is being done safe, and then act upon this independent research. You know, they can do all the studies they want but if they don't act upon it, it doesn't mean anything.

AMT: And how have they responded?

OSSIE MICHELIN: [deep sigh] They have responded with a lot of silence. A lot of dismissals, a lot of sometimes it feels like contempt for the people of Labrador. And we just want our province and our provincial energy company to recognize us as citizens and value our lives.

AMT: If they don't do what you ask are they set to flood this area soon?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yes, it could happen at any moment. They have said that they are holding off any kind of flooding, of raising the water levels until at least after the premier has his meetings with the three Indigenous leaders. And then after that we don't know what's going to happen. We can't force them to do anything, you know, we can just plead our case, we can tell the country what’s happening, we can tell the province what's happening, but at the end of the day they're the ones that call the shots and we just want them to respect us and to value our lives. We're just normal people fighting for our home, we're not activists. You know, there's all these regular people, I've seen grandmothers and children and youth and elders, everybody, community members, community leaders, people I see at the grocery store every day coming out and protesting for the first time ever because they're scared.

AMT: And why did you come to Ottawa?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Well, Anna-Maria, our province right now has been enthralled in this debate for years and it's just getting even more intense in Newfoundland and Labrador. But we're having trouble getting this to the outside world, so we really wanted to make this a national conversation, to get Canadians to know that, you know, this may be our river now but it could be coming for a river anywhere near you anytime soon. So we need to make sure that this is done right and set the bar for all Canadians, because Canadians deserve safe waterways, safe food, we deserve better.

AMT: How do you respond to what happened yesterday where the Liberal MP Nick Whalen tweeted eat less fish.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Oh he's an MHA, with the provincial government.

AMT: Oh, MHA, I’m sorry.

OSSIE MICHELIN: It’s no problem. It was kind of a let them eat cake moment. It just kind of showed how little he understands about us and Labrador and [chuckles] it just showed his ignorance. And I hope that he has learned better since.

AMT: He has apologized.

OSSIE MICHELIN: That's nice, I hope he has learned better since.

AMT: And did you meet with your own MP yesterday?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Yes, we met with our member of parliament Yvonne Jones here in Ottawa. We had two meetings with her and she said that she is planning on bringing her concerns to parliament. Our concerns to parliament.

AMT: And we actually tried to speak with her, we were scheduled to speak with her today, we received a late night note yesterday from the office. She's the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Indigenous and northern affairs and we received a message from the office of the minister of Indigenous and northern affairs saying she can no longer make a media appearance work. But they did give us a statement, they say “we understand the government of Newfoundland and Labrador is working with the proponent Indigenous peoples and stakeholders with respect to the Muskrat Falls project,” I'm reading here, “we expect the province will meet its responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. We are encouraged to hear that Premier Ball will be meeting with the local Indigenous community,” end quote. What do you think of that statement?

OSSIE MICHELIN: I think that this is, [sighs] this is what we all want. We all want our premier to step up and say that Labradorians, that our lives matter, that we are important. And there's nothing that the federal government, nothing that Yvonne Jones herself can do to force the premier to act differently. Maybe the prime minister can, maybe somebody in the federal government can, but all we can do is plead our case. And Yvonne is Labradorian too, and I know that Yvonne, that she hunts and fishes as well. I remember seeing pictures from her wedding day and her wedding dress was adorned with seal skin. She's one of us and she does not want this project to go ahead either.

AMT: And so why do you think that the ministry, do you think the ministry can do anything, the federal ministry, do you want to see the federal government step in or try to work with the province?

OSSIE MICHELIN: I would love to see the federal government step in. We need all the support we can get, and I know that a lot of the time they say that this is a provincial matter but, you know, the environment minister can say something, the fisheries minister can say something, the Indigenous affairs minister can say something, they all have the option to, the prime minister can say something. And even if they can't stop this from happening they can say morally we do not support this.

AMT: And this is happening of course at a time when the federal Liberal government is talking about the need for ongoing reconciliation after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, trying to turn a new page with Indigenous peoples. How do you square the two?

OSSIE MICHELIN: Well, this is a chance for the federal government to show that, you know, that Indigenous rights actually mean something, that environmental protection laws actually mean something in this country, to show the world that the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, their endorsement meant something, that the Truth Reconciliation Commission meant something. Reconciliation is more than just a dream. This is something that we can actually fight for and achieve and win and do better, all of us as Canadians, not just the Indigenous people, but we can all do better if this happens. So I really, I plead my case to the federal government, to the MPs, to the staffers, to everybody, please help us. We need your help. We need your support, Canadians we need your support too. Please write your members of parliament, write your provincial governments, let everybody know that you cannot poison Canadian citizens for money.

AMT: And if this protest does not work, what happens to your three hunger strikers?

OSSIE MICHELIN: They say that they're going to take it all the way. They are my friends and I am so concerned for them [voice quivering] but I respect them so much and I will be with them at every step. But it's their decision what happens, and it's up to them.

AMT: Ossie Michelin, thank you for speaking with me.

OSSIE MICHELIN: Thank you.

AMT: That is Ossie Michelin, who lives near Lake Melville in Labrador, one of the areas affected by the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project. We reached him in Ottawa, he was in our studio in there. Well, to give us a sense of how the Muskrat Falls project has reached this point, I'm joined by Peter Cowan, he covers politics for Newfoundland and Labrador for CBC News. He's in our St. John’s studio. Hi Peter.

PETER COWAN: Good morning Anna-Maria.

AMT: Well, there are hunger strikers in Ottawa, there were also protesters at the Muskrat Falls site in Labrador, what's the latest?

PETER COWAN: Yeah, right now the latest is that there are somewhere around more than about 50 protesters. And quite a few days ago, they basically stormed the gates that had been blocking people from being able to get in from the site, and they've basically taken over one of the camp areas on site at Muskrat Falls. Yesterday they walked out to one of the construction areas, partially in order to shut down the construction activity that was happening near the spillways and also because they wanted to see the activity. But they have similar demands to Billy Gauthier and the hunger strikers, they're doing this to try and disrupt the project and in order to try and prevent this flooding from happening, that Nalcor says it needs to do over the next couple of weeks.

AMT: And are there any workers on the site?

PETER COWAN: Yeah, they've moved off a lot of the nonessential workers. We haven't been able to get a concrete number, but we hear it's in the neighbourhood of about 1,400 workers have been moved off the site. But Nalcor confirmed that there are still about 800 workers that are on the site in order to keep essential services going and in order to continue the preparation work that they need to do in order to prepare for flooding. Because Nalcor’s been adamant that before ice forms on the river they need to begin the process of moving up the water level, not to the full flooding, that's not going to happen until 2019, but they need to bring it up about seven metres they say, in order to prevent some damage when ice forms on the river.

AMT: 800 workers, it's a big project huh?

PETER COWAN: Yeah. In total the number of workers has varied throughout the project, but it's around 2,000 workers through various shifts that are needed in order to build this. And it's a really expensive project. This is, you know, the price tag is now up around 11 and a half billion dollars, so it's a lot of work that's needed in order to construct this.

AMT: That's what, about 4 billion over what they thought it would cost?

PETER COWAN: Yeah. And that's been, while they're certainly, the latest concern has been environmental, the longstanding concern with this project has also been economic. And originally when it was sanctioned, the costs were around six and a half billion plus interest, and it's continued to escalate since then. And with that, the escalation has also continued in terms of what the expected cost of this power is going to be, because this is power that isn't going to be used in Labrador. This is a project that is being built in Labrador but then transmission lines are bringing this power to Newfoundland and then on to Nova Scotia as well. And it's expected that in Newfoundland, power rates will go from about 12 cents a kilowatt hour now to over 20 cents a kilowatt hour, making it the most expensive place for electricity in the country.

AMT: Does that mean that they'll be able to sell that power then or will it get stalled on that end?

PETER COWAN: So the idea is that ratepayers in Newfoundland will end up bearing basically the full cost of this project and that's one of the reasons why it's so expensive. They don't need all the power, it's only about a third of the power that's needed here, but they've got to pay the full cost and then the hope is that they'll be able to sell excess power into the Maritimes and into New England. But with the wholesale rates right now, especially with natural gas being a fairly cheap source of electricity right now in northeastern US, it means that they're going to get very little actual return for the extra power that they're going to sell, compared to the high cost that it is to build this project and to generate that power.

AMT: Now Peter, Nalcor’s own CEO Stan Marshall has called this a boondoggle. What's going on there?

PETER COWAN: Yeah, he is sort of a newcomer to this project. When the Liberal government took over here provincially last fall there was a lot of tension with the now former CEO, who was a real champion of this project, Ed Martin. He ended up leaving, getting severance. And what they brought in was Stan Marshall who had run Fortis, which is a private energy company that has a fair amount of experience running utilities. And he was never a fan of this project from day one, he never felt that it was necessary, that there were other ways for Newfoundland to get the power that it needed. And so when he came on board, he right from day one said, you know, my job is to try and make the best of this situation. They've made it clear that canceling this project is not feasible and as we heard from Ossie there, you know, even the protesters aren't asking for that to happen. But the issue with this project is, you know, how do they, for Nalcor is how do they try and get those costs down. That was one of the main drivers that he was concerned about is the fact that the costs just keep going up on this project.

AMT: So does that concern over costs play into the environmental treatment of this whole thing? Because you're saying they want to flood, like, not flood but they want to lift the water up seven metres. And the protesters are saying you've got to clear that stuff before you do that, right?

PETER COWAN: The environment minister provincially here has insisted that cost isn't the real reason. That until now they've said that it's not feasible to do what the protesters want, which is remove not only the trees but the topsoil from this area that's going to be flooded. Earlier this year, the new minister of environment who is the MHA representing that area, he's also a scientist he actually worked on this project, so he understands the impact on this. But the issue that he raised and the reason that he said they can't do this is because a couple of things. One, there's a huge amount of soil that would have to be removed. It's about five million cubic metres, which would be just to give you a sense of volume, that would actually fill the Rogers Center about three and a half times with soil. So there's a huge amount of soil that they’d have to move somewhere. It creates problems with silting in the river when you disturb the soil. And he said that the other concern is that you're essentially killing fish habitat, that the reservoir ends up being dead because there's no organic material in order to create a fish habitat. So at the time he said they hadn't actually costed out what it would cost in order to do this. And so he insisted that it was the environmental concerns that were preventing them from doing this. And in my research I've looked around to try and find another hydroelectric project where they've actually removed all the soil and I haven't been able to find one. So it is somewhat ground breaking and that's I think where a lot of the discussion is going now is well, can we do some more research before, not before this initial flooding, but before the final flooding in 2019 to see whether or not that is more feasible.

AMT: And of course there's a meeting with the premier today and the Indigenous groups. We just heard that we had an MP scheduled to talk to us who has now stepped away. What are you expecting from this meeting?

PETER COWAN: It will be interesting, because right now the sides are so diametrically opposed. You've got the Nunatsiavut government that represents Inuit Labrador that has basically said, you know, we want this project stopped until you can do the full clearing, vegetation, soil, everything. And you've got Nalcor saying well look, we need to start the initial flooding now. So it'll be interesting to see whether or not they can find any common ground or at least enough common ground in order for protesters to back off and allow the work to continue.

AMT: OK, Peter, we'll have to leave it there. But thank you for giving us some perspective on all of this.

PETER COWAN: You're very welcome.

AMT: Peter Cowan covers politics for CBC News in Newfoundland and Labrador. He joined us from our St. John’s studio. We did request interviews with Nalcor and with the premier Dwight Ball and both Newfoundland and Labrador’s ministers for environment and natural resources. No one was made available to us. Let us know what you think as you listen to this. You can tweet us we are @TheCurrentCBC, find us on Facebook. Go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent, let us know what you think. The news is next. And then whiskey, baseball, philanthropy and business, the billionaire Charles Bronfman joins me to talk about his life. This is The Current.

'Nobody wins in a family war': Billionaire Charles Bronfman on Seagram's demise

Guests: Charles Bronfman

ANNA-MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna-Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, you've heard it before that there's no such thing anymore as a job for life. Now even the federal minister of finance says working contract to contract, short term to short term is the new reality. Bill Morneau called it job churn, others call the state of affairs precarious. We're asking whether it really has to be this way, in half an hour. But first, a life's experience distilled.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: In the beginning there was doubt and skepticism, Major League Baseball come to Montreal or for that matter leave the confines of the United States, where it is a national heritage. And if it did, what more logical place to expand than in Japan where the audience is built-in, where the players of yesteryear are heroes of a time remembered. Surely not Montreal or Canada for Major League Baseball, but expand they did and right into the centre of Canada's biggest city, a city that hasn't had a baseball team for over a decade.

VOICE 2: In today’s home opener for the Montreal Expos, the Expos eight runs on 11 hits and five errors, for St. Louis Cardinals seven runs on 12 hits and no errors.

AMT: From the CBC archives, that is how the Montreal Expos first ever home opener sounded back in 1969. The fact that Major League Baseball did expand into Canada is a testament to the determination and deep pockets of my next guest Charles Bronfman. Of course the Bronfman family name is synonymous in Canada with booze and billions. His father Sam Bronfman built the Seagram company up from its rumored bootlegging origins into a global distilling giant. Though like those Montreal Expos Seagram today is but a memory, following a controversial 2000 merger led by his nephew Edgar Bronfman Jr. that failed to pay off. The company's former co-chair is looking back at it all in a new book called Distilled: A Memoir of Family, Seagram, Baseball and Philanthropy. Charles Bronfman is with me in Toronto. Hello.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Good morning.

AMT: You were surprised to hear that.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yes I was.

AMT: Does it take you back?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Oh yeah. Those were great days, great days.

AMT: Well take me back to that home opener, it was Jarry Park. What was that day like?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: It was a beautiful day. It was about 70 degrees or shall we say 20 degrees Celsius and the sun was shining. They finished doing the right field stands about an hour before the fans arrived. I think it was probably a 2:00 game so by 1:00 they were finally done. The outfield we found out from the St. Louis centre fielder Curt Flood was sort of spotty shall we say, because of the rising up of the turf after the winter. And so it was very uneven he said you can get killed out there. But it was a wonderful day. The funniest darn thing was that the catchers started sinking down [laughing]

AMT: [laughs]

CHARLES BRONFMAN: On both sides and the umpire was sinking down too. It was such a festive day, that was the thing I remember most.

AMT: And where did you actually watch the game, where were you during the game?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I was down in front. I think we were sitting with Drapeau and my father was there and my wife was there. We just had a wonderful time. And I remember the starting pitcher who's a fellow named Larry Jaster and we got off to a big start with a number of runs and then Jaster gave up the bit and all of a sudden St. Louis was ahead and I was very sorrowful [unintelligible]. We wound up as the announcer said, eight to seven.

AMT: Remind us of your role in bringing major league baseball to Canada.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, it was really a financial role because it was Mayor Drapeau, who through the vice chairman of the executive committee Jerry Snyder, who was the person behind everything. And Drapeau really wanted to have a baseball team not knowing anything about baseball, I think because he wanted to have this stadium and get the Olympics, and all of that was done, maybe unfortunately.

AMT: Mm. But what did starting the Montreal Expos mean to you personally?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, personally it was huge for me because I had been under the family umbrella and when I was working for Seagram I couldn't be fired. And if we lost money in Canada, it was only about seven to ten per cent of Seagram’s business, so it wouldn't have mattered a hell of a lot, it would have mattered to me, it would have mattered to the family, but not to the shareholders. And all of a sudden I was out there doing something on my own with no family backing and sink or swim.

AMT: So it established your identity away from the family?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yeah, it helped me become a person in my own right.

AMT: And you loved the game too, huh?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yeah we used to go, my brother and I, to doubleheaders when we were Triple-A team, the Dodgers farm team and so Jackie Robinson played in Montreal, as the movie said, before he played in Brooklyn, as did many other players.

AMT: So this was a really important moment for you then, to have this team.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: It was a defining moment, yes.

AMT: Yeah. Talk to me a little bit more about growing up, what were some of the perks you had growing up as a Bronfman?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: The perks? Well, I didn't think they were perks. I was very naive as a kid. So I didn't think that having a chauffeur was a perk, I didn't think that living in a big house was a perk, I didn't think a lot of the trappings of wealth were perks at all because it seemed to me that was the way life was led. And as I say in the book, that I had friends who had much smaller homes than I had but it didn't seem to matter to me one way or the other.

AMT: It just didn't register with you.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: No.

AMT: But just for the record let's talk about, like, the family, you had a Rolls-Royce.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: We had a Rolls-Royce, we had a chauffeur with leggings and the whole darn thing, we had I guess another car or two, I don't recall that. And we had a big house, we lived on a hill in Westmount and--

AMT: [interposing] Butler.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Butler, maids etc.

AMT: Nannies, a nanny for the girls, nanny for the boys.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Oh yeah, nanny for the girl and nanny for the boys. It was all the trappings of wealth.

AMT: And at the same time, you say you were a basket case, why do you say that?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Because I had no ego, I was the youngest of four. I thought that my siblings were smarter, more sophisticated and better than I was. And I made my own rather difficult life for myself.

AMT: Well what was your father like when you were growing up?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: He, [laughs] to me he was wonderful. He was very sweet, very kind. He used to put me to bed at night when he was in Montreal. I was scared of him like everybody was, because he has this violent temper which he never used on me but I always worried that I might be the next one. And I was a worrier anyway, I don't worry so much anymore.

AMT: Mm. What was his violent temper like, was it like he would rage?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yeah, he would get into a pretty good rage. Then he usually apologized. Matter of fact, he told a wonderful story, I don't know if this one’s in the book or not, because, you know, you do one of these books and you can't remember everything, every story you told or didn't tell. But one day when they had a warehouse in Montreal, he came back from lunch and the elevator operator told him he was going to quit. And so my father said why are you going to quit? He said because your brother-in-law called me a bad name, and my dad looked at him and said what do you mean he called you a bad name? I've called you every kind of bad name that exists. He said oh yes Mr. Sam, but he meant it.

AMT: [laughs] So when you were growing up, you felt that you were just, because you were around that, you thought it might be directed at you but it never was.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Right.

AMT: OK.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Or it could be directed at me.

AMT: OK. You write that your father never said he loved you or he loved your brother Edgar.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, you know, that era I'm not so sure that many people said I love you as we say today. But my father, I knew he loved me. My brother, unfortunately, didn't think that dad loved him, which he did, he loved him outrageously. But my brother went to his dying day thinking that his father didn't love him.

AMT: And how do you think that affected how he was in the world?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, he became pretty tough himself but not in a productive way. And dad was tough but he was very productive. But my brother had to beat him at this and had to beat him at that. And, you know, there is father son rivalry and a lot of things, I would not compete with my dad because I said I can't.

AMT: Mm. There's been a lot of speculation about your dad, whether he was a bootlegger during Prohibition. Was he?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I have no idea. But it was a subject not discussed.

AMT: You say in your book that if your father was engaged in bootlegging in the US then Ottawa was complicit.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well sure, sure. They knew damn well where the goods were going. So I don't, you see, if you pay all the tax to Canada you put it on a boat and somebody on the other side is buying it. Now did he know who was buying it? I would imagine he did. The Canadian government didn't care as long as they got their taxes they were very happy.

AMT: How was it decided in the family who would actually be in control of Seagram once your father died?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, my dad and his lawyers figured out after a lot of back and forthing that the boys would get each 30 per cent of our family company, which held the Seagram shares and the girls would get 20 per cent. Now that would not happen today, but they figured out that if my brother and I in effect controlled, that would be good because otherwise it could be 50 50 and there’d be a big war or a logjam. And that's the way it was done. As to my brother and me, it was always known certainly on my part that my brother would be the head of the company, which was fine with me because I didn't want to do that. I was too sensitive. I didn't want to have to fire people and raise prices and I'm not a bottom line guy.

AMT: Was it a good idea looking back to have family members run the company based on a blood relationship with the founder?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: You know, that's a question I guess that every family controlled company and every family asks itself. Probably not. Except I don't know of if dad could have had another CEO, an outsider in that slot. I doubt that he could have. But where I think my brother and I made a mistake, serious mistake, was in the next generation. We should have hired the best CEO we could find, outsider. That didn't happen.

AMT: And that of course becomes a point of contention. Let's talk a little bit more. Tell me about your relationship with your older brother Edgar, because it was complicated.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: It was very complicated. Which again, is not unusual. You probably have siblings and if you do there's, you know, ups and downs and backs and forths. Edgar and I were very close on the one hand and very different and far apart on the other hand. In business we did not see eye to eye. But I was very happy to stay in Canada, he wanted to go to New York and he wanted to run the company very badly. He wanted to beat dad, which was impossible. And he used to cry that dad wouldn't let him do things that he wanted to do, which is why he said he would let his son do whatever he wanted to do, which was unfortunate. He and I had a love, not hate, but a love and then a part relationship. We had different ideas of partnership. His partnership idea was that he was up high and his partner was whoever he was. And he did not regard me very highly from a brains standpoint or from a business standpoint and with some reason, some, not all. Anyway, we drifted apart. He was in New York, I was in Montreal and I got into a Dr. No position, which I didn't like.

AMT: What does that mean?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: He and maybe his henchmen would, like, want to do something. I didn't think it was right, so I'd say no. And I said to myself, this is silly. I'd go down in New York and say no, come back. I'm not a no person, I’m a yes person, what am I doing this for? So it was complex.

AMT: But so he didn't think you were up to it. He didn't think you were as intelligent as him or capable of running the big business.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Right, because, you know, what happens when you're away from each other as we all find out, you remember people as you knew them. And I didn't see him that often, so he didn't realize that his little brother grew up, his little brother was now a person of substance. And I, because of our relationship, am I always giving in to him. I couldn't impress him with that.

AMT: What did you think of him, that's what he thought of you but--

CHARLES BRONFMAN: [interposing] I thought he was the entitled one, period.

AMT: You know, people say that the relationships between brothers with power are some of the most complicated, they make movies about guys like you. [chuckles]

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, you know, at the end of our term together we got to be very friendly again and we backed each other's philanthropy. But in business as is well known we had major major disagreements.

AMT: And you've hinted at some of that now, so let's talk about some of that. In the public's mind the Bronfmans are still equated mostly with Seagram and whiskey. When did you know the future of Seagram was at risk?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I knew that around 1995, I guess, when I suddenly heard by the grapevine that maybe my brother and his son were no longer in love with DuPont and at that time we had 25 per cent of the common shares of that company. I was the liaison officer between the two companies, and I loved DuPont. I loved the people there. And as I told my brother the DuPont investment was an insurance policy for our family and our shareholders. And with a company like that in back of us and pouring dividends into Seagram, no matter who was running the company we had a backstop, an assurance that the company would keep on growing and the shareholders would be well rewarded. And I couldn't believe what I heard until I found out it was true and I had discussions with the two of them and tried to convince them that this was a mistake.

AMT: So this was Edgar Jr. and Edgar Senior?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yes.

AMT: And why was this happening? Remind us.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: It was happening because they decided that DuPont was boring and that my nephew had said that no company has lasted more than 100 years in the United States and maintained its growth, and these companies had gone downhill and DuPont was over a hundred years old, etc. I was not bored because when that kind of cash flow keeps coming into a company and for the shareholders, I thought that was pretty cool.

AMT: [chuckles] And so, it was Edgar Jr. who wanted to invest in the entertainment industry with that money.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yes, but his father had also at one time put family money, years before that, into MGM which was a disaster, to use a Trumpian word, but it was. And so Edgar Senior was obviously pretty in favour of going into this entertainment business too. I did not like the entertainment business as a business. I loved going to the movies, but, you know, the problem with the entertainment business is that every time you make a new movie you start from scratch, you have a new product. So that you could for instance be a star in a movie then you would ask for 20 million dollars the next time around, and the next time around you’d have a flop on your hands. Well, that to me is not a business. Business is growing your brand not having a brand one day and no brand the next day, going up and down like a yo-yo.

AMT: But that was the beginning of the, that was the slippery slope, that was the--

CHARLES BRONFMAN: [interposing] Once that was done, the game was really over. As far as the family was concerned and the veto, I have to ask what is a veto? A veto is something you can use if it's vetoable. But had I said no guys we’re not going to do this, they would have gone to the board. They would probably have won because they were both line officers and I wasn't. And to some members of the board this might have been enticing. I also did not want to have a family feud because no matter which way it went there would have been a family war and I'd seen family wars. Between my dad and his brother, I had seen family wars in other family controlled companies, nobody wins in a family war. Nobody.

AMT: What's your relationship now like with Edgar Jr.?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Cordial. That's it.

AMT: And how long has it been since Edgar Sr. died?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: He died two and a half years ago.

AMT: Two and a half years ago. Do you miss him?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: In some ways yes, in some ways no. You know, as you say it's complicated. I cried when he died, I was with him. And, you know, I loved him in many ways and I never hated him. I resented him in some other ways.

AMT: You know, the gap between rich and poor has become a major point in the US election. Where do you come down on the idea that too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1 per cent of the population?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I think it’s very dangerous. I think that it’s the kind of thing that foments revolution. I’m not thinking that the Americans are going to rebel, but something has to happen. The middle class in the United States is angry for a very good reason. Their take home pay is less todays and buys less than it did 15 years ago. And you've got a situation in Washington where there’s gridlock and nothing really can happen. It used to be, I remember being a Canadian and being a political junkie, looking at the Americans, I said well their system is really terrific. Because if you're Republican or Democrat it was either centre right, centre left, and they’d make deals with each other. Now nobody talks to each other. Now you have the far right, the Tea Party, you've got the far left on the Democratic side. And people used to socialize, used to be like two lawyers who would argue during the day and then they'd go out for dinner at night. That's the way it used to be. Now nobody socializes at all, it’s terrible.

AMT: So you're a political junkie, you're also a dual citizen.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yes.

AMT: Are you voting?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I'm voting, yes.

AMT: On November 8th?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: November the 8th or before. [laughs]

AMT: And you made a reference to a Trumpian comment. Can you tell me how you're going to vote?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Absolutely. I'm voting for Hillary, for sure.

AMT: Why?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Well, I think she's qualified. I like to be positive. I think she has a lot of qualities, I think she's courageous, I think she is a very very intelligent person. Is she going to make it?

AMT: Have you voted Democrat in the past?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: I never voted before, this is my first US election. But I also think that Donald Trump is as they say a clear and present danger. He’s a very dangerous man, he's a terrible businessman, people who have worked with him in business, some of whom I know quite well, do business with him once and never again.

AMT: You're now in your mid 80s, am I right?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: Yes ma'am. Although I don't admit to it.

AMT: Do you feel wiser? Do you feel is there something different about being in your 80s when you look back at sort of how you see the world and your place in it?

CHARLES BRONFMAN: You know, it's strange, when one gets a little bit longer in the tooth, people talk to me about the 1980s and I think it was five or ten years ago and you have a compression of time. I have an expression, that I know many people who are smart, I know very few who are wise. And I don't know if I have wisdom today. I am certainly more conscious of the world, it’s problems and it’s good points than I used to be. And I’m not so worried about myself, I'm a very happy camper today. And, you know, what was was, what is is, and what will be will be. And I'm very content with that.

AMT: And the young man who brought the Expos to Montreal, who had all of those conflicted views of his own sense of worth, that young man's gone.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: He's not around anymore and the man he is today reflects back on the Expos, reflects back on some of the successes he had in running Seagram Canada, and reflects back on the great people he knew at DuPont, the great colleagues he had at Seagram, the great mother of his children, the great wife he had and lost, and the wife I have now, and my stepchildren and my children. Hey, I’ve got the world by the tail and I’m a very happy man. And I just wish the world would come out of its malaise and be the world it can be.

AMT: Charles Bronfman, thank you for coming in.

CHARLES BRONFMAN: My pleasure.

AMT: Charles Bronfman was the co-chair of the Seagram company. His book with Howard Green is called Distilled: A Memoir of Family, Seagram, Baseball, and Philanthropy. He joined us in Toronto. Well stay with us, coming up in our next half hour, precarious work is the new normal for many Canadians and the Federal Minister of Finance Bill Morneau has just suggested that it's going to stay that way and we'd better prepare for it. We'll put our panel to work on that idea next. I'm Anna-Maria Tremonti, this is The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM and online on cbc.ca/thecurrent.

[Music: Extro]

Are short-term jobs the new normal?

Guests: Nora Loreto, Liz Koblyk, Colin Busby

ANNA-MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna-Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

I have a variety of different jobs. I work part time as a consultant, so communications, marketing, social media. I also work part time as an event planner. I take contract work sort of as it comes, big events, small events. And then I'm working on starting up my own food venture, a food product line of Mexican food products. My parents are both Mexican and my mom's a chef, so it's a family business.

AMT: Well, that is Andrea Blendl, she is 28, she lives in North Vancouver and you could be forgiven for losing count on just how many gigs she has on the go. That way of living and cobbling together an income is not uncommon. According to the Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau, it is something our economy and society needs to get used to. He calls it job churn. Andrea Blendl calls it reality.

SOUNDCLIP

Finances can be tricky when you're working multiple jobs. You never really know what's going to be coming up in the couple of months that are up ahead. You can have lots of work and then sometimes there are lulls. So you just sort of have to plan ahead and expect that there may be a month or sometimes even two months where work can be a little quiet. But I worry a lot. [chuckles] It can be really stressful to be, you know, an independent business owner. It can be nerve wracking not to know at the end of your contract if it's going to get extended or if there's going to be another contract that's coming up. But ultimately for me I'm really happy doing it. I like the variety of the work that I do, I like that I get to work with different people, different organizations and that I can take on the projects that I want to at that time that are important to me.

AMT: Well, whether you find that kind of flexibility appealing it may be becoming the new norm. Speaking on the weekend, ahead of an upcoming fall economic update Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister, was clear that short term contracts and high employee turnover would continue to define young people's careers and that the government needs to prepare for it. He mused aloud about how to train and retrain people moving from job to job. Quote, “because it's going to happen we have to accept that,” end quote. Well yesterday in question period, NDP MP Niki Ashton challenged that idea.

SOUNDCLIP

[loud clapping and cheering]

NIKI ASHTON: Millennials in Canada are facing a precarious future. Today I would like to invite the minister of finance and the minister of youth, the prime minister, to a national forum that we are hosting on the rise of precarious work in the Millennial generation, this Wednesday on Parliament Hill. Young Canadians expect more from their national leaders when it comes to dealing with the insecurity that they face. So today I ask the minister of finance will he step up and show leadership to fight against rise in precarious work for young and all Canadian.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Honourable Minister of Employment.

AMT: NDP MP Niki Ashton in question period yesterday. Well, we have three guests with us to share their thoughts on this topic. Nora Loreto is a freelance writer and the author of From Demonized to Organized: Building the New Union Movement. She's also going to speak at NDP MP Niki Ashton's national forum that you just heard about on the rise of precarious work in the Millennial generation. Nora Loreto is in our Ottawa studio. Liz Koblyk is a career counsellor at McMaster University's Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, she's a blogger at University Affairs. And she joins us from Hamilton. And Colin Busby is an Associate Director of Research at the CD Howe Institute. He is with me in our Toronto studio. Welcome everyone.

MANY VOICES: Good morning.

AMT: Nora Loreto, let's start with you. What do you make of what Minister Morneau calls job churn, short term contract work becoming the new norm?

NORA LORETO: I think it exposes what his preconceived notions about the reality that a lot of us face. On one hand, he's right in that the precarious work world is a new normal. We're seeing full time jobs replaced with part time jobs, but where he's very incorrect is to say that job hopping or this job churn phenomenon is new. It's very difficult to get good statistics on how many jobs someone holds over their lifetime and a lot of the statistics are driven by surveys about how many jobs a young person thinks they'll have over a lifetime. But if you look at some of the proxy arguments or the proxy data that can kind of suggest how much people are changing jobs, the statistics show actually that for young people and for Canadians in general, job tenure hasn't really changed. That we're seeing as many people today change about the same amount of jobs as they've ever had. And so what the reality of what's happening here is Morneau is trying to make something that should not be palatable be palatable to young people, to tell them to expect that their life is going to be struggle, that they will not have the quote unquote good job that perhaps one or two of their parents had. And that their solution is to try and look at retraining as if we haven't already looked at higher education as a way to try and sell people their future, which is also come to home to roost, as a lot of people are having to pay back their student loans.

AMT: OK. So Liz Koblyk, what do you think?

LIZ KOBLYK: I agree with Nora. This isn't really a new situation, it's only news because the finance minister said it. But for many jobseekers this has been a reality for a while.

AMT: Colin Busby, what do you think?

COLIN BUSBY: Again, I share with some of the confusion of the other people on the panel. I mean, I would add to the original speaker's remarks that job tenure as we know it has actually gone up over the last 30 years. From about seven years in the early 1980s to close to nine years now for the average job tenure. So, you know, I took plenty of confusion from the remarks. Now, job churn with respect to younger workers, I mean, it's generally expected and it's been understood for a long period of time that young people entering the workforce, particularly in the first five years, they tend to move around. You know, they tend to be twice more likely than older adults to be laid off, and they also tend to have a lot more voluntary quits than older adults in terms of looking for work that they might desire. And in many economies it's actually encouraged that young people look and continue to search for work when they're starting their career. So there is a number of layers to the remarks of the minister that I think portended to the confusion, and as it relates to precarious work, as it relates to the potential for automation to displace a number of workers, but those are issues we've been dealing with for many decades now.

AMT: So what was the point of what he said, Colin?

COLIN BUSBY: Yeah, I know, it's a good question. I mean, I really, I tried to parse it out into three pieces in my mind. I thought there's this piece surrounding automation and career changes that I don't see why that's a greater risk for youth than it is for people who are already mid-career right now, I see that is something that as the other panelists said we've been dealing with. I believe the question that he was posed was with respect to precarious employment. And I think that the issues related to precarious employment, you know, have to be parsed out amongst a number of groups and individuals who face different challenges with respect to precarious employment. So it's true that youth might be more vulnerable to the challenges of precarious employment, but it's also true for newly arrived Canadians, for women in the labour force and then a lot of other people in the labour force. So yeah, I mean, and I think his point the getting used to it, I take that as a statement with respect to well, look, we can't turn back the tide on technology and globalization. So there's aspects of how those forces affect our labour market that we're going to have to come to grips with, but it's not at all clear as to what's strikingly new in his comments.

AMT: Well let’s talk a little bit more about what precarious work can look like. Nora Loreto, to what extent has your own work been short term or contract?

NORA LORETO: [chuckles] Well, as a freelance writer I live on contract. And so for the past four years I have gone contract to contract in kind of the way that the woman you featured at the start of this show goes from contract to contract. I have a main contract now and so I have a lot more stability but I have three-year-old twins and the year that they were gestating and then their first year of life, I had probably about 12 contracts that I had to work. So you can imagine it doesn't provide a lot of stability in my mind. And, you know, having to learn how to juggle it all is quite difficult. And then you start to realize that, you know, every time that there's a rollback or a cut to public services that are meant to help people in a normal kind of job situation, sometimes you find that they're not there. So, you know, did you pay into EI last year, did you pay in my case QPP or CPP, are you eligible for these programs? And I think that as we're seeing the traditional good jobs in the manufacturing sector disappear and be replaced with these part time precarious positions, we don't see public policies meeting the new needs of Canadians. And so this is actually where I get very nervous about hearing a comment like this from the finance minister. Like, Bill Morneau is a millionaire and he's so far removed from the reality of most Canadians that I think, you know, for him it might be a flip comment to say, you know, this is the new normal but the reality is Canadians are looking at the federal government to say OK, sorry, so what is the plan? How are you going to help those of us who, you know, when it rains it pours with contract work, but when you go through those long stretches of no work, how am I going to pay my child care bills, how am I going to pay for diapers?

AMT: Right, so what everybody has to get used to is that the precarious workers, at the lack of support for people who have precarious work.

NORA LORETO: Well, in my mind it's the lack of support because, like, we live in a country without a national child care program and child care is obviously a big deal in my mind. I come from a province where there is a child care program, but I still pay 90 dollars a day in child childcare. So you can imagine that for a lot of people that's not an option. I have a partner who has a full time job, so that's obviously helpful. But it's not good enough to just say get used to it. In fact, saying get used to it is a cop out. And he also in his statements referenced, you know, how the trucking industry is going to disappear. Like, it just seems so out of touch with reality and a way to frame a reality that leads us to false solutions, which I think is the big concern.

AMT: Liz, why don't you step in here and let's talk a little bit more. What does a typical career trajectory look like today?

LIZ KOBLYK: Oh boy, I'm not sure that there is a typical career trajectory anymore. And I'm not sure that there was before. I mean, we typically imagine it's linear and yet we know in reality most people do transition not just from job to job, but also career path to career path. So to expect that there's something linear to hold us up against, I think it's a bit of a false opposition. But in terms of what people can do with this job search, there are ways that jobseekers can adapt themselves to a nonideal situation of abundant contract work.

AMT: Tell us more.

LIZ KOBLYK: Well one would be to recognize that not all things advertised as short term jobs really are short term. So some employers use contracts as a way to limit the applicant pool to test out someone before they make what feels like a very expensive longer term hire. And in my own job history, most of my jobs except for my current one had started as very short term contracts, some of them as short as three months in the job ads. And there's a massive discrepancy in the quality and number of applicants you get when you post a short term contract versus a longer term role. So if people are trying to stand out it's much easier to do so when applying to short term contracts. The other is not to rely on posted vacancies. So I know that's counter-intuitive, it feels polite not to disturb employers who are not posting a vacancy, but again if you're replying to a posted vacancy you're competing against so many other people it's very challenging to stand out. And the good old fashioned networking and informational interviewing is a much more effective way to get in front of employers and let them know what you can do for them.

AMT: Colin Busby, give us a big picture. Do we know or what do we know about how many Canadians are doing short term work, working multiple jobs?

COLIN BUSBY: Yes, good question. I mean, so basically what we know is that when it comes to, you know, Statistics Canada generally refers to these type of workers as they refer to it as non-contingent work and so that includes full time temporary workers, which is the most often discussed subset of non-contingent workers, those are those working casually, contract work and seasonal work. There's part time workers, there's full time workers who hold multiple jobs and there's unincorporated self-employed. So together when you take them as a whole, that amounts to slightly over one third of employed Canadian. So it's a pretty large number. Now, you know, it has to be kept in mind that over the last 20 years a very large increase in the share of non-contingent workers took place in the early 1990s, so during the what really, you know, in hindsight was a massive recession of the early 1990s. And it's been stable ever since then as a share of the labour force. So, you know, it rose from about 27 per cent to roughly 34 to 35 per cent in 1990, sorry that was from 1989 to 1997 and it's remained steady since then. Now within non-contingent workers, the largest increase has been those in the sort of full time temporary work, casual, contract and seasonal work. And, you know, I think that, you know, it's a complicated story and it's a complicated history. And I think that, you know, the panelists and the original introduction we had with Andrea's story are illustrative of that. I mean, Andrea at the very end was very declarative in saying like, look, this is what she likes doing, this is what she enjoys, this is something that she wants to do. So there's a significant voluntary component to this, not in all cases that's true, but it exists, and it complicates the policy response. And I'm absolutely open to to discussing, you know, what the policy apparatus is and how they might change, how we might help displaced workers, how we might look at redesigning public policy to, you know, meet the needs of a workforce where there are some businesses who are demanding and who are expecting more forms of casual, contract work and there are some individuals who are searching out more forms of contract, casual, seasonal work.

AMT: Well let's listen to Andrea Blendl one more time. Juggling several jobs, she talks about the worries, she does say there are benefits. This is her again.

SOUNDCLIP

I have had a nine to five Monday to Friday office job. For me, it wasn't the right fit. I like to be creative, I like to have variety, and I don't know there's no other way to say this but I get bored easily. So having the opportunity to take on different contracts keeps me engaged and keeps me excited about the work that I'm doing.

AMT: Liz Koblyk, what do you think of that?

LIZ KOBLYK: I think that represents a positive end of the spectrum. There are many people for whom contracts let him dabble in different career paths without getting very invested right off the bat. Of course there's the other end of the spectrum where people feel forced into it, are living hand to mouth and contracts represent a real risk to the stability of their housing and to their family situation.

AMT: Nora Loreto, can you speak to that? And also, like, you've all said that some of this is not new what the finance minister said, but how have things changed? Especially for young people entering the market, Nora.

NORA LORETO: Yeah, so I'm actually a director of a union called the Canadian Freelance Union. And among our membership, we have about 250 members, and there's a lot of popular notions that our membership probably looks like Andrea. Young, you know, exploring their potential future avenues through these kinds of contracts. But actually our memberships quite average age and it comprises a lot of communications workers, where it's an industry where you kind of have to be willing to go from contract to contract. The difficulty of course, you know, arises when you have kids or if you have a medical crisis and so that does represent the problem. But if we look at where precarious work or where or the self-employed work is growing, in the numbers that Colin referenced, I think it's quite interesting that the biggest growth, newest growth within the non-shift of the last 10 years is in public sector work. And so what we're seeing is a rise of precarious work in the public sector. And when we start talking about the public sector, of course the principal employer of the public sector is the federal and provincial, municipal governments. And then we start to see what are the possible policy options that exist coming from the finance minister, who rather than saying no we're not going accept this as the status quo, we're going to use the levers that we have within the public sector and through other policy options to try and stop this trend. Instead, he's saying that we should accept it. And so I think, you know, Canadians are having conversations right now about mental health care and home care and personal service workers. These are industries where there's widespread precarious work, where there's very very low paid jobs, where there's very little job security. And I think if we obscure the face of the people who are doing the part time look to look like me or to look like Andrea, those of us who are actively entering into a world that is going to be less solid of my parents, my parents were both teachers, then I think we're going to come to not the right conclusion. We need to look at in the case the public sector where is precarious work rearing its head, what is government doing to stop that? And then for private sector workers, what are the policies the provincial labour policies, the federal labour policies that we can try and bring quality and bring stability to a labour market that is increasingly part time and potentially more precarious than it's been.

AMT: Colin Busby, what do you think? And what are the longer term implications?

COLIN BUSBY: Yeah, so I mean, absolutely right in identifying that some of the largest increase has taking place in the public sector and I would note that the two aspects health care and education have seen the largest increase in temporary work. And those are traditionally, you know, what we know are strongly unionized sectors, right? So, you know, a combination of, you know, budget cuts, budget constraints in those areas in addition to, you know, very generous terms of conditions for employment in those sectors is what has sort of spawned this increase in new contract and casual employment in those industries. So, you know, all I can say is I fully agree that there's, you know, a large group of people within those who generally, you know, classify as contingent or precarious workers and they are a diverse group. And all I'm pointing out in that case is that it complicates the policy response, is it's not as clear cut as sort of sweeping conclusions and changes for this group of people when we have to be careful. So the Ontario government for instance, and Quebec as well, are undergoing reviews of the labour codes and labour legislation in the provinces. So the Employment Standards Act and Labour Relations Act looking for ways to help address and help individuals who are on the unfortunate side of those in precarious work who would prefer to be working in a full time position. And, you know, that's one aspect I think, of things that we need to look at it. It's just reforming those codes and standards without affecting those people who are doing this voluntarily is the real trick and the challenge at the end of the day.

AMT: And what are the implications in terms of saving for retirement in these where it continues?

COLIN BUSBY: Yeah, I mean, there's the saving for retirement piece where, you know, Canada has OIS, GIS, CPP, it has you know, reasonably good standards but, you know, contributions to CPP get complicated depending on contractual arrangements. And for me I think the bigger and interesting aspect for discussion is when it comes to income security, income stability for these individuals, I think pertains to discussions surrounding employment insurance. A program that was originally designed with, you know, the full time employee permanent position contract. And in addition to, you know, seasonal work which has also been one the main focuses of employment insurance. And I think that, you know, that's a program very ripe for discussion, very ripe for reform to help meet the needs of individuals who are facing more precarious conditions than others.

AMT: Liz Koblyk, what advice do you have for people who are faced with career changes later in life?

LB: Well, when folks later in life are faced with a contract work, it's not really the same as, you know, an opportunity for a young worker to get their feet wet. So folks should be as deliberate as they can about looking for contracts that allow some kind of growth. Whether that's an exposure to, you know, a broader skill set, a different client group, a new industry, new content knowledge that they can learn so that they can continue to tell a story of progress on their resume and that can help position them for a better opportunity the next time one comes. They can also, if they can't find something that is growth focused in terms of skills, you know, sometimes people are looking at real workhorse contracts, where it's simply volume of work. And one thing that I tend to see with clients is that they don't necessarily keep track of their accomplishments while they're in a job and while that information is easy to access. So one thing people can do is simply keep track of the impacts they're making so they can quantify it and again position themselves for a better job search down the road. But the other thing is the psychological prep, you know, recognizing that it's OK not to love being on contract. I think we have sometimes a relentlessly optimistic society that expects us to smile through the tough times. And it's ok not to love it all the time. And also to have exit plans on the go. You know, if an employer has been up front saying this is limited then it's alright to go making plans while you were still in a contract.

AMT: Nora Loreto, we've all agreed that what Mr. Morneau has identified is not new, at the same time he says governments have to be prepared for it. Who's he messaging to, is it younger workers, is it older workers, is it employers? Who should he be messaging to?

NORA LORETO: [chuckles] I think that this is a government that was elected by appealing to young people by and large. We have a prime minister who has declared himself minister of youth. He's addressing the Canadian Labour Congress young workers committee in Ottawa. Like, they need young workers and young people to continue to support them. The problem is that they're not putting forward policies that will actually help young workers and that will help them get their, you know, their future job or jobs that will allow them to make major purchases or to start a family. And so they're walking a very difficult political line where the talk is not being matched by the policies. And in some cases there's a lot of things that they could do. You know, they could talk about income averaging for contract workers, they could talk about improving pensions, you know, I'm one of these workers that hasn't made a pension contributions in years. But he's also talking to the provincial governments because the provincial governments have a huge role to play in this as well, not just as the level of governance that actually has power to change Employment Standards Act, but also as employers. You know, one of the biggest drivers of precarious work in the greater Toronto area is the college sector, because college professors in Ontario, the majority of them, more than 50 per cent of them are precarious workers, they're not full time workers. And so in the public sector we're creating this precarious crisis and then we're talking as if it's inevitable. And I think that that is where Canadians need to be very clear. We need to be very clear with the Liberal government in Ottawa but also the provincial governments to say if you think that we're going to accept this then, you know, you're not talking to the people, you don't understand how difficult life really is. The crises that are going to arise from this, they don't start with child care, they don't end with pensions, like, these are lifelong crises that we are imposing on a lot of people and they're not giving us solutions that are workable. Job training is not a workable solution.

AMT: OK. We have to leave it there. Thank you all of you for weighing in on this today.

MANY VOICES: Thank you.

AMT: That is Nora Loreto, freelance writer and author of From Demonized to Organized: Building the New Union Movement. She joined us from our Ottawa studio. Liz Koblyk is a career counsellor at McMaster University's Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine and a blogger at University Affairs. She joined us from Hamilton. Colin Busby is Associate Director of Research at the CD Howe Institute. He was in our Toronto studio. Let us know what you think. You can tweet us, we are @TheCurrentCBC, find us on Facebook, go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent, click on the Contact link. Is your work precarious? What are you experiencing? What do you think government's responsibilities and employer's responsibilities are in this discussion? And if you're just joining us partway through you can download the podcast, go to our site or download the podcast. That is our program for today. And tomorrow we've got an interview with Werner Herzog. He has a new film coming out, he's actually got three new films coming out. The man is an amazing prolific director, among other things. We'll be talking to him tomorrow. So stay with us for that. I'm Anna-Maria Tremonti, thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

October 25, 2016 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode