Let’s Talk Numbers: The Workforce Math Nobody Wants to Do

If you follow construction politics in Canada, you’ve heard it: the Canadian Building Trades Unions (CBTU) say they represent 600,000 workers.

And it’s not just “someone said it somewhere.” CBTU leadership has put that number on the record in several very public places—like Parliamentary committee testimony, where CBTU Executive Director, Sean Strickland, told MPs: “At Canada’s Building Trades Unions, we represent 600,000 workers…” CBTU’s own releases use similar language—“over 600,000 skilled trades workers in Canada.” The same figure has also been used in the Senate.

Now, the point here isn’t to dunk on anyone. CBTU build important projects. But, before governments start redesigning procurement rules around a headline, it’s fair to ask the question every contractor asks when they hear a big number:

600,000 of what, exactly? Active on-tools workers? Members on the rolls? People in related sectors? All of the above in a blender?

Because, in construction, “workers,” “members,” “skilled trades” and “active on-tools labour” are not interchangeable terms—even if they sometimes get treated that way when a microphone appears.

The Trick with “Members”

When someone says “we have x members,” that can include categories that are totally legitimate—but aren’t the same as “on-tools workers available to build projects right now.”

Membership-style counts can include:

• Retirees
• People between jobs
• Apprentices not currently on a jobsite
• Members working outside core construction (maintenance/industrial/related sectors)
• Travellers working across jurisdictions

None of this is scandalous. It’s just how organizations count.

But here’s why it matters: when governments hear ‘600,000,’ many will assume it means: “that’s the active construction workforce.” And, if procurement policy gets built on the wrong assumption, the result isn’t a better press release—it’s less competition, less capacity, more schedule risk and higher cost pressure.

A Simple Reality Check: Quebec

If you want a clear window into what’s real on the ground, look at Quebec—because Quebec publishes strong public data on its construction workforce and union representation.

In 2024, Quebec reported 197,887 “salariés actifs” (active workers on construction sites), according to CCQ. Quebec also publishes official representativeness across its recognized associations. In 2024, the BTU-affiliated “International” council was 20.698%.

So, even in a province where on-site construction is highly unionized, the BTU-affiliated share is roughly one-fifth of the active workforce—about 41,000 workers (197,887 × 20.698%).

That’s not “the whole workforce.” It’s a meaningful segment of it.

And it’s exactly why the national “600,000” claim doesn’t pass the sniff test as a count of active Canadian construction workers.

So What’s a More Realistic National Picture?

To estimate a national number responsibly, I start with measures that actually describe a workforce—like collective agreement coverage (union coverage) by industry, which Statistics Canada publishes.

When you combine that kind of benchmark with Quebec’s representativeness structure (above), a reasonable working estimate for active BTU-represented construction workers nationally is about 190,000 to 230,000, with a plain-language midpoint of ~210,000.

Translation: call it ~200,000-ish active workers - not 600,000 “active construction workers.”

That’s still a big number. It’s still a major presence. It’s just not 600,000—and it’s definitely not “most of construction.”

Why This Matters (The Practical Part)

Here’s the bottom line: when governments design procurement rules as if one segment represents the whole workforce, you can end up with policies that:

• Reduce competition
• Shrink the pool of available contractors
• Limit labour supply in a tight market
• Increase schedule risk
• Drive up costs

Canada is already struggling to deliver enough housing, hospitals, infrastructure and major industrial projects on time and on budget.

So, if we’re going to set policies that decide who gets to bid and who gets to work, we need to start with accurate numbers.

The Takeaway

This isn’t about picking fights. It’s about being clear-eyed.

Canada’s construction workforce is bigger, more diverse and organized in more ways than it was 20 years ago. We have multiple union models, non-union capacity and provincial systems, like Quebec’s, that don’t fit national slogans.

If governments want to build faster and spend smarter, they should demand one thing upfront: show your work on workforce numbers.

Stay tuned for Part 2: I’ll talk about what happens when governments open tendering and widen the bidder pool—because there’s real evidence from Canadian cities that it can save serious money.