Canada is modernizing construction. Its workforce strategy needs to catch up.
Canada needs to build more homes, faster. But there is a basic contradiction in how we are approaching the problem: we talk a great deal about modernization and offsite manufacturing modalities, but much of our workforce strategy still assumes construction will look much the same as it always has.
The recent Policy Options piece is a useful jumping-off point. Governments have put significant funding behind apprenticeships, skilled trades recruitment, training centres and workforce development. Those investments are necessary. But adding more training capacity will not solve the problem if the skills being developed are not keeping pace with the industry we are trying to create.
Canada is increasingly looking to modular, panelized and prefabricated construction, digital design, automation, advanced materials and factory-based production as part of the solution to its housing challenge. As these approaches reshape how homes are designed and built, they also change the skills, roles and capabilities the industry needs. Our workforce strategy has to evolve with them.
Train for the Construction Industry We Are Building
The conversation cannot stop at “we need more trades.” Canada unquestionably needs more electricians, carpenters and other skilled workers. But an increasingly industrialized construction sector also needs CNC operators, digital design specialists, manufacturing technicians, automation and robotics talent, production supervisors, engineers who understand design for manufacturing and assembly, and tradespeople comfortable working across factory and site environments.
The workforce challenge is therefore not simply a shortage of people. It is also a question of alignment: are we training people for the jobs and production systems that the industry is actually moving toward?
That starts with demand.
Before creating another program or adding more training seats, we should have a much clearer picture of where new construction capacity is being built, which technologies are being adopted and what skills companies expect to need over the next three to five years.
The sequence should be straightforward: map demand, identify the required skills, design curriculum, connect training to employers, and then measure employment outcomes. This also aligns with the recommendations coming out of the NRC/UNB roadmap.
Too often, the system works in the opposite direction. Training capacity gets funded first, while the connection to emerging technologies, employer demand and actual job pathways is weaker than it should be.
There are already examples of a better model. BCIT’s Modern Methods of Construction Education initiative is connecting educators, industry and institutions around mass timber, off-site and prefabricated construction. Its Mass Timber Training Network brought together more than 50 partners to develop industry-validated competencies.
UNB is similarly bringing research, education and industry together around off-site and advanced construction, helping connect emerging industry needs with the skills and knowledge required to support them.
The lesson is simple: employers need a much stronger hand in determining what gets taught.
Turn Innovation Hubs into Workforce Infrastructure
Construction is physical, and much of the most valuable training should be physical too. Rather than treating classroom learning, technology demonstration, employer engagement and active deployment as separate steps, we should bring them much closer together. This is where housing innovation hubs can play a much bigger role.
GroundBreak’s Downsview Housing Innovation Lab is being developed as an environment where housing technologies can be piloted, validated and commercialized, while bringing together industry, capital, research and emerging technology. That kind of environment should also be viewed as workforce infrastructure.
Imagine students, tradespeople and mid-career workers learning alongside active demonstrations of panelized construction, robotics, digital workflows, advanced materials and new building systems. A technology company could validate a product, a builder could test how it fits into its delivery model, and workers could learn how to install, operate or maintain it within the same ecosystem.
That is a much stronger model than having a student learn one system in a classroom, see another at a demonstration centre and encounter something completely different once they reach an employer.
The same logic sits behind GroundBreak’s Centre for Housing Innovation with Toronto Metropolitan University’s DMZ. By connecting startups with developers, manufacturers, municipalities and other industry partners, the initiative helps bridge the gap between innovation and adoption.
Workforce development should be part of that bridge.
If we want new technologies and construction methods to scale, the people who will ultimately use them need exposure early enough to understand them, work with them and help improve how they are deployed.
Build a Workforce System, Not More Programs
There is another benefit to bringing workforce development closer to construction innovation: it can broaden the pool of people who see a future for themselves in the industry.
Someone who does not picture themselves on a conventional construction site may be excited by advanced manufacturing, robotics, digital design or automation. As construction becomes more technology-enabled, the industry can offer a wider range of careers while also creating new pathways for existing workers to upskill.
The goal should be a system in which housing demand informs industrial capacity, industrial capacity informs workforce needs, employers help shape training, and workers learn using the technologies they will actually encounter.
Success should ultimately be measured by whether we are producing the workforce the industry needs for the future, not simply by dollars deployed or training seats created.
We are already investing in changing how Canada builds. Our workforce strategy needs to catch up.